Liveblog: Oklahoma (and Wyoming?) LP convention 2018

Hi, this is Paulie reporting live from the 2018 Oklahoma Libertarian Party Convention in Seminole, Oklahoma. The meeting just started. Current chair Tina Kelly introduced LNC region 6 rep David Demarest, who introduced Joshua Smith, candidate for LNC chair, who is chairing the meeting. There are 27 delegates at this time and a number of observers including LNC Region 1 Rep Caryn Ann Harlos and region 7 rep Whitney Bilyeu, and covering the convention along with myself is David Van Risseghem of SoonerPolitics.Org, Ed Maddox of Texas who gave me a ride up here and possibly some others. I also saw Adam Kokesh’s bus in the parking lot but have not seen Kokesh himself yet. First order of business was a motion to replace the state party bylaws. Immediately after that the convention went on break. The rest of the agenda is at the first link above and the rest of my coverage will be in the comments of this article. Also happening this weekend is the Wyoming LP convention; if anyone is present at that one and wants to give us updates from that please do so in the comments as well.

262 thoughts on “Liveblog: Oklahoma (and Wyoming?) LP convention 2018

  1. paulie Post author

    New bylaws adopted, take effect immediately. I don’t have a link to the new bylaws. If anyone has one please post it.

  2. paulie Post author

    Now discussing possible platform proposals. My understanding is OKLP has not had a state platform up to now.

  3. paulie Post author

    Short, radical and “flippant” platform proposal rejected. Longer platform based on national platform with abortion and international issues removed now being discussed.

  4. paulie Post author

    Back from break, state exec com election is next. Going on another 15 minute break to sign up candidates for exec com and delegates.

  5. paulie Post author

    Meeting now back in order for officer elections. Rules suspended to give D. Frank Robinson 5 minutes to discuss his ballot access lawsuit.

  6. paulie Post author

    Lawsuit is in federal district court. Alleges that government-printed ballots are a violation of the constitution.

  7. paulie Post author

    Not clear whether it has actually been filed yet. I thought at first he said it was but later it sounded like he said he needs to be turned down by SOS first before he can file.

  8. paulie Post author

    Erin is chair of North Central OK LP and LNC regional alternate. Elected by voice vote unanimously over NOTA.

  9. paulie Post author

    VC candidates addressing the body starting with James Harrison. Christina Wright is currently secretary.

  10. paulie Post author

    Caryn Ann Harlos addressing body while VC ballots are counted. Harlos is trying to recruit national party dues paying members.

  11. paulie Post author

    5 min recess to allow more people to sign up as delegates after Kokesh and Erin Adams pitch becoming a delegate.

  12. paulie Post author

    Short day trip, I’m staying 174 miles away. I’ll also try to cover LA next weekend TX the weekend after that and then LNC.

  13. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Sounds like a lot of woman hating (or self-hating) libertarians who refuse to recognize the right of half the human race to control their own body. I guess all those tornados and fracking earthquakes have fried oakies brains…

  14. paulie Post author

    Private prisons resolution amended, then passed. Motion to censure Joe Maldonado, one of the candidates seeking the gubernatorial nomination in the primary, passes. There will be a debate between candidates tonight but the primary picks the candidate.

  15. paulie Post author

    Sounds like a lot of woman hating (or self-hating) libertarians

    The outgoing chair and secretary are female. The incoming chair and vice chair are female. The incoming secretary is, I think, trans.

  16. paulie Post author

    Kokesh reports he has raised 90k of 123k needed to get 205,000 copies of his book into every residential mailbox in New Orleans.

  17. paulie Post author

    Short pitches: Christina Williams for volunteers, Erin Adams for state party members, Whitney Bilyeu for LNC Region 7.

  18. Andy

    This feminist bullshit that Carol has bought into was concocted by Marxists to destroy the family and empower the state. Less reliance on family leads to more people relying on the state. Do some research on the suobject.

    Abortion has actually been used to advance the Marxist agenda. It has nothing to do with liberty.

  19. paulie Post author

    Doesn’t look like Gov debate will start on time. It’s 5 to 7 on the schedule but shows no signs of starting imminently.

  20. paulie Post author

    concocted by Marxists to destroy the family

    Wow, Andy is sounding more and more like an extreme right wing nut these days.

  21. paulie Post author

    3 Candidates participating

    Joseph “Joe Exotic” Maldonado
    Rex Lawhorn
    Chris Powell

    3 minute intro each

  22. paulie Post author

    What can they do as governor to make us more free. Similar answers from all: veto legislation, educate public, pardon people convicted of victimless crimes.

  23. paulie Post author

    Decriminalization of all drugs?

    Maldonado: marijuana yes, hard drugs no.

    Powell: Prohibition incentivizes ever harder drugs.

    Lawhorn: Start with marijuana, beginning with medical and then recreational. Other drugs later.

  24. paulie Post author

    Lawhorn: gun restrictions, gun free zones make people less safe

    Powell: need to point out that mass shooting events are relatively rare

    Maldonado: News brainwashes people. Need to take care of mental health problems.

  25. paulie Post author

    Civil asset forfeiture question

    Powell: use anecdotal evidence to persuade public

    Maldonado: bully pulpit; educate sheriffs and then politicians

    Lawhorn: consolidate departments, use local law enforcement more than higher levels, bully pulpit/educate sheriffs, kick out feds

  26. paulie Post author

    End lifetime pensions for politicians?

    Maldonado: yes, absolutely

    Powell: Only if they serve for 20 years or more, but prevent that with term limits

    Lawhorn: Yes, but more nuanced answer

  27. paulie Post author

    Question about energy subsidies and taxes

    Lawhorn, Powell against all of that

    Maldonado supports gross production tax

  28. paulie Post author

    Education question

    Powell: needs more local control, fears voucher program would extend strings to turn private schools into de facto public schools

    Lawhorn: reduce bureaucracy by making it more local. vouchers just extend strings of control from government

    Maldonado: mired in paperwork and bureaucracy – get politicians out

  29. paulie Post author

    Health care question

    Maldonado – need to be able to buy across state lines, get federal government out of it

    Powell: A lot of it is at the federal level so limited things can be done. Could allow nurse practitioners to operate without doctor supervision, direct primary care, getting out of insurance racket

    Lawhorn: Free market solutions, too much overhead and administration, audit Medicare/Medicaid

  30. paulie Post author

    Transportation question

    Lawhorn: user fees, turnpikes good, OTA should not get government funding – make it private, all taxes should go to general fund.

    Powell: fuel tax is a user fee, turnpikes should be privatized, otherwise consider making them free roads, … missed part of answer … do not apply to general fund, use it for the roads

    Maldonado: get rid of turnpike fee, gas tax should go to general fund, supports county vehicle inspection

  31. Andy

    Why is Joe Maldonado also known as “Joe Exotic”? Is he an exotic dancer or what?

  32. Fred Stein

    good reporting, very entertaining. I am pro choice and pro self defense. My prediction is that this counrty is moving in the direction of outlawing abortion and guns.

  33. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Paulie: So you are saying they put NOTHING about “non-interventionism” and related issues in their platform???

    Abortion issue is bad enough. That sounds like right wingers taking over state party. I know a lot of libertarians would be drive out by that. That’s why I’ve kept Pro-Choice Libertarians and Libertarians for Peace going, at least as websites and FB pages, for so long.

  34. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Andy March 31, 2018 at 15:19 wrote this incredibly ignorant crap: “This feminist bullshit that Carol has bought into was concocted by Marxists to destroy the family and empower the state. Less reliance on family leads to more people relying on the state. Do some research on the suobject. Abortion has actually been used to advance the Marxist agenda. It has nothing to do with liberty.”

    Andy obviously has NEVER had sex. Or else he’s the father of 8 kids. Otherwise UNWANTED PREGNANCY is the biggest issue of sex, besides, “can I get me some?”

    Is he a Catholic Priest or maybe gay? Geez.

  35. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    FYI, asking if Andy is gay only refers to fact some gay men do NOT take abortion rights seriously because they never had and never intend to have sex with women. Just like some straight guys hate abortion because they want to punish women who won’t have sex with THEM for having sex with anyone else.

    It’s an individual thing, not a “group accusation thing”. Just to be clear since some people don’t understand the difference.

    Other gay men – and bisexual men – of course are very libertarian on the issue. They want the govt out of the issue, just like they want it out of THEIR bedrooms.

  36. paulie Post author

    So you are saying they put NOTHING about “non-interventionism” and related issues in their platform???

    Apparently they believe that non-federal candidates need a separate state platform that does not deal with issues that only fall in the purview of federal candidates if elected. However, they have not renounced the national platform, so that’s still the default for federal candidates, and for that matter the national abortion plank is still the default on that issue since the state platform doesn’t have a contradicting plank, just none at all. I honestly don’t know what this move accomplished.

  37. DJ

    What does anyone’s sexual preference have to do with anything other than attacking a messenger?

  38. Andy

    I am not gay, and I fail to see how someone being gay or not being gay has anything to do with anything.

    I used to be on the pro-abortion side, until I realized that abortion violates the NAP, which was back in the mid 2000’s.

    Even so, I recognize that the liberty movement is very divided on the issue, so I do not consider it to be a high priority issue, as in I am more concerned with ending the Fed, ending the income tax, gun rights, foreign policy, ending the drug war, etc…

    Feminism is a toxic ideology that was created by Marxists to tear down families and Western Civilization so they could cram through the commie agenda.

    The CIA actually funded Ms Magazine.

    Feminism produces broken homes, single moms, and childless crazy cat ladies.

  39. Andy

    Carol’s comments are really stupid. Millions of people oppose abortion. Polls indicate that around half the population opposes abortion. I know plenty of people who have kids that oppose abortion (some are in the LP).

    How many kids do you have, Carol? Or did you abort them?

  40. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    I recently read this annoying article and thus had subject of gays and abortion swirling around irrationally in the back of my mind. https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-does-spain-love-gay-marriage-but-hate-abortion

    Abortion is ONLY an issue because the GOP stole it from Catholics. Before that they didn’t real care. They see it as a moralizing wedge issue for organizing and controlling people who are more emotion than rationality. See several articles on that topic here. http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/links/#GOPmotivations

    Andy and a lot of people are just brainwashed.

  41. dL

    Abortion is ONLY an issue because the GOP stole it from Catholics.

    Yes, historically, the pro-life position among protestant evangelicals wasn’t a priority. It was the Catholics..and the proggies. It wasn’t until the late 1970s with the organization of the political Christian Right under the propaganda efforts of people like Francis Schaeffer, Paul Weyrich, Pat Roberston and Jerry Falwell that abortion became a hot button issue with conservative protestants(indeed, the Southern Baptist Convention originally endorsed Roe v Wade). And this about face was motivated by political reasons, not moral ones.

    At best, the pro-life position can compel the female to give birth, but it can’t compel parenthood. So, the female, if she was forced to give birth against her will, should be able to get up and walk right out of the hospital, leaving the infant behind. The care of the infant would then revert to the responsibility of the prohibitionist State.

    Any argument that extends the pro-life position to compulsory parenthood is 100% sexual freedom social control. Catholic theologians will argue surgical abortion is evil because the intent of the female is termination of life. But in vitro fertilization is fine and dandy because the intent is “creation of life.” So that embryonic mass murder spectre turns out not to be that big of a deal long as you have the correct catholic outlook on marriage and family. lol.

  42. Andy

    Carol Moore said: “Abortion is ONLY an issue because the GOP stole it from Catholics. Before that they didn’t real care. They see it as a moralizing wedge issue for organizing and controlling people who are more emotion than rationality. See several articles on that topic here. http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/links/#GOPmotivations

    Andy and a lot of people are just brainwashed.”

    I do not take part in religion, and I don’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican Party. The Republican Party is part of what is wrong with this country.

    I used to be pro-abortion. I even thought that abortion was a good way to reduce the number of people on welfare.

    It was actually pro-life libertarians, particularly ones who made anarchist arguments against abortion, that got me to see abortion as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Nobody brainwashed me (it is not like I ever even spent that much time hanging around with anyone talking about the subject). I was never a Republican, and I dropped out of religion many years ago, before I even joined the LP in 1996. I was a pro-abortion until the the mid 2000’s.

    The bottom line is does abortion violate the Non-Aggression Principle? Is a fetus a life? If it is, then killing a fetus is an act of aggression.

    All of the research that I have done indicates that a fetus is a life. Murdering the innocent is an act of aggression, as in it is a violation of the NAP.

    The only justification that I could see for abortion is in the case of rape, since the pregnancy began via the initiation of force.

    The assertion that I was “brainwashed” is absurd, being that I’m non-religious (I never really liked going to church when I did go, which was many years ago), and being that I was never a Republican, nor have I ever belonged to any political party besides the Libertarian Party.

    I’m sure Carol will go around and misrepresent my position no matter what I say or do, but once again, I’m a pragmatist, in that I recognize that this is one of the most divisive issues in the liberty movement, as well as in general, so although I think that support for abortion (in most cases) is the wrong position, I do not think that it is practical to put much, or any, effort into fighting it, being that we are presently faced with what I consider to be more pressing threats to freedom.

    I actually do not even really care that much where anyone stands on abortion, due to the more immediate threats we are facing, and due to the fact that I don’t think that abortion is a problem that can be solved anytime soon, and without changing more people’s hearts and minds on the issue, and freeing up the economic system, both of which would likely reduce the demand for abortion.

    I think that anyone who obsesses over abortion, and waves it around like killing babies is some kind of great freedom (what about the freedom of the dead baby?), has some seriously screwed up priorities, and I also think that they may very weak intellectual arguments.

    Abortion and feminism has actually been destructive to the society in which we live.

  43. Andy

    I don’t give a shit about any religion. The issue is, is aborting a fetus a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle?

    I don’t give a rat’s ass what any religion says about anything.

  44. DJ

    I recently read this annoying article and thus had subject of gays and abortion swirling around irrationally in the back of my mind. https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-does-spain-love-gay-marriage-but-hate-abortion

    Me: From the linked article: “Womens’ rights over their bodies aren’t usually given for free by the government,” says Prata. “They usually have to fight.”

    Somebody obviously doesn’t understand rights. LOL- idiots. It does help explain a lot about being dumbed down though. It seems to be a world wide phenomenon.

  45. Anonymous Rational Person

    >All of the research that I have done indicates that a fetus is a life. Murdering the innocent is an act of aggression, as in it is a violation of the NAP.

    So is using germicidal soap, alcohol to disinfect, eating meat, harvesting plants, swatting flies, chlorinating water, or stomping on a bug. Humans kill all sorts of life every day.

    Andy needs to rethink his position, or at least restate it for HUMAN life.

    Carol Moore needs to quit overdosing on the Jolt-infested hyperfeminist Kool-Aid before she busts a blood vessel and makes a mess of the Internet and her computer.

    In the meantime, the pressure to get rid of that anti-libertarian nut case in Vohra needs to continue to increase…

  46. Aiden

    “The issue is, is aborting a fetus a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle?”

    And the answer is no, because the non-aggression principle only applies to sentient beings capable of moral reasoning. Science shows that a fetus does NOT under any circumstances have a functioning brain nor fully functioning organs until about the 24th week of development; thus they’re not sentient.

  47. dL

    Science shows that a fetus does NOT under any circumstances have a functioning brain nor fully functioning organs until about the 24th week of development; thus they’re not sentient.

    That may or may not be, but I would point out the right to self-defense is not predicated on the aggressor being non-sentient(i.e., a non-person).

  48. Andy

    Idiotic comment from Anonymous (Ir)Rational Person. Germs, bugs, non-human animals, etc…, are not people.

  49. Just Some Random Guy

    Catholic theologians will argue surgical abortion is evil because the intent of the female is termination of life. But in vitro fertilization is fine and dandy because the intent is “creation of life.” So that embryonic mass murder spectre turns out not to be that big of a deal long as you have the correct catholic outlook on marriage and family. lol.

    What Catholic theologian says in vitro fertilization is “fine and dandy”? The Catholic Church OPPOSES in vitro fertilization.

  50. Pro-Choice Libertarians

    Aiden April 2, 2018 at 17:50: wrote: And the answer is no, because the non-aggression principle only applies to sentient beings capable of moral reasoning. Science shows that a fetus does NOT under any circumstances have a functioning brain nor fully functioning organs until about the 24th week of development; thus they’re not sentient.

    It’s more than that. For example see https://www.facebook.com/notes/association-of-libertarian-feminists/is-the-fetus-a-person/10155534776417737/

  51. Andy

    Here is what Russian born Canadian anarcho-capitalist libertarian, Julia Tourianski, has to say about abortion.

    Why You’re Wrong About Abortion

  52. Libertydave

    Andy, Here is Why You’re Wrong About Abortion.

    Abortion is not murder. It is self-defense.

    In the USA it is more dangerous to become a mother than it is to become a cop. Per capita more women die from complications from pregnancy and child birth than cops die while being a cop.

    My hat is off to all the women who choose to accept this danger to their lives to bring another person into the world, but in no way should any women be forced to accept this danger to her life against her will.

  53. Andy

    “Libertydave
    April 4, 2018 at 12:47
    Andy, Here is Why You’re Wrong About Abortion.

    Abortion is not murder. It is self-defense.

    In the USA it is more dangerous to become a mother than it is to become a cop. Per capita more women die from complications from pregnancy and child birth than cops die while being a cop.”

    Oh that is a complete load of crap. Giving birth to children is what has allowed for the continuation of civilization. Ron Paul is a medical doctor who delivered babies for many years, and he said that cases where a mother’s life are threatened are extremely rare, and that out of the thousands of babies that he delivered he never encountered one case where an abortion was necessary. Giving birth is a completely natural biological function.

  54. Andy

    Here is another negative consequence of radical feminism and abortion. A low birthrate in European and European based countries (like the USA and Canada). This is used as an excuse to flood these countries with people from the third world, whose population has exploded, and once they enter European society, they squeeze out a bunch of kids at a much higher rate than Europeans, and they do this while taking advantage of government welfare programs, ironically set up and paid for by Europeans.

    This is called demographic population replacement, and it is all a part of the New World Order agenda. This is meant to destroy these countries by importing large numbers of people with hostile ideologies. It is a divide and conquer strategy.

    Muslim Demographics

  55. Libertydave

    Andy,

    While giving birth is a completely natural biological function, it is not a safe biological function. Why do you think most women go to a hospital to give birth? Even in the USA today per capita more women die from complications from pregnancy and child birth than cops die while being a cop. That includes cops that die from natural causes or accidents. If you don’t want to believe me then look it up for yourself.

    No woman should be force to go through this natural process that doesn’t want to period.

  56. Andy

    I had the pleasure of meeting the courageous and beautiful Canadian independent journalist, Lauren Southern, at the recent Anarchapulco event, held in Acapulco, Mexico. I was going to conduct an interview with Lauren, but unfortunately it did not end up coming together. Oh well, maybe some other time.

    Anyway, check out what Lauren has to say about the feminist movement.

    (Note that this video is from 2015, and at the time Lauren worked for an outfit called Rebel Media, but she has since gone completely independent, as in she works for herself now.)

    Lauren Southern: Why I am not a feminist

  57. Andy

    Here’s more from Miss Lauren Southern on what she thinks of the feminist movement.

    Perhaps we could invited Lauren (who was at one time a candidate for political office for the Libertarian Party of Canada) to the Libertarian National Convention, which is going to be held in New Orleans later this year, and set up a debate between her and somebody in the LP who thinks that radical feminism is a good idea. The debate could be video recorded and posted online.

    Lauren Southern: Feminism in one word – Thorium Video

  58. Fred

    Wow, these ant-muslims thoughts are from a Libertarian? Please call yourself a Conservative..European imperialism throughout history was no picnic. The chickens have come home to …………………

  59. dL

    What Catholic theologian says in vitro fertilization is “fine and dandy”? The Catholic Church OPPOSES in vitro fertilization.

    John Paul I’s statement on the first IVF baby, circa 1978:

    “From every side the press is sending its congratulations to the English couple and best wishes to their baby girl. In imitation of God, who desires and loves human life, I too offer my best wishes to the baby girl. As for her parents, I do not have any right to condemn them; subjectively, if they have acted with the right intention and in good faith, they may even obtain great merit before God for what they have decided on and asked the doctors to carry out .”

    Sure the Catholic Church teaching opposes IVF, but too often I read stuff like this:

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/02/20701/

    Embryos that spontaneously abort before women even know they are pregnant are completely irrelevant for the abortion debate, since abortion cannot be chosen until pregnancy is known. Likewise, the fact that only 23.5 percent of implanted IVF embryos result in normal live births is irrelevant for the abortion debate. Women who go to the trouble and expense of implanting IVF embryos are women who want to be pregnant. Might some of these women change their minds mid-pregnancy? Perhaps, but such abortions are possible only if the embryos do not spontaneously miscarry. If Chemerinsky and Goodwin are correct that 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies spontaneously terminate, that leaves 80 to 90 percent of known pregnancies continuing to live birth. In other words, there is an excellent chance that a known pregnancy will result in a newborn unless an abortion takes place.

    Here, the theologian( Christopher Kaczor) is narrowing the specter of mass embryocide to only surgical abortion with known intent. However, if you actually think an embryo is “an actual human being with potential,” then it is hypocritical and entirely too convenient to whitewash away a significant majority of the deaths.

  60. Andy

    LibertyDave said: “No woman should be force to go through this natural process that doesn’t want to period.”

    What about the young women who are murdered while in the womb, or do rights only count for some people and not for others?

    Unless a woman gets raped (where I think one could make a more legitimate case for abortion, since the pregnancy did not happen based on voluntary action), they know what they are doing.

    Another thing to look at is the psychological effects of having an abortion. Some women go on to battle depression/regret for years afterwards.

  61. paulie Post author

    Here’s more from Miss Lauren Southern on what she thinks of the feminist movement.

    Perhaps we could invited Lauren (who was at one time a candidate for political office for the Libertarian Party of Canada) to the Libertarian National Convention, which is going to be held in New Orleans later this year,

    There are enough alt reich assholes who either disingenuously call themselves libertarians or who a lot of people mistakenly think are libertarians or both already coming to that convention, most of them as delegates as part of an organized effort to take over and effectively destroy the Libertarian Party. We don’t need to invite more of these from other countries. It would be better if we could deport the ones we already have to their ancestral “blood and soil” homelands. This ain’t Europe so if you have “white pride” take your ass over there or better yet just drown halfway there.

  62. Don Wills

    paulie seems to be fretting about “alt reich assholes” (a clever play on words) taking over the LP.

    From my point of view, It would be a complete waste of time and money for any person or group to “take over … the LP” thereby “destroying the Libertarian Party”.

    Q. What would such attackers get if they take control of the LP?
    A. A brand name and apparatus associated with losers and anarchists that has ballot access with a mean shelf life of about one and a half election cycles. BFD. Not!

    My guess is that paulie’s fears are simply fear mongering to retain his agenda in the LP platform – and that there really isn’t any person or group that actually cares, let alone has the money and bodies, to take over the LP at a convention.

  63. Andy

    The only people “taking over” the LP have been the Deep State plants who are responsible for the last three LP presidential tickets (Bill “CFR” Weld is the most clear example of what is wrong with the LP), and who have also helped put the LP in the weak state that it is in today (less elected Libertarians, dues paying membership down, etc…).

    Hopefully some positive change will happen at the 2018 National Convention, but this remains to be seen.

  64. paulie Post author

    Q. What would such attackers get if they take control of the LP?
    A: More than they have now. Ballot access that is worth millions, the third largest party in the US, media access they wouldn’t otherwise get, etc., etc.

    Also, there is plenty of documentation that this takeover bid is going on. It’s not speculation. Much of it has been posted in past threads here, and no, I don’t feel like digging it up.

    My guess is that paulie’s fears are simply fear mongering

    Nope.

  65. Don Wills

    Nope. I’m not allying with anybody. Although I’m not quite as strident, my politics are most similar to Andy’s of all the posters here. My big difference with Andy, a staunch LP supporter, is that I ran away from the LP as fast as I could after 2010 because I am absolutely sure it is not only a waste of time, energy and money, but that the LP is actually counter-productive to the effort to try to save our country from a very bleak collectivist future.

    It’s very simple. Libertarians believe they can reason with tyrants, welfare queens and religious zealots and guide them to the light of liberty, and that all that is necessary is even better outreach and communication (ie. propaganda). But that’s just a fantasy. In a sense, LPers are like children who don’t know the ugly truth of war, pestilence, tyranny and evil. Young and old alike, who discover the truth of the power elite that run the USA, look to the LP for hope and a path to liberty. Almost all quickly become disillusioned with the LP, recognizing that it is nothing more than a facade that isn’t going to accomplish anything in its second half century of existence either. I’ve watched that same story of the revolving door of LPers for the last three decades. The definition of insanity truly applies to those few who stay in the LP for more than a decade or so.

    The unfortunate reality is that the idea of self-government, created by the Athenians and adopted by the founding fathers, is in it’s dying days in our land. It’s very, very sad.

  66. paulie Post author

    Nope. I’m not allying with anybody.

    That was addressed at Andy. He is allied with the alt reich conspirators who are trying to take over and destroy the LP. He is actively participating in this plot, which is pushing Joshua Smith for Chair and includes people like Ryan Ramsey and Michael Heisse.

  67. paulie Post author

    No, not primarily. The biggest formal policy issue is immigration, and the biggest underlying issue is racist nationalism. However, patriarchy is also tied in, so abortion and homophobia/transphobia are also issues.

  68. Andy

    I am not really allied with anyone. Who are these alt-right conspirators of whom I am supposedly allying?

    There really aren’t even that many people in the LP who I talk to on a regular basis.

    I did communicate with Adam Kokesh recently. I am the one who gave him the idea to add a World’s Smallest Political Quiz and a something about Jury Nullification in with his up coming New Orleans Book Bomb, where he is mailing every residence address in New Orleans a copy of his book shortly before the LP National Convention. He asked me to write up something about Jury Nullification, but I was too busy to do it quickly enough, so I referred him to Jake Witmer, and he is using something Jake wrote on Jury Nullification, which Jake had had printed on thousands of cards (printed at his own expense), which he handed out to people while gathering petition signatures.

    I am glad to see that Adam recognizes a good idea when he hears it, and that he takes action on it.

    So thousands of people in New Orleans are going to hear about Jury Nullification because of my suggestion.

  69. Andy

    Yes, immigration is a big issue, and I am sick of all of the leftists and cosmotarian Beltway ass kissers misrepresenting libertarianism by claiming that “open borders” has anything to do with libertarianism (it does not, it is in fact 100% at odds with property rights), and that mass welfare statist migration of people with hostile ideologies is somehow leading to more freedom, when it is actually a globalist New World Order plot to destroy freedom.

    This should be self apparent to anyone who takes libertarianism to its logical conclusion, since a private property society would not have open borders, it would have private property borders, and freedom of association, which means the freedom to disassociate, for any reason. Anyone who disagrees is not a true libertarian.

    This is not some new revalation for me. I have been saying this for many years. Well before IPR came around.

  70. Andy

    Here is a challenge for everyone who thinks that the current mass migration into Europe from third world countries is a good thing. Explain how the average German, Swede, Frenchman, Dutchman, Englishman, etc…, is benefiting from this, especially the huge increase in crime that the migrants have created, and the fact that super-majorities of these migrants are on public welfare, and considering that these migrants have a very high unemployment rate.

  71. DJ

    Don Willis- well stated.

    Andy- whether you agree or not migration is a natural phenomenon- it’s also an economic one. You can’t stop the former only restrict the latter. The Libertarian, or libertarian belief in property rights is a fantasy that can’t happen, due to both previous points.
    Comparing other countries to the US is not comparing apples to apples. They are not the US, they don’t have the same philosophy about life, nor the same laws. Crime occurs here by “legal” residents at a lot higher rate than that of “illegal” migrants. Welfare is misunderstood term because the gov’t intentionally misrepresents the Constitution- legal and illegal take advantage of that and being “legal” has no bearing on it and doesn’t make it more right.
    The sanctimonious attitude applied by those against it comes across as racist and nationalist-
    I don’t get how you can be a believer in all the other gov’t conspiracies (many of which I agree with) and not see where the problems lie- it’s not those migrating, it’s the intentional misinterpretation used by those in gov’t who don’t subscribe to doing their job as outlined (enumerated powers) that is allowed because of the piss poor gov’t mandated education founded on lies and opinions vs Truth- the seeds were sown a long time ago, the fruit consumed, we’re living the evidence- a morally corrupt, pretend omnipotent body of legislators (for generations) who look out only for themselves disregarding the rights of others (unless it suits a particular misinterpretation)- are you personally anti-paulie (alt-reich) beliefs? Yeah, he calls anyone alt-reich- who has the slightest bit of disagreement with his subjective analysis- LOL. He doesn’t like me either. Of course you’ve been here longer than me so he’s had more time with you- maybe he knows more- then again maybe he doesn’t recognize subjective vs objective, and, if he does, doesn’t care. I’ll go with the latter.

  72. Libertydave

    Andy,

    In your hatred and intolerance you draw the wrong logical conclusion to a libertarian future. Closed borders don’t refer to private property borders but national borders.

    With private property borders the property owners can say who enters their property but they don’t get to say who can use public roads to go around their property. And yes in a libertarian future there will still be public roads. They are written into the contracts you sign when you buy property, it’s called easement.

    National borders are imaginary lines on a map that a gang of people claim control over. Andy, you are the one who is advocating taking away the freedom to associate by calling for closed borders. By closing the national border you are denying my right to associate with the people on the other side of the national border.

    You may have given up trying to convince other people that libertarian principles are the best for the future but I haven’t. And in teaching that freedom is the best way to live includes the freedom to go where you want as well as our other freedoms.

  73. paulie Post author

    I am sick of …

    Your altreich, paleofascist garbage spewed all over IPR comments. They have become so polluted with this constant infected bloody fecal (blood and soil) Hoppe Caucus spewage that the air is too toxic to breathe here, which is why everyone who used to post the bulk of the articles has left and why I am increasingly joining them.

    It’s not a matter of trying to treat this bloody crap seriously or engaging it anymore, because we are well beyond that point. It’s a matter of what level of pollution makes the environment here too toxic for just about anyone to tolerate. We have clearly exceeded that level, many people have left entirely and I am mostly gone.

    If the Hoppe Caucus blood and soil paleofascists do to the LP what you’ve done to IPR it will go the same way.

  74. Don Wills

    The demise of the LP, for whatever reason, can’t come soon enough. Then maybe the two sides – the anarchists and the constitutionalists – will go their own separate ways.

    IMO, there aren’t enough “fascists” to even bother with. Yes, they are noisy, but they are very small in numbers. If the LP wasn’t so weak (self-inflicted), the party would be able to ignore truly unpopular issues like homophobia and racism.

    When the two groups of ex-LPers form their own associations, I dare say that they will wield far more political power than the LP ever has. In addition, then, and only then, will it be apparent which philosophy is more popular with voters.

  75. paulie Post author

    The demise of the LP, for whatever reason, can’t come soon enough.

    I disagree strongly, of course.

    IMO, there aren’t enough “fascists” to even bother with.

    There are lots of them, and many more who are susceptible to their message.

    When the two groups of ex-LPers form their own associations, I dare say that they will wield far more political power than the LP ever has.

    Also disagreed.

    In addition, then, and only then, will it be apparent which philosophy is more popular with voters.

    There are lots of ways the LP can and does influence policy and public opinion in ways which are not readily measured in LP votes per se.

    It’s also a fundamental error that there are two and only two camps and everyone in the LP falls into one of them, or that they can’t or shouldn’t work together, or even that this is the most important rift within the LP itself.

  76. Andy

    My “hatred and intolerance” (as LibertyDave claims about me above) is only towards those who do not value liberty. I would prefer that libertarians break away from the rest of society and form private libertarian communities (which means getting away from Democrats and Republicans). Do a search for my Libertarian Zone article which is posted here at IPR, and also searches for the Free Society project (started by Roger Ver), Liberstad (private libertarian city in its early stages of development in Norway), and Liberland (new libertarian country in Europe which is in its early stages).

    Incidentally, I spoke to Roger Ver and Vit Jedlicka (President of Liberland), and I also had an email exchange with somebody from the Liberstad 0project in Norway, and they all agree with me about immigration by contract, and physical removal of contract violators.

    Murray Rothbard basically made the same general points I have made about immigration in Nations By Conscent. I give credit to Rothbard for having intellectual integrity.

    Open Borders is not a true anarchist position, because the true anarchist position is to privatize everything (in as fair a manner as possible), and eliminate the state, and to leavevthecissue to private property owners.

    Open Borders into a democratic welfare state is actually a globalist communist position, which is why it is supported by “useful idiot” Marxists and the Bildeberg Group and Council on Foreign Relations.

  77. Andy

    I have posted this here before, but just in case anyone here missed it, or needs a reminder, here it is again.

    Murray Rothbard is considered to be an icon in libertarian circles, and if you read below, you’ll see that he agreed with me on this issue.

    “This is from Murray Rothbard’s Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State. It was published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1994.

    Full quote & context below.

    IV. THE PURE ANARCHO-CAPITALIST MODEL

    I raise the pure anarcho-capitalist model in this paper, not so much to advocate the model per se as to propose it as a guide for settling vexed current disputes about nationality. The pure model, simply, is that no land areas, no square footage in the world, shall remain “public”; every square foot of land area, be they streets, squares, or neighborhoods, is privatized. Total privatization would help solve nationality problems, often in surprising ways, and I suggest that existing states, or classical liberal states, try to approach such a system even while some land areas remain in the governmental sphere.

    Open Borders, or the Camp of-the Saints Problem

    The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.

    However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

    Under total privatization, many local conflicts and “externality” problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a “second-best” solution that most people might be willing to live with.

    If you haven’t read Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints” that Rothbard referenced, you should at least read about the book to understand what influenced him and what he was referring to:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

  78. DJ

    Never gonna happen Andy- “fair” is a subjective. Migration, legal or illegal, will never be stopped. It’s a state of Nature to go where the grass is greener. Attempting to stop it is an act of aggression- forcing a belief, no matter whose belief or what their credentials in what Party or philosophy is still forcing a belief. It’s called “en”force”ment for a reason.

  79. paulie Post author

    Nobody needs a reminder of your debunked bullshit. I have debunked it in so many threads now I have long since lost count and yet you keep posting it over and over in thousands of unrelated threads like the perpetual motion energy bunny of endless bullshit. What the fuck does your frequently debunked but even more frequently repeated reich wing horseshit have to do with me liveblogging the Oklahoma convention, to take one of thousands of examples? I really wish you would leave IPR and not come back. So many more people would feel welcome here and start posting articles and actually intelligent comments here again instead of repetitive reich wing bullshit from the paleofascist invaders into the libertarian movement.

  80. Anon-Tipper

    Andy: If you haven’t read Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints” that Rothbard referenced, you should at least read about the book to understand what influenced him and what he was referring to:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

    From that wiki-page: Popular with white nationalists as it describes the white genocide conspiracy theory, it has been widely denounced as racist and compared to The Turner Diaries and Mein Kampf.

    Go away, we don’t need you, this is all paleo-garbage. I wouldn’t mind if Rothbard was forgotten.

  81. paulie Post author

    And take the rest of the Hoppe Blood and Soil Caucus (disingenuously soiling Mises’ name) with you please …out of the LP… off IPR… and for that matter go to your ancestral homelands in Europe if you are so into blood and soil.

    Fuck that noise right back to the lake of shit at the bottom of hell.

  82. paulie Post author

    Like Joshua Smith for example. He defended the “blood and soil” crap when I met him in Oklahoma. And admitted he had never even observed a single LNC meeting in his life, although in fairness he plans to observe the next one in Denver this month. Yet he wants to be chair of the LNC. Not if I can help it!

  83. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote:

    Your altreich, paleofascist garbage spewed all over IPR comments. They have become so polluted with this constant infected bloody fecal (blood and soil) Hoppe Caucus spewage that the air is too toxic to breathe here, which is why everyone who used to post the bulk of the articles has left and why I am increasingly joining them.

    It is very sad. IPR has gone significantly downhill since every thread was taken over by Andy and Robert Capozzi. They should get a limit of 1 comment per day.

  84. Don Wills

    So let me get this straight –

    Are otherwise ‘libertarian’ folks who are pro-life from the point of heartbeat (or some other arbitrary point in a pregnancy) welcome in the LP?

    Are hard core anarchists who support an absolute interpretation of the NAP welcome in the party?

    Are constitution-supporting ‘libertarians’ who think that immigration should be controlled with border controls, etc. welcome in the LP?

    Are NAPsters who are otherwise ‘pure’, but happen to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexual acts are abhorrent because their religion teaches them so, welcome in the party?

    Are ‘libertarian’ leaning Muslims who practice female genital mutilation welcome in the party?

    Are ‘libertarian’ Muslims who believe that God’s teachings are the highest law welcome in the party?

    Are ‘libertarian’ evangelical Christians who believe that God’s teachings are the highest law welcome in the party?

    Inquiring minds would like to know. What exactly are the rules for being acceptable to The Party?

  85. paulie Post author

    I don’t think there’s an answer to your question, Don.

    As far as I know there is no mechanism to cancel anyone’s membership in the national party unless they do it themselves, although some people claim there is. State parties can and have suspended or kicked out members, rarely. But in many states membership is defined as whoever registers as an LP voter with the state, which again means no mechanism to kick anyone out.

    As for whether people are made to feel welcome that depends on the party members they encounter and their own level of thick skin to whatever pushback they receive.

    As for what my own standards of who I accept as a good faith libertarian, disagreement with party stances on one or two issues is mostly OK – but if the individual heavily emphasizes those issues and makes an active effort to change the party’s position on them, recruit others to the same, etc., it obviously makes a difference in whether I would want them in the party. The degree to which the issues they deviate from the party on matter to me personally also makes a difference; immigration, for example, is a very important issue to me personally; the right to leave a country is the most fundamental right a citizen or subject of any regime has, and there is no real right to leave if there is no right to go anywhere else.

    It also matters how much the person makes others feel unwelcome in the LP if they are made to feel welcome. The LP rejects bigotry as irrational and repugnant. If the LP lays out the welcome mat to bigots it’s in effect laying out a “need not apply” sign to much larger numbers of other people. And it also matters which other people the person makes unwelcome. My working hypothesis is that the groups of people who represent the biggest untapped potential for the LP are all people who tend towards left-leaning demographics: younger people, non-whites, women, LGBT folks, poor folks, immigrants, non-Christians, and so on. To the degree that anyone makes these folks feel unwelcome in the LP, I would like them to feel unwelcome in the LP.

    If your question is who is in fact made to feel unwelcome in the LP I would say it’s mostly anyone who is not coming from the right wing, who is not right wing leaning still, and who does not fit the white male demographic; and I believe this needs to change, with the altreich push to take over the LP being a major move to make the LP worse from this perspective.

  86. DJ

    paulie: The right to leave a country is the most fundamental right a citizen or subject of any regime has, and there is no real right to leave if there is no right to go anywhere else.

    Me: What about a self-proclaimed libertarian who doen’t believe in rights?

  87. Andy

    Don, according to some people in the LP, some who likely post here, if Murray Rothbard were alive today, they would not want him in the LP, even though he was involved in the libertarian movement before the LP was formed, he was involved with the LP in its early days, and for many years after that, and even though he is one of the most influential libertarian writers ever.

    I actually do favor somewhat of a big tent for the LP (I doubt we will ever get everyone to agree on every detail of everything). The main people I’d like to see not in the LP are the Gary Johnson and Bill Weld types (throw in Barr and Root as well, but of course they are not involved anymore). While I do believe that there is room for debate on some issues and tactics, there is a point where you have to draw a line between who is a libertarian, and who is not, and I would say that the aforementioned folks crossed that line, in my opinion.

  88. Anon-Tipper

    paulie: “Like Joshua Smith for example. He defended the “blood and soil” crap when I met him in Oklahoma. And admitted he had never even observed a single LNC meeting in his life, although in fairness he plans to observe the next one in Denver this month. Yet he wants to be chair of the LNC. Not if I can help it!”

    I need to go find it, but on (what I believe to be) Shipley’s facebook he was defending the American Guard. I think he was blocked from the page, and his comments hidden, but I think someone took screenshots of them.

    It’s funny (but really sad), but Hayek’s Why I Am Not A Conservative exactly describes the problems we’re having with conservatives/paleos.

    http://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html

    “I have already referred to the differences between conservatism and liberalism in the purely intellectual field, but I must return to them because the characteristic conservative attitude here not only is a serious weakness of conservatism but tends to harm any cause which allies itself with it. Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose to them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas.”

    “Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism.”

    “Connected with the conservative distrust of the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism.”

    “A great deal more might be said about the close connection between conservatism and nationalism, but I shall not dwell on this point because it may be felt that my personal position makes me unable to sympathize with any form of nationalism. I will merely add that it is this nationalistic bias which frequently provides the bridge from conservatism to collectivism: to think in terms of “our” industry or resource is only a short step away from demanding that these national assets be directed in the national interest.”

    With emphasis on conservatism’s propensity towards nationalism.

  89. paulie Post author

    I need to go find it, but on (what I believe to be) Shipley’s facebook he was defending the American Guard.

    Not surprising. And either him or Heisse from the “Mises” (Hoppe) caucus was photoed palling around with Ryan Ramsey. Birds of a feather.

  90. paulie Post author

    It’s funny (but really sad), but Hayek’s Why I Am Not A Conservative exactly describes the problems we’re having with conservatives/paleos.

    Yes, exactly.

  91. paulie Post author

    even though he was involved in the libertarian movement before the LP was formed

    He spread his poison in many scattershot fringe directions from Strom Thurmond to new left to libertarian and back to Pat Buchanan/David Duke. So yeah, the LP would be batter off without his flamethrowing and especially without his “outreach” to racists, fascists, reich wing nationalists etc.

    there is a point where you have to draw a line between who is a libertarian, and who is not,

    And the “blood and soil” contingent are definitely NOT.

  92. Andy

    Who said a person does not have a right to leave a country? I never said such a thing. It is a big world out there. I am sure there are multiple options to accommodate lots of people.

    This would be the equivalent if I said, “I do not want _____________ (fill in name of person here) at my house.” Then somebody, “Oh, so you do not think that ___________ (fill in name of person here) has a right to leave his house.” This is not what I said. I said I do not want them in my house. I do not care where they go, just so long as they do not come to my house.

    My stance on borders/migration/immigration is the actual libertarian stance on the issue. The “open borders” forced association welfare statist migration advocates in the Libertarian Party and movement are the ones who are misrepresenting libertarianism. Fortunately, there are other sensible and more principled people who do not misrepresent the issue in the LP and greater movement.

  93. paulie Post author

    The regime does not own the country in the way you own your house. If you think they do you are by definition a statist, not a libertarian. And unlike asking someone to leave your house, there is no right to leave a country in reality if there is no right to enter. There aren’t that many countries and there are real life examples – many of them – of people stuck in prisons, refugee camps, airports, or even sent back to die in death camps because no country would admit them. Your stance on borders is the actual opposite of the libertarian stance on borders and the debunked “arguments” you make to justify your position are even worse, making clear what the real motive is: blood and soil, bloody feces.

  94. paulie Post author

    Anyway, speaking of people being unwelcome, it’s time to stop engaging your nonsense and to start making you unwelcome at IPR.

  95. Andy

    Not wanting Marxists and theocrats in the country where you live is like not wanting burglars in your house.

    There is nothing libertarian at all about advocating that millions of Marxists and theocrats should be able to move into the same country as you, gain citizenship status (which in this country requires swearing an oath to the US Constitution, and given the views of most of these people, a lot of them are guilty of perjury), which gives them access to the political process, which means that they can actually gain political power, and use that power to go agaInst the native population.

  96. Andy

    China and India both have over 1.3 billion people. Iceland has about 335,000 people. Should a large number of people from China and/or India be able to flood into Iceland, to the point where they outnumber the native Icelanders, and if this were to happen, and the native Icelanders tried to stop it, would they be violating the NAP?

    I would say no, but apparently, some people here think that it would be perfectly acceptable for people from China and/or India to flood into Iceland in such large numbers, that they turn the native Icelanders into a minority, even if most Icelanders oppose this, and if any if them complain about it, or try to stop it, they are NAP violators.

    Going by this “logic” (or lack thereof), any people from any high population country has the “right” to flood into low population countries, and become the new majority, and takeover, regardless of any objections of any members of the existing population.

  97. Don Wills

    Andy wrote “…to flood into Iceland in such large numbers, that they turn the native Icelanders into a minority, even if most Icelanders oppose this…”

    Sounds like the Free State Project !!

  98. Andy

    Don, the Free State Project has people who are American citizens moving into New Hampshire, which is perfectly legal under American law. This would be like an Icelander moving g from one part of Iceland to another, or a Chinese person moving from on part of China to another. The culture in New Hampshire is not radically different from the rest of the USA.

    Also, the Free State Project people are libertarians, which means they are the vary definition of peaceful people. Their goal is not to run people’s lives, but rather to set people free.

    There is a big difference between a libertarian (a peaceful person) moving somewhere, and a Marxist or a theocrat (a non-peaceful person) doing it.

  99. DJ

    Andy: Should a large number of people from China and/or India be able to flood into Iceland, to the point where they outnumber the native Icelanders, and if this were to happen, and the native Icelanders tried to stop it, would they be violating the NAP?

    Me: As long as they use bumper sticker slogans like manifest destiny- good icelander is a dead icelander- called them savage while acting savagely- forced them to assimilate- made them dress appropriately- put them on reservations- made them worship budha- stopped them from their heathen ways- sent them to their schools to ensure their conversion- what could possibly go wrong Andy?
    What if they were of anglo descent vs asian?

  100. robert capozzi

    AJ: Who said a person does not have a right to leave a country?

    me: DJ may have been referring to me. This is an epistemic and linguistic problem that I’ve not been sufficiently explaining to DJ. Rights don’t “exist.” They are made up conventions. They are — as I’ve explained to DJ many times — a good idea.

  101. Don Wills

    Andy – your comments are off base. And yes, I know all about the FSP.

    1. Your _hypothetical_ scenario about Asians moving en masse to Iceland assumed that it was legal for the Asians to immigrate into Iceland, thus my comparison to the FSP is valid.

    2. What difference does it make from a legal point of view whether or not it is Marxists or libertarians who want to flood an area (county, state, country) to take political control by voting. Your pre-judgement of who are good voters vs. bad voters is autocratic, and is the antithesis of what the LP professes to stand for.

    This second point reinforces my opinion that democracy truly is an awful form of government. Individual freedom (“certain unalienable Rights”) that we take for granted is at risk of being abolished at each election. That’s why the founders created a constitutional republic, not a democracy. It’s tragic that the republic no longer exists.

  102. DJ

    RC: Rights don’t “exist.” They are made up conventions. They are — as I’ve explained to DJ many times — a good idea.

    Me: Never have you said they don’t exist and never have I said they do exist. You have said there are no rights because you’ve not observed them- I respond you don’t want to believe you/we have rights- you choose to ignore that choice/choosing is a right claiming you don’t “use” the word the same way I do- you’re claiming a tangible- I’m claiming an inherent ability to act as I please- you believe an authority granted trumps my inherent ability even if my ability doesn’t actually threaten you- you prefer thought policing because an alleged vast, vast majority is filling the air waves with lies and demanding many be punished for the actions of the few who “might”- your tangible effort at observations are derailed- my inherent actions are still alive- I conclude you should consider excusing yourself from the Libertarian and libertarian ideology because your actions don’t suggest either definition of L or l

    You’ve ignored my last post on the subject which requests where you get the authority to force others into submitting to your desires-

    Robert,
    After you’ve made your observation(s), by what authority do you believe force can be used to force others to submit to “the vast, vast majority’s” illogical, and irrational, fears of what “might” happen?

    That’s what this stemmed from originally- your belief, through observation, that the noisy has the authority to force it’s will on others. “Punish the many for the actions a few “might” perpetrate”.

    IF the statistics are to be “observed”, it would be seen the the “fear” is unjustified.

    How do your observations justify the action? Are you/they entitled to force others to believe irrational, illogical claims?

    Are you/they entitled to force others to submit to irrational, illogical behavior?

    Have your observation(s) given you an omnipotent presence of mind others can’t see? Do you not believe others should voice their observations and cite statistics that prove their observations correct?

    Do you believe you are entitled to make choices (of any definition) for others? What “gave” you that feeling?

    Or, can you cite the law of entitlements? Entitled is to have earned. Have you or they earned the authority to force others to submit to your/their irrational behavior based on your/their emotions? Can you produce the source of your/their entitlement?

  103. DJ

    Andy: DJ, thanks for proving my point.

    Me: You’re welcome- thanks for not answering the question I posited- which could be construed as “proving my point”.

  104. DJ

    Also-

    RC: They are — as I’ve explained to DJ many times — a good idea.

    Me: A bad idea is to demand from others to choose a different course of action based on what one fears “might” happen- as in revenue generating laws “restricting” a citizens action sold as a preventive- when in fact they don’t- ideas produce “choices”- the right to choose is inherent- even though you “choose” to observe differently from me (and others) doesn’t change the definition- intentionally misinterpreting a given- you “choose” to ignore the tangible- the numbers don’t support the claim- therefore it is an emotion driven reaction vs a reasoned response- the emotion is NOT a tangible- therefore, using your logic it doesn’t exist

  105. robert capozzi

    DJ: A bad idea is to demand from others to choose a different course of action based on what one fears “might” happen….

    ME: I don’t make any demands. In fact, I advocate Nonarchy Pods for those who don’t accept the rule of law.

    I’m so sorry that I can’t explain this any more clearly than I have to you.

    The horse is now so beaten as to be unrecognizable! 😉

  106. Andy

    DJ, the American Indians would have kept the Europeans out if they could have, and they did in fact try to keep them out (they did attack European settlements), but they lacked the numbers, technology, and organization to have done this.

    It is estimated that there could have been around 2 million American Indians in the present day USA at the time when lots of European pioneers/settlers started to arrive (in the 1500’s). 2 million people spread out over a land mass as huge as the present (and note that the American Indian population today is higher than it was back then, and it is even higher than that If you factor in whites and blacks who have partial American Indian ancestry) day USA is not a lot of people. That is less people than in the present city limits of Chicago, IL, which is the 3rd largest city in the country. It is also less people than in present day Houston, Texas, which is the 4th largest city in the country. So there was a lot of empty space.

    While one can point out that there were rights violations that took place from Europeans aggressing upon American Indians, it should also be pointed out that Europeans also built settlements on land that the American Indians were not using. It is not as though the Europeans moved into cities built by American Indians, and signed up for American Indian welfare programs. The Europeans built their own settlements on land that was mostly empty and undeveloped.

    Today is a different situation than back in the European pioneer era. There are now over 326 million people here. There is now a unified system of government for the whole land territory (not counting Canada and Mexico, although the situations there are similar to here). There is now lots of development. Travel is also much easier now than it was back then.

    Acting as though the situation back in the European pioneer/colonial days and today are the same is not valid, and it does not justify mass migration of people with hostile ideologies into the present day USA either.

    I disagree that Americans living in the present day USA should just “bend over and take it” and be overrun with millions upon millions of foreigners with Marxist and/or theocratic ideologies in order to make up for real or perceived injustices from European pioneers/settlers hundreds of years ago.

  107. DJ

    RC: The horse is now so beaten as to be unrecognizable!

    Me: To you, perhaps, but that’s what happens without a solid foundation. I fully recognize the horse. You can’t because you’ve painted yourself into a corner and offer a fantasy as appeasement. Your charitable open mindedness has come, and gone. You don’t want to admit, or believe, because you haven’t observed- I’ve spent a life time observing, I see things you don’t, can’t, and don’t want to- age affords a perception beyond the tangible- I’ve also looked at History and “observed” recent History- and no where have I observed “choice” being an obstacle to anything except control of others and the undeniable results of what happens when choice(s) are limited/restricted through coercion, threat of force or force. Catastrophe. In the arena of human endeavor that is the shedding of blood- 1 or 1,000’s is immaterial- fools attempting it will pay the ultimate price- as will the other side- guilty of forcing or defending “choice”- which side of History do you “choose” to be on?

  108. DJ

    Andy: Today is a different situation than back in the European pioneer era.

    Me: Indeed. And, while your analysis is accurate, it’s superficial. The devil, as usual, is in the details which you left out….. to wit, a few, The Trail of Tears, The Sand Creek Massacre, the intentional obliteration of Buffalo, the blatant lies, broken Treaties, disrespect for the very words this Country was founded on- all men are created equal- was it the Indians who perpetrated the horrors? Or, was it the lying anglo’s? That is MY point.

    I don’t expect anyone to not defend their home. I do expect honor. I’ve yet to see it displayed in the Karma that is occurring. There is NO honor in defending lies. Period. There can be an excuse of ignorant- but, even our legal system denies ignorance as a defense. The ignorance is perpetrated by the anglo education system, in which the Indian was “forced” to adhere to.

    Nobody is perfect. We’re all wired different. I know that. I accept that. What I don’t/won’t accept is using force, except in retaliation in defense, in which I will use when “I” deem it necessary. I will NOT submit, nor succumb to propaganda from “liars” (not you personally) of an eminent demise based on race- which is the exact same argument that was used to sell the evils(?) of pot- politically motivated to gain monetarily, by liars using race to sell the evils that aren’t and weren’t there to produce fear using what “might” happen which is exactly what the gun control freaks, who are anglo btw, are doing even as we speak.

    It’s purely political- period, even though Capozzi doesn’t like the assertion of period the evidence is overwhelming. I’m of the mind that if something is good enough it doesn’t have to be forced to be sold- a consensus can be achieved. Add to that, migration is a Natural phenomenon- it can’t be stopped, only restricted by force, or threat of force.

  109. robert capozzi

    DJ: which side of History do you “choose” to be on?

    Me: The peaceful side. Politically, I’d like our civil society to be more peaceful tomorrow, and then tomorrow, and then tomorrow.

  110. DJ

    RC: The peaceful side. Politically, I’d like our civil society to be more peaceful tomorrow, and then tomorrow, and then tomorrow.

    Me: And how do you “choose” to believe that can happen? By trying to force others, (or having the gov’t do it), to believe the way you want them to? Or, would “choosing” to respect that which you’ve not observed further that cause?
    Hint: Respect is earned- and cannot be achieved without self-respect, which can only be earned by showing respect, which is not to be confused with self-esteem, personally, professionally, or politically- civility requires respect. Period. Disrespect earns disrespect- begets, begets and is quite observable. To wit: The disrespect emanating from DC has gained it not only disrespect but disgust. And, our civility is questionable, at best- yet, the alleged “vast, vast majority” wants to blame a tool disrespecting those who know better, from “observation” and gaining only the perpetrators 15 minutes of fame to boost only their self-esteem- momentarily. It’s in grained and fortified and allowed to flourish because their foundation is not solid- they’ve not been taught the Truth but have been schooled in the class of opinion, which is in and of itself disrespectful and can only earn disrespect and derision when, not if, confronted with that which can’t be observed, which is inevitable.

  111. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie,

    Andy does not listen. He only talks (spewing hateful debunked garbage). The sooner everyone ignores him, the sooner he will go away. And the sooner he goes away, the sooner real libertarians he has driven away en masse come back to IPR.

  112. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote:

    As for what my own standards of who I accept as a good faith libertarian, disagreement with party stances on one or two issues is mostly OK – but if the individual heavily emphasizes those issues and makes an active effort to change the party’s position on them, recruit others to the same, etc., it obviously makes a difference in whether I would want them in the party.

    I completely agree.

  113. robert capozzi

    DJ: And how do you “choose” to believe that can happen? By trying to force others, (or having the gov’t do it), to believe the way you want them to?

    Me: I’m not particularly optimistic, especially for the foreseeable future. The one movement that more-or-less wants peace is–I believe–confused about some key fundamentals. NAPsterism has led my natural allies astray, as I see it and have lived it. But even if a more effective, moderate, lessarchism were to take hold in a growing number of people, it’s still quite a challenge to reverse statism.

    No, of course, I don’t want to force anyone to adopt my perspective. I’m somewhat hopeful that some NAPsters might examine their thought system from a slightly different perspective, for if they did, they’d see that NAPsterism is a dead end.

    I’ve indicated here before that I’d like to see the net incidence of coercive government to be rolled back. If there were a piece of legislation that banned private nukes but at the same time government spending were to be cut 5%, I’d consider that a monumental win, in context.

    I’m actually getting pretty concerned about the near-term prospects for peace and prosperity. We might muddle through on the strength of technological innovation, but I fear we drive off the fiscal cliff, and possibly get embroiled in a quagmire war in Syria, NK, or other global garden spot.

  114. DJ

    RC: If there were a piece of legislation that banned private nukes but at the same time government spending were to be cut 5%, I’d consider that a monumental win, in context.

    Me: You trust a gov’t with nukes but not a citizen- yet want to roll back gov’t. I’m sorry but I see those as contradictory- and btw, a ban is forcing and gov’t would have to en”force” it.

  115. dL

    Are otherwise ‘libertarian’ folks who are pro-life from the point of heartbeat (or some other arbitrary point in a pregnancy) welcome in the LP?

    I suppose one could be anti-abortion but pro-abortion rights. It’s an unusual combination, tho. However, compulsory parenthood(i.e, mandatory parental obligation is also attached to a legal duty to carry a pregnancy to term) is a libertarian violation.

    Are hard core anarchists who support an absolute interpretation of the NAP welcome in the party?

    Yes, obviously.

    Are constitution-supporting ‘libertarians’ who think that immigration should be controlled with border controls, etc. welcome in the LP?

    No. They are neither libertarian nor “constitution-supporting.” The constitution confers no power to the state to regulate “borders.”

    Are NAPsters who are otherwise ‘pure’, but happen to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexual acts are abhorrent because their religion teaches them so, welcome in the party?

    Once again, I suppose one could be anti-gay marriage but pro gay marriage rights. I’m not all that rah rah vis a vis pro-gay marriage, myself. Not because I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Instead it’s because “gay marriage” was in part intended as a socially conservative institution to moderate the gay libertine sub culture.

    Are ‘libertarian’ leaning Muslims who practice female genital mutilation welcome in the party?

    It doesn’t seem to have much of a problem welcoming those who practice male genital mutilation.

    Are ‘libertarian’ Muslims who believe that God’s teachings are the highest law welcome in the party?

    As long as they also don’t view it as something that ought to be the law of land. Once again, that’s not a typical combination.

    Are ‘libertarian’ evangelical Christians who believe that God’s teachings are the highest law welcome in the party?

    ditto the above…

    Inquiring minds would like to know. What exactly are the rules for being acceptable to The Party?

    libertarianism, like liberalism, is silent on moral foundations. It is less concerned about what you think and a lot more concerned about trying to control what others think and do.

  116. Andy

    The Constitution does in fact grant the power to regulate borders, immigration, and Naturalization. See the Law of Nations, repelling invasions, and the Naturalization process.

    Advocating for open borders into a democratic welfare state is not a libertarian position.

    The true libertarian on the issue is what Murray Rothbard said in Nations By Consent, as I posted above.

  117. Andy

    Peaceful people crossing borders, dude.

    Dutch Gays Beaten By Migrants | Stupid Men Hold Hands In “Solidarity” | The Netherlands

  118. Andy

    “Chuck Moulton
    April 10, 2018 at 17:56
    Paulie,

    Andy does not listen. He only talks (spewing hateful debunked garbage). The sooner everyone ignores him, the sooner he will go away. And the sooner he goes away, the sooner real libertarians he has driven away en masse come back to IPR.”

    Chuck, I’m not going anywhere, and I haven’t driven anyone way. I have done a hell of a lot more for the Libertarian Party, and the cause of liberty than you have. You are nothing more than some blowhard who thinks that activism is showing up at a meeting a strutting around in a suit and tie and pretending to be important, when in reality, you have not accomplished a fucking thing. It is worthless people like Chuck Moulton who exemplify why the Libertarian Party is not successful,

    How many people has Chuck Moulton informed about jury nullification? I have handed out thousands of jury nullification pamphlets, and I have told numerous people about jury nullification, and I recently made the suggestion to Adam Kokesh that he include something about jury nullification in his upcoming Freedom Book Bomb in New Orleans, and unlike the typical worthless sacks of shit like Chuck Moulton, Adam is actually doing it. So thousands of people in New Orleans are going to be exposed to jury nullification thanks to me.

    I have several thousand people to vote as Libertarians, and a lot of this was done for free, as while petitioning on pro-liberty ballot initiatives, referendums, and recalls, in places like California, and Massachusetts, if I encountered somebody who sounded like they might be a libertarian while in the process of signing my petitions, if they needed to register, or update their voter registration, I’d encourage them to register as Libertarians.

    I got the Libertarian Party coverage in USA Today back in 2003 during the Grey Davis Recall petition drive in California. A guy who was second in charge of the Recall campaign spoke at the local Libertarian Club near where I lived in California, and I hung out and talked to the guy after the meeting. A few days later he called the local region chair and asked for my phone number, and he called me up and said that he wanted to use me for a story about the recall campaign. I had the idea of wearing a Libertarian Party t-shirt while collecting signatures on the Recall, and the story was going to talk about how the LP of California had endorsed the Davis Recall. I told another Libertarian petitioner about it who was active in southern California at the time, and I asked him if he wanted to be in the picture as well. He said yes, but neither of us had Libertarian Party t-shirts, so we had to track them down. Due to a scheduling problem, I ended up missing out on being in the picture, but the picture did get taken and the article did mention the Libertarian Party of California endorsing the Davis Recall, and there was a picture of the other guy wearing a Libertarian Party t-shirt while collecting signatures on the Davis Recall petition. This would not have happened had I not been at that meeting, and had I not hung out afterwards and talk to that guy from the Davis Recall campaign, and had I not had the idea of having the picture taken with a Libertarian petition circulator wearing a Libertarian Party t-shirt while gathering signatures on this petition. USA Today is the nation’s largest newspaper.

    I also got the Libertarian Party covered on local TV news in Pennsylvania twice. Once while myself and a couple of other Libertarians went to a pro-gun rights rally at the state capitol in Harriburg. The other time was when I was petitioning for the Libertarian Party at a Ron Paul rally that was held at Ron Paul’s alma mater, Gettysburg College, in Gettysburg, PA, where Ron Paul was speaking, and I got interviewed by a local TV news station (and I plugged the Libertarian Party in the interview).

    I got the Libertarian Party two newspaper articles in a Little Rock, Arkansas newspaper when I ran into a reporter in Little Rock the day that the LP of AR was having their state convention a few blocks away from the library where I was collecting LP ballot access signatures. I told the reporter that the LP was having their state convention at a hotel a few blocks away, and I encouraged the reporter to go there, which they did. The reporter then did a newspaper story about the LP of AR State Convention, and they even did a follow up story about the LP of AR around a week or two later.

    I have also gotten the Libertarian Party newspaper or internet news site coverage in North Dakota, Oklahoma, North Carolina (myself and another Libertarian petitioner got a college newspaper to cover the LP), and Pennsylvania, and I got a radio interview for the LP in Ohio, a video for which was posted here at IPR.

    I have probably handed out more Libertarian Party material (pamphlets, fliers, newspapers, VHS tapes, DVDs, etc..) to the public than anyone else in the history of the Libertarian Party. Some of this has even been done at my own expense (as in I paid for the materials out of my own pocket, with no reimbursement). If anyone out there knows of anyone who has handed out more LP materials to the public than I have, I’d like to know who that person is. I have done this while petitioning for the LP, and petitioning for ballot initiatives and/or referendums, and I’ve also just gone out and done it without any petitions.

    I have gotten numerous people to register to vote under the Libertarian Party banner (as mentioned above), and I have even brought in some new party members. Two friends of mine, both of whom are former Democrats, recently told me that they became libertarians because of me. One switched their voter registration from Democrat to Libertarian. He found out about the Libertarian Party after asking me about the Michael Badnarik for President bumper sticker on my car back in 2004. He did not switch right away, but after several years of me talking to him about it periodically, and then being exposed to Ron Paul, who I had told him about, he ended up making the switch. This person is also considering becoming a dues paying LP member. The other friend of mine I told about the Libertarian Party attended Anarchapulco 2018 with with me (I’m the one who told him about it), and this person recently told me that they are thinking about joining the LP, and they asked me how to become a national convention delegate if they join.

    I played a big role in getting 4 Ron Paul delegates elected in Pennsylvania in 2008. Myself and another Libertarian petitioner canvassed a congressional district for Ron Paul (in PA, the delegates run by congressional district, and they run separately from the presidential candidate), and we left campaign literature at every house where the people were not home, and at the homes of people who were home who acted like they were interested. After this was over, I continued handing out Ron Paul delegate cards, and I worked a table at a gun show where I told everyone I encountered who was from this congressional district that these were the delegates that they should vote for if they are serious about protecting their gun rights, and I handed each of these people a delegate slate card. The Ron Paul campaign ended up electing more delegates out of this district than in any other party of Pennsylvania. This campaign may not have been in the Libertarian Party, but Ron Paul is a Life Member of the Libertarian Party, and he is widely identified as being a libertarian, and he was basically running a libertarian campaign in the Republican Party.

    I also ran ballot access for Ron Paul in several states in 2012.

    No ballot drive that I have ever played a large role in has failed, and I have actually saved the LP from failure on several occasions, such as Washington DC in 2004, West Virginia in 2012, and Illinois in 2014 (if the signatures i collected in Illinois, and defended in court over videoconference, had been thrown out, that LP drive would have failed).

    These are just a few of my accomplishments. I could go on with more.

    What in the hell has Chuck Moulton ever accomplished in the Libertarian Party and movement, besides showing up at meetings, strutting around in a suit and tie, and pretending to be important?

  119. Andy

    Look at what all of these “peaceful” migrants who crossed the borders into the United Kingdom have brought with them. Acid attacks.

    Video description from YouTube: “Acid attacks, common in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa, have found their way to the streets of London. What possibly could be the reason for this? Who is committing these horror crimes? I thought multiculturalism was a utopia.”

    Acid Attacks Skyrocket In London | Multiculturalism Fails | Immigration | Newham | Tower Hamlets

  120. Andy

    DJ said: ” which is exactly what the gun control freaks, who are anglo btw, are doing even as we speak.”

    You keep using the term Anglo. Anglo refers to people from England. The British Isle also includes the Welsh, the Cornish, and the Scots (the Cornish and the Scots are considered to be Celts, like the Irish).

    You say that Anglos are pushing for gun control. I assume that you are talking about here in the USA. If so, there are lots of people in the USA who have English ancestry. English is listed is the 3rd largest ethnic group for Americans who identify as white in the census (German is #1 and Irish is #2), but a lot of demographers think that English is being under-reported, because a lot of people who have English in their ancestry have it further back in their ancestry, since the vast majority of the original colonists who made up the 13 original states of the USA were of English ancestry (there were also some Scots, some Germans, some Dutch, some Irish, and some French, and a handful of others, but the English were by far the largest group), and they may identify with another portion of their ancestry which came later. There are also a lot of blacks and Native Americans who have partial white ancestry, and English is common among them as well.

    I’m sure that there are Americans who have English in their ancestry who are in favor of gun control, but is there some big Anglo movement to take away guns here in the USA. I would say no. If you look at the demographics of gun rights supporters, the only group that has majority support for gun rights is among whites, and surveys conducted by polling firms have put that support at around 57%. It is higher among whites who live in rural areas. Now if you look at which states have lots of gun rights supporters, and then what the ethnic makeup of those states are, you will find states that have a lot of people with English ancestry, such as Tennessee, Alabama, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and New Hampshire, also have a lot of gun rights supporters. Surveys indicate that around 37% of blacks support gun rights, and 25% of Hispanics (which is not a race, but many Hispanics in this USA are Mestizo) support gun rights, and 20% of Asians support gun rights.

    Outside of constitutionalist and/or libertarian type of people (and note that surveys indicate that 94% of libertarians are white), the group that is the most pro-gun rights are people who’d be described by many as rednecks. The term redneck comes from poor whites who lived in the old South who labored outside, and from being exposed to the sun, had necks that turned red. What is the predominant ethnic make up of rednecks? English, along with Scottish, and Irish.

    Rednecks are typically identified with being in the South, and/or former Confederate States, but like comedian Jeff Foxworthy says, you can find rednecks everywhere. There are rednecks in Pennsylvania. There are rednecks in Maine. There are rednecks in Illinois. There are rednecks in North Dakota. There are rednecks in California. There are rednecks in Washington. Etc…

    I have been all over this country, and I have talked to a heck of a lot of people, and I can tell you that pretty much any redneck you talk to supports gun rights. I’m sure you can find rednecks with all kinds of backgrounds in their DNA, but, like I said above, English, or Anglo, is probably their most common ancestry.

    I’m not saying that there are not any people of English ancestry who want more gun control, I’m sure there are (especially if we are talking about in the United Kingdom, just look at Piers Morgan for one example), but I’d say that among pro-gun rights supporters in the USA, English/Anglo is probably the most common ancestry (most Americans are a mix of several national origins of course).

  121. Andy

    “but a lot of demographers think that English is being under-reported”

    Another factor in the under-reporting of English ancestry in the USA is that there are a lot of Americans who started listing their ancestry as American, because they either don’t know much about their ancestry, or they have family roots in this country that go back a long time, and/or they are a mix of several nationalities and are not enough of one ethnic group to identify with any one group. Demographers say that a high percentage of people who identify as American on the census have English in their ancestry.

  122. robert capozzi

    DJ: You trust a gov’t with nukes but not a citizen- yet want to roll back gov’t. I’m sorry but I see those as contradictory

    ME: You’re being dense and jumping to conclusions. It’s not that I “trust” the government with nukes. They have them. Taking them away from the government is not an option. I’d even say it’s impossible, although I suppose anything is ultimately possible.

    Yes, NAPsters accuse me of this contradictory thing. But that’s because NAPsters don’t seem to recognize that politics is negotiation, and negotiation doesn’t just go one way. NAPsters don’t seem able to discern relative harms. Almost everyone would benefit from spending cuts. One lone nut who wanted a private nuke would be harmed by their banning, true, but the risk of collateral damage from that incremental nuke in the lone nut’s possession contributes to domestic tranquility.

    Infringing on the “right” to private nukes is, on balance, the right call.

  123. DJ

    Thanks for the history Andy- I’m Irish Indian- anglo’s are light skinned Europeans- light skinned Europeans have a history of mistreating those they deem lesser than, (as do most “groups”). It’s ingrained in them since their heritage is that of Monarch rule. The gun-control freaks are by and large anglo- light skinned. That’s going to be a given since this is mostly an anglo society. It doesn’t change the fact I presented.

    And, while your analysis is accurate, it’s superficial. The devil, as usual, is in the details which you left out….. to wit, a few, The Trail of Tears, The Sand Creek Massacre, the intentional obliteration of Buffalo, the blatant lies, broken Treaties, disrespect for the very words this Country was founded on- all men are created equal- was it the Indians who perpetrated the horrors? Or, was it the lying anglo’s? That is MY point.

    Nobody is perfect. We’re all wired different. I know that. I accept that. What I don’t/won’t accept is using force, except in retaliation in defense, in which I will use when “I” deem it necessary. I will NOT submit, nor succumb to propaganda from “liars” (not you personally) of an eminent demise based on race- which is the exact same argument that was used to sell the evils(?) of pot- politically motivated to gain monetarily, by liars using race to sell the evils that aren’t and weren’t there to produce fear using what “might” happen which is exactly what the gun control freaks, who are anglo btw, are doing even as we speak.

    Who lied to whom? Who put Indians on reservation? Intentionally killed the buffalo? Perpetrated the Sand Creek Massacre? Forced Christianity? Used double standards to act savagely?

    Who penned the words “all men are created equal”? Then went about disrespecting the very words this country used to justify its founding?

    Now the tables are turned. It’s Karma- institutionalized or not.

    My other point you seem to disregard is that fear was and is used to sell bullshit, currently guns, previously pot, Vietnam war, war of 1812, The civil war, etc. And prior to that manifest destiny- the only good Indian is a dead Indian. Anglo Europeans have used it since time began. At the core is Christianity or a variance thereof, as it is the religion of choice- Indians were doing fine without it. The Spanish exploited it in Mexico in the form of Catholicism. Spanish are light skinned Europeans- btw. Religion sells fear and is at the heart of force. Our foreign policy is we have a moral high ground and if you don’t believe us we’ll kill you to prove it. Light skinned Europeans push Christianity and Catholicism. What “we” don’t push is “all men are created equal”- so, it’s obvious we don’t believe it- Nationally. I’d suggest it’s because it’s not what was taught when we had sponges for brains. What we are taught is based on bullshit and falsehood, arrogantly ignoring the Truth.

    Now, what if the migrants in your hypothesis of Iceland (or here theoretically) were German?

  124. DJ

    Additionally, in my “observations” anglo’s here are typically muts. Pure ethnic is only in very small pockets.
    I’ve “observed” pure ethnicity has an inherent loyalty to others who are of the same ethnicity. But, typically, the light skinned have a loyalty to power and dollars. It’s true there are pure ethicity’s who are of the same mind about power and dollars, but, historically, here, that isn’t the case. It’s small pockets.

    Anecdotally: I read somewhere a few years ago that ‘most’ criminals (of the sociopath and psychopath nature) were ‘light eyed’. Most pure ethnicity’s are dark eyed. Most anglo’s are light eyed.

    And as to your “fear” of the demise of Iceland- or other anglo society’s/countries the one thing different about the US is, we carry guns. That instills a ‘real’ “fear”. And despite the protestations, that ain’t gonna change any time soon.

  125. Andy

    “DJ
    April 11, 2018 at 08:06
    Thanks for the history Andy- I’m Irish Indian- anglo’s are light skinned Europeans-”

    This is not really accurate. Here is the definition of Anglo, from Wikipedia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo

    From Wikipedia: “Anglo is a prefix indicating a relation to the Angles, England, the English people, or the English language, such as in the term Anglo-Saxon language. It is often used alone, somewhat loosely, to refer to people of British Isles descent in the Americas, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia. It is also used, both in English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries, to refer to Anglophone people of other European origins.”

    There are lots of light skinned Europeans who are not Anglos. The Polish, the French, the Irish, the Swedes, the Danish, the Lithuanians, the Norwegians, the Dutch, etc….

    ” light skinned Europeans have a history of mistreating those they deem lesser than, (as do most ‘groups’). It’s ingrained in them since their heritage is that of Monarch rule. The gun-control freaks are by and large anglo- light skinned. That’s going to be a given since this is mostly an anglo society. It doesn’t change the fact I presented.”

    All groups of people have a history of treating other groups poorly. The Aztecs oppressed other tribes. Muslims from the Middle East oppressed others. Far east Asians oppressed others. Black tribes in Africa oppressed other black tribes, and today in South Africa, the black Marxist dominate government voted to seize all farms held by white Afrikaners, even though white Afrikaners have families that have been farming this land for 100’s of years, and even though at the time the Dutch arrived in what is today South Africa, most of it was actually unoccupied, and only one black tribe lived in this land territory, the Khoisan people, with whom the Dutch settlers lived in peace. The rest of the black tribes who are in South Africa today, who make up a majority of the population, actually immigrated to South Africa after the Dutch. Over the last 10-20 years gangs of black thugs have been attacking white owned farms and brutally murdering the farm families, sometimes torturing them, and raping them. The South African government has barely put any effort into investigating or prosecuting these crimes. Now their national government has voted to do a mass eminent domain of every white owned farm in the country, and they are not even going to give these white farmers any form of reimbursement, they just want to take their property and ruin them financially.

    Some people will bring up the African slave trade, and while it is true that white Europeans participated in it, what is often ignored is that black tribes sold members of other black tribes into slavery, and that Muslims and Jews were also heavily involved in the African slave trade. Another overlooked fact is that there were actually blacks in the USA who had been set free who went on to become slave owners of other blacks.

    It was actually white Christian Europeans who ended the slave trade.

    Nobody is saying that white people, and Anglos (as in people from England, or of English origin) in particular, did not do some bad things. My point is so has every other groups on the planet. There is plenty of guilt to go around.

    You mentioned Anglos having a history of having a Monarch. Well so do many other groups on the planet. Most, or maybe all, of the world, has been under a Monarch at some point, and some places still are.

    Now as for your charges about Anglos trying to seize guns. Maybe in England, but not quite so much here in the USA, as I illustrated above. If you just used the term whites, and said that whites were trying to seize guns in the USA, this would not be quite so accurate either. There is some room for discussion about how you define these terms, but surveys conducted by multiple polling firms have found that if you analyze attitudes about gun rights among whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, that whites are the only group that has a majority support for gun rights, at 57%. Blacks came in at around 37% support for gun rights, Hispanics came in at 25% support for gun rights, and Asians came in at 20% support for gun rights. Another group that sometimes get overlooked is Jews. I do not have the data handy, but I recall reading about surveys that indicated something like 75-80% pf Jews favor strict gun control laws (just look at politicians like Diane Fienstien, Chuck Schumer, and Michael Bloomberg).

    There are of course exceptions to these statistics (there are some pro-gun rights blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews, but these people are in the minority in their demographic breakdown), but the fact is that here in the USA, most gun rights supporters are white, and I think that I have presented enough evidence to indicate that there is lots of Anglo ancestry among pro-gun whites in the USA. There are of course whites, and more specifically, whites with some Anglo ancestry, who support gun control, but as a group, statistically speaking, you are more likely to find a gun control supporters among those who’d be classified as black, Hispanic (and as I have pointed out in other posts here, Hispanic is not even a race, and some Hispanics are white), Asian, or Jewish.

  126. Andy

    I just thought of another accomplishment of mine in the Libertarian Party that is noteworthy. It was my idea for the Libertarian National Committee to accept donation in Bitcoin. I posted the idea multiple times right here on IPR, and it was LNC Rep Starchild who took it to the LNC for a vote, after reading one of my posts here about why the LNC should accept donations in Bitcoin. There were several LNC members who were skeptical of this idea, and I went back and forth with them via email exchange, and I even referred them to a company that converts Bitcoin donations into Federal Reserve Notes. Starchild’s motion for the LNC to accept donations in Bitcoin ended up passing (there were dissenting votes), and in spite of the fact that they ignored my suggestion to make a big announcement about it, including posting a video announcement about how the LNC was accepting donations in Bitcoin, they only announced it in a blurb of information along with several other announcements, and instead of posting a Bitcoin donation link on the front of the LP.org website, which is what I suggested, they buried the Bitcoin donation link on the site, where a person had to click two or three links to even find out that it was there. Even so, within a few months, the party started to get a lot of donations in Bitcoin, so they finally moved it up to the front page of the website.

    So my suggestion that the LNC accept donations in Bitcoin was a success. This accomplishment alone from me is worth more than anything Chuck Moulton has done the entire time he has been in the Libertarian Party.

  127. Andy

    DJ said: “And as to your ‘fear’ of the demise of Iceland-”

    I only used Iceland as a hypothetical example. I don’t think that the Icelanders have been foolish enough to allow themselves to take part in the mass migration suicide that other European based countries have embarked.

    ” or other anglo society’s/countries the one thing different about the US is, we carry guns. That instills a ‘real’ ‘fear’. And despite the protestations, that ain’t gonna change any time soon.”

    My biggest concern is what happens in the USA, because I’m an American, and this is where I live. I think that it is foolish for countries like the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Germany, etc…, to embark on suicidal policies, but I am merely an outside observer.

    Yes, we here in the USA still have better gun rights than people in most of the rest of the world, but those rights are under serious attack, and if we lose them through a combination of mass demographic shifts, mass shifts in family structure (as in more single moms with no father around to take their kids shooting/hunting, which has been a traditional method for passing down the belief in the right to keep and bear arms), and mass shifts in public attitudes about gun, in large part due to government “education” and mainstream media brainwashing (some of which stems from what I’d say there is enough evidence to say are hyped up false flag shooting incidents, that are concocted to get more people to support gun control and a bigger, more intrusive police state), then those of us who are left, and still value liberty, will be in serious trouble.

  128. paulie Post author

    Andy does not listen. He only talks (spewing hateful debunked garbage). The sooner everyone ignores him, the sooner he will go away. And the sooner he goes away, the sooner real libertarians he has driven away en masse come back to IPR.

    I know. The problem is that not everyone is going to ignore him, as there will always be a small handful of people to respond to him. These same small handful are the ones who typically take over every comment section now with their hobbyhorses and one or two others. The problem is that this has driven away most of the people who used to comment here, most of the people who used to post most of the articles here, and I’m finding less and less motivation to either post articles or comments here anymore myself as a direct result. And yes, Andy in particular has driven away a lot of people and they have told me so. But I can’t do anything about it. Obviously he is not going to go away so I will have to.

  129. DJ

    Andy, one can justify anything. The reason(s) I pointed out anglo observations is because this in a predominantly anglo society. I also said, Nobody is perfect. We’re all wired different. I know that. I accept that. What I don’t/won’t accept is using force, except in retaliation in defense, in which I will use when “I” deem it necessary. I will NOT submit, nor succumb to propaganda from “liars” (not you personally) of an eminent demise based on race- which is the exact same argument that was used to sell the evils(?) of pot- politically motivated to gain monetarily, by liars using race to sell the evils that aren’t and weren’t there to produce fear using what “might” happen which is exactly what the gun control freaks, who are anglo btw, are doing even as we speak.

  130. paulie Post author

    Sorry to read that this board is committing self-immolation.

    Feel free to talk to Redlich about it. Personally, like most of the others who were posting most of the articles and non-garbage comments here in recent years, I am finding that I can no longer swim in a lake of pollution and blood and soil and hateful garbage such as what has come to overwhelm the comments here, even on completely unrelated posts such as this one.

  131. DJ

    RC: but the risk of collateral damage from that incremental nuke in the lone nut’s possession contributes to domestic tranquility.

    Me: I’m being dense? LOL….. thought police much? (see above quote) what “might” happen is exactly what you preached about automatic rifles…. domestic tranquility is subjective and it can’t be forced, which by definition can’t produce tranquil. On top of that the demanders never stop. Given an inch a mile is taken. The evidence is all around you, observable.

    You are right about the non-aggressive principle- sorta. Examples can transform people- not politicians. Their disrespect lead others to believe it’s acceptable and learn the hard way it isn’t. Except politicians. They never learn from the past, or the present for that matter no matter what example is shown. However, IF the citizenry learned form the get-go that all men are created equal they would eventually realize the politicians are the phoniest of the phony and change them like we do dirty underwear. But, that takes time- seeds have to be sown to bear fruit.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it til I’m not here (but it will live on in my two sons) instant gratification will NEVER produce a lasting result. Politics be damned. They will change only when the people change. The people will change only when given sufficient evidence after having learned the Truth.

  132. DJ

    The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

    ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

    Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

    Amendment II

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  133. DJ

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    I just did a quick re-read and I swear, I didn’t see anything about what “might” happen if-

  134. Andy

    Who are these intellectual chickenshits that I have allegedly driven away? Name some names. If these people are such a bunch of cowards that they run away from message boards because of words on a screen (and all I am doing is engaging in political discussion and debate, and I do not troll, or engage in personal attacks, nor do I post under fake names), words that nobody is even forced to read, then this is evidence that these people are not really cut out to engage in the battle for liberty. If they run away and hide because of comments posted for political discussion or debate, then how are these people going to do battle with the state? I have been attacked by cowardly trolls under fake names an IP anonymizers, yet I do not run away like a coward.

    It is really no wonder that the Libertarian Party is not more successful. The struggle for liberty is not a game for cowards.

    I said awhile ago that I am not convinced that all self professed libertarians could even make it in a libertarian society, like my Libertarian Zone concept. This is just more proof that I was correct in my assessment.

  135. Andy

    “George Phillies
    April 11, 2018 at 20:04
    Sorry to read that this board is committing self-immolation.”

    George, the only reason I mentioned a list of things that I have accomplished in the Libertarian Party and movement (which was not even a complete list) is because Chuck Moulton has attacked me several times (and note that the times that I have interacted with Chuck in person he acted friendly to my face, which means that he’s a two-faced weasel). I have noticed a pattern with Chuck where he attacks people who engage in a lot of good activism, such as Adam Kokesh, Michael Heise, and myself (to name a few). So I think that it is fair to ask Chuck what all he has accomplished in the Libertarian Party and movement. Outside of showing up at some meetings, and strutting around in a suit and tie, and getting on some party committees (and note that the LP was in a state of decline when Chuck was on the LNC), but doing little or nothing that really advanced the party or the cause.

    I assume that we are all on roughly on the same page, in that we want to reduce the size and scope of government, and see the overall initiation of force and fraud in society reduced as much as possible. We may have some differences on the details, or on what the best ways to accomplish this are, but I’d assume that we agree at least 90-95% of the time, or at least I’d hope so.

    I want to see people taking action to expand liberty. I commend all those who take such actions.

  136. Andy

    “DJ
    April 11, 2018 at 20:01
    Andy, one can justify anything. The reason(s) I pointed out anglo observations is because this in a predominantly anglo society.”

    Is this really a predominantly Anglo society? Sure, English is still the defacto official language, and there is still a lot of English influence in our culture and system of government, and there are still a lot of people here who have English in their ancestry, but there are also a lot of people who don’t have any English ancestry, and even out of those who do have English ancestry, a lot of them only have a little bit of English ancestry. I think that I have like 12.5% English ancestry (I’m not including the Scottish ancestry I think I have, since the Scots and the English are not the same people, even though they are on the same island), so I am only partially Anglo, and if it is only 12.5$%, that’s only a small part Anglo.

    I think that you are over using the term Anglo to apply to people who are not Anglo. Most white people are not Anglo. Anglo only refers to a specific group of people from England. Most Americans who have English in their ancestry are also mixed with other nationalities/ethnic groups.

  137. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    A rule of law is force. To “insure domestic tranquility” implies some force, too. Certain behaviors are signaled to be unacceptable. We all give an inch when we enter civil society.

    I certainly believe we’ve given far too many inches to the State. Advocating zero inches including the right to private nukes is not helpful to the cause of eternal vigilance. It appears that no matter how I put this, you don’t seem to get it.

    Most Ls do not defer to the Constitution, btw. The Framers were not Gods. In some ways, I’d say they made a pretty good attempt at framing a civil society, but their handiwork was not beyond reproach.

    I get that you don’t care what Ls or anyone else thinks. It seems that you find your observations to be infallible, a claim I do not make for myself. You are “right” and 99.99% of the population is wrong. If you want to find like-minded people, you are more likely to find them in the Constitution Party. That may be a good base from which you can “educate” others in the Way of DJ.

  138. DJ

    RC: A rule of law is force. To “insure domestic tranquility” implies some force, too. Certain behaviors are signaled to be unacceptable. We all give an inch when we enter civil society.

    Me: Of course we all give an inch- but, when a mile is taken that’s a tad more than given. Historically, the inch takers, not the givers signal the unacceptable.

    BTW, insure is a monetary- There is considerable overlap between the meaning and use of insure and ensure. In both British and American English the primary meaning of insure is the commercial sense of providing financial compensation in the event of damage to something (e.g. property); ensure is not used at all in this sense.

    For the more general senses, ensure is the more usual word, but insure is also sometimes used, particularly in American English, for example:

    Bail is posted to insure that the defendant appears for trial.

    or:

    The system is run to ensure that a good quality of service is maintained.
    ………………….

    The preamble used insure- deeper in the document ensure was used. What discrepancy do you see?

    RC: I certainly believe we’ve given far too many inches to the State. Advocating zero inches including the right to private nukes is not helpful to the cause of eternal vigilance. It appears that no matter how I put this, you don’t seem to get it.

    Me: Oh I get it, Robert. You don’t. You have at least twice said you fear for us- but, I’m not sure I get why when you want to give miles, called inches, when the Historical observation proves it won’t stop there, no matter what the there is. Vigilance, eternal, has to be maintained, well, eternally. I am vigilant- you’re coming across as complicit.

    RC: Most Ls do not defer to the Constitution, btw. The Framers were not Gods. In some ways, I’d say they made a pretty good attempt at framing a civil society, but their handiwork was not beyond reproach.

    Me: Groups are not infallible? Labels mean 0. I’ve never said the Founders were anything other than pretty smart guys- they had a vision based on “observation” and crafted a Supreme Law, agreed to and signed, and later agreed to by territories who desired to be recognized as states. Their handi-work is the Law. There is a means to change the law. You’re perfectly with-in your rights to talk about what you believe. I have the right to question or point out what I see (observe).

    RC: I get that you don’t care what Ls or anyone else thinks. It seems that you find your observations to be infallible, a claim I do not make for myself. You are “right” and 99.99% of the population is wrong. If you want to find like-minded people, you are more likely to find them in the Constitution Party. That may be a good base from which you can “educate” others in the Way of DJ.

    Me: I’ve told you how I reach my conclusions. I’ve asked you to show me where I’m wrong. You declined to try. Education doesn’t have to be from a particular source or put in a particular box. I don’t agree with the religious aspect of the Constitution party- you don’t agree with libertarian principle- I call myself libertarian and don’t align with Party. You align with Party and try to educate in what you believe. You now tell me I shouldn’t- how magnanimous- and not very libertarian. Kinda like paulie and Chuck Moulton ragging on Andy and blaming him for posters leaving- LOL- and 99.9% might be bit hyperbolic. LOL

    The way of DJ is respect. Period. The way of RC is tell me I’m wrong and force me to act, or believe, differently, by accepting your preferences. You insist thought policing is acceptable. I don’t. You believe giving up is principled. I don’t. You insist force is acceptable as long as you agree with it to accomplish what you believe. I don’t. I believe the Constitution is the law and a very profound document. You do too. I believe all men are created equal. Do you? Of course rights can be argued- that’s human nature, as is using force- but, you want to limit what I choose to defend me and mine with. Is that Libertarian? Or libertarian? What box do you belong in?

    You said a while back you believed “briefly” in the ownership of private nukes. What changed your mind?

  139. DJ

    And, Robert, your fantasy of mini-pods are not observable since you dis-allowed Indian reservations- although they did/do have a sovereignty “granted”- which was at times rescinded, and disrespected.

    So, how do you propose to implement and retain a sovereignty under your program if and when it’s discovered one has something the other wants and convinces others it’s “vigilant” to rescind your sovereignty?

    My approach is to teach respect. What is your’s?

  140. robert capozzi

    DJ: I’ve asked you to show me where I’m wrong. You declined to try.

    Me: I don’t think you are “wrong.” I think your ideas about legalizing private nukes and machine guns don’t work on many levels.

    We don’t have the ability to model actual counter-factuals to prove you wrong and me right, or vice versa. Judgment is necessary.

    In my judgment, there are some weapons that are too much of a risk to have them be legal. You call this thought policing. Neither is wrong or right here. Both are offering an opinion.

    Similarly, it’s my judgment that advocating for private nukes and free availability of machine guns is politically radioactive. It seems that you agree, but that you don’t care. You believe yourself to be “right,” and that’s all that matters. You need to “educate” the masses who you apparently “respect” by telling them they are wrong, and that DJ’s perspective is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It’s charming on one level, but I find it to be a dysfunctional approach on many levels.

    I simply don’t agree with you. Even if I agreed with you about nukes and automatics, I’d keep my own counsel on the matter, knowing that most would find my positions to be that of a lunatic.

    Personally, I don’t see the point of being the lunatic in the Public Square.

    You have a different perspective. I wish you all the best, of course, but I cannot endorse lunatic ideas.

  141. Anon-Tipper

    paulie: “These same small handful are the ones who typically take over every comment section now with their hobbyhorses and one or two others.”

    Like how when I checked recent comments here the only names that show up at DJ, Capozzi, and Andy?

    This might be a good article for IPR, has to do with Laura Ebke’s licensing bill: https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/06/libertarian-senator-gets-her-occupationa/

    Her story made it to the WSJ (but they didn’t mention the party or even her): https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-model-for-licensing-reform-1522795235

  142. DJ

    Andy: I think that you are over using the term Anglo to apply to people who are not Anglo. Most white people are not Anglo. Anglo only refers to a specific group of people from England. Most Americans who have English in their ancestry are also mixed with other nationalities/ethnic groups.

    Me: I think you’re making the simple complicated.

    Would you like “cracker” better? I think most people relate anglo to light skinned. That it is technically inaccurate speaks to a lack of education by the vast, vast majority. But, that isn’t surprising in a gov’t mandated education system. The same gov’t mandated system that ignores the big picture of History and lack of deep thought by the educated to sell bullshit fears, usually based on race, sometimes tools (guns) used, or products consumed(illegal substances).

    This continent was predominantly dark skinned and was over run by light skinned, referred to as anglo’s for the sake of brevity, and forced to submit and succumb to the ways of the light skinned and fear of what might happen was a tool used as well as bullshit slogans- coined by light skinned people- covering up for the greed.

    BTW, the communist and marxist you keep referring to are, get ready, light skinned. The migrants as a rule aren’t. Most are trying to escape to greener grass. Of course some are dangerous. But, the light skinned already here pose significant dangers, as do black skinned.

    In my travels to other parts of the world it was my experience the different hued skinned people were pretty easy going and likeable and curious about Texas- of which I’m pretty well versed. Granted you were most likely still in diapers during my travels, but, I also grew up with Mexicans, legal and illegal, and rarely had trouble unless/until some white guy wanted to prove his superiority.

    The funny thing about people I’ve noted is; skin color has little to do with the person. Environment is more important, that included “crackers” and I could say, especially crackers. But, all people are tribal, to some degree, and it’s more obvious in darker skinned people, especially here, in an environment foreign to them, sometimes 1000’s of miles from home- they act just like crackers do in the same situation. I also observed, personally, they responded to my respect with respect and often a subservient attitude that was perplexing to me, but, we got along really well. Respect begets respect, especially on an Individual level- disrespect begets disrespect, often at a tribal level.

  143. DJ

    Robert, Andy, perhaps I’m a bit too ideological for y’all’s taste- but that idealism is from years of “observation”. I’m a loner by nature- that means I have opportunity to observe the trees that make up the forest and not be blinded by the trees in the forest. My “professional” training was in Failure Analysis in an industrial setting- that training taught me to analyze all the data/facts before reaching a conclusion. The data/ facts are IMO indisputable. We have more to fear then private nukes or migrants. The fear I experience is from a piss poor education system not offering a solid foundation. Truth is and will be. Knowledge and opinion will change. Unless/until Truth is accepted we will remain on the path we’re on.

    Robert, you may not like my assertion, but, if you have a better idea I’m all eyes. You’ve not expressed it to date.

    Andy, your fears are based on race- or at least come across that way. That’s from a lack of knowledge (no offense intended). You’re not alone. Had you been taught the Truth at an early age I dare say your beliefs would be different. That’s in addition to the knowledge you have about the nefariousness of the gov’t. That knowledge should help you realize where the real fear should be. The migrants, immigrants, legal or illegal ‘may’ have an impact you fear- then again, they just as well may not. I’d say it depends largely on how they’re treated. Begets, begets.

    Robert doesn’t appreciate my finality- I don’t accept his complicity-
    Force is to be used only in retaliation. Any other use is immoral. Period. Robert believes it’s acceptable IF he approves of a perceived outcome. I assert the outcome of force is rarely as perceived. I submit that throughout History ALL conflicts are from an imposing of another’s will.
    Consensus is the obvious answer. That requires mutual agreement. Compromising of principles results in where we are.

    The Constitution clearly outlines the authority of the fed gov’t. It is the system we have. I want to observe a better alternative. However, ANY alternative should use experience and knowledge as evidence to help ensure our future, as we recognize our presumed current. I submit that without respect for the Individual that NO consensus will be reached. I submit, begets, begets. There is no instant gratification that will suffice.

  144. paulie Post author

    Like how when I checked recent comments here the only names that show up at DJ, Capozzi, and Andy?

    Yeah.

    This might be a good article for IPR…

    I have tons of those. Just no motivation to post them as long as this shit continues. Andy has the deranged notion that this is some kind of “battlefield.” Of course, most rational people don’t want to be anywhere near a battlefield, so they rationally leave for any of the thousands of other places to discuss news, ideas and issues on the internet.

    Why bother posting new stories when every discussion turns into the same endlessly repetitive, debunked, hate filled garbage? It seems to me that the small handful of people who still comment here don’t need new stories. They can just as easily repeat themselves endlessly in the comment sections of the existing old stories. So why should I or anyone bother posting new ones?

    Andy talks about “nameless” people, but it’s not hard to look back at the archives from the last few years and see who was posting a lot of articles and comments. Yet a lot of those people are gone and I am posting a lot less myself. It’s not because I would have a hard time coming up with plenty of new stories every single day. I’m just not motivated.

    So, if you or anyone else is motivated to post new stories, let me know and I’ll sign you up (at least those of you I don’t suspect of being trolls). I’ll even shoot you plenty of suggestions on new articles to post.

  145. DJ

    paulie, I thought you were leaving. I guess since you’re still here that Andy’s and my fault….LOL

  146. DJ

    Andy, is this what you prefer?

    Since 1993, the U.S. Border Patrol’s annual budget has increased more than ten-fold, from $363 million to over $3.8 billion, and the number of agents increased from 4,000 to 21,000. The combined budgets for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2017 was $19 billion—more than the FBI, DEA, and U.S. Marshals Service combined.

    “There will be more agents. There will be more walls. There will be more technologies. There will be more checkpoints. There will be more drone surveillance. There will be more expansion of this apparatus into these 100-mile jurisdictions. And I think that’s the intention.”

    https://talkpoverty.org/2018/04/05/six-months-metoo-still-arent-helping-victims-heal/

    Andy, Robert- when you demand from gov’t what you want you empower the gov’t- usually in an undesired manner.

    They will come for you- it’s not if, but when.

  147. DJ

    AT: Like how when I checked recent comments here the only names that show up at DJ, Capozzi, and Andy?

    Me: Feel free to join the discussion- or cry. It’s your choice.

    However, the choice to cry does nothing but show you have no real argument either way.

    AT: paulie: “These same small handful are the ones who typically take over every comment section now with their hobbyhorses and one or two others.”

    Me: Boo fucking hoo. IF your Libertarian perspectives disallow conversations you don’t like that shows, again, why I refuse Party deferment…. and “I” will survive long after ANY Party has eaten its own.

  148. robert capozzi

    PF,

    Thanks for that. I’ll hang for now.

    DJ: The Constitution clearly outlines the authority of the fed gov’t. It is the system we have. I want to observe a better alternative.

    Me: I thought we already have established that the Constitution was NOT clear right from the beginning. After adoption, the BoRs only applied to the Federal government. Perhaps the Feds could not ban machine guns, but MD or NH could. Just as some states established religions for their own state.

    And, even after the BoRs was interpreted to apply to the states as well, you yourself advocate for infringing the 2A rights to prisoners, who, btw, may or may not be actually guilty. Your justification is cited NOWHERE in the Constitution.

    Interpretation is inevitable, IOW. Even you, an exponent of textualism and/or originalism, INTERPRET 2A, in this case.

    btw, I agree with you on denying 2A rights to felons in prison.

    Keep in mind that many of the Framers were lawyers in the British jurisprudential tradition, and that that tradition rests on concepts like stare decisis and reasonable man standards that — while not explicitly endorsed in the Constitution — still very much apply and by all indications were assumed by the Framers.

    Note too that I have problems with British jurisprudence, both in theory and in practice. I would not abolish it, however, until something better was devised.

  149. Anon-Tipper

    Capozzi: “If my comments are unwelcome, I’m happy to exit this commentariat.”

    Sorry for mentioning you, your name has just been showing up a lot on the recent comments. I would disengage from DJ and Andy, these conversations seem to go nowhere and go on for forever. I don’t think I ever read their comments, occasionally skim over them if something extra dumb is going on.

    “So, if you or anyone else is motivated to post new stories, let me know and I’ll sign you up (at least those of you I don’t suspect of being trolls). I’ll even shoot you plenty of suggestions on new articles to post.”

    Sure, I’ll make a new sign up with a stable email address (I need to keep pseudonymous because I can be easily doxxed from name alone, work location ,etc.). I can post ~1-3 a week (more or less depending on news). Let me know, I’ll be happy to, it’s nice to have a central place to keep up on LP news.

  150. Anon-Tipper

    Okay got it, thanks! I’ll try to post the Reason article about Laura Ebke today.

  151. Andy

    “DJ
    April 12, 2018 at 10:57
    AT: Like how when I checked recent comments here the only names that show up at DJ, Capozzi, and Andy?

    Me: Feel free to join the discussion- or cry. It’s your choice.”

    This is really an idiotic thing about which to whine.

    Nobody is forced to read any comments here. You can come here and just read the news articles and watch the videos posted as articles. Anyone who feels like posting a comment can, and it is up to each person as to whether or not they want to read anything that is posted here.

    This site has been around for almost 10 years, and during that time, it has gone through ups and downs in terms of number of page views and comments. There are slow news cycles, and there are busy news cycles. Another factor is that how many people who are registered to post articles actually post them. There are also lots of other places to post messages, especially when you factor in sites like Facebook.

  152. Andy

    DJ said: “Andy, your fears are based on race- or at least come across that way.”

    I have never said such a thing. What I have said is that there are people of differing ideologies, and when you have groups living in the same space, under the same government, who have very different ideologies, it frequently leads to trouble, whether this is based on political views, religion, culture,
    race/ethnicity, or whatever.

    I have stated on numerous occasions here that I favor the idea of libertarians breaking away from the rest of society, including breaking away from people who share one’s race/ethnicity, but who do not share one’s political views, and forming their own society.

    You won’t have a libertarian society unless you are surrounded by a super-majority of people who actually want a libertarian society.

    And as for cultural preferences, I provided an example above about Iceland having only 335,000 people. The people of Iceland are predominantly of Scandinavian descent, but they also have some Irish/Celtic DNA in their mix. The Icelandic people have been living on that island for a long time, and they have built a civilization there. I’d be willing to bet that while they certainly welcome tourists, and even a few foreigners to live there, that they do not want to be overwhelmed with so many foreigners from anywhere, be it China, or India, or Nigeria, or even say Russia or Germany or Italy, or for that matter, say even another Scandinavian country, like Sweden or Finland or Norway, that the native Icelanders become the minority of the population in their own country. Most people do not like the idea of being demographically replaced.

  153. Anon-Tipper

    Andy: “Nobody is forced to read any comments here…”

    I don’t read your or DJ comments often, I usually just skip past them, sometimes I read them when the conversation seems to be going really off the rails. Lately, yours have been almost exclusively about “marxism” and immigration. You then referenced a book popular with white-nationalists. It’s alt-right nonsense and next to no one wants to come to this site and see that.

    “Another factor is that how many people who are registered to post articles actually post them.”

    I just posted an article about Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke’s occupation licensing bill that seems like it has a chance to pass. It’s a good issue for libertarians to talk about since it’s something the mainstream is starting to agree with on so we have a real chance to influence to debate and make positive changes. Go over to that article and give your thoughts on it, talking about anything but immigration would be welcome.

  154. Andy

    “What I have said is that there are people of differing ideologies, and when you have groups living in the same space, under the same government, who have very different ideologies, it frequently leads to trouble, whether this is based on political views, religion, culture,
    race/ethnicity, or whatever.”

    Just to clarify a bit here, it is possible for some people to live in the same area who do have differences, but only if they respect each other’s liberty. The less they believe in liberty, the more likely there is for conflicts to arise.

  155. Andy

    DJ, also, just because you believe in liberty, it does not mean that most of the people around you, or who wish to be around you, also hold this belief.

  156. Andy

    “Anon-Tipper
    April 12, 2018 at 16:02
    Andy: ‘Nobody is forced to read any comments here…’

    I don’t read your or DJ comments often, I usually just skip past them, sometimes I read them when the conversation seems to be going really off the rails”

    I do not know who you are, nor do I really care.

  157. Andy

    It was comments that I posted here on IPR that led to the Libertarian National Committee accepting donations in Bitcoin, well, this, along with me telling them how to convert the donations to Federal Reserve Notes, and even referring them to a company that does this (the head of that company actually signed up as a dues paying LP members as well). This makes me the most valuable poster to the Libertarian Party in the history of IPR, as the LP brought in thousands upon thousands of dollars in donations from this, and it also got the party a little bit of media coverage.

    Also, if you go back through the archives here, you will see that I have been right about a whole lot of things. I was the first, or one of the first, people to get it right about not trusting the likes of Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, etc… The passage of time has proven me to be correct about a lot of things.

    Scroll up and look at some of my other accomplishments (which is just a partial list), like getting the Libertarian Party coverage in USA Today back in 2003, which included a paragraph, and a photo, with the words Libertarian Party prominently displayed, How much would this have cost the party if they had to have purchased advertising in USA Today. which is the largest newspaper in the country (and this was back in 2003, when less people were online, and more people read newspapers than today)? $50,000? $100,000? I don’t know, but I bet it would have been expensive. My efforts got the party this coverage for free.

    I bet that my list of accomplishments in the Libertarian Party and movement is greater than a lot of those who sit back on their ass and criticize.

  158. Anon-Tipper

    Andy: “This makes me the most valuable poster to the Libertarian Party in the history of IPR, as the LP brought in thousands upon thousands of dollars in donations from this, and it also got the party a little bit of media coverage.”

    k, but no one wants to read the alt-right ranting about immigrants that have increased recently.

  159. Don Wills

    AT wrote “…no one wants to read the alt-right ranting about immigrants that have increased recently.”

    Is Donald Trump alt-right?
    How about Ron Paul, a man worked to end birthright citizenship for his entire political career?

  160. DJ

    AT: k, but no one wants to read the alt-right ranting about immigrants that have increased recently.

    Me: No one? I enjoy countering his commentary- of course I’m not liked- but I don’t give a fuck about what you like or don’t. I’ve intentionally not responded to your comments until now- I afforded you the respect I anticipated would be returned. I was wrong. Maybe it hasn’t occurred to you but knowledge isn’t bias in its origin. Or are you so smart knowledge is biased? Hmmmmmmm says a lot about the magnanimous Libertarian Party.

  161. DJ

    Andy: DJ, also, just because you believe in liberty, it does not mean that most of the people around you, or who wish to be around you, also hold this belief.
    Me: Never said it did.

  162. robert capozzi

    DW,

    I’m not sure RP1 worked on birthright citizenship for his entire career, but he certainly flagged it as inappropriate for many years. Regardless, it’s a much narrower issue than the broader immigration policy discussion currently in dispute.

  163. DJ

    Andy: but only if they >>>respect<<< each other’s liberty.

    Me: Notice what I pointed out in your quote then re-read what I've written.

  164. DJ

    Andy: I have never said such a thing.

    Me: Never said you did- quote- “it comes across that way”. And, you use fear to sell your fear. Fear of what “might” happen- no different than past “difficulties” stirred up by greedy, and racist demagogues. Currently it’s the fear of what someone “might” do with a gun. In the past it was (and still is to some degree) the same excuse used against pot. The same excuse was used to sell the Vietnam war and our latest wars. Fear is easy to sell- most emotions are. But, at some point common sense has to play into the equation, not to mention a Natural phenomenon- migration. That occurs when the grass appears greener someplace else.

    Did you read the link I posted or the excerpts? Do you not realize when you demand from gov’t you empower gov’t- THAT is my greatest fear. Living in and among people different from me is way down my fear list, and then only if I’m in their home land and some idiot pisses off another idiot.

  165. Andy

    Who is AT to tell other people what they want to read? People can make their own choices about what to read.

  166. DJ

    RC: I thought we already have established that the Constitution was NOT clear right from the beginning. After adoption, the BoRs only applied to the Federal government. Perhaps the Feds could not ban machine guns, but MD or NH could. Just as some states established religions for their own state.

    Me: No, you thought you established- something, though I’m not sure what. The BoR was established for the fed gov’t, and states, where an issue wasn’t pointed out could effect their own laws- as long as they didn’t violate the Supreme Law. The 2nd amendment makes it clear- “the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” That established an issue and addressed it. Stated weren’t granted the authority to interpret to suit their desires- and state religion is covered too in the the ” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Of course we know how well that’s worked. The Mormons found out real quick.

    RC: In my judgment, there are some weapons that are too much of a risk to have them be legal. You call this thought policing.

    Me: No, I call using the fear of what “might” happen thought policing, which is what you’ve presented in your arguments. Too much of a risk is a subjective- not supported with fact, only the emotion of fear.

    I give you the observable and you move the goal post… btw, vast, vast majority is mob rule- a democracy. We’ve been left a Republic- can we keep it? ONLY if respect is at the core of the vigilance. Respect is observable, as is disrespect- mob rule is disrespectful, not only by those mobbed against but by the participants as well.

  167. DJ

    Robert, and Andy- both of you are smart enough to know that when you demand from gov’t, you empower gov’t- the most recent example:

    Since 1993, the U.S. Border Patrol’s annual budget has increased more than ten-fold, from $363 million to over $3.8 billion, and the number of agents increased from 4,000 to 21,000. The combined budgets for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2017 was $19 billion—more than the FBI, DEA, and U.S. Marshals Service combined.

    “There will be more agents. There will be more walls. There will be more technologies. There will be more checkpoints. There will be more drone surveillance. There will be more expansion of this apparatus into these 100-mile jurisdictions. And I think that’s the intention.”

    https://talkpoverty.org/2018/04/05/six-months-metoo-still-arent-helping-victims-heal/

    Andy, Robert- when you demand from gov’t what you want you empower the gov’t- usually in an undesired manner.

    They will come for you- it’s not if, but when.

  168. DJ

    Andy: Who is AT to tell other people what they want to read? People can make their own choices about what to read.

    Me: Why! he’s an Anonymous-Tipper. He, and paulie prefer people read here what they deem appropriate.

  169. Andy

    DJ, as I have mentioned before, any government policy that exists while the state exists, in regard to migration and borders, including allowing in unlimited numbers of people, with no questions asked, is still a government policy, and it is a policy which leads to forced association, more people using scarce resources, and more conflict.

    Also, it would actually save the taxpayers lots of money if the government simply cut of taxpayer funded services to illegal “immigrants” and their offspring, and if they made the citizenship process more difficult. These two simple steps would go a long way towards solving the problem.

  170. DJ

    RC: I’m not sure what exactly you’re trying to prove. Factually incorrect? About what?

    I found several subjects in your wiki link- notably about the 2nd amendment, but the article is about the 14th amendment, and the very first paragraph stated-

    Incorporation, in U.S. law, is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. When it was first ratified, the Bill of Rights only protected the rights it enumerated from federal infringement, allowing states and local governments to abridge them. However, beginning in 1897 with Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago, various portions have been held to be incorporated against state and local government through the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to “incorporate” most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

    Further down I found this

    The 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States, see, McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010). “The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored as long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner,” McDonald, supra..

    It seems to focus on the 14th amendment, sometimes called the incorporation amendment and was aimed at the first 9 amendments in the BoR.

    The WP article was about religion- so? What did I say that’s incorrect?

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

    The 14th amendment “incorporated” amendments 1 – 9 to apply to the states – paying for churches (notice the plural) from the state coffers hardly established a state religion- though most were intolerant of anything except a Christian doctrine- and, as I’ve stated numerous times- before the ink was dry the constitution was being abused, through misinterpretation- the example was set and did set a precedent- that doesn’t make the document wrong- it makes the abusers wrong- and the territories who wanted to join the union agreed to the document- there was some argument, by black robed idiots, that intentional misinterpretation and selective application was allowed as a legitimate argument. Fortunately not the majority of them. However, I also said the Mormons found out real quick they weren’t free to exercise their religious convictions- mainly due to their multi-wife beliefs and their spirited defense of their right to religious freedom which caused a lot of people to be killed- and once again I can point out; One inflicting (forcing) his will on another is at the root of ALL conflict-

    I also find it a bit humorous you don’t acknowledge what I’ve posted above about demanding from gov’t- that speaks volumes to your open minded charity- but, not in a good way. You’ve also neglected to tell me what, or who, changed your mind on private nukes- Was it observable? Or just an idea?

  171. William Saturn

    I haven’t been here lately due to real life events. Andy’s comments are not the reason for my absence. In fact, Andy’s comments are the only thing I find mildly interesting here.

  172. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    You keep claiming that the Constitution cannot be interpreted. And yet you yourself interpret it.

    Initially, the BoR did not apply to the States. Later, it WAS applied to the States. Now, maybe you think that banning machine guns is OK by you IF the States do the banning. The Feds can’t subsidize churches, but the States are empowered to do so. The Feds can’t conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, but the States can.

    You may be the rare constitutionalists who think the States can do whatever they want. It’s only the Feds that can’t.

    If so, that’s empty proceduralism completely divorced from principle. It’s a kind of positivism, which is defined as: “the theory that laws are to be understood as social rules, valid because they are enacted by authority or derive logically from existing decisions, and that ideal or moral considerations (e.g., that a rule is unjust) should not limit the scope or operation of the law.”

  173. Andy

    Anon-Tipper said: “k, but no one wants to read the alt-right ranting about immigrants that have increased recently.”

    Oh, but alt-left ranting about immigration (ie-forced association of lots of people with hostile ideologies, a super-majority of whom get on government welfare programs) is just fine with with you.

  174. Chuck Moulton

    The problem is not what Andy or Capozzi or whoever say. The problem is they latch onto completely unrelated stories and post the same comments over and over and over again. Anyone who wants to read new or relevant comments has to wade through pages and pages and pages of nonsense. I have no idea why Capozzi / DJ don’t just email each other.

    Just put up an “Andy’s immigration rants” thread and confine him to that. Then post a “Capozzi hates the NAP” thread and confine him to that. They can post millions and millions and millions of comments in such threads for all I care as long as they keep it out of completely unrelated threads. It would be nice to find a topical comment from Tom Knapp or George Phillies or Caryn Ann Harlos attached to a relevant article without wading through the Andy circus or the Capozzi circus.

    As for Andy’s list of what he’s done for the LP, that’s great, but it may be tempered by any outreach to people that claims the LP is anti-immigration or anti-choice. I see no reason to list my own resume like some sort of contest. Suffice it to say I’ve done a lot for the LP while not wearing a suit and I’ve done a lot for the LP even if all of my contributions to the national party were completely excluded from consideration.

  175. George Phillies

    Chuck is right. Alas, similar advice was also given quite some time ago — interesting what you learn in strange places — and was not taken.

    A similar thing was to for the benefit of one of our former Presidential candidate,s and it greatly improved the value of the site, at least for a while.

  176. George Phillies

    “paying for churches (notice the plural) from the state coffers hardly established a state religion”

    No. That’s what ‘establishment’ is. In Massachusetts, there was an established church for decades after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

  177. Don Wills

    1.

    Chuck wrote – “…outreach to people that claims the LP is anti-immigration or anti-choice.”

    Andy is anti-ILLEGAL-immigration, as am I. I favor controlled, selective, LEGAL immigration.
    By comparison, the LP promotes OPEN borders (with minor exceptions for disease control). Put that on your resume and see how well it sells to Americans.

    The same basic logic applies to abortion, although it is much murkier, and depends totally on the definition of human life which varies widely from person to person.

    What I find so repugnant about the LP is that it smugly proclaims it is the party of principle, while the reality is that in trying to be “big tent”, the party avoids clarity on the most divisive issues. IMO, that lack of clarity is done on purpose and is one of the reasons that the LP is a failure.

    2.

    Ron Paul spoke against birthright citizenship for decades. Implying that it wasn’t particularly important to him is a lie.

    3.

    Throwing around the pejorative “alt-right” label is dishonest. First, the term is poorly defined. Does it mean “racist”? If so then that word should be used. And nobody seems to be interested in answering my questions about whether DJT and RP are “alt-right”.

    Andy tells you what he thinks in clear terms. You may not like his extensive comments, but other commenters here are essentially conceding that they can’t argue with his reasoning by, for example, dismissing his posts as “altreich paleofascist garbage”. IMO, resorting to that rhetoric admits defeat in a debate.

  178. robert capozzi

    DW1: How about Ron Paul, a man worked to end birthright citizenship for his entire political career?

    Me1: I’m not sure RP1 worked on birthright citizenship for his entire career, but he certainly flagged it as inappropriate for many years. Regardless, it’s a much narrower issue than the broader immigration policy discussion currently in dispute.

    AND THEN

    DW2: Ron Paul spoke against birthright citizenship for decades. Implying that it wasn’t particularly important to him is a lie.

    Me Commenting: Huh? He opposed BRC for a long time, whether it was “his entire career,” “many years,” or “decades.” That is so stipulated.

    My point was BRC might be a view that those who can be characterized as “alt right” or “anti-immigrant” might agree with RP1 on, but that single position doesn’t make him “alt right,” at least not by itself. I wasn’t commenting on how important or unimportant the issue is for him. I’d say his signature issue is the Fed, then foreign wars, then fiscal matters.

    I don’t get how you conclude what I said was a “lie.”

    ???

  179. robert capozzi

    cm: “Capozzi hates the NAP”

    me: But I don’t “hate” the NAP. I’ve said many times I love the sentiment of the NAP, I just find it to be insufficient as a be-all-end-all test for all things political.

    I certainly bring the NAP up as the root cause for why Ls are not making progress. It’s of course not the only reason. I don’t always bring it up, but it’s the overarching theme in my comments. I usually wait to see if others engage–usu. to defend the NAP–and that’s when the back-and-forth erupts.

    It sounds like you want me to leave the commentariat. Is that the case?

  180. Anon-Tipper

    Don Willis: “How about Ron Paul, a man worked to end birthright citizenship for his entire political career?”

    He’s a paleo, he was and always has been extremely bad on social issues. That’s why he hangs out at the LvMI.

  181. Anon-Tipper

    Andy: “Oh, but alt-left ranting about immigration (ie-forced association of lots of people with hostile ideologies, a super-majority of whom get on government welfare programs) is just fine with with you.”

    Who is the “alt-left?”

  182. Anon-Tipper

    Chuck: “The problem is not what Andy or Capozzi or whoever say. The problem is they latch onto completely unrelated stories and post the same comments over and over and over again. Anyone who wants to read new or relevant comments has to wade through pages and pages and pages of nonsense. I have no idea why Capozzi / DJ don’t just email each other.”

    Yup,that’s the problem, this thread and a lot of the recent threads have turned into this, it’s very hard to keep a conversation going, people’s comments get skipped over, etc. It’s hard to find relevant comments to the post.

  183. DJ

    AT: The problem is they latch onto completely unrelated stories and post the same comments over and over and over again.

    Me: LOL…. one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Challenge yourself, it’s more productive,

  184. DJ

    Robert, stop saying I said things I didn’t. I never said *couldn’t* be interpreted. I have said, and will continue to say: “It is intentionally misinterpreted.” I also say; Without definition interpretation doesn’t exist. I also say black robed idiots are not the end all they *intentionally misinterpret* themselves to be, but, “the vast, vast majority” is incorrectly educated about the roles of gov’t which is no surprise when one looks at the education system that stems from an *intentional misinterpretation* of the role of gov’t.- so, their decisions are held dear- until of course, they “rule” against your beliefs- then they’re the devil- evil incarnate and what people fail to recognize is they too were educated in the approved gov’t institutions, and make no mistake, they will come for you.

    Some have argued the 14th amendment is where our troubles began. I would disagree, except that the *intentional misinterpretation* has been used, again, to over reach an agreed to authority.

  185. DJ

    GP: No. That’s what ‘establishment’ is. In Massachusetts, there was an established church for decades after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

    Me: You’re right. I forgot about the witch trials. They too kinda point out the same discrepancies the Mormons faced- act in a Christian manner or we’ll kill you to prove we’re right.

  186. DJ

    DW: Andy tells you what he thinks in clear terms. You may not like his extensive comments, but other commenters here are essentially conceding that they can’t argue with his reasoning by, for example, dismissing his posts as “altreich paleofascist garbage”. IMO, resorting to that rhetoric admits defeat in a debate.

    Me: Indeed. He’s not afraid to engage either. The first book of paulie prefers the pejorative as the end all.

  187. DJ

    CM: I have no idea why Capozzi / DJ don’t just email each other.

    DJ: Staying private excludes outside engagement- or seed sowing. IF you don’t want to engage- don’t. No one’s feelings will be hurt, but, making it private accomplishes very little and creates an exclusive atmosphere- Libertarians seem to be hell bent on exclusion vs teaching/educating. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Chuck, but, knowledge isn’t biased where it comes from- and anyone who doesn’t come here and read opposing, or proponent views is very close minded and probably just curious- if they’re truly curious they will read- a lot. This forum gives them the opportunity to chime in- when they see the first book of paulie and the preachers pejorative assassinations they ‘may’ decide their curiosity was right- or wrong and ‘choose’ to not engage.

    You strike me as pretty shallow- read exclusive through superficiality. Your “choice” to not engage helps validate my thoughts.

    Since this is a Libertarian forum I (incorrectly) assumed there were libertarians here who would discuss.

    Andy, and Capozzi have- what have you done? Mock. Ridicule. Really powerful arguments. Huh?

  188. Andy

    Chuck does not know about which he is speaking, and he obviously knows nothing about outreach, probably because he does not do any himself, and he has certainly never been out in the field doing outreach with me.

    I rarely talk about immigration or abortion when doing outreach to the public (if anything, I want to avoid these topics, particularly abortion), and if these, or any other issues of controversy in the Libertarian Party and movement come up in conversation, I let people know that these are subjects where there is lots of disagreement within libertarian circles.

    Chuck continually misrepresents my positions. First of all, I was pretty strongly in the pro-abortion camp from when I joined the LP in 1996, up until the mid 2000’s. I began to re-examine my position on the issue because of pro-life people within the Libertarian Party and movement, and it was particularly the anarchist case against abortion that got me to rethink my position. Is a fetus a life? If so, how can you abort it without violating the NAP? The only case I could see for abortion to not violate libertarian ethics would be in the case of rape, where the act that created the fetus waa not entered voluntarily. Having said this, considering that I am a strong advocate for jury nullification, while the public remains pretty evenly divided on this issue, I do not think that outlawing abortion, or applying already existing murder laws to abortion, would be enforceable. A law has to have super-majority support in order to have any hope of it being enforceable. So I do not consider it to be productive to try to outlaw abortion, when the public, and even the liberty movement, remains so divided on the issue. I think that a legitimate case that can be made that abortion is murder, but given the division among the general public, and the liberty movement, on the issue, I think that we have bigger problems facing us, like the Federal Reserve System/fiat currency, the attack on gun rights, the War on Drugs, military imperialism,
    taxes, etc…, so from a pragmatic standpoint, I think that it is counterproductive to focus on abortion. This is why I really do not even care much where a candidate stands on abortion. Although I think that a legitimate case can be made that abortion is murder, nothing is going to be dine about it until a super-majority of the populations sees it this way, which takes persuasion. Freeing up the economy would likely reduce the demand for abortion, since economics plays a big role in women seeking them.

    As for immigration, I am not opposed to all immigration. I am against people with Marxist, theocratic, or other totalitarian ideologies, entering the same land territory, and more specifically, becoming “citizens” in the sane land territory, as myself, and gaining access to the political system that I live under. Like I pointed out above, and as the late Murray Rothbard pointed out in Nations By Conscent, as long as the state exists, any immigration policy that exists is not going to be truly libertarian, due to the existence of things like public property, forced association laws, etc…. The purist libertarian position on the issue is to privatize everything and abolish the state, and leave the issue up to private property owners. Given that this option is not realistically on the table right now, the only reasonable option is that while the state exists, it should have an immigration policy that does not invite people whoever hold Marxist or theocratic ideologies, and it also does not invite welfare seekers, or criminals, or people with communicable diseases, at least as much as possible. Some of these people may sneak I’m anyway, and if they do, they (and their offspring) should not be rewarded with taxpayer funded benefits, or American citizenship. The process for becoming an American citizen should be made more difficult (this works well in Lechtenstein, which is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, as it can take 30 years to become a citizen there, and their government policy does not invite people who are burdensome and/or destructive to their society), and it should include a thorough understanding of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, free market economics, and a special emphasis on the right to keep and bear arms, which should include trips to a firing range. Immigrants should also sign contracts saying that they will not collect government welfare, or work as lobbyists for other governments. Contract violators and criminals should be deported (ie-physically removed, which is exactly what would happen in a private property covenant community in an ancap society). Any policy the government has in place should also not overwhelm or otherwise lead to the displacement of the existing population. Most people do not mind some immigration, but they do not want a policy that invites people who are going to be a burden to them, or who are otherwise destructive to their self interest.

    I fail to see how advocating that while the state exists, it should have an immigration policy that does not actively invite destructive people, and reward them when they get here, is the same thing as being against all immigration, which is something I have never advocated.

    This is not an unrealistic policy, as there are other countries that have high, to very high, standards of living, and who are not being overrun with migrants who are a burden to their taxpayers, or who are otherwise destructive to their existing populations.

  189. DJ

    Andy, I don’t disagree with your sentiments, as expressed above, in either situation, and I appreciate as well as respect your presentation. In both cases, hearts have to be won before minds will follow. It is that simple nor is it spelled easy nor will it be instantaneous.

    That said, I subscribe to FFF- the Future of Freedom Foundation and receive a daily quote in my e-mail. Today’s quote struck at the heart of the matter.

    Ninety-nine out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual- William Torrye Harris (US Commissioner of Education, 1889-1906.

    Having aroused my curiosity I did a quick search and found this-

    As Commissioner of Education, Harris wrote the introduction to then Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Thomas Jefferson Morgan’s, Bureau of Education Bulletin (No. 1, 1889) on Indian Education. Harris called for the forced and mandatory education of American Indians through a partnership with Christianity in order to promote industry. It was Harris who called for the removal of Native children from their families for up to 10 years of training for the “lower form of civilization” as opposed to the United States government’s policy of exterminating them. Harris wrote, “We owe it to ourselves and to the enlightened public opinion of the world to save the Indian, and not destroy him. We can not save him and his patriarchal or tribal institution both together. To save him we must take him up into our form of civilization. We must approach him in the missionary spirit and we must supplement missionary action by the aid of the civil arm of the State. We must establish compulsory education for the good of the lower race.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Torrey_Harris

    I find it a bit ironic that this “highly educated” man whose quote is an accurate account obviously didn’t believe all men are created equal- it seems that the passing on of opinion/knowledge calling it higher educated has been going on for a long time.

    I also read, this morning, about an OK gubernatorial candidate whose selling himself as an “Abolitionist”- he wants to abolish abortion in OK.

    It was in interview and he laid out a pretty good case- this is all I find with a quick search

    http://theliberator.news/2017/abolitionist-dan-fisher-kicks-off-campaign-for-oklahoma-governor/

  190. Andy

    Ron Paul spoke at the recent Anarchapulco event in Acapulco, Mexico. I was there. He received a standing ovation from a packed room.

  191. DJ

    Mexico? I thought about that a few days ago when you mentioned it- interesting. Not sure why but I just find it interesting- maybe ironic.

  192. DJ

    Watching the state of our nation unravel, I can’t help but think of Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering’s remarks during the Nuremberg trials. As Goering noted:

    It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

    https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/slippery-slope-constitution-free-america/

  193. Andy

    It has already been announced that Ron Paul has been booked to speak at Anarchapulco 2019, along with Andrew Napolitano and Doug Casey (this will be the first time Napolitano and Casey will be at Anarchapulco). I hope I am able to attend again.

  194. DJ

    Mexico? I thought about that a few days ago when you mentioned it- interesting. Not sure why but I just find it interesting- maybe ironic.

    I said, first, interesting and added “maybe” ironic.

    That aside, what we need to be concerned with is right here at home- perpetrated by those right here at home.

    Trooper tases teen on ATV. Police video reveals what happens next.

    https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2018/04/13/police-video-michigan-state-police-taser/499525002/

  195. DJ

    “Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.”
    — Dr. Seuss

  196. robert capozzi

    Dr. Seuss didn’t run for office. In politics, those who matter are VOTERS.

  197. DJ

    Politics is burdened with used car salesmen posing as lawyers posing as benevolent spokes persons.
    Their value to society is questionable, at best. Dr Seuss is smarter by a mile, at least. So too were the Founder philosophies- those who would give up essential liberty for a little security deserve neither-

    “These are the times that try men’s souls.
    The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
    If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

    “History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.”

    “I” will survive long after the Party’s have met their demise and the group think of the vast, vast majority eats itself.

  198. DJ

    Natural Rights Are Not a New Concept

    Philosophical questions deserve more than just a glance, but we first need to stake out some concepts here. There are basic human rights. These rights are called “natural rights” or “natural law” and have been deduced by reason and logic. The idea is that when you are born you have the right to your own life as an individual. If you are alive, you have the right to preserve and further your life (otherwise, what would be the point of life?). These rights aren’t given to you by someone, they are inherent in our nature—they just are.

    https://fee.org/articles/lets-think-clearly-about-rights/

  199. dL

    But I can’t do anything about it.

    I’m pretty sure you have the necessary account privileges to revoke others’ account/posting access…

  200. paulie Post author

    Nobody is forced to read any comments here. Y

    Or post articles either. If the comment section sucks I am not inspired to post articles. No articles, nothing to discuss.

    You can come here and just read the news articles and watch the videos posted as articles.

    You can’t if no one is posting them. You have inspired most of the people who were posting them to leave, or at least stop doing so.

    Anyone who feels like posting a comment can, and it is up to each person as to whether or not they want to read anything that is posted here.

    Yes, but when the comment section sucks people don’t stick around nearly as much.

    This site has been around for almost 10 years, and during that time, it has gone through ups and downs in terms of number of page views and comments.

    I’ve looked at the numbers for that whole time. It is way down right now.

    There are slow news cycles, and there are busy news cycles.

    I could post a dozen or more new articles every day if I wanted to right now.

    Another factor is that how many people who are registered to post articles actually post them. T

    Yes, and the ones who were posting most of them in recent years say they no longer want to mainly because you post a lot of drivel in the comment section.

    There are also lots of other places to post messages, especially when you factor in sites like Facebook.

    Please find one or more of them and post there instead of here.

  201. paulie Post author

    Andy’s comments are not the reason for my absence.

    True, you are his biggest defender, but then you are also a fan of Trump, the confederacy, etc. However I said those who were posting the largest number of articles gave Andy’s comments as the reason for their absence. You have posted some articles but not nearly as many as some other people.

    Apparently I’ve been downgraded here. So even if I wanted to post an article I couldn’t do it myself.

    Incorrect. Your current status is author which means you can still post articles without anyone’s approval.

  202. paulie Post author

    but alt-left ranting

    There is no such thing. Alt right is what they named themselves. “Alt left” is a fictitious term, no one calls themselves that.

  203. paulie Post author

    Just put up an “Andy’s immigration rants” thread and confine him to that.

    Good idea. Please convey it to Warren Redlich.

  204. paulie Post author

    Andy is anti-ILLEGAL-immigration, as am I.

    False. For one if the only problem with “illegal” immigration, just make it legal and problem solved. For another Andy has ranted repeatedly against immigration regardless of whether it is “legal”.

    Throwing around the pejorative “alt-right” label is dishonest. First, the term is poorly defined.

    Also false. The term alt right was invented by those on the alt right and well defined by them.

    essentially conceding that they can’t argue with his reasoning

    On the contrary, I’ve debunked his bullshit more times than I can count, in great detail. Yet he keeps posting the same crap over and over. Why would I want to keep wasting time arguing what has already been argued to death long ago?

    dismissing his posts as “altreich paleofascist garbage”.

    That’s because they are.

  205. paulie Post author

    Yup,that’s the problem, this thread and a lot of the recent threads have turned into this, it’s very hard to keep a conversation going, people’s comments get skipped over, etc. It’s hard to find relevant comments to the post.

    That’s right. And given that the motivation to post new articles goes away.

  206. paulie Post author

    I’m pretty sure you have the necessary account privileges to revoke others’ account/posting access…

    Article posting, yes. However, I’ve not seen how Andy’s articles violate site rules. I can also add a commenter to the blacklist based on IP, screen name or email address. However, I have a personal conflict of interest when it comes to Andy, which is why I have left it up to Warren Redlich and/or group decision on the IPR writers/editors email list. We had the discussion about Andy and no consensus was reached, although many people did express a preference for banning him completely, giving him a warning and/or confining him to a quarantine thread. And, as I said many formerly active article posters said Andy’s comments are why they left the site.

    I am not going to take unilateral action on banning anyone. Those decisions were all made after discussion on the email list.

Leave a Reply

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