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

“Women tend to be past their prime by age 25…”

Says who?

Women’s sexual peak is on average later than that.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007422,00.html

“University of Texas psychologist David Buss wrote the article, which appears in the July issue of Personality and Individual Differences, with the help of three graduate students, Judith Easton (who is listed as lead author), Jaime Confer and Cari Goetz. Buss, Easton and their colleagues found that women in their 30s and early 40s are significantly more sexual than younger women. Women ages 27 through 45 report not only having more sexual fantasies (and more intense sexual fantasies) than women ages 18 through 26 but also having more sex, period. And they are more willing than younger women to have casual sex, even one-night stands. In other words, despite the girls-gone-wild image of promiscuous college women, it is women in their middle years who are America’s most sexually industrious.”

Female peak earnings, much like males, are in the 40s-60s

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/files/2017/08/17/pay%2520growth.png&imgrefurl=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/when-youll-earn-the-most-in-your-career.html&h=795&w=1096&tbnid=FewM7zW_aPpFRM:&tbnh=152&tbnw=211&usg=__EpK5jSAyftlO3RkYePdg-vpJu18%3D&vet=10ahUKEwjR5sv6-7TaAhURI6wKHWN4ARgQ9QEILTAA..i&docid=EEHvSXvrEeuUCM&client=opera&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR5sv6-7TaAhURI6wKHWN4ARgQ9QEILTAA

Without looking it up, I’ll guess that peak wealth accumulation is even later than that.

Women live on average longer then men.

Women who choose not to have children live even longer and earn more.

“and well on their way to the wall by age 30. ”

Wall? What wall?

“And as Donald Trump put it, ‘It’s check-out time for women at 35?.”

Trump is a pig who should be roasted on a spit and fed to other pigs, or just fed to other pigs alive. Nothing he says should ever be taken seriously.

“If a girl isn’t allowed to get married till age 18, then her husband is missing out on several years of her nubile prime. That’s a pretty big deal, considering that she doesn’t have all that many years before she becomes fat and wrinkly.”

That would only make sense if gratifying males was all that mattered. Of course men get fat and wrinkly too, but so what? In reality, men aren’t needed at all, as women are far better at pleasuring each other and we have an overpopulation problem as it is. As technology develops further, men can be eliminated altogether as women can just be cloned without having to go through childbirth. Already, we can harvest all the sperm we need from boys going through puberty and then euthenize all males (only a small portion of whom need to be preserved that long anyway) and use them for biofuel. I’m being facetious here, but it would make “sense” in the same sort of way Larson’s proposals would.

“totally ignored men’s need to have an attractive wife for at least a significant portion of the life that they will share together, so that he won’t feel ripped off.”

Yes, pedophiles’ need to have an attractive wife who is too immature to consent is more important than non-initiation of force. In your fantasy world only, of course. In reality, men are not the only ones who feel ripped off as their partner ages and becomes less attractive.

“Also, if they’re planning on having a large family, then it’s best that they get married early, since women’s fertility peaks in their early and mid-20s, and it’s going to take several years to produce all the children they want to have.”

Again, we have a severe overpopulation problem, so if you are going to go around wholesale violating consent, rather than doing so in ways that will encourage more irresponsible breeding, why not institute something like China’s previous one child policy, but with the added stipulation that, say, 80 or 90% of the children who don’t get aborted have to be female? Women who insist on having a boy-child could enter a lottery to be allowed to have one.

” Currently, the fertility rate in the U.S. is 1.84 births per woman, which is not even enough to replenish our population. That isn’t sustainable. Early marriage would help address that issue.”

It isn’t an issue, and if it was, it would be solved by open borders, which would have the added benefit of speeding up “white genocide” (LOL). But really, there are way too many of us already, so a few centuries of negative population growth would be preferable to other solutions which have been proposed such as a massive world war, global epidemics, and so on. If negative population growth is happening organically, all the better.

OOPS. Meant that for another thread I thought was open mentioning FL Parkland school shooter’s affiliation with white nationalist group…

Excellent suggestion, Starchild. I am willing to work with you, or anyone else who would be interested, in putting this project together for a YouTube video.

Just a note. Arvin Vohra will be speaking at the Missouri LP convention this February 24. All are welcome to join us. I posted in the February monthly the details of the convention.

Just what principles do you the libertarian party stands for? Certainly no for fairness and justice. Not when innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations replace fair hearings.

Well, maybe you should do that.

You keep saying the equivalent of “he’s saying blondes who think brunettes are dumb are hypocrites,’ when in fact he’s saying “redheads who think that blondes are dumb but brunettes are smart are hypocrites.”

If you can’t even accurately describe what he said, why should anyone give a tinker’s damn about your opinion of what he said?

“We’ll see what we see.”

Well, no, you’ll see what you want to see, which is what you’ve fantasized. Because that’s what you always see.

“No one disputes what Vohra posted.”

Well, you do. You got it wrong once, I corrected you, and you acknowledged the correction. Now you’re back to pretending he said something different.

The argument about Vohra isn’t about “radical” versus “pragmatic.” It’s between “actually pragmatic” and “thinks that throwing public temper tantrums about Facebook posts is pragmatic.”

if the libertarian party had been so afraid of being confrontation they wouldn’t have supported legalize pot and gay marriage…

and been non-existent rather then non-effective.

Anthony Dlugos writes in part (February 5, 2018 at 08:18), “If you truly cannot understand why the double standard you point out [of censuring Arvin Vohra for intemperate remarks while ignoring Bill Weld’s un-libertarian remarks] exists… and it does exist…you are in the way wrong arena.” He also describes me as being “flummoxed” by the double standard.

I find this strange, because I didn’t describe the double standard of censuring Vohra for intemperate remarks but not Weld for un-libertarian remarks as some kind of mystery, I simply objected to it.

Anthony’s attitude toward it, on the other hand, seems to be like that famously voiced in the Bruce Hornsby song: “That’s just the way it is, some things’ll never change.” He doesn’t defend the LNC’s going after Vohra but not Weld, but simply argues that I must accept it as a given, otherwise I’m just not realistic enough to be in politics. Nothing you can do about it, so just get with the program.

Sorry, but I reject that kind of thinking. If we know something is wrong, we should speak out against it, not help reinforce it by treating it as inevitable. Political leadership isn’t about jumping on the bandwagon of popular opinion, it’s about being ahead of the curve, taking correct positions before they are popular, and moving debate and ultimately policy in that direction.

I also disagree with the characterization of Arvin Vohra as an “a-hole”, which Anthony kind of implies is justification for the double standard of who got censured. I’m not sure whether Anthony has ever met Arvin, but I have, lots of times. In person I’ve found him to be a nice guy. Regardless, likeability is an even worse criteria for censuring Libertarian leaders than is poor judgment. For political action to be legitimate, it must be based on correct ideas. Substituting anything else as the basis – popularity, practicality, geography, etc. – undermines that legitimacy.

“Major public policy issue for candidates? In most elections/jurisdictions, probably not.”

Not hard if I am an opponent of a radical candidate, whether in an internal party contest or in an actual election, to just bring it up and make said radical respond. He/She will torpedo his/her own campaign.

Caryn Ann,
Given your interpretation of Vohra’s words…facebook comments tending to be a hash that can be difficult to follow….your reaction was entirely reasonable. Censuring Vohra was a plausible response. You should, however, realize, that the radical libertarian position … which I think is not sensible … for many years has been to eliminate age of consent laws.
George

dl: The ThoughtPolice, a secret police, surveils the population looking for evidence of those not properly self-deluded(those who do not practice protective stupidity).

Libertarianism is often (despairingly) described as herding cats, meaning that individuals who subscribe to it play (i),(ii),(iii) against one another, Now, DJ, you can’t eat your cake and have it, too. You can’t complain about (i),(ii),(iii) undermining cohesiveness, as you have done before, and yet throw up ominous warnings about the “ThoughtPolice,” as you are doing here.

Me: What I said isn’t an ominous warning, and certainly no secret that Andy and the lady I responded to were/are using “what may happen” (their thoughts vs what another “may” think or do) as the “principle” to effect their desires. It’s pointing out a blatant disregard, which could and may well scare off outsiders who are curious, and it has already built factions in the Party which is opposite a cohesiveness.

dl: A libertarian ThoughtPolice is not an insistence on principle that can be logically and rationally defended, even if one insists that one’s principle on the mater is the only principle that a libertarian could have.

Me: LOL….. okay, whatever. Do you remember what started this thread?

dl: A libertarian ThoughtPolice consists of those who cannot logically defend their positions(violate 1 && ii), and instead attack another’s principle on the grounds of groupthink, overton window, the people, the children, my constituents, my followers…This is a violation of (iii).

Me: I apologize. Should I have said language police? I had no idea that others principles were the question in the Libertarian Party. I believed (when first coming here) that a Libertarian Party would be focused on Individual rights and freedom. I was wrong. It’s focus seems to be on Individual “principles” that don’t jibe with someone else’s. So, group think is required- similar to the military, which I find ironic when (in this instance in particular) the military was used an an example of less than desirable. I find it ironic since the military is an antithesis to the Individual and the epitome of group think.
Cohesive doesn’t mean group think, necessarily, but is a requirement of a Party which leads to group think ultimately because at some point a “principle” has to be set aside.

I’m not wanting cake, never mind eating it. I’m giving an outsiders perspective.

dl: Just to point out, ThoughtCrime is a criminal act of mind not properly engaged in DoubleThink. ThoughtCrime is:

(i) ability to detect logical errors
(ii) ability to grasp analogies
(iii) ability to avoid GroupThink

Me: LOL. Okay. I apologize for not being properly engaged. Thanks for the heads up.

She has a point there.

Here is another fun quote from Caryn….

“A censure is not a disciplinary action”

well it sure ain’t an atta boy.

“I am surprised to be find out from a post on FB that something was said on IPR that wasn’t said directly to me. This year has been full of surprises.”

I think I can take credit for this one.

Joe,

===In prior censure votes by the LNC has there been a charging document – something on the order of on Date xx-xx-xxxx, LNC member (name) said: ” (quote) ” or did (description of what was done).===

First… where? I have not found any such thing in the past records. But I did ask for a formal trial and charges and was told, multiple times, that it was not required because of our Bylaws. I disagreed then and I disagree now. Arvin didn’t insist on one (he should have IMHO), not for a censure btw, but for a suspension. We issued a censure to Assemblyman Moore without a charging document. A censure is not a disciplinary action (see Katz last LNC post explaining the parliamentary ins and out of that and the footnote on the first page of Chapter 20 of RONR.

==I found that missing from the debate in the electronic meeting.==

I was told it was not needed.

==The effect of that seems to me to now be that anyone responding to ANY complaint about something Arvin did or said prior to that meeting can now say: “The LNC censored him for that.”==

I think the meeting made clear that we were not censuring him for any specific “core idea” (though some certainly would) but for overall behaviour. In the meeting, ideology was completely separated out.

==Utah made a request of our region rep to provide a charging document prior to asking us to vote on whether to suspend or remove.==

I find this a bit odd Joe. You did ask if there would be one. I said I would attempt to have them be more specific. Each attempt at that was met with either an obvious ideological bent (or could have been used so) or I was told it was not necessary. During that conversation you did give me a yes “using my judgment” but said you would LIKE to see a charging document. You did say that for a formal vote you would need that, but that Utah’s instructions right then were to use my judgment which would be yes. Part of the confusion (and there is a certain gentleman on FB who is particularly transfixed by me) is that the term “State X said X” is being used by people multiple different ways. For some they take it to mean that there was a formal vote of some body with such and such decision. Some states did do that. Others did not. I made it clear that I asked the “State Chairs” and over and over I said “my Chair said such and such.” When I shorten that to “State X said such and such” I am still referring to the Chairs. It is not my business – I do not interfere with intra-affiliate disputes – how the Chair made that decision. Alone or by a vote. Per our regional agreement, I am accountable to the Chairs. The Chairs are accountable to the state body. So, in keeping with my clearly stated practice – when you and I spoke and you gave me the green light to use my judgment (and did express a desire to see specific charges), that is the Utah State Chair directing me.

== Unfortunately that was described as “being on the fence” and then a “NO” vote.==

Wait a second here Joe. First, your vice chair wrote me and said Utah was a no. But it turned out that such email was either misunderstood or worded confusingly and it was just a personal opinion. I took it to mean that you instructed him to write me. That is why I copied you on my response. Then I asked you if Utah was firm in its decision and you said “what decision?” — that is the point that I wrote in my regular email to the chairs that Utah was down as a no – but right now has not made a decision – and I needed to speak with the chair. Then we spoke. And you gave me a green light. Then after reviewing more information, you changed your mind – which is perfectly fine. So from my POV Utah in my poll went from no-no decision wait to talk to the chair-yes-no. Which is what I reported.

==To be clear, while we discussed various options in a telephone call, our bottom line was to ask for the specific charges to be fully explicated before asking for our recommendation to our regional rep.==

To be clear, at the end of the first discussion you told me to do what I thought best and that you supported my judgment but would like to see something formal before asking “Utah to issue an official statement.” That is different than making a recommendation to me.

I am surprised to be find out from a post on FB that something was said on IPR that wasn’t said directly to me. This year has been full of surprises.

==It seems to me that the absence of such a charging document could be grounds for appeal to the judicial committee.==

For a suspension? Yes I think it would. I think it would have been fatal as well. But the LNC did not agree with me (when I say the LNC, I do not mean every single person, but those that are parliamentarily knowledgeable and no one else objected to the lack of one – just me).

A friend said to me “Caryn Ann, I didn’t know that the LP politics could be so dark…..” I can’t agree more.

But one fantastic thing I got out of all this. I understand the Oregon situation better. Oregon? Yes… while I have a definite position that is different to what the EC decided, I see how easily things are recast in sinister motives etc, that I do not impute bad dealing to anyone. They were just wrong. And in this situation, some of the LNC was wrong, and some of us were right. But no one was acting wrongly. It is scary how easily things can be portrayed differently in a backwards view that was not what happened in the present. It makes me question everything we hear on the national stage…. are these bad things we hear about really real? Or just fitting pieces into a puzzle that they wouldn’t have fit into originally. With the scary thing being that no one is ill-meaning, but our interpretive lenses blur perception.

One might wonder whether that 12 year old datum for the USA is correct. It certainly is not correct in Massachusetts, not that I find the question interesting.

That map is absurd. One town in one county in one state could make the whole map say something.
There was a time when it wasn’t all that unusual- and from what little I’ve read about Mormons it was fairly common.

I personally wouldn’t marry somebody that young…. not enough in common to talk about.
I don’t have daughters, but, I have seen the way some kids dress. Just like their mothers. Slutty.
Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 y/o. She supplied the story for the movie “Great Balls of Fire”….she was portrayed as really loving him. He’s a bit eccentric, but, to each their own.

Yep, I think you are correct.

“but was pretty disgusted by the worst of him which was pointed out by some critics of libertarianism trying to make us all look bad.”

Yup, even people like Will Wilkinson who should know better (he’s being duplicitous) over-samples from rothbardian/hoppean anarcho-capitalism to criticize us, it’s such an easy target and allows them to ignore the stronger (and even more popular) arguments.

This is now the second most commented on article in IPR history.

I would say that a libertarian who has been fooled, but who at some point in the near future pulls his head out of his ass and stops trying to justify the monumentally stupid idea of Hoppe’s authoritarian twaddle as “libertarianism” might eventually live it down. As long as they’re continuing to help the mis-named “Mises Caucus” attack the party and everything it stands for, though, it’s war.

Yep!

Even Adam Kokesh said that he agrees with Hoppe

One huge reason not to vote for him.

I just thought of two more people who have made positive comments about Hoppe.

Investment adviser and entrepreneur Doug Casey. I think that he was briefly involved with the LP years ago, but even though he’s not involved with the LP, he is a prominent and respected small “l” libertarian. I wish that Doug Casey was involved in the LP because the party could use another wealthy donor (although Casey is disgusted with the current direction of the LP, and he was not a fan of Gary Johnson at all), and I think that Casey would be an excellent candidate for office. Casey has spoken at the Freedom and Property Society events, which was an organization started by Hoppe, and I think that Casey is a member of the organization.

Walter Block. He said that he considers Hoppe to be a friend. They have debated on immigration, but then Block said that he supports open immigration if everything was privatized (as in all land and infrastructure was turned over to private hands). This is essentially what Hoppe’s position is, so I wonder if Block just can’t bring himself to admit that Hoppe is right. Whatever the case may be, Block said that he regards Hoppe as a friend (note that Block has also spoken at Freedom and Property Society events), so by being friends with Hoppe, I suppose that Walter Block should also be banned from the LP.

And before anyone brings this up, yes, I know that Walter Block endorsed Donald Trump for President, but he did it as a lesser of two evils endorsement, as he perceived Trump to be less bad than Clinton. Block doesn’t think much of Gary Johnson, and he did not consider Johnson to be a viable choice. I do not agree with Block for endorsing Trump, but I also do not agree with those who voted for Gary Johnson, but I don’t automatically throw everyone under the bus who says or does something with which I disagree. I evaluate each situation, and I think that Walter Block has done a lot of good work, so I am not going to disregard everything he’s done because he endorsed Trump, just as I am not disregarding everyone who voted for Gary Johnson.

Even Adam Kokesh said that he agrees with Hoppe on decentralization of political power and on the concept of covenant communities. Adam still pushes for “open borders” into a state, and I think that his thinking on this is muddled (see his debate against Stefan Molyneux on borders and immigration that is posted here), which puts him at odds with Hoppe on a policy issue under the current construct under which we presently live, but even so, Adam found some areas of agreement with Hoppe, so I suppose that this means that there should be no place for Adam Kokesh in the Libertarian Party either (under Adam’s presidential platform, he is calling to shut down the federal government, which would send all issues, including borders/immigration policy, back to the states, which would become 50 different countries if his presidential platform were to be enacted), because if you say anything good about Hoppe you are a bad guy who should be drummed out of the Libertarian Party.

Tom Woods like the work of Hoppe. Andrew Napolitano made some positive comments about Hoppe at the recent Mises Institute event in New York City in 2017. Larry Sharpe quoted Hans-Hermann Hoppe on his Facebook page (I don’t know how into Hoppe Sharpe is, but he must of liked the quote, or else he would not have posted it to his Facebook page).

Shame on all of them.

Here, I think this should clear it up for you and anyone else who is still confused:

https://www.thejacknews.com/featured/libertarians-alt-right-ludwig-von-mises-would-not-like-institute/

Read that article, then read it again, several times if need be.

The paleo/alt right cancer needs to be removed from the LP and the libertarian movement as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Otherwise, actual libertarians should stop calling ourselves that, let the Hoppeans have the party and “libertarian” name, and go do something else completely.

Any form of cooperation or coexistence with them in the same party or movement should now be completely over. It should have been over a long time ago.

Perhaps the Hoppeans should petition their hero Putin to let them have Novaya Zemlya?

If the members of the Libertarian Party lived in a covenant community, and Bill Weld came along and moved into the covenant community, which would require him to sign a contract (which is symbolized by the party’s statement of principles), and then once in the covenant community, Bill Weld violated the terms of the contract (like he did after he got the LP’s VP nomination, and he started running against the party’s platform on multiple fronts, and he went so far as practically advocating that people vote for Hillary Clinton), would it not be proper to say that Bill Weld should be physically removed from the Libertarian Covenant Community?

Weld violated the contract. There have to be some consequences to violating the contract, otherwise, the contract is meaningless.

“paulie Post author
February 5, 2018 at 10:47
Physically remove the Hoppeans, from the party, from the country and from the planet.”

Well then you must want to get rid of me, and a bunch of other hardcore libertarians, which would actually make the Libertarian Party a lot less libertarian.

I am not attached to any one person in a “cult of personality,” but yes, I would put Hans-Hermann Hoppe on a list of libertarians who I believe have done a lot of good work.

Physically remove the Hoppeans, from the party, from the country and from the planet.

Starchild February 5, 2018 at 01:41 wrote:
“The part of this censure motion I consider most objectionable is “Mr. Vohra’s remarks have destructively stereotyped party members”. Unless there are remarks of his that I haven’t heard about (i.e. which were not raised as a justification for the censure) which fit that characterization, I think it is a flat-out false statement. I said as much during the LNC teleconference meeting, and no one in favor of censure bothered to dispute it. ”

Carol responds: I think it was Vohra’s one statement that soldiers are all murderers, plus other criticisms of veterans – plus a desire to reach out to high school students with that message. Maybe LNC members didn’t want to admit to Starchild that they were still on the “worship the military” bandwagon.

Here’s a REALLY good video from a soldier who talks about how Americans killed freely in Iraq/Afghanistan. “Ex-Marine Shatters Myth of Joining the Military” https://youtu.be/sEU7PLX9oYs

I put it in Larry Sharpe’s FB page just as a reminder we aren’t all blind to their militaristic bull shit. I see on his FB page he served in Okinawa. In what capacity? Communications? Anyway, the only military crimes he probably was aware of were the rapes and occasional murders of local women, some of which made the US media.

Let’s face it, some of those “libertarian” veterans from recent wars ARE murderers who killed in part out of bigotry and US supremacy. They don’t want anyone to talk about it, except when they get together with their “blood brothers” and boast about it. They also feel they are superior to mere civilians like most of us.

“While I imagine Arvin’s remarks wouldn’t go down too well with current service members, I imagine they might find a bit more receptive audience with former service members. My observation: the ones who tend to really get butthurt over something like that are ones who have never been in the armed services.”

Ahh! A testable hypothesis! Now we are getting somewhere! Given that we are in the electoral arena, anyone want to propose a metric for how we can prove or disprove it?

Actually, I think you may have made a tacit admission of how (popular support), and already explained away the results of said popular appraisal of the comment, by trying to exclude people who don’t think like you in the data set (the ” ones who have never been in the armed services…” whose support counts just the same as anyone else, I think).

“It is called a double standard.”

Which I admitted.

Anthony Dlugos said: “Starchild is admittedly flummoxed why no attempt to censure Weld was made when such an attempt was made vis a vi Vohra.”

It is called a double standard.

“Good luck thinking defending a guy like Vohra is a route to electoral success”

It was never about “defending Vohra.”

Nor was it about “radical” versus “moderate.”

It was about defending the party from the attack on it that Vohra’s Facebook posts were used by a particular kind of radical (the rightist extremist entryist kind) to fool you into participating in.

Fortunately, the adults were able to minimize the damage done by your idiot tantrum.

Anthony Dlugos said: ” no amount of knowledge of libertarianism or brute intelligence will overcome a disposition that causes you to prefer Arvin Vohra over William Weld. ”

I’d prefer fresh doggie doo doo in a yard with flies on it over William Weld.

I forgot one other attribute: hubris.

I must live in a fantasyland where Governors Johnson and Weld, who everyone would agree know less about “principled” libertarianism than Perry, got their ass kicked last May in Orlando, or won and had their nomination rescinded via internal party machinations I know nothing about.

Good luck thinking defending a guy like Vohra is a route to electoral success, either inside the party or in the electorate at large. Starchild is admittedly flummoxed why no attempt to censure Weld was made when such an attempt was made vis a vi Vohra. Explaining why it happened is besides the point if you are not going to take a lesson from it. Yea, a lot more people in the party were far more offended by Vohra’s statements than Governor Weld’s or Johnson. What of it? You gonna accept that reality or explain it away? And I don’t understand electoral politics? lol.

And I got news for you: this reality will only get worse for you the larger the party gets. Anyone who thinks like a radical is:

1) already in the party.
2) never going to join a political party
3) far too expensive to locate, convert, and enroll in the party.,

There are ten thousand who think like me out there for every one that thinks like a radical. The idea that what a leader in a political party posts on Facebook is off-limits for criticism exists nowhere outside the radical “party of principle” fringe of the LP. In the normal political world, anything you say or do is incorporated into what people think of you. Hell, in the normal world, PERIOD, what you say anywhere for any reason is incorporated into what people think of you.

The only real question is what people think a statement like “all servicemembers are accessories to murder” says about you if you utter it or defend the utterer. If you think that it would have salutary effects, again I say, good luck and please keep talking.

I have plenty of experience with the radical/anarchist wing of the party.

Almost invariably, three things stand out about them. Two of them are that they are better read in terms of libertarian philosophy than I am, and they are smarter than me.

That would be a problem if those two things weren’t accompanied by a third attributes: they are somewhere on the spectrum of sociability that ranges from a mere predilection to downplay the forming of human relationships that is the sinew of electoral politics (excused as being “principled.”), to a
general disagreeableness. to outright misanthropes.

There are some areas of life where none of that would matter. But in electoral politics, its fatal. In that field, no amount of knowledge of libertarianism or brute intelligence will overcome a disposition that causes you to prefer Arvin Vohra over William Weld. This is why it is the fallback position of the radical/anarchist set to refer to the history of the party or the intentions of the founders. Its a tacit admission by the radical that 1) they’re outnumbered and 2) they aren’t changing. Indeed, they’re gonna double down on being disagreeable.

As I said, all you have to do with such an opponent is to keep them talking. They’ll punch themselves out defending a tactically insignificant hill (in this case, Mount Vohra), confident in the notion that party history, the intent of the founders, or the Dallas Accord will save them.

It won’t.

“My biggest issue with the censure, however, remains the double standard of the LNC not censuring people like Bill Weld and Wayne Allyn Root for actual un-libertarian remarks. If censure wasn’t called for in those cases, it most certainly wasn’t called for in the case of our vice-chair making remarks which were libertarian but simply expressing them in a sometimes tactless and inartful manner.”

Starchild, electoral politics is a people business, not a philosophy business. If you truly cannot understand why the double standard you point out exists…and it does exist…you are in the way wrong arena as well. No offense intended. By and large, people just don’t want to be around anti-social bomb throwers like Vohra. They’ll be okay with, or otherwise acquiesce to less than doctrinaire political positions from someone who seems to carry themselves with some level of professionalism. And yes, even a huckster like Root will be given more leeway that a “principled” (from your perspective) a-hole like Vohra.

This is the reality of electoral politics. Frankly, its the reality of the overwhelming majority of human institutions. There are very few organizations that can operate successfully where being an a-hole is condoned and deviation from dogma is censured. Generally, they are called cults.

Trying to judge the Get Vohra Campaign on the basis of whether or not his remarks were “inflammatory” misses the point. It was never about Vohra, or about Vohra’s remarks. It was about doing as much damage to the party as possible by panicking the gullible.

My biggest issue with the censure, however, remains the double standard of the LNC not censuring people like Bill Weld and Wayne Allyn Root for actual un-libertarian remarks. If censure wasn’t called for in those cases, it most certainly wasn’t called for in the case of our vice-chair making remarks which were libertarian but simply expressing them in a sometimes tactless and inartful manner.

Inflamatory remarks…

Isn’t the expression “Taxation is Theft” an inflamitory remark? Yes… Ok who else in the party should we censure?

Draft minutes of feb 2 meeting are out. Guess what the motions didn’t even mention the latest issue as cause.

Whereas, Vice Chair Arvin Vohra’s public discourse has repeatedly included inflammatory and insulting
remarks which bring the Party, its candidates, and its principles into disrepute;
Whereas Mr. Vohra’s remarks have destructively stereotyped party members and large segments of
the population, a behavior completely at odds with our Party’s philosophy of recognizing and treating
people as individuals; and
Whereas, Mr. Vohra’s comments have caused wide-spread offense, and the result is that the LNC, its
committees, and Party affiliates are distracted from productive activities;
Therefore, be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee censures Arvin Vohra.

then crossed out a second time to correct the spelling to censure.

The only benefit I could see as Caryn being LNC secretary is that she would no longer be representing Washington State.

Dear Tom,
Words have meanings. A censure is not a suspension. Suspension is a term of art.
George

I saw something on FB that in addition to Larry Sharpe, Trent Somes also resigned from LNC. However I do not see anything like that on the LNC list itself. Anyone know for sure?

But we may thank Andy for providing the link to the Mises caucus By the way, they got the gentleman’s last name wrong. In Ludwig von Mises, the von is part of his last name.

Readers who consult the site will find they currently have candidates for chair and vice chair, who I will be voting against.

“George Phillies
February 4, 2018 at 00:18
What are the views, DL, of the Mises caucus?”

Here is the website for the LP Mises Caucus.

http://lpmisescaucus.com/

I spoke to Michael Heise yesterday. He said that members of the LP Mises Caucus generally agree, but that they do have some differences among their membership ranks as well.

“Caryn might be much better suited, if she were on the LNC next term, to serve as Secretary.”

Actually, that’s a pretty good idea, I think.

This is now the 4th article in IPR’s 9.5 year history to get 1,000 or more comments.

Also,Chuck, the censure motion is an LNC decision, and can be appealed to the Judicial Committee if someone can fabricate, err, craft, something resembling a set of grounds. I have no plans for doing this. Perhaps Comrade Knapp will have a sudden inspiration.

Rand Paul is emphatic that he is a conservative, not a libertarian. And he is an honest man. He is an opponent of abortion and gay marriage, for starters. On the other hand, he is a real conservative, who is opposed to the surveillance state.

Michael Heise was supporting Rand Paul’s run in the Republican primary. Prior to that he was a Ron Paul supporter. He joined the LP after Rand Paul’s campaign for President fizzled out. He was a small “l” libertarian activist for years before joining the LP.

Andy Craig
February 3 at 12:07am

When members of the House and Senate are censured by their peers, they are required to stand on the floor of the chamber, silently, while the presiding officer reads the text of the resolution listing the offenses and expressing the official disapproval of the body.

Just a thought.

Votes for removal:

Yes: McKnight, Redpath, Harlos, Van Horn, Starr, Goldstein, Mattson, Hagan

No: Starchild, Vohra, Hayes, Demarest, Lark, Katz, Nekhaila, Bilyeu

Katz switched to a yes on censure.

Hmm. For some reason, I keep thinking the guy in question is named Heise or Heinz or something like that. The one who joined the LP and started the Mises Caucus last year after being disappointed that the GOP didn’t go with his libertarian hero, Ted Cruz. Is he not running for chair?

No, he is supporting Joshua Smith for Chair, Merced for Vice Chair, and allegedly a full slate of other candidates whose names I don’t know, at least in this context. Is is Heiss or Smith who has the Ted Cruz fetish?

I never said that the LP should do whatever I demand. I believe my ideas are good, but I recognize that the LP is an organization, and whenever you deal with an organization, there are going to be people with different ideas, so some compromise is in order.

Yes, the censure vote apparently passed. Readers who don’t like it can advance to the judicial Committee. As the bylaws that describe election by delegates also describe removal by the LNC, one is as valid as the other.

Andy,

Congress should never impeach a president for what she says only for what she does.

hell, if congress could override the voters we would be a parliamentary system of government rather then what ever the fuck we are.

Andy,

What is faulty is the suspension of a party official for cause when the cause is just the interpretation of their statements which don’t actually match their statements.

You might as well demand the removal of an elected party official for their choice of tie color.

“steve m
February 2, 2018 at 23:48
Region 1 including Washington State LNC Representative Caryn Ann Harlos fails to push her political putsch against the Convention elected Vice Chair Arvin Vohra.”

Like I said above, I would probably have voted against removing him had I been on the LNC, but the fact that he was elected by convention delegates is irrelevant.

Should Congress never impeach a President because they were elected?

If an LNC member does something that merits removing them, then by all means, the other LNC members should vote to remove that person, and I think that a good case can be made that there have been people on past LNC’s that should have been removed, and there are people on there right now where a good case could be made to remove them.

Bill Weld should have been removed as the LP’s VP nominee. I don’t give a shit if the delegates voted for him. There was a solid case to remove him (and Johnson too for that matter) because he openly and grossly campaigned against the LP’s platform on multiple occasions, he heaped praise upon, and practically endorsed one of his election opponents, Hillary Clinton, and, as the LP’s VP candidate, he donated money to the Republican candidate for Governor of New Hampshire, who was running against a Libertarian Party candidate for Governor in a race where the outcome determined ballot access for the LP of NH in 2018, and he also prevented Libertarian Party candidates from speaking, while allowing Republican candidates to speak, at a campaign event in New Hampshire, as the Libertarian Party’s VP nominee.

She lost on removal and won on censure.

http://www.lncregion1.com/?p=938 has the wording. It was the same as the motion to suspend just changed to censure.

wording of the motion?

Meeting is now adjourned after voting down public comment.

Censure passes by 9-7

Removal fails 8-8

Conference Code: 7509417927
Conference Number(s):
USA: +1-8668149555

Manning being in the race will bring in media. Those 15 minutes might include the lp candidate. Arvin could affect the entire lp ticket and the state party.

Todd akin destroyed his brand with one statement on rape.

Just a thought.

There is no process for American voters to remove a US President in between elections. The only way to get rid of a President is for the US Congress to initiate an impeachment.

Did the LNC finally decide to have a meeting this evening? The email exchange was confusing.

Andy,

As i remember and i was therea voted that the Gray Davis recall was an election that allowed the same set of voters recall him as elected him. Not the same thing as if the California legoslature were tohave voted him out.

“The purpose of a recall petition is the same purpose that a removal process exists for LNC members in the LP’s By-Laws. I am glad that there is a removal process.”

Every so often Andy makes sense.

Steve m, you sound like the people who did not the Recall Gray Davis petition, or any other recall petition I have ever worked.

The purpose of a recall petition is the same purpose that a removal process exists for LNC members in the LP’s By-Laws. I am glad that there is a removal process.

Should Arvin Vohara be removed for his comments about Age of Consent? If I were voting on this, I would have to look into it more before I cast my vote, but at this time, I am leaning against his removal over this.

A LessArchy mass movement apparently will require the masses to be brighter than me

Especially an asymptotic parabolic non-euclidean one.

Not lessanarchist, lessarchist.

tk: abolitionist anarchists … are…lessarchists.

me: Yes! True!

Abolitionist anarchists generally are in my view guilty of TMI. If they have theoretical views about some a stateless ideal but they know that theirs is an acquired taste, they could dial back their theory and dial up a reasonable program that builds bridges to a wider audience. The abolitionist’s impulse is to stake out extreme positions that are too far out to be sold, leaving them in a no-man’s land between the ZAPster ideal and political viability.

(Note that I’ve changed NAPster to ZAPster and thus far, I’ve received no objections. Am I to take it that ZAPster is not triggering for you?)

Caryn stated…

“I am using words the way people heard them and that was the implication of what he said.”

Which is telling us that Caryn is for lynching Arvin not for what he said but rather for how she interprets what he said and howshe thinks others will interpret Arvin’s words.

This isn’t about a crime of speech. This is a crime of Arvin being guilty because of the thoughts of others.

How much more twisted from libertarian ideals can you get.

http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011848.html

TK,

Sorry you feel that way.

I definitely believe the window should be as open as possible. Abolionist anarchists could be characterized as wanting to smash the window to bits.

tk: And it’s always worth remembering that windows, including the Overton Window, usually are opened from their edges.

me: Freedom’s window is CLOSING. Lessarchists recognize this, and are pushing back to halt the closing and then to re-open it.

Irrelevant. Vohra was neither a candidate speaking to the public nor a party official representing the party to the public. He was just some guy posting something on Facebook that you would never have noticed or let yourself get fooled into throwing a tantrum over if some internal wreckers hadn’t played you like a hayseed rube gets played by a 3-card Monte scammer at the county fair.

—–
As of this comment, 199 to go to hit 1,000.

In this thread? We’re at 915 before I post this one, so less than that.
—–

I think my comment was 901, so I must have meant 99 to go.

As of this comment, 199 to go to hit 1,000.

In this thread? We’re at 915 before I post this one, so less than that.

“Republicans do not police themselves from the vantage point of democratic talking points…and vice versa.”

They police themselves from saying things the democrats would twist into something that could cost them votes…and vice versa. When they don’t, and someone from one of those teams says something twistable in any way, the opposition pounces on it immediately. So much so that voters regularly bemoan the insipid, vague speeches of politicians.

And we aren’t talking about a vaguely problematic “basket of deplorables” or Mitt Romney saying “47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income taxes are “dependent on the government,” or Obama referring to certain people who “cling to their guns and their religion. The stuff Vohra said is over-the-top inflammatory and would be catastrophic for a party with more public coverage than we currently do. And if you think otherwise, I would strongly urge you not to play the contact sport of politics, because you are leading with your chin and are gonna get your ass handed to you before you know what hit you.

tk: But putting together model legislation and hitting up state representatives to pass it?

me: I would not oppose a single-interest group (preferably one without the “libertarian” in its name) pressing for changes to age-of-consent laws. I can say I’d personally not be interested, since I have no position on the subject and I don’t see it as a pressing social issue.

Bringing troops home from S Korea or cutting federal spending strike me as far more important — even urgent — matters to attend to.

The optics of a political party or candidate pushing such an unripe idea are poor, in my judgment.

now live State Of The Union with Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Michael Knowles, and Jeremy Boreing
PEW POLL: Huge GOP Majority Favors Israel Over Palestinians, Democrats Support Has Plunged
Widest Gap In 40 Years
Photo by Michael Jacobs/Art in All of Us/Corbis via Getty Images
ByHank Berrien
January 23, 2018
Out of touch again, Tom:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26260/pew-poll-huge-gop-majority-favors-israel-over-hank-berrien
A new Pew Research Center Poll confirms what has seemed patently obvious for years: Democrats have abandoned the state of Israel while Republicans are staunch supporters of the Jewish state.

The poll found 79% of Republicans sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians; only 27% of Democrats felt similarly. That 52% gap is the largest since 1978. GOP voters have soared in their preference for Israel since 2001, when that figure was 50%, while in that same period their preference for the Palestinians dropped from 15% to a measly 6%. Democrats’ support for Israel has dropped from 38% in 2001 to the present 27%; their preference for the Palestinians has remained relatively constant from 21% to 25%.

“One of the very sharp divides between Democrats and Republicans is support for Israel or not support for Israel. not-support being the Democratic side of things.”

In some alternate universe, perhaps.

In this universe, mainstream Democrats will occasionally make a friendly noise toward the Palestinians while doing their damnedest to be even more “pro-Israel” than Republicans. And as your link demonstrates, Vohra’s opponent resembles that remark.

Vohra is runnig for Senate last I heard. If he wants controversy, he could go after his Senator for his attacks on the first amendment

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/

This attack would also be left outreach. One of the very sharp divides between Democrats and Republicans is support for Israel or not support for Israel. not-support being the Democratic side of things.

“In one of your versions, he accuses gay men of being hypocrites for thinking a certain way about age-different relationships.

In another of your versions, he accuses everyone who thinks a certain way about same-sex relationships of being hypocrites if they think differently about age-different relationships.”

Right you are. He’s such a self-aggrandizing dipsh*t, there are multiple angles for multiple audiences to get pissed off by his inflammatory comments lo’ these many months. Its almost like his real intention isn’t to change minds, its just to throw bombs and draw attention to himself.

“However, I also think some of clusterfuck reaction on this matter was residual targeting for what Vohra previously had said about the military and the police.”

I agree. I also don’t necessarily see a problem with it. If your modus operandi is to go on a sustained campaign of bomb heaving, don’t be surprised when people are going to package it all up, get sick and tired of your shtick, and want you gone, even if they might agree at some level on some of the issues. (i.e., I myself am opposed to the military adventurism in our foreign policy. On the other hand, I’m not going to support the tactic of trying to reduce our foreign policy footprint by calling all servicemembers “accessories to murder.”

Anthony,

If you’re going to attack Vohra’s arguments, you could at least attack his actual arguments instead of some shit you made up in place of his actual arguments.

What you are getting from me is a recommendation vis a vis strategy.

What you are getting from Vohra are some comments on Facebook about an issue with no political or electoral strategic context. Whether those comments are good or bad, right or wrong, isn’t relevant to practical politics. Their only practical political dimension is their use by some wreckers to fool you into calling for the LP to publicly take a ball peen hammer to its own figurative testicles.

RC,

Vis a vis “ripeness,” it seems to me that that’s far more important in campaigns for public office than it is in other political areas. That is, candidates have to talk about what the public cares about, while in e.g. lobbying functions that doesn’t matter quite as much.

Case in point: Age of consent laws.

Until very recently, those laws varied widely around the country, from lows of 13 and 14 in Alabama and Hawaii to highs of, IIRC, 21 for females in one state (lower for males). It wasn’t unusual in the first half of the 20th century for people to get married at 14 or 15. In fact, I remember at least one 15-year-old from my high school graduating class getting married in the 1980s (as you might suspect, there was a pregnancy involved).

And then some people who thought that the age should be 18 everywhere got together and lobbied legislators to make it so. My recollection is that that movement started because Georgians of a “marry your daughter off early” religious bent were taking their daughters across the state line into Alabama to marry them at 13.

There was no great public hue and cry for it. Just some interested people working on it.

The world is probably not going to end if libertarians decide to lobby for a return to the status quo of a decade or so ago.

More hot air.

And,. by the way, Tom, your candidate lost, and ensured Barr’s nomination.

In an ideal world, i would be king and you lesser humans wouldn’t disturb my peace with your petty squabbling.

There could also be a censure motion with different wording at the e-meeting on Friday, if that happens and if removal fails to gather 2/3. Does censure also require 2/3?

I’m guessing censure is substantive enough to require 2/3 but does anyone here know for sure?

Ah — OK. I thought the original call for meeting only encompassed removal.

I still think they’ll lose.

“There could also be a censure motion with different wording at the e-meeting on Friday, if that happens and if removal fails to gather 2/3.”

No, there couldn’t. Electronic meetings are only allowed to deal with the issue they are called for. Unless censure was in the call for the meeting, it’s not an option.

Well, that’s one down.

Some of those who voted for censure would likely vote against removal.

At least one or two of those who voted against censure presumably did so because they think only removal will do.

Removal isn’t going to happen either.

OK, I did a little FB search and found a screenshot of the quote I was thinking about, which evidently is the one only referred to above.

Vohra wrote circa January 11-12 :

“Pick one: “It’s totally natural for two men to have sex.” “It’s an abomination for a 25 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old women (sic).” This ludicrous hypocrisy I’m seeing is a fascinating bit of psychology.”

To verify you can search the hundreds of postings/response on his page around those few days. I took short cute and did searched FB “Arvin Vohra homosexual” and clicked comments on “Jo lo Jeffrey” posting and found screen shot there. Sounds like one I read before and discussed above.

My thoughts: I think it’s easy to see how someone could misinterpret it as being a slur vs gays, since it barely makes any sense. (Starting with: “pick one.”)

However, it SHOULD have been quoted, NOT described, in all criticisms of him, so it’s clear he’s just being dumb and irresponsible and not really insidious. (Unless that’s one definition of insidious?)

He’s definitely very sloppy in discussing sensitive issues and just doesn’t care to be corrected. Very sad. And extremely annoying.

Has anyone kept up with the counts?

The censure motion has had a number of people switch votes. What’s the current count?

The electronic meeting has a number of people who have called for it to be cancelled. How many so far, and how many are needed?

Arvin’s statements will affect the LP as a candidate, and not as a LNC member. If the media takes them, then Arvin will affect the remaining LP candidates in Maryland. Rather than addressing campaign issues, the media will force the LP candidates to react to his statements.

Brand equity problem.

Every country in the world has immigration and naturalization laws. This is they way that the world is arranged, whether anyone likes it or not.

That’s a very poor excuse. At one time they all had slavery, absolute monarchy, etc. The US did best economically before it had any restrictions on immigration to speak of, and naturalization is besides the point, at least for me. I really don’t care that much if you make the naturalization laws even worse, if entering and staying in the US is made easier at the same time.

Your other paragraph is, of course, complete nonsense which I have thoroughly debunked in many past threads, so I won’t bother to do so yet again.

Andy,

So are the Marxists and New World Order cretins to blame for your support for a nefarious, anti-liberty agenda, or are you someone third group’s useful idiot?

Oh, never mind, I forgot that you’re a Hoppebot. So Marxist, then.

“What Vohra has been doing, then the Radicals defense of his lunacy, is effective practical politics?”

I didn’t say that.

The radicals are certainly using practical politics to limit the damage that the wreckers and their dupes in the Get Arvin Brigade do to the party, but that has almost nothing to do with Vohra’s “lunacy” except to the extent that it was the instrument that the wreckers used to fool you into stomp on your own testicles in public.

How many elections have you won as a candidate or campaign manager? How many winning electoral campaigns — hell, how many electoral campaigns, win OR lose — have you even been a minor moving part of? Have you ever worked a convention floor for an issue or candidate or slate or caucus? Stood in freezing rain to put yourself or someone else on a ballot? Applied for an appointed position in government? Worked a phone bank? Walked a precinct? Worked a polling place?

Have you ever privately communicated with LNC members who have seen you do those things, year after year, in the expectation that they’ll give a tinker’s damn as to your “practical” opinion?

Because I know people who have.

“And you just keep fantasizing that you’re going to be carried to a position at Cato on the shoulders of “moderate libertarians” without having first learned at least a little something about practical politics.”

What Vohra has been doing, then the Radicals defense of his lunacy, is effective practical politics?

Yikes.

There’s nothing that is anything like a “condo association” at the national level in either Mexico or the US, nor should there be (condo associations don’t scale well to that level), but otherwise you are correct.

There is no way Tucker is that dumb. That’s as clear an indication that he is playing to his crowd, and frankly it must be working, because I hear only Hannity is beating him in the ratings for cable news shows.

Agreed

Question to pro-immigrant guest: “If low wage workers from Mexico increase the wealth of the US, why isn’t Mexico rich?”

The biggest reason is Mexican regime red tape.

Anthony,

And you just keep fantasizing that you’re going to be carried to a position at Cato on the shoulders of “moderate libertarians” without having first learned at least a little something about practical politics.

Quoth Anthony:

“I think”

The available evidence militates strongly against that claim.

Haha. You think the people who object to throwing 17-year old sexually active utes into jail are not only prepared to discuss the complete abolishment of Age of Consent laws, but to buy that argument from a man broaching that subject the way Vohra has, a man who previously called Servicemembers “accessories to murder” once they are reminded such an argument is not in contradiction to the platform (which we have previously agreed no one cares about?”

To quote Marco from Tropoja,

“Good Luck.”

Anthony,

Kruschev was wrong when he announced “we will bury you.”

I’m not.

I believe he is at odds with the platform. You believe he is not. I don’t believe my argument is meritless, but I have no need to continually debate the merits of the argument with you when I know that I can eventually effectively beat the Radical position…on any issue…with sheer numbers, as long as they keep talking.

This is a political party, there isn’t any other way to look at it.

“In another comment, he [Vohra] insisted that child molestation was morally indistinguishable from homosexuality, and accused gay members of the party of “hypocrisy” if they disagreed.”

What difference does it make what the scholarly literature says on age of consent when the dipsh*t Vohra makes a comment like that? What difference does it make what the various arguments by the learned experts are? This is politics, man. No one wants to be around someone so anti-social. I would be embarrassed to forward that to any of my gay friends outside of the Libertarian Party. They would be horrified by such a comment.

Now, if someone wants to tell me that I am reading the gay population wrong regarding that comment, or that I am reading parents in general wrongly, and parents…even ones who have real problems with throwing a 17-year old boy in jail for taking a sexy pick of his 15-year old girlfriend…would largely be okay with a discussion of the abolishment of age of consent laws…then to that someone, given that we are in an arena that determines winners and losers by some form of election, even within the party, I say “bring it on.”

All I have to do is keep them talking. After they have whittled their own faction down to 6% of the party, they can go on muttering about how we are running afoul of THEIR conception of the LP Platform.

TK: always thinking like a radical.

“OK, so you’ve managed to mis-read the platform in at least two important ways:

It does not define “adults” as “persons of an age exceeding that of the number drawn out of a hat by a politician.” There has been considerable discussion in both the party and the movement, as well as in society at large, concerning what it means to be an “adult” and in none of the three areas where it is discussed is the hat-number method largely considered dispositive…”

I haven’t misread it. You just ignore what the overwhelming majority of the people in this country are going to take the word “adult” to mean in this context. They got zero problem with a number drawn out of a hat by a politician if the alternative is no number at all.

Now, of course, people are going to disagree about what “adult” means EXACTLY, but there is no damn way they are going to take it to mean what Vohra implies in his various unhinged comments.

This is why I keep saying that…in the political arena, as opposed to a philosophical one…its so easy to play rope-a-dope with Radicals. They will argue themselves right into a minority position, and then what does it matter who is right and who is wrong? Who’s arguing that Governors Johnson & Weld did not occasionally run afoul of plumb-line libertarianism, let alone the radical variety? I’m certainly not. What difference did it make? I saw no lighting bolt coming from the great Rothbard in the Sky striking them dead.

“As the article subsequently points out, its Vohra who is at odds with the Platform, since it only allows for intimate relations between ‘consenting adults'”

OK, so you’ve managed to mis-read the platform in at least two important ways:

1) It does not define “adults” as “persons of an age exceeding that of the number drawn out of a hat by a politician.” There has been considerable discussion in both the party and the movement, as well as in society at large, concerning what it means to be an “adult” and in none of the three areas where it is discussed is the hat-number method largely considered dispositive (in society at large, for example, plenty of people can be found who assert that you magically become an adult, regardless of age, when accused of a crime, or that “if you’re old enough to drive and vote and join the military you’re old enough to buy a drink”).

2) The existence of a plank advocating for X in the platform does not translate to the platform “not allowing for” things not mutually exclusive with X.

There is zero case that Vohra’s discussion of age of consent conflicted in any way with the platform, or that it violated anything in the policy manual.

The Get Vohra Brigade’s case boils down entirely to “we got gamed into a moral panic by people who were using us to damage the party.”

FYI: I’m not sure where it comes from (Facebook, Twitter, etc), but here is info on Vohra comparing homosexuality to pedophilia:

“In another comment, he insisted that child molestation was morally indistinguishable from homosexuality, and accused gay members of the party of “hypocrisy” if they disagreed.”

As the article subsequently points out, its Vohra who is at odds with the Platform, since it only allows for intimate relations between “consenting adults:”

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

—–
Question to pro-immigrant guest: “If low wage workers from Mexico increase the wealth of the US, why isn’t Mexico rich?”
—–

Capital, including human capital, tends to flow to where it can be most profitably invested.

The answer to your question is the same as the answer to the question “if the ’49ers struck gold in California, why couldn’t they have just stayed home in Virginia and struck gold there?” They went to where the gold was, just like Mexican workers go to where the work is.

Yesterday heard from Tucker Carlson on Faux News by me:

Question to pro-immigrant guest: “If low wage workers from Mexico increase the wealth of the US, why isn’t Mexico rich?”

FYI, the Oliver Hall memo on status of Merissa Hamilton’s complaint is here: http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180126/93004859/attachment-0001.pdf

Unforuntately, it looks like censure wouldn’t work too good since Arvin defends being obnoxious ala Trump’s success.

There can be such a thin line between being intelligently provocative and just stupid. Arvin’s just falled on stupid side a few times too many. ;-(

Oliver Hall is also associated with “The Center For Competitive Democracy” and is someone that the LNC would be good not to lose the support of.

http://www.competitivedemocracy.org/

“Oliver Hall, Director, is founder and legal counsel to CCD. Mr. Hall graduated from Kenyon College in 1995 and Boston University School of Law in 2005. He is author of “Death by a Thousand Signatures: The Rise of Restictive Ballot Access Laws and the Decline of Electoral Competition in the United States,” published by the Seattle University Law Review, and he has also written for Counterpunch and the Philadelphia Inquirer. A member of the Massachusetts and District of Columbia Bars, Mr. Hall is also admitted to practice before the federal courts for the District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and North Dakota, the federal courts of appeals for the 3rd Circuit, 8th Circuit, 11th Circuit and D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The Hall report also contains the “disputed” remarks that the VC made.

I included a link to it in my comment of 0:33 Jan 27th

no. what is that?

Alicia Dearn is from St. Louis, Missouri.

She was, but the letter identifies her as the current chair of San Diego.

Thank you for reminding us of your wing’s theology.

On the other hand, I am seeing proposals that the LP should run Mary Ruwart again, in which case the interesting statements in her book will undoubtedly show up.

Age of consent. “by reason of insanity” is entirely not the same as ‘age of consent”. If person A walks up to person B in a restaurant, person B sitting with person A’s wife who person B has seduced and lured off to New York months ago, and fires multiple rounds into person B, then (in the historical case) person A is about to become the first American to get off on ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ other than under the McNaughton rule. (actual historical case. A was a distinguished Buffalonian. B was a famous New York architect. There is a motion picture about this.)

However, there is more or less uniform agreement that blowing away person B was some degree of murder, which is malum per se. The ‘not guilty by reason of…” has only to do with what we do with person B, not with whether or not an improper act was committed.

In contrast, absent an age of consent law, no one can tell if carrying on with someone else is a criminal act, no matter how old you are. It just depends on how good your defense attorney is, and how deranged the jury is.

Eliminating age of consent is simply a terrible idea. The contrary is an example of the points at which our party’s anarchist wing has taken leave of its senses.

what’s the problem here? I’m for the censure. Aren’t you, based on the text you referred to?

I wouldn’t think anyone needs to be told to not be an idiot or you’ll get bounced, but I guess Vohra does. I don’t need that written in a rule book. If we could get him removed, the precedent would be set, whether its carved in stone or not.

And like I said, psychological ploys don’t work with me, so I’m okay with the censure vote even with that dopey poison pill, because my primary concern is to raise the costs of being an idiot whilst in a leadership position. So maybe radical or not, we can all support the censure vote. Everyone wins!

failed attempt at a psychological ploy.

I’m not sure there is anything to debate here. I don’t want anyone in a leadership position of the LP saying what he says, whether its gets out or not, but said leader should assume that not only is it going to get out, but that he or she wants it to get out. So again, I’m not sure there is anything to debate here, because I work from a standing assumption that what a party leader or candidates says, in any context, they WANT to get out into the public arena.

In other words, there is no “discussing among yourselves,” not when you are in a leadership position. Nowhere. You should just assume that even your bedroom banter with your significant other is going to get out publicly, let alone a facebook or twitter post.

I am sure you disagree with that. Oh well. No time like the present to start laying down the new rules for our leaders, and try to alarm me about possible negative publicity is irrelevant, because we need the rules. Once they are set, those who want to be a leadership position will be aware of minding themselves, and those who are unable to will self-select out of even considering a leadership role.

“The wreckers used your panic over the possibility of Facebook posts on libertarian groups getting escalated into the public arena to get you to escalate Facebook posts on libertarian groups into the public arena.

They assumed, correctly, that you would be horrified by the possibility of a public discussion of the libertarian position on age of consent laws and think such a discussion was bad for the party — but that your panic would cause you to foment just such a discussion.”

A) As I noted, many of the things he said, like equating homosexuality with pedohpilia were stupid and ignorant on their face. Whether such things got out into the public arena or not, I’d want him out of his leadership position anyway.

B) In any case, he is in a leadership position in an organization that WANTS what we stand for to get out into the public arena. That’s the whole point. If he is a political ignoramus stupid enough to make his recent statements a priority, he is catastrophically unqualified for the job.

C) there is no public and private distinction if you are in a leadership position in a political party. Everything you said and do anywhere at any time for any reason must be considered for public digestion. If you don’t like the terms of that arrangement, you are not ready for the job.

D) As I have mentioned before, while there is risk that trying to extricate the dope from his position will create publicity, that pales in comparison to the publicity that could result from not doing anything about it, even if he were to eventually get removed via election at the convention. The worry about adverse publicity that might result from a vote from removal also has to be weighed against not doing anything at all, and giving a green light to other stupid people to say even more stupid stuff. Even if Vohra doesn’t get removed from his position, this process will serve as an example to others to not be idiots if they are going to take a leadership position.

E) The wreckers didn’t need to explain anything to me regarding the idiocy of a leader in a political party broaching the subject of age of consent laws. Common sense tells me its brain dead dumb in a political sense.

There is an Alicia Dearn who is Executive Chair of the San Diego Libertarian Party. She is an attorney and has offices in San Diego and Saint Louis. What are theoddsthey aredifferent people?

The radicals are the ones getting gamed by a self-aggrandizer looking for publicity.

Who’s attacking the party? I want the self-aggrandizer in question, who made a moral equivalency between being gay and being a pedophile, out of his leadership position. That’s all.

T K at 1/27/18, 13:35 writes:

“So basically, a mess benefits everyone but the moderates who got gamed into making one in the first place.”

We didn’t get gamed. Vohra indicated part of his reasoning for his descent into madness was to scare away the moderates. I take him at his word, let’s get it on.

Further news from reality….

Alicia Dearn from San Diego CA has joined in the call for the ouster of Vohra…. An interesting development because Alicia is a member of the LNC Judicial Committee. Which would be expected to hear an appeal if a suspension passed the LNC.

This discussion has taken leave of reality. Some time ago.

tk: There is no condo association.

me: Obviously, it’s a metaphor.

tk: The desirability of rule of law is an interesting question, but it is an indisputable fact that no, not everyone supposedly covered by a particular set of rules consented to that set of rules either initially or by way of buying into a set of restrictive covenants.

me: True, Lysander. 😉 I suspect that universal consent (or not) is going to happen anytime soon. I suppose it’s possible, but I cannot imagine a scenario where it could to happen in the distant future. We are where we are, and the situation is degenerating, in my estimation.

Instituting the Harlos Nonarchy Pod option would be a means to institute a consensual civil order, but it might even be more futile.

Does that mean we’re doomed? I’d like to think not.

tk: Trying to do accurate cost accounting for conflicting government policies affecting large populations is probably impossible.

me: With precision, certainly.

There’s certainly NO cost accounting for the benefits of the rule of law, either. Nor is there a precise accounting of which form of jurisprudence or the specific rule of law that is employed in any territory otherwise known as a nation-state.

And yet there’s near-universal agreement that HAVING a rule of law facilitates a civil order. The condo association’s board has set some rules for entry into and working in the condo complex for this territory. Some of the rules are counter-productive, others might be neutral, others might even in theory be positive.

My sense is that almost none of the condo-owners want anyone to enter anytime for any purpose. I do sense that a more-neutral, fair, and national-wealth enhancing changes to immigration could be taken seriously by the condo-owning population.

Having a hard time following exactly what’s happening, I’ve only looked at the email archive occasionally (and there seems to be ten different threads about this there). Looks like there’s a motion to censure, an electronic meeting to remove, and a report from an investigation? But it looks like that there’s problems with the wording of the motions that might make them void?

tk: The kid is here, like it or not. Where do you want him to be from 8am-3pm?

me: Thanks for the thoughtful comment. In isolation, GHWB and RR’s take makes some sense to me, too. 1.4% sounds small, too. However, the lens I use to assess government’s relations to the citizenry is massive national debt and government growing as a percentage of GDP.

Further, if the information on openborders.info is correct and illegal aliens are a slight net positive to the US economy WITHOUT taking into account the costs of educating and providing healthcare to illegal aliens, a more precise accounting MIGHT cause the net to disappear and possibly tip over into a net negative outcome. I’d like to see a more thorough analysis.

If there’s a problem, it strikes me that there is no one correct solution. But if there’s a problem, denying it is unhelpful to the cause of lessarchy and ultimately even anarchy.

RC,

I don’t know that I’d call that Bush/Reagan observation definitive, but it does make some sense, at least if you believe “public education” should be continued at all:

The kid is here, like it or not. Where do you want him to be from 8am-3pm? Learning to read and write, or getting up to no good on the street? In which case are the costs ultimately higher?

A quick Google search says that the estimated fraction of K-12 students who are “illegal immigrants” is 1.4%. How much does that increase the cost of “public” education?

It isn’t increasing costs by requiring new infrastructure build-out. Public school enrollment has been fairly flat for years, and would likely be descending if they didn’t keep lowering the age at which pre-K programs are offered (when our children were young, our school district came up with a pre-K program that was pretty obviously just an excuse to re-open a closed school building and keep on a few teachers who weren’t ready to retire yet but who had no place in K-12 because that student body was shrinking).

At 1.4%, it isn’t appreciably increasing class size such that more teachers need to be hired. In a school district with a thousand students altogether, that would be 14 students, scattered across grades. At a class size of 20, which is pretty small, it’s one extra student per seven classrooms.

If these students have an unusually high ratio of special needs, including but not limited to English as a Second Language, is that all cost and no benefit? When I was a kid, I was not the only student in my Spanish class who enrolled partly because I had friends who spoke Spanish at home.

One complaint I’ve heard is about the supposed ratio of “illegal immigrant” kids on the “free school lunch” program, but it’s important to remember that that program is a welfare program for American farmers, not for students. It does have the effect of filling stomachs, but if the food wasn’t being given to the kids, the ag lobby would find some other excuse to get the government to buy it from them so as to prop up prices, even if that meant soaking it in diesel and setting it on fire.

cm,

I didn’t write: “IF any of those critters ever read Davy Crockett’s “farmer Bunce” story I’d be surprised.”

DJ did.

LNC Electronic meeting – Friday, February 2 @ 9:00 pm Eastern

http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011781.html

Elizabeth Van Horn wrote

[Ooh, transparency. Good idea. With that in mind, Starchild, do you
know who wrote this second reworded censure motion?

This one: “Move to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.”

Because, I think the writer would want to be given credit for rewording
a censure motion. Don’t you think?]

To which I would like to add…

Me too because it is brilliantly worded.

The meeting would need a quorum…. I don’t have a count of number of members calling for the meeting but am under the impression that Caryn doesn’t think it is going to happen.

Van Horn seems unhappy with the wording of the current censure motion so might vote against.

6 calling for a meeting for the purpose of considering removal and/or censure at a certain date and time, if I understand correctly.

How many people are needed to agree on date and time for the meeting to
take place?

Currently, six people have agreed to Friday, February 2nd at 9pm
eastern.

Whitney Bilyeu (who proposed the date and time)
Elizabeth Van Horn
Time Hagan
Patrick McKnight
Bill Redpath
Caryn Ann Harlos

—
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)

I think 6 is the requisite number. Am I wrong?

RC,

George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan addressed the question of education costs in the 1980 presidential debates. Bush asserted, and Reagan agreed that since they are going to be here anyway, it’s better both for them and for the American economy if they can read, write and do arithmetic than if they’re kept illiterate and innumerate.

pf: believe it’s still a net positive even with school age children.

me: I don’t believe the subject has been researched. It’s an oversight not to take into consideration education and healthcare costs.

Perhaps we can circle back to the subject when and if such data is forthcoming….

I didn’t miss your point, I just disagree about the numbers and believe it’s still a net positive even with school age children. I don’t feel like digging up numbers though. It’s already more time than I wanted to spend on that tangent right now.

I haven’t actually been counting votes but my sense is that the censure motion will pass. Has anyone been paying closer attention? I think the electronic meeting has fallen short by one vote of gaining enough co-sponsors yet again (to consider removal and perhaps alternate censure language) but I may be wrong, I’m not sure if the deadline has passed.

In Caplan’s newest work on education, we’re reminded of how expensive EDUCATION is for taxpayers.

You sidestep this point.

No, I clearly said that any negative impact is outweighed by the impact of their parents on the overall economy, and doubly so by the impact of the children as they become educated and move on to work in better paying jobs, start business, innovate, etc. No, I don’t feel like fishing for statistics.

RC: Getting to the root of the problem makes sense. OTOH, when was the last that was made manifest, politically speaking?

Good question. It could be said as the ink was drying on The Constitution. However, I think it depends on the timeline. In the current argument here, I’d say 1913, which led eventually to the congress critters and ALL POTUS criiters recognizing an unlimited credit card is the answer to “political” prayers. IF any of those critters ever read Davy Crockett’s “farmer Bunce” story I’d be surprised. If they did and still behave the way they do I’d say they are vile people who chose to believe their celebrity status ‘entitles’ them to power not granted and use intentional misinterpretation to sell their bullshit- example: authorization of military force = declaration of war. Another, and my pet peeve; “The will of the people is a mandate” for a cause de jour.

Of course the “farmer Bunce” story didn’t have itself to reflect on, but those who the story was directed at (congress critters) have not evolved beyond the immaturity of spoiled kids and egotistical know it all’s who believe their own rhetoric about themselves. Their education failed in regards to their main job= (to be succinct) represent to prevent.

While I see both sides of the argument (dl and TK) and it is semi-entertaining to anyone ‘interested’, the current tax arguments taking place here ain’t gonna happen. That’s the reality. Those in charge of revenue generation enjoy too much power. The current argument is too complicated for people to understand. The comparisons/analogies, while simple, are way outside what voters will ‘look for/connect with’ in a presentation in a televised national debate forum. That’s assuming it would ever get that far, which I don’t think it would. Besides that, the arguments are a band aid on a severed artery. The artery requires surgery to ‘tie off the artery’.

No problem (bleeding profusely) is solved without getting to the root (a severed artery) of the problem.

tk,

You make a good point. The appraisal process is subject to gaming the system.

OTOH, an acre in Manhattan is worth more than an acre in Barrow, AK. Less productive land being taxed/leased at the same rate as the most productive land seems to lead to some undesirable outcomes. Marginal land would abandoned in the extreme. We all might end up living in skyscrapers.

Georgism is another construct, and I submit it should be recognized as such. In my case, Georgism was the pathway that led me to viewing the nation-state as a condo association. That wouldn’t foreclose the possibility of dissolving the association when it’s ripe, and allowing full-blown statelessness to blossom. That would be somewhere far down the asymptote.

“OK, why do you feel that an ‘objective definition’ is so important for something like land rents?”

Look, Henry George’s early followers were honest and called their proposal the single TAX. One difference between that TAX and actual rent is that with rent there’s not a monopoly landlord with whom one cannot negotiate and from whom one cannot escape. It’s a tax, not rent.

I’ve already made it quite clear why I think that a flat tax on an objectively measured unit of land is not as bad as a variable tax based on a questionable estimate of “market value.” The latter puts the matter in the hands of people who can easily be wrong, who can presumably be corrupted, and who are almost certain to at least sometimes be influenced by political considerations. The former solves those particular problems by taxing everyone the same on the basis of indisputably commensurable units.

An acre on the Big Sur is 4,840 square yards. An acre outside of Indio is 4,840 square yards. An acre in Chicago’s Loop is 4,840 square yards, as is an acre in north St. Louis County, an acre in Tulsa, and an acre in Baton Rouge. Which takes the question “how much tax on this particular parcel?” out of the hands of people who could game it for their own benefit, or for political reasons, or just fuck it up.

pf,

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

quoting me: The costs of illegal aliens with children probably represents a significant burden to taxpayers.

quoting pf: Nope. The presence of undocumented workers raises the living standard of those already previously here far more than enough to make up for any and all such burdens.

ME: Notice the difference. “…aliens with children probably…”

I accept the Caplan site’s assertion that illegal aliens raise national wealth. I recall one of the profs saying that it SLIGHTLY does. In Caplan’s newest work on education, we’re reminded of how expensive EDUCATION is for taxpayers.

You sidestep this point.

I’d appreciate a response to this non-Rabbit Hole point.

As for “rights,” I don’t think anyone has the “right” to be treated in the emergency room. Rather, it’s a “legal obligation” of hospitals to treat those who come into their facilities. Personally, ethically, I would think that hospitals should do so. But when that rare event becomes commonplace, something else has gone wrong.

It’s supposed to end with Hitler, not Henry George.

Give it time.

“In theory, I would like to see the separation of school and state, but I find the idea politically unripe.”

You might want to take a closer look. It’s ripening.

Over the last few months, supporters of the failing “public” education system have begun rolling out scare stories to justify more regulation of the increasingly popular homeschool option “for the children.”

While voucher, tax credit, and charter school schemes are pretty poisonous as such — they increase government involvement in previously “private sector” areas as the price of “school choice” — they’re quickly moving toward the center of the Overton Window, and you’ll see the “public education” advocates increasingly grudgingly supporting those options as a firewall against the elimination of their preferred option versus actual private education.

Or, to put it a different way, once the “tax-funded school choice” movement has won, the fight won’t be “tax-funded school choice” versus “tax funded ‘public’ education” any more. It will be both of those against homeschooling and truly private sector education.

dL: Are address verfication checks for emergency room care an example of the type of “imagination, warmth, and community” that are needed to evolve the transpartisan vision for the next century?

me: Said nothing about checks. But, while it’s been a long time since I’ve been to the emergency room, but I seem to recall that they ask for the patient’s address, and perhaps driver’s license, and insurance card and/or credit card.

If tax-financed subsidization becomes a major impediment to freedom, it seems within bounds to ask whether taxpayers can and should protect themselves from further financial exposure. I doubt free-liberal Ls would disagree with this. Bastiat and Lao Tzu would likely agree, too!

“Well, certainly. That’s possible. But that’a a different problem than the one you originally posed. ”

Not really.

An appraisal does not establish value.

An actual offer to buy, whether accepted or refuse, establishes the upper and lower ranges of value of the property to the prospective buyer and possible seller, although not to anyone else.

Anything else is just a guess. And the ability to generate compulsory revenue on that guess is an invitation to every form of corruption (“give me $50 and I’ll cut the assessed value by 10%”) and economic nonsense (“hey, if we just pretend that all of the properties in town are worth twice as much as they’d likely sell for, we will have enough tax revenue to build a dodgeball stadium that will pay for itself tenfold in economic impact!”) imaginable.

dL,

The only way to establish the unimproved market value of the property is for the property to be sold. So even stipulating to the desirability of a Georgist tax for the sake of argument, the only way for such a tax to be objectively obsessed would be for it to be a flat tax per unit, i.e. an acre is an acre is an acre. Tax on an acre in the middle of the Mojave, $X. Tax on an acre in midtown Manhattan, $X.

Libertydave,

No the amount of rent paid is based upon demand and supply. A change in property tax doesn’t automatically cause the amount of rent to increase or decrease.

For example, if there is more demand then supply rents go up to where demand drops off. Increasing the property tax doesn’t increase the demand and therefor rent wont increase it is that the property owner will make less. Similarity if property taxes drop, the land lords wont decrease rents if the have an adequate number of people who want to rent their property.

What changes in property taxes do is change the willingness of investors to build more rental units or convert rental units to other uses. These are much longer time span effects.

The video shows officers that are the exact opposite of the concept that the purpose of the police should be to provide food for the hungry and directions for the lost

btw, PF,

In the late 70s, I was stopped crossing the US/Canada border and turned around. One of my passengers at the time was a Pakistani exchange student.

GJ (not an actual quote this time): Well, when I ran for Governor, I didn’t call for detaining people at the borders with Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Utah or Oklahoma. But you can rest assured both myself and the governors and citizens of all those states recognized those state lines before, during and after my terms as Governor. I believe we would have been just fine had we treated the borders with Chihuahua and Sonora states, Mexico the same way.

Not everything Gary Johnson said was by any means brilliant. But this was:

“My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.” – Gary Johnson

pf,

reporter: Demarcation? You don’t see the US/Canada border as different than the border between AL and MS, is that right?

Yeah and keep that neo-confederacy, white power BS over on the Republiklan side with Donald Trump too please.

It’s funny how some people think that “libertarian Republicans” are libertarian – but only if they take the authoritarian big government position on regime border enforcement, as if regime borders were legitimate property lines, which would imply the regime legitimately owns the whole country and everything in it. No thanks! Keep that crap in the NSGOP along with the uterus police, transphobia, “Christian” theocracy, etc.

Andy: The only exception that I can think of in this category would be Andrew Napolitano, because he puts out a strong libertarian message, he’s an excellent writer and speaker and he carries himself very well in interviews and debates, and he’s one of the most well known libertarians in the country.

I would add Ron Paul to this, but he announced for the 2012 election that he’s retired from running for political office, and I think that he’s getting a bit too old for it as well. The elder Dr. Paul is still a workhorse for liberty even in retirement from running for political office.

I am not completely opposed to former Republicans running as Libertarian Party candidates, if the Republicans in questions are sufficiently libertarian enough (as in they have to be what I’d call plausibly libertarian, and not like Bob Barr or Gary Johnson or Bill Weld or etc…). I do think that there is a danger in the LP running too many former Republicans though, even if they are good, and that is that the Libertarian Party can become too identified with the Republican Party in the minds of some of the public. So I don’t think that the Libertarian Party should run Republican cast offs all the time.

Me: Well stated!

Anthony Dlugos said: “A) The last three candidates for the LP nomination were not “heavily” associated the Republican Party. They were considered defectors or apostates from the GOP and its philosophy for various reasons. Barr may have subsequently gone back to the GOP, but both Johnson and Weld were and are still portrayed as politicians unable to align themselves with the nationalist, xenophobic GOP.”

I don’t think that any of these people were ever legitimate libertarians. Also, Bill Weld donated money to the Republican candidate for Governor of New Hampshire in 2016, who was running against a Libertarian Party candidate for Governor, in a race where the vote percent for the LP candidate for Governor was going to determine whether or not the LP remained a ballot qualified party for 2018. While being the LP’s candidate for Vice President, during a campaign stop in New Hampshire, the Libertarian Party candidate for Governor (who was also a sitting state legislator) organized an event where Bill Weld was able to speak in front of the New Hampshire, and then Weld “thanked” him and other Libertarians, by only allowing Republican candidates to speak at this event. Also, last year when the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts was having its state convention (note that Bill Weld lives in Massachusetts). Bill Weld attended a Republican Party fundraiser that was held on the same day instead of going to the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts State Convention.

Weld may still be a Libertarian Party member, but he’s not a libertarian, and the Libertarian Party would be better off without him.

Ramsey’s girlfriend or wife

He says wife.

who is Brandi?

Anthony:”see, I don’t think its his strategy for the LP. Its his strategy for landing the 2020 LP nomination, and its incredibly short-sighted, not only for his nomination, but for any chance at general election campaign publicity he might have if he wins the nomination (“Come, white nationalists, come.” Is anyone dumb enough to think that wouldn’t be brought up by an enterprising media talking head?), and for the party itself.”

Ah I see. Agreed, this is incredibly stupid way to secure a nomination and we’re in a really bad place with the party if this is what he thinks will help him. I think I’m at the point where I will not be voting for him this November, I do not want to enable this behavior.

Andy wrote:

“My guess would be that the reason that he does not want them now is not because he does not want more competition for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020, but rather because for the last three presidential elections, the LP has run people who had been heavily associated with the Republican Party, and he wants the LP to break that cycle, for at least one election. If this is his reason, I agree with him.”

A) The last three candidates for the LP nomination were not “heavily” associated the Republican Party. They were considered defectors or apostates from the GOP and its philosophy for various reasons. Barr may have subsequently gone back to the GOP, but both Johnson and Weld were and are still portrayed as politicians unable to align themselves with the nationalist, xenophobic GOP.

Ironically, the one previous LP candidate who IS probably most “heavily” associated with the GOP, especially now considering his frequently anti-immigration positions, is one of Andy’s neoconfederate heroes, Ron Paul.

B) I think Andy doesn’t want the likes of Amash and Massie around for the same primary reason that Sharpe doesn’t want them around: its competition. Its got little to do with philosophy. Andy is smart enough to know qualified candidates rules out the lunatic fringe catastrophically unqualified loons he supports. A steady stream of defectors from the dinosaur parties rules out the Kokesh of the world and starts turning the LP into a professional organization.

ad: I did not say principles didn’t matter, I said they were secondary to winning.

me: Another way of putting this is that principles inform us and effective political persuasion determines whether our ideas and policy prescriptions prevail or not. For a movement to be sustained, it requires both.

Principles without effective persuasion might get one past the Pearly Gates, but life on earth will degenerate if virtue continues to recede. Effective persuasion with principles can lead to policy wins, but the victory is hollow and continued degradation.

Means and ends need to work together.

Trump’s a pretty clear case of all means with no real True North. ZAPster Ls are all ends with almost no consideration for means. Socialists and progressives have tended to balance their principles and persuasion, and for the most part they have been prevailing for 100 years.

Mr Sharpe told Reason http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/14/selling-freedom
“..My hero is that guy Daryl Davis. You know that guy? He’s one of my brothers who was out there trying to get KKK members to turn. And he keeps their hoods as a trophy. He’s turned like 44 of them in 30 years. That’s my hero…”

Sharpe’s being very naive. It’s one thing to oppose and soften bigotry in someone you meet informally a few times and can’t really follow up on. Will he go back to his old crew? Will he listen to racist Trump supporters ranting vs. immigrants and Arabs and saying “let’s nuke them all?” Or will he get involved with psychopaths like “family man” Ryan Ramsey who is a very clever operator. Ramsey appears to be all things to all people. Through his crazy conspiratorial rants and accusations against other libertarians, it’s clear to most he’s quite nuts; however, those seduced by his personal influence in the FL LP don’t seem to realize he’s quite unglued.

Which reminds me of two quick points:

*I’m quite sure I saw a post on Ramsey’s page or Vets caucus in early August ’17 saying he’d love to go to Charlottesville, but the baby was coming soon. By the time it became a Chris Cantwell extravaganza, of course, he turned against it. (Have screenshots of much of what he wrong last summer before he was largely kicked off FB but filed too many places to look right now.)

*In a quick look at my screenshots, I did find a couple Ramsey jems like “nuke mecca” and calling “WN” a “Jew CIA asset.”

The latter being funny since I finally read Brandi’s rant against me more carefully and realized she was reacting to a 14 year old Libertarians 4 Peace post of mine back when the referenced Steve Sass was making slimy sexualized death threats to me on that and a MD LP list (before both bounced him). I made one very angry intemperate reply, so I know how one stupid thing you wrote can be used against you forever!

Happily, Carol and the whole peace movement became very skilled at speaking constructively about the Israel Lobby ove the next few years. And in 2005 peace groups started doing yearly conferences and protests outside yearly AIPAC conferences in DC. I was intimately involved in organizing some of these and have lots of videos and photos of most of them.

Of course, Brandi was probably making goo goo eyes at other high schoolers back in 2002-2003 when the pro-Israel neocons so successfully pushed for Iraq war all over major media. I’m sure she’s more aware now a days as the same characters push for the US to do Israel’s dirty work and attack Iran, another multi trillion dollar US war, one like North Korea which easily could lead to world nuke war.

Anon-Tipper: So his strategy for the LP to not become a Republican Lite party is to then court the same people they have been courting, i.e. white-nationalists, racists, anti-immigration types?

paulie: Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.

see, I don’t think its his strategy for the LP. Its his strategy for landing the 2020 LP nomination, and its incredibly short-sighted, not only for his nomination, but for any chance at general election campaign publicity he might have if he wins the nomination (“Come, white nationalists, come.” Is anyone dumb enough to think that wouldn’t be brought up by an enterprising media talking head?), and for the party itself.

So his strategy for the LP to not become a Republican Lite party is to then court the same people they have been courting, i.e. white-nationalists, racists, anti-immigration types?

Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me. Those people are seeing success with NSGOP. What do they need the LP for?

rc@0957 today: exactly

Andy: “the LP has run people who had been heavily associated with the Republican Party,”

Anthony:”but because he must feel like he can’t afford to start losing potential 2020 delegates at all, e.g., being unwelcoming of white nationalists might cause others in the party to think “maybe he won’t have my back either.” So, he doesn’t piss of the nationalists.”

So his strategy for the LP to not become a Republican Lite party is to then court the same people they have been courting, i.e. white-nationalists, racists, anti-immigration types?

ls: Why would I tell anyone to leave my party? How can I turn you if I can’t talk to you?

me: Good and fair questions. Talking with people one strenuously disagree with can be valuable and honorable. That doesn’t mean, however, that one needs to ASSOCIATE with those one vehemently disagrees with.

Any organization — including a party — is engaged in reputation management to some extent. Maintaining some latitude and room for internal disagreement makes tons of sense to me. However, if public-positions of some members so damages the reputation, excluding them from membership seems in bounds to me.

WHERE the line is a great question…as an onlooker, I don’t have the answer. But I’d think that the LP would want to exclude — if possible and fairly done — David Duke, the president of NAMBLA, and other way-out-of-bounds figures.

Now, if David Duke were to renounce his Haterade, were he contrite about just how wrong-minded he was, etc., I’d think membership might be an option. I think his history would make him not someone who should ever be a candidate or officer.

“How much do you have to hate immigrants…”

They hate ’em a lot.

dL said: “‘I don’t want [a Michigan Rep. Justin] Amash or [Kentucky Rep. Thomas] Massie either right now. I want them, but not now. They come now, we will rally around them, do whatever they say, however they say it. I don’t want that.’

Reads like Sharpe doesn’t want any competition.”

My guess would be that the reason that he does not want them now is not because he does not want more competition for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020, but rather because for the last three presidential elections, the LP has run people who had been heavily associated with the Republican Party, and he wants the LP to break that cycle, for at least one election. If this is his reason, I agree with him.

If another former Republican does run for the nomination, I would hope that this person is at least a pretty solid libertarian. The last thing that the LP needs in 2020 is another Republican Lite presidential ticket.

Hesham El-Meligy shared Adam Bates’s post.
9 mins

Adam Bates
2 hrs · Arlington, VA
I’ve made many, many posts excoriating libertarians for being insufficiently pro-immigrant (or affirmatively anti-immigrant), for a litany of reasons. Well here’s another one:

ICE and CBP represent every aspect of government that is supposed to trigger your libertarianism. They are wholly unaccountable, they are aggressive and violent, they incessantly aggress against peaceful people, they leech billions of dollars out of our economy, both directly and indirectly.

Their entire existence is an affront to everything libertarians insist they care about (which is why the Libertarian Party platform used to call for their abolition *cough*).

If you can watch these people sabotaging life-saving supplies in the desert, tearing men and women away from their families, shooting teenagers in the back, and constantly harassing people to show their papers and not get a little offended and belligerent, then why are you even a libertarian? What government behavior does bother you if none of this does? Mail delivery? The endangered species list?

You’re going to celebrate a bunch of “patriots” for storming the freakin Forestry Service but not say a word when the government threatens a man with 5 years in federal prison for leaving food out for immigrants?

What is wrong with you? How much do you have to hate immigrants for it to cancel out every other principle you claim to hold?

Ugh.

“How am I crazy?”

Lo, if we could but count the ways.

“I support libertarian principles”

LOL. Sure you do.

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/04/winner-party-keeps-on-winning/

I don’t recall if I’ve ever donated to them. Most orgs get five or ten bucks out of me at some point, if nothing else.

dl: tear down the wall and abolish the pigs….is that simple enough?

Me: Yes. Good luck!

Alright,paulie, I’ll give you some solid debating points for throwing my analogy right back at me, reinterpreted.

I have a Master’s Degree in Political Debate from Internet University of Cyberia. That makes me a certified master debater 🙂

“I think that is relevant to this discussion, but not in the way that you think. It would be more accurate to analogize that the very elements of the LP’s foundation that you want to get rid of are exactly like that choppy sound, even if we were to agree that they make the LP less efficient as a purely political vehicle for winning elections…”

Alright,paulie, I’ll give you some solid debating points for throwing my analogy right back at me, reinterpreted.

“Gina, I asked you this before, but which Libertarian state party is it of which you are a member? ”

None of your business. Am I being detained?

“You seem to have a lot of opinions about what goes on in the LP, yet I’ve never heard of you.”

I don’t give a shit if you heard of me or not. Wait, I do, I would prefer creepy weirdos like you not know where I live. The vibe you give off to me is “stranger danger.” I think of you as a good candidate for the next Timothy McVeigh or Jack the Ripper.

“I’m thinking that “Gina” may be a fake name, ”

I’m thinking I don’t care whether you think it is fake or not. If something I said is hard to understand people are free to ask questions and I’m not interested in picking up any stalkers or engaging in ad hominem arguments.

“Lots of mysterious posters have popped up here with lots of concern/opinions about what happens in the LP over they years, yet when asked about who they are and in what state party they are a member, they give vague answers, or dodge the questions completely, and then they usually disappear, unless they pop up again under another fake name.”

So what? Does anyone besides you care? Maybe it makes your job as a government plant a little harder but tough shit.

And in case that was unclear maybe this will clear it up for you…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKVImK7DFFU

“Gina
January 23, 2018 at 17:39
And yesterday.”

Gina, I asked you this before, but which Libertarian state party is it of which you are a member? You seem to have a lot of opinions about what goes on in the LP, yet I’ve never heard of you.

I’m thinking that “Gina” may be a fake name, and may be “in drag” (so to speak, not that there is necessarily anything wrong with a person dressing that way so long as they are not initiating force or fraud).

Lots of mysterious posters have popped up here with lots of concern/opinions about what happens in the LP over they years, yet when asked about who they are and in what state party they are a member, they give vague answers, or dodge the questions completely, and then they usually disappear, unless they pop up again under another fake name.

AD,

Definitely “haters need not apply” is the only viable and reasonable stance.

At this point, there is another Harley analogy, especially in reference to the Libertarian Party.

“If I have to explain you won’t understand”.

Yet, hours and hours are spent explaining….

And yesterday.

I am told by Harley riders I know that the famous “choppy” sound that HD motorcycles make is the result of an engineering trade-off that causes the cylinders to fire at uneven intervals. It is less than efficient, but the sound is so associated with the brand image that changing it is unthinkable by the company.

I think that is relevant to this discussion, but not in the way that you think. It would be more accurate to analogize that the very elements of the LP’s foundation that you want to get rid of are exactly like that choppy sound, even if we were to agree that they make the LP less efficient as a purely political vehicle for winning elections – they’re so associated with the brand image of the LP that changing them is unthinkable by the party.

That may be a reasonable interpretation, RC, but I’m with TK: there are some people who provide nothing to the room when the consultin’ goes down, and I’m with paulie that, in the annals of organization behabior, this would be as clear a case of “addition by subtraction” as I have ever come across.

AD,

My reading of that is that LS is applying his management-consulting mindset to the problem. My sense is that it does not port to politics.

It’s pretty stupid, or disingenuous, to not realize that being welcoming to some people makes us less welcoming to others. Or that being welcoming to white nationalists and the alt right drives a hard wedge between us and a potentially receptive audience which is much, much larger than white nationalists and the alt right.

He also went on Ramsey’s show so the answer is definitely yes.

Robert Capozzi said: “My generous interpretation is that the Founders were unconscious or semi-conscious when they claimed they were seeking a world of liberty, and then put all sorts of strange, unworkable ideas in the Bylaws and SoP. The effect is a bait-and-switch operation.

Shrinks say that repressed memories fester in our consciousness, and manifest in behavioral and even physical dysfunction down the line. In order to address the dysfunction, it needs to be unearthed and viewed with clear eyes.”

Robert, you have been going on and on for years about the Libertarian Party allegedly “booby trapping” itself when it form back in the early 1970’s with its statement of principles, and that it is for this reason that the Libertarian Party has not gotten further ahead.

If you really believe this, instead of sitting around complaining about it for all of these years, why don’t you find some like minded people, and go form another political party?

“Maybe Mr. Sharpe just really believes in reaching out to everybody with the libertarian message.”

I believe in reaching out to them to.

“You bunch of lowlife white trash losers will get the same protections I afford to people who’s opinions are actually well thought out and rational. Now, kindly f*ck off. I don’t want your support.” Or something like that.

As an aside, does Mr. Sharpe know whats going down in Florida? Those statement in the Reason article is his response?

Anthony: “I think there is two possible explanations for the F of A mangling you are talking about:”

These are about the same reasons I was thinking. We should be very concerned with the second is true though.

Anthony Dlugos said: “2) Everyone and their mother knows Mr. Sharpe wants to the 2020 LP nomination, but tactically, I think his comments with regard to white nationalists is a way of demonstrating he can be friends to all factions within the party, in order to cobble together enough delegates to win the nomination.”

Maybe Mr. Sharpe just really believes in reaching out to everybody with the libertarian message.

“Leaving aside what anyone here thought of Governor Johnson’s ‘Bake The Cake’ position, his strategy makes perfect sense: there was no point in taking a position in the run-up to the convention that makes his subsequent general election campaign non-viable, or opens himself up to attack on ‘what about a no N**gers allowed sign,’ or some such thing later.”

When you run for political office, you need to be prepared to answer difficult questions, and as a libertarian, you may get asked questions where a libertarian answer is considered to be outside the realm of political correctness or commonly accepted norms (since libertarianism is outside the political norm). Ron Paul was asked some of these type of questions, and he did a much better job fielding them than Gary Johnson did. See how Ron Paul handled questions about the Civil War, and about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I posted the clip here several times before of Ron Paul being interviewed by black comedian/talk show host DL Hughley, as during that interview, the subject of the Civil War came up, and Ron Paul ended up winning over Hughley with his response to the question. Ron Paul didn’t come off sounding like an unprincipled patronizing dipshit like Gary Johnson did.

Random members of the public whom I have encountered who saw that Stossel debate were more impressed with the performances of Austin Petersen and John McAfee than they were with Gary Johnson.

Thomas Knapp said: “So I’d consider recruiting in that area to be very unlikely to produce a positive return on investment.”

The same could be said about anyone. Will Coley is trying to recruit Muslims into adopting libertarianism, and there is not much of a libertarian contingent in the Muslim world. Others are trying to recruit left wing socialists, like people who supported Bernie Sanders and/or Ralph Nader, into libertarianism.

Libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle and property rights. Libertarianism takes no stand on social lifestyle preferences, beyond do not infringe on the person or property of others. This leaves a lot of room for different lifestyle preferences, including lifestyle preferences that a lot of people don’t like.

I agree with Mr. Sharpe, spread the libertarian message to everyone and influence everyone to adopt the Non-Aggression Principle and a respect for property rights. Is it possible that you’ll have more success with some groups than others? Sure. Regardless of what group you are talking to I don’t expect everyone in that group to adopt libertarian principles, but at least some of them will, and it is beneficial for the overall cause of liberty to have as many people as possible adopt libertarian principles, including those who have lifestyle choices that are not popular with a lot of people.

Libertarianism is not about getting people to adopt your lifestyle preferences, it is about getting people to stop initiating force and fraud. If people stop initiating force and fraud, but they continue with a lifestyle choice of which you do not agree, that is better than them initiating force and fraud (or supporting political candidates and policies that initiate force and fraud).

. The problem with that with respect to “white nationalists” is that that particular stain never washes completely off. No matter how convincing your conversion, people are always going to wonder if you still believe that crap. It’s the political equivalent of being a convicted pedophile. Even if you really have changed, people are going to keep one eye on you, and question the judgment of the people who hang with you. So I’d consider recruiting in that area to be very unlikely to produce a positive return on investment.

True, and further, it produces a massively negative return, even if the investment is zero.

I hate defending those lowlife’s right to free speech, but I feel so strongly about that right, that I will do it. That being said, I don’t want them anywhere near my party, my family, or my friends.

Exactly. If the LP can’t take this position it will not be long before it is completely taken over by them. There are way too many historical precedents of how these infiltrators operate. Whenever they infect a host, it’s just like a virus.

My purpose in asking the questions about whether an LNC member or an LP state committee member should be removed from their position for using racial and/or ethnic and/or gay slurs, or for using foul language/cussing, was to see if party members believed that somebody should be removed for engaging in free speech that was impolite/nasty.

I don’t think that an LNC member or state committee member, or anyone else, should be removed for light and transient causes. It would be unhealthy for the party to create an atmosphere where everyone is afraid to speak their mind because anytime somebody says something that another person does not like, they could face the risk of removal.

Having said this, I think that there are certain instances where a person could say things that could be grounds for removal. I think that Wayne Allyn Root should have been removed for the LNC back in 2012 when he started openly campaigning for Mitt Romney, a candidate from another political party who was not even remotely inline with libertarian principles. I recall there being talk of removing Root from the LNC for doing this, but it did not happen. Fortunately, Root ended up resigning and quitting the party, after the calls for his removal from party members increased.

I don’t feel like looking it up now, but was there an actual LNC vote on whether or not to remove Wayne Root from his position on the LNC, or was there only talk of a vote, but it never made it to the stage where the LNC actually voted on it?

Supporting a candidate from outside the LP who is far outside of the libertarian quadrant on their issues stances and record, particularly when the LP has a candidate running against them (I don’t think much of Gary Johnson, but that is still no excuse to support Romney, and ironically, Root actually supported Johnson for the LP nomination), should be grounds for removing a person from a position in the LP.

Removing somebody from a position in the party due to issue stances gets into a stickier territory. There are some issues where libertarians don’t agree, and which have been hotly debated among libertarians for decades. Anarchy vs minarchy, abortion, immigration, Intellectual Property, pragmatism vs purity, etc… Should Libertarians throw a tantrum and call for removal if somebody who is on a different side of an argument than they are on an issue where libertarians have been arguing for years says something with which they disagree? I don’t think that this would be very healthy for the party or the movement. There ought to be some room for debate and discussion.

Having said this, how far outside of the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart does a person have to stray before there is just cause to remove said person? There is a line between disagreeing on an issue where even libertarians disagree, and an issue stance being outside the range of libertarianism.

I think that there was just cause to remove both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as being candidates for the party in last year’s election, as both of them outright campaigned against the LP’s platform on multiple planks, and both of them gushed over one of their opponents in the race, Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton. (weld practically endorsed Clinton) I could see a case for having kept Gary Johnson on the ticket, since removing him could have put ballot access at risk in states where the LP has to put the name of candidates on the petition, and where candidate substitution is not allowed (I think that at least some of these states do allow for candidate substitution for VP candidates). It was not long after the national convention before Bill Weld started making statements that were against the LP’s platform and libertarianism in general, so it is possible that Weld could have been removed from the ticket without putting ballot access at too much of a risk if there were any states that did not allow for candidate substitution for VP candidates.

If Weld had been removed from the ticket, I think that it would have been a big positive for the LP. The LP would have looked like a party that takes its principles seriously, instead of “The Party of Principle” statement just being an empty slogan. It would have also sent the message to Gary Johnson of shape up or ship out. If Weld had been removed and replaced by somebody who is actually a libertarian, like say Larry Sharpe or Will Coley, or by anyone else who could reasonably be considered to be an actual libertarian, I think that it would have pushed Johnson to at least sound more libertarian, and it would meant that a higher percentage of the public could have heard an actual libertarian message for the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Vice President instead of the anti-liberty crap that was spewed out by Bill Weld.

Anon-Tipper,

I’m pleased you brought up that Sharpe article in Reason, because that ending bothered me as much as it bothered you.

I preface this by saying I think Mr. Sharpe is quite possibly the single best messenger the Libertarian Party (as opposed to libertarianism) has ever had. His background, upbringing and past, his political wandering and then arrival in the LP, and the frequently poignant way he delivers his message is…I mean, he practically covers all the bases, and he does it with positivity. I don’t know if there is an ethnic or demographic group that Mr. Sharpe doesn’t appeal to. This is why Governor Weld said we need more people like Larry running for office.

That’s why what he says at the end of that interview is so perplexing. Its a campaign killer, IMHO, if he ever got traction and some opponent wanted to bring it up.

That’s to say nothing of what it says about the LP. I don’t want those lowlifes around me. Frankly, I’m not sure why Larry doesn’t understand that he would gain far more votes by saying, I hate defending those lowlife’s right to free speech, but I feel so strongly about that right, that I will do it. That being said, I don’t want them anywhere near my party, my family, or my friends.

Anthony: “The real question is how we prevent such people from wanting to be part of the party in the first place?”

Permanent and persistent alienation of the LvMI and anyone associated with them. Remove any references to the LvMI et al from the party’s website, remove them from any flyers, etc. bar them from events. (Florida LP just had DiLorenzo at their meeting, he is (or as least was) part of the League of the South who are now outright nazis).

Take strong positions on issues that piss them off, mainly immigration and states rights (in a similar line that Sarwark did on that interview with the Lions of Liberty that pissed off the Paulbots).

Just straight up start calling Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Rockwell et al. neoconfederates, make informational guides as to the differences between libertarians and neoconfederates.

“The real solution is making the dipsh*ts and self-aggrandizers stay away from the get-go.”

The best way of doing that is having a strong party message. Not necessarily a radical message, although that’s my personal preference, but a clarity of purpose rather than the last 10 years of “who do we pretend to be this week to see if we can peel a few of the fringers off the big parties?”

“why should current members abide by an ‘Accord’ made in a smoke-filled room in the 70s?”

They don’t have to. They choose to. If they want to stop, all they have to do is get 7/8ths of the delegates to a national convention to undo the effect of the accord as expressed in the statement of principles.

I’ll answer your question: said person should be removed. Libertarian principles are irrelevant in the matter. All those principles indicate is that such a person should not be prosecuted by the state for what they say. The Libertarian Party can remove such a person just for being a dipsh*t.

Agreed. Either remove and renounce any such people, or let them have what’s left of the party, as there should never be any co-operation with them on anything.

Jack news recently published articles mocking Julian Assange’s hygiene and praising Trump for the most successful presidential first year since Ronald Reagan. If I actually concurred with that sentiment, you would have a hard time convincing me why I shouldn’t vote republican. Great Job!

Yech. What a disgrace. I think it may be time for me to completely dissociate myself from any party or movement that has anything but utter contempt for reich wingers, racists, ethno-nationalists, right wing authoritarians, the Alt Right, white supremacists, and Drumpf (but I repeat myself). They are the enemy, and if someone is deluded into thinking otherwise they are not my ally, period.

Anthony, thanks for answering the question.

I look forward to reading responses from other posters regarding this issue.

“Unless I missed it, it looks like people here have still not addressed my hypothetical question above in regard to what is a Libertarian Party committee member used racial or ethic or gay slurs, but the context where they used the slurs did not violate any libertarian principles. I also asked what if a Libertarian Party committee member used lots of cuss words.”

I’ll answer your question: said person should be removed. Libertarian principles are irrelevant in the matter. All those principles indicate is that such a person should not be prosecuted by the state for what they say. The Libertarian Party can remove such a person just for being a dipsh*t.

“It is my contention that sans a viable LP classic anarchist contingent, the so-called minarchist body will simply slide into a trailing indicator of the conservative gutter.”

Contradicted by the Johnson-Weld nomination.

“Snarky comments are not very effective either IF cohesiveness is the desired direction…there is a simple solution, but, ego’s will have to be left at home.”

There’s your problem. Cohesiveness is not important to many party members. That smacks of coercion, and they won’t be coerced! No distinction is made between the private entity of the Libertarian Party, where ego has to be set aside, and the public sphere, where the flowering of your ego should be allowed as long as you don’t hurt anyone and don’t take their stuff. Hence, I’ll take my clothes off on live t.v., because demonstrating freedom is more important than demonstrating competence.

“It makes absolutely NO sense to be so intentionally divisive if ‘gains’ in the electorate is what is sought.”

There are party members who call “gains in the electorate” secondary, or explicitly suggest its counter to the party mission.

Andy: So are people here going to answer these questions, or are they going to dodge them like intellectual cowards?

Me: Hiding in, or behind a “group” is cowardice, period.

Should read, “what if a Libertarian Party committee member….” above.

Guys, there are always exceptions to the rule. That’s why “rules” are often as not ineffective and should not be relied on as the norm or used as anything other than circumstantial/anecdotal evidence.

Snarky comments are not very effective either IF cohesiveness is the desired direction. Of course if it isn’t then all the arguing in the world, no matter who the smartest man in the room is, there will be very little “effective” traction gained….. there is a simple solution, but, ego’s will have to be left at home.

You guys are ALL very intelligent, make valid points, well read, etc. It makes absolutely NO sense to be so intentionally divisive if ‘gains’ in the electorate is what is sought. This is a ‘public’ forum. It may not have but a few visitors, but, every one counts, or no one counts…. (that’s a quote from a Michael Connelly character, Harry Bosch). I read as well. But, I stay away from political absolutist, regardless of their pedigree, who demand the “group” must adhere.

Yes, I know, paulie has decided I don’t count, but, that’s his loss, and a contribution to the problem I see as an outsider, which I will stay because you’re no different as a “group” than any other political Party- ego driven.

Group: Collective. Being a ‘part’ of, or member of means, by definition, you MUST defer to another/others desires wants and wishes which is 180deg out from exercising your Individual agenda in YOUR pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness. IF you ‘choose’ to be a part of, or a member of, that is the price you pay. Why would anyone do that? To further a “cause”? Really? What cause is that? Our “group” is no different from any other “group” but we have a different label?! We STILL demand others do as we say or you don’t count. Wow. I can’t wait to join that group.

IF, on the other hand, you did as this outsider suggested above there would be no need for a group with off-shoot, divisive groups or ego’s deciding “an” agenda. Liberty, especially personal, is enticing. Truth is constant and will manifest itself in ways unimaginable. Bullshit rhetoric meant to be divisive will manifest divisive Bullshit. We’re living the result. The Concrete evidence. It’s not anecdotal or circumstantial. You want to change the world, or the political landscape? Be the change you want to make. Doing the same thing as other groups makes you no different,you just wear a different label.

dL: You, on the other hand, have been quacking like an Imperial Kludd from the local HoppeBot klavern…

me: I’m sorry you feel this way. I think you are skipping words in the sentences I write, fabricating narratives in your head. Not sure, but it could be a case of reaction formation.

tk: It’s interesting that you would characterize a mayor who eliminated a government organization and replaced it with volunteers as some kind of moderate.

me: To me, that’s moderate. Most if not all of Long Island — not exactly a hotbed of nonarchists — has volunteer fire departments. Always did. It’s a fairly common thing in some areas. One source says 69% of firefighters are volunteers in the US.

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.

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.”

We could add ME and VT to the list.

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

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.

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.

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

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….

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.

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.

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.

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?

“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.

“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?

“…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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It’s not that I believe governments are gangs.

It’s that I notice governments are gangs.

Whether or not the world could work without gangs is a different question entirely.

Some people also disagree with me that gravity works, too.

Or at least they did until they tested that proposition from 40 stories up.

Presumably those who haven’t done so are less than certain concerning their opinion on the matter.

tk,

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! 😉

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.

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?

—–
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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

LOL, life is too short to read all that drivel. I did find of which you speak.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.