Marc Montoni: ‘Admitting My Error’

Original editorial submitted by Marc Montoni:

I think I’ve made a mistake.  I think I continued to make it for almost two decades.

I used to be that guy who showed up at every LP meeting and invited everyone who was in attendance to make that next step, and to join the LP.  I collected and sent well over 1,200 new or renewal memberships to the LP between 1996 and 2016.

I think it was a mistake because the LP’s membership efforts — mine included — have been too successful…

Too successful at enlisting people who Just Don’t Get It.

In the seventies, even many minarchists would have been at great pains to describe even one government regulation that they agreed with; and which they could justify being left among the powers allowed to government.

Now we have self-styled “anarchist LP members” who have no trouble suggesting that there are, indeed, government regulations that have a libertarian justification for supporting them.

In the past week, I have read commentary by two people I have known for a long time, saying that there is a libertarian case to be made for preventing people under 21 from owning a firearm.

A month ago, a whole bunch of self-styled “libertarian anarchists” jumped on the “under 18 cannot consent to sex” bandwagon — despite the fact that it is just another government regulation like any other (and despite the fact that millions do just that, year after year).

We appear to have a deep-seated misunderstanding of what anarchism and even libertarianism actually mean.

You become a libertarian when you understand that it’s wrong to run the lives of others.

You become an anarchist when you understand that there simply are no exceptions.

We have spent the last forty years allowing ourselves to swallow Leviathan’s propaganda that “it’s for the children!!” and that only Leviathan can ever be the arbiter of who is competent to own a weapon, drive a car, have sex, take drugs, buy property, or set up a business.

We have become Leviathan’s “good little junior partner” in the charade.

How far we have fallen.

I am deeply sorry for my error.  My penance is that I am going to take a long break from recruiting LP members, at least until I can find a better way to enlist the people who are already out there in the millions who completely understand that the entire construct of our government is one big fraud and long con.

In short, the kind of people the LP has pointedly avoided talking to, for two generations.

Instead, we’re talking to valium-popping socialist soccer moms and beer-swilling sports-bar union thug dads — who both joined the Leviathan parties when they were in their teens either because that’s what their parents were or because they were rebelling against what their parents were.  We’ve spent forty years talking to that audience, and the result has been 40 years of banging around between 10,000 and 25,000 annual donors.

There must be more. We need a quarter-million annual donors, and walking softly isn’t getting us introduced to them.

We need to be offensive to the rest to appeal to the best.

And make no mistake, Libertarian ideas themselves are TOXIC to Republicans and Democrats. You can’t make them like it; nor can you make them not be offended by our ideas. They are simply not capable of any other reaction. We should stop trying to be inoffensive and non-threatening to them, because in doing so, we sell our real cohort down the river — without any benefit to us.

It appears to be reality that the LP is now on a path from which it will not easily diverge. There are vanishingly few Libertarians who understand that we’re ignoring our core market — and they’re getting more and more scarce every day.

Arvin Vohra, who has been trying something very different, will be replaced at the national convention in 2018 with someone far more milquetoasty who will go in the exact opposite direction.

The die is cast, and it will likely stay cast.

The LP is now part of the “loyal” opposition.

It has become a whipped puppy — instead of the junkyard dog that it was supposed to be.

————-

Marc Montoni serves as the President of the Libertarian Practical Politics Association as well as the Chief of the Annoyance Caucus of the Libertarian Party.  A long-time resident of Virginia, primariy Richmond and Harrisonburg, Montoni has served as the Membership Chairman for the Libertarian Party of Virginia as well as many other posts over four decades of service.  He now resides in Colorado with his family.

See his blog at:

http://FreeVirginia.blogspot.com

[This article was originally published on the author’s blog and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Creative Commons License

285 thoughts on “Marc Montoni: ‘Admitting My Error’

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    At this point, “loyal opposition” would be a step up. Since 2008, we’ve pretty much been playing Chester to the Bob Dole / John Kasich wing of the GOP’s Spike.

  2. Chuck Moulton

    Marc Montoni wrote:

    You become a libertarian when you understand that it’s wrong to run the lives of others.

    You become an anarchist when you understand that there simply are no exceptions.

    Amen.

    Marc Montoni wrote:

    In the past week, I have read commentary by two people I have known for a long time, saying that there is a libertarian case to be made for preventing people under 21 from owning a firearm.

    Who wrote that?! Link?

  3. Anthony Dlugos

    “the millions who completely understand that the entire construct of our government is one big fraud and long con.“

    If that market existed, it would have been identified already and captured by SOME political party. We would have had SOME indication in the last 45 years that a segment of the population is prepared to vote for someone who, say, suggests ending social security completely as a policy position.

    The data shows nothing of the sort. It shows the opposite.

    It’s even more ludicrous to suggest there is a market out there of people who want to eliminate age of consent laws entirely. If there is, prove it. Get elected on such a platform.

    The obvious conclusion is that that market does not exist. Hell, it doesn’t even exist within the LP itself, as the author properly points out.

    As an aside, people complaining about the government does not equal = anarchist, any more than people who don’t regularly attend church = atheist.

    Its pretty clear from the data that people complaining about the government almost exclusively fall under the heading of “we expect this entity to do better,” not a principled stand against the entity altogether.

    What is it that Churchill said? Something to the effect of, “most people, after stumbling over the truth, pick themselves up and keep on moving as if nothing happened.”

    If Vohra gets bounced, as he should, it strains credulity to suggest that a room full of Libertarians, the most skeptical of all people regardling government action, are missing the boat on the elimination of age of consent laws that the voting public has jumped on.

    Furthermore, if he gets bounced, we as a political party have no other standard to judge the truthiness of a claim that “a market of voters exists that will vote for a party that wants to eliminate age of consent laws.” This here is a political party, not a philosophical movement. There is no other standard other than “votes counted.”

  4. Andy

    Support for ending Social Security would be higher if people were presented with a plan that still pays off all of those currently dependent on Social Security, as well as those who will soon be dependent on Social Security. Just saying end Social Security without a plan to phase it out conjures up images of old people being tossed into the streets.

  5. Andy

    There is no point in having a Libertarian Party if the only thing that matters is number of votes received. Those who want to detach philosophy and just focus on number of votes ought to go join the Democrats or Republicans.

    Also, while votes were up for the presidential ticket, it should be noted that the circumstances surrounding presidential elections have been much better for the LP than in the past (a higher percentage of the population not happy with the D’s and R’s, and no higher profile minor party or independent candidates in the race), and even considering this, most of the votes the presidential received were protest votes from people who did not like the major party candidates.

    The number of elected Libertarians is way down from what it was in the early 2000’s (less than 1/3 as many elected Libertarians as in 2003, and dues paying party membership is less than half of what it was 17-18 years ago.

  6. DJ

    Build it they will come- moving the location prevents many- the foundation has to be solid, in place before a structure will stand. A split foundation is in trouble before the frame is erected- unless designed that way. Voters aren’t going to chase a cause anymore than ball players will chase a field- they’ll play with what they have and settle for and complain continuously about someone needs to build “something” else. If that something else is deformed, or keeps moving around, they’ll keep playing in what they recognize and are used to. It makes them feel safe- regardless of the obvious unsafe conditions they are a known. The “new” (to voters/players) field better offer better playing conditions- a solid foundation, with a frame work in place- AND advertise it as such.

  7. Anthony Dlugos

    I never argued that the number of votes received is ONLY thing that matters, Andy.

    What I’ve argued is that vote maximization is the sine qua non of ANY political party, including ours. No particular principle is more important than the realization that we have to get elected and stay elected first. Our mission is constrained by voter preference.

    There’s no point in having a Libertarian Party if we don’t understand that. Now, libertarianism would certainly still exist in that universe. We could just say we are not willing to compromise our principles to get votes, and as a consequence a political party becomes untenable.

  8. Jeff Wood

    Marc, your message would be well received in the Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus, have you read our Platform? We have a Children’s Rights plank, and a Rothbard’s Button plank calling for the immediate end to the state. I know you have butted heads with many of our members in the past, but we sincerely want your voice to be heard, and we agree that the time for principled libertarians to shun the spotlight is over. Please consider it, you don’t even have to unblock me, I know I’m an asshole.

    -Jeff Wood

  9. robert capozzi

    I’d like to hear the argument from an L who thinks that there’s a case for denying 2A rights to those under 21. That makes NO sense to me. And I’m a policy moderate!

    Under 18, yes. Continuing the ban on automatic weapons, yes. Age of consent laws, yes.

    Anyone know MM’s source?

  10. Marc Montoni

    Under 18, yes. Continuing the ban on automatic weapons, yes. Age of consent laws, yes.

    Coming from Capozzi, none of that is unexpected. I’m not referring to him.

    Neither the ban on automatic weapons nor banning ownership of firearms by those under 18 is defensible from any definition of Libertarianism, yet there are people who I thought were good solid Libertarians who nevertheless support that ban.

    Anyone know MM’s source?

    Perhaps I should have been more clear: these were not opinions read from necessarily published libertarian authors, but rather individual conversations I’ve had over the past couple of months. Just seems like the culture within the LP has gotten very much confused.

  11. Clayton

    Marc,

    It’s time to come home.

    The Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus represents what you say here.

  12. DJ

    MM: Coming from Capozzi, none of that is unexpected. I’m not referring to him.

    Me: He claims the vast, vast majority is in his corner. I’m not sure that a vast majority of Republicrats and a vast majority Demopublicans combined for “vast, vast” but I bet it’s not even a slim majority of libertarians, or Libertarians for that matter.

  13. DJ

    AD: We could just say we are not willing to compromise our principles to get votes,

    Me: Compromising principles is why we are where we are as a Country- the inability to sell the principle is not a compromise. Compromise comes at legislation time in wording. If the principle is compromised the war is over. If you don’t make your principles known you are compromised. If the divisiveness keeps up due to principles, then there is no single principle. There is but one principle libertarians should hold dear- “all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed”. If the sales pitch doesn’t incorporate that then the salesman needs lessons in winning friends and influencing people- win hearts, minds will follow. “Build it they will come”.

  14. dL

    In the past week, I have read commentary by two people I have known for a long time, saying that there is a libertarian case to be made for preventing people under 21 from owning a firearm.

    A long time critique of “libertarian moments” is that they simply result in a discourse of “the libertarian case” for the same ole shit. The libertarian case for border control, the libertarian case for regulating speech, the libertarian case for an abortion death penalty, the libertarian case for gun control, the libertarian case for invading country XYZ, the libertarian case for Rudy Giuliani, the libertarian case for Mitt Romney, and on and on and on….

  15. dL

    Our mission is constrained by voter preference.

    And I have written time and time again that 3rd party politics cannot play the game of the median voter theorem. And this has nothing to do with libertarianism per se. This is basic political science.

  16. robert capozzi

    MM,

    Yes, well, the picture of 7-year-olds having sex while clutching machine guns somehow doesn’t feel like a positive development to me, for maximizing liberty or really by any yardstick I can imagine. 😉 Apparently, you feel that that’s somehow something to relish–demand, even.

  17. Libertydave

    robert capozzi, why are you picturing 7-year olds having sex while clutching machine guns? Nobody else has said anything about this on this web site.

  18. Anthony Dlugos

    “And I have written time and time again that 3rd party politics cannot play the game of the median voter theorem.”

    Maybe that’s the difference, then. Because I don’t want to be a third party anymore. I want to displace one of the two dinosaur parties as a major party in this country, and I think a moderately libertarian party can do that, and accomplish some good from that new position, even if its not libertopia.

    I’m not going to deny the changes that would have to occur in order for that to happen. I’ve readily admitted such a LP would be unrecognizable to the current LP.

  19. Anthony Dlugos

    “…why are you picturing 7-year olds having sex while clutching machine guns? Nobody else has said anything about this on this web site.”

    In the unlikely event that a Montonian radical got some traction in an electoral contest, surely you understand that would be the image their opponent would create, correct?

    What’s more, a true radical would not deny the image and would dig in for the fight they claim they want, believing there are millions of voters whose complaints about government inefficiency and unfavorable opinions of politicians betray a desire for full-on Thunderdome society.

  20. robert capozzi

    LD,

    No one EXPLICITLY said that, true. Once a policy extreme is taken, though, it’s perfectly natural to test that position with concrete hypotheticals. We go from the general to the specific.

    MM: Just seems like the culture within the LP has gotten very much confused.

    me: That’s possible. Or it could be that the Fog of 50 Years is finally starting to lift. Although, in this particular case, the dazed NAPsters MM refers to may have replaced one form of confusion with another.

    But, of course, there may be a case for denying 2A rights to 18-21 YOs. I just can’t think of one.

  21. DJ

    SMH- make the simple complicated- trade mark of….. wait for it….. establishment….. foundation on shifting sand, or mud, moving goal posts, extreme what if =

  22. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Yes, you know, I’ve never actually read THE NEW AMERICAN. Perhaps that’s it. My lack of interest in JBS may well be my fatal flaw! 😉

  23. dL

    Because I don’t want to be a third party anymore. I want to displace one of the two dinosaur parties as a major party in this country, and I think a moderately libertarian party can do that, and accomplish some good from that new position, even if its not libertopia.

    If wishes were fishes we’d all swim in riches. Ain’t going to happen.

    “Moderate libertarianism” simply means a trailing indicator for today’s authoritarianism. If some libertarian 20 years ago would have endorsed government deny lists for flying or gun ownership, they wouldn’t not have been called “moderate libertarian.” They would have been called a fucking commie. Ed Clark, the 1980s prototype for “moderate libertarian,” would today be regarded as a flaming radical.

    Moderate libertarianism is not a stop gap, a firewall nor a flavored diet drink alternative. It is simply follow the authoritarian piped piper at the back of the line. Today’s moderate libertarian is today’s authoritarian and tomorrow’s unthinkable dinosaur.

  24. DJ

    RC: Yes, you know, I’ve never actually read THE NEW AMERICAN. Perhaps that’s it. My lack of interest in JBS may well be my fatal flaw!

    Me: No, your flaw, fatal or not: “making the simple complicated”- and in this instance not acknowledging that knowledge isn’t biased in its source, only in its application, which renders a flawed (read subjective) analysis aiming for an objective (make the simple complicated) vs being objective (rendering a sound conclusion).

    Many of their articles (and opinions) present a different perspective than the MSM allowing the reader to consider, or reconsider, an establishment (vast, vast majority opinion) approved consensus.

  25. Don Wills

    AD wrote:

    “Maybe that’s the difference, then. Because I don’t want to be a third party anymore. I want to displace one of the two dinosaur parties as a major party in this country, and I think a moderately libertarian party can do that, and accomplish some good from that new position, even if its not libertopia.”

    Even if you could somehow take over the LP with moderate libertarians (opposing some drug legalization, opposing open borders) *which will never happen*, the GOP and the Dems would never allow the LP to replace them. Period. You are really tilting at windmills with this line of thought.

    If you really want to make a difference in your lifetime, take over the local GOP – elect all of the precinct committee people in your county with folks who love liberty, and then do the same thing for another county in your state, etc. Pretty soon you will sitting at the table with the real enemy – the RINOs who lie about how they want limited government.

    In short, the Dems are not the reason the LP has failed. The actual reason is that the GOP has taken up all the air that the LP wants to inhabit and control. The LP can’t and won’t ever replace the GOP, so the only feasible alternative is to replace the insides of the GOP with Ron Paul types.

    Which brings up the question – why did Ron Paul fail? My short answer is because he surrounded himself with the same type of swamp critters that infest the GOP – folks who just used their horse (Dr. Paul) to enrich themselves. For all his wonderful principles, Ron Paul was a poor judge of character and was an incompetent politician. Don’t get me wrong – Ron Paul is my hero. He is the reason I became involved in politics. But he failed.

  26. dL

    robert capozzi, why are you picturing 7-year olds having sex while clutching machine guns? Nobody else has said anything about this on this web site.

    Yeah, Bob’s going to be in trouble when the Feds perfect their thought imaging surveillance scans. Concrete hypotheticals, eh?

  27. paulie Post author

    why are you picturing 7-year olds having sex while clutching machine guns?

    I was 11, not 7. And enough about my misspent youth already.

  28. Anthony Dlugos

    “If wishes were fishes we’d all swim in riches. Ain’t going to happen.”

    Not only is it going to happen, I’d call it inevitable. No political party lasts forever. Given the general popularity of a “socially accepting, fiscally responsible” message, I think a moderate libertarian message is well-positioned to replace one of the two major parties.

    Of course, the nation could very well slip into some sort of totalitarian state, in which case who is in charge will be the least of my concerns.

    ““Moderate libertarianism” simply means a trailing indicator for today’s authoritarianism. If some libertarian 20 years ago would have endorsed government deny lists for flying or gun ownership, they wouldn’t not have been called “moderate libertarian.” They would have been called a fucking commie. Ed Clark, the 1980s prototype for “moderate libertarian,” would today be regarded as a flaming radical.”

    Frankly, notwithstanding your point of view on the matter, that’s basically what I’ve been trying to tell you for quite some time now: because the Libertarian Party is in the electoral arena, it is going to be affected by the political context of the times. There’s no way around that. What might have been acceptable as a policy 20 years ago, might not be anymore. Part of being skilled in politics is some understanding of what the public might accept at any given moment. Regardless of how far short it might fall from your own personal utopia.

    That’s electoral politics. If you don’t like it. it just means you’re in the wrong arena. There are plenty of avenues for political expression where votes are not a consideration. I merely suggest that the radical/purist understands what you and I both understand: electoral politics is by necessity built on shifting sand. The better able you are to jettison the philosophical hang-ups and get to 50% +1, the better you are in this particular arena. That’s a particular skill, and to me, its the difference between, say, being able to end the federal war on marijuana now, with the belief that that will, as Governor Johnson said, “create a quantum leap in understanding about how to treat drug addiction,” and insisting on a total end to the drug war, full stop, which might delay any positive changes that could have occurred. The radical doesn’t have the moral high ground in this matter. I say, in fact, the moderate does, and the radical turns a deaf ear to positive changes that could happen NOW because they are not getting everything they want.

    In any event, I tend to agree with you: Ed Clark, the 1980s prototype for “moderate libertarian,” would today be regarded as a flaming radical. Given that the most radicals are the tip of the spear, and either already in the party or opposed to the party on principal, isn’t that moderation inevitable?

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    Don Willis,

    “Even if you could somehow take over the LP with moderate libertarians (opposing some drug legalization, opposing open borders) *which will never happen*, the GOP and the Dems would never allow the LP to replace them.”

    They don’t have as much control of the process of political realignment than you think they do. Eventually, its gonna change far too fast for them to keep up. (I’ll concede that they’ve done a good job so far of keeping up through ballot access laws and the like, but their die was cast when the decided, as in any market, to suppress competition rather than improve their product. Defeat is inevitable now.

    “If you really want to make a difference in your lifetime, take over the local GOP…”

    That’s fighting yesterday’s battle. Given the fact that I see the GOP devolving into some level of white nationalist/american fascist party, that’s like jumping on the Titanic. The smart political entrepreneur will get ahead of the curve and jump on the party that has a future (the LP).

    “Which brings up the question – why did Ron Paul fail?”

    I’m sure everyone has their opinion on that, but I think you are right that he surrounded himself with many bad characters, but, despite his impressive knowledge of many of the principles of liberty, he was just too conservative. He tried to shoehorn libertarianism into that conservatism, and ended up with a bastard child that evolved very badly.

  30. dL

    Not only is it going to happen, I’d call it inevitable. No political party lasts forever.

    Well, nothing lasts forever; but major political parties tend to last as long as the state’s they are attached to last. Your fantasy that major political parties are as transient as the neighborhood sandwich shop franchise is historical nonsense. Delusional. The democratic party has existed since the beginning. The republican party emerged from the civil war. An analysis of American history regarding failure and/or emergence of major parties demonstrates it is a very rare occurrence triggered by a political realignment around major events like war(the war of 1812, the civil war) and major issues(slavery).

    The Federalists collapsed because of the war of 1812. The Whigs emerged from the one party state because of the Andrew Jackson’s “the victors are the grifters” and the tyranny of the majority. The Civil war dispatched the whigs…and out emerged the GOP. And there has been no major party disruption since then.

    History teaches that if you are looking for major party realignment, it will occur, if it is to occur, over a major dividing line issue. An issue that becomes a transcendent issue, with one side of it having no political representation. What I can say with absolute certitude is that this transcendent political issue will not be the median voter theorem.

    Frankly, notwithstanding your point of view on the matter, that’s basically what I’ve been trying to tell you for quite some time now: because the Libertarian Party is in the electoral arena

    And you just demonstrated what you are for is a party as a trailing indicator. If I want the authoritarianism of the day, I can get that elsewhere. Cheaper and better. So can anyone else.

  31. Don Wills

    dL wrote:

    “Your fantasy that major political parties are as transient as the neighborhood sandwich shop franchise is historical nonsense. Delusional.”

    +100

  32. Anthony Dlugos

    “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; / Or close the wall….ahh, f*ck it/we’re never gonna amount to anything more than a third party anyway.”

    Nope, doesn’t have the same ring to me.

  33. Don Wills

    AD wrote:

    “Given the fact that I see the GOP devolving into some level of white nationalist/american fascist party, that’s like jumping on the Titanic. The smart political entrepreneur will get ahead of the curve and jump on the party that has a future (the LP).”

    1. The LP has no future. IF it still exists in 25 years, it will be just as impotent as it is today.

    2. Your comment about the GOP becoming fascist offers an opportunity for intruders like you to gain power and thence control. Most rank and file GOP voters are not fascists/racists/homophobes. They do believe in strong borders (and actually most union members – typically Dems – do too). There is a giant chasm between the RINO/establishment and Trump voters inside the GOP. Listen to Rush Limbaugh every day and you will understand about how big that chasm is. I repeat – that offers opportunity to those who can see it. If you understand Trump voters and use that knowledge, you and your like-minded comrades will have a chance of gaining power and influence inside the bowels of the GOP. However, if you summarily dismiss them in particular and the GOP in general, you will be forever lost in the wilderness of political exile, and in your case, self imposed.

  34. Anthony Dlugos

    “Most rank and file GOP voters are not fascists/racists/homophobes.”

    Maybe not all three, no.

    This is the future of the GOP, courtesy of the recent CPAC meeting:

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/data-clashes-with-emotion-as-cpac-immigration-panel-goes-off-the-rails

    The only panel dedicated to immigration at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference quickly went off the rails Thursday, with audience members drowning out panelists’ presentation of data about the benefits of immigration with boos, laughter, and stories of “obvious illegal immigrants defecating in the woods, fornicating in the woods.”

  35. Don Wills

    “This is the future of the GOP…”

    The future is unknown. Nobody knows where the GOP will be on issues in 10 years, 20 years… Look how Trump has changed the GOP in less than 24 months. The Koch brothers, the Chamber of Commerce, and most of the establishment absolutely loves illegal immigration – cheap labor and all that. But voters do not, and that’s the primary reason that Trump got elected – he truly reflects the mood of the people on the issue of jobs and immigration, which is a very important issue in all elections, but even more so now that everyone recognizes that the purchasing power (e.g. standard of living) of the average/median family in the USA has been stagnant for the last 30 years.

    Anthony – you can make a difference working inside the GOP. However, that will likely never happen as it seems you’ve already closed off taking that fork in the road. Remember what Ron Paul said and did after his LP Presidential campaign. He wished the LP well, moved on, and never looked back.

  36. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Yes, the Clark campaign was more “radical” in policy than many contemporary Ls such as myself. MNR was still a giant figure at the time, and the Crane Machine was still under his sway until MNR flipped out over Clark’s “low tax liberal” phrase. “Moderate” in those days meant “moderate in rhetoric” only.

    After decades of failure, many of us who embrace a “moderate L” stance realize that NAPsterism assures political irrelevance.

    For me, the differentiator is the directional/destinational frame. NAPsters long for the day of statelessness, and they are inclined toward grandiose statements about what a L society might look like, e.g., no laws against machine gun ownership and no age of consent laws.

    ASIDE: Perhaps instead of NAPsters, I should use the term DESTINISTS. Whatcha think?

    I reject your characterization of we DIRECTIONISTs as “authoritarian.” Instead, we are LESSARCHists, as contrasted with authoritarian MOREARCHists. I’d like to see an actual political movement that assesses the current dysfunction and seeks reasonable means to roll the State back. We take the current context into account for where we’d focus lessarchist efforts, rather than tilting at the State windmill, lock, stock, and barrel, as Destinists are wont to do.

    Touche, btw, on concrete hypotheticals. Better term’d be “specific hypotheticals.” MMs grandiose desire for legalizing any and all weapons and sex at any age begs for specific examples to test his scary worldview.

  37. Libertydave

    robert capozzi, you EXPLICITLY said that. The quote about 7-year old’s came from your comment. No one else even implied that. These are your thoughts you are using to justify your philosophies of “might make right” and “the end justifies the means”.

    You claiming that this is a logical extension of my positions on age of consent laws and gun control is not only a disgusting lie but also shows that you have no rational argument against my positions so you try and use fraud and fear to get others to support your views.

  38. robert capozzi

    LD,

    I’m happy to apologize if your views have been mischaracterized. But that would mean that you support laws against machine guns, age restrictions for machine guns, and age of consent laws for children.

    Do you?

  39. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    That’s electoral politics. If you don’t like it. it just means you’re in the wrong arena. There are plenty of avenues for political expression where votes are not a consideration. I merely suggest that the radical/purist understands what you and I both understand: electoral politics is by necessity built on shifting sand. The better able you are to jettison the philosophical hang-ups and get to 50% +1, the better you are in this particular arena. That’s a particular skill, and to me, its the difference between, say, being able to end the federal war on marijuana now, with the belief that that will, as Governor Johnson said, “create a quantum leap in understanding about how to treat drug addiction,” and insisting on a total end to the drug war, full stop, which might delay any positive changes that could have occurred. The radical doesn’t have the moral high ground in this matter. I say, in fact, the moderate does, and the radical turns a deaf ear to positive changes that could happen NOW because they are not getting everything they want.

    That’s libertarian politics. If you don’t like it. it just means you’re in the wrong arena. There are plenty of avenues for political expression where libertarian philosophy are not a consideration. I merely suggest that the political libertarian understands what you and I both understand: libertarian politics is by necessity built on libertarian philosophy (like the Statement of Principles). The better able you are to jettison the electoral hang-ups and get to a libertarian message, the better you are in this particular arena. That’s a particular skill, and to me, its the difference between, say, being able to legalize medical marijuana for 21+ year olds in a few decades as long as they forfeit their guns and pay triple taxes, with the belief that that will, as Governor Johnson said, “maybe help someone someday be slightly less a slave to the state,” and advocating for a total end to drug prohibition, full stop, which might wake people up to the fact that government intervention into what you ingest is flat out wrong and leads to substantial problems for all involved. The moderate doesn’t have the moral high ground in this matter. I say, in fact, the radical does, and the moderate turns a deaf ear to consistent rhetoric that could be advocated NOW because they are not getting their equivocating politicians elected to run other people’s lives.

  40. dL

    That’s a particular skill, and to me, its the difference between, say, being able to end the federal war on marijuana now, with the belief that that will, as Governor Johnson said, “create a quantum leap in understanding about how to treat drug addiction

    Well, executing drug dealers certainly qualifies as a quantum leap in federal policy….bravo!

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth AD:

    “[The Republicans and Democrats] don’t have as much control of the process of political realignment than you think they do. Eventually, its gonna change far too fast for them to keep up.”

    And if the Libertarian Party continues to trot along behind them, running their rejects and whining “yes, us too, we’re just like them only better because REASONS,” it will not only be further behind that process than they are, but blocked by their big fat bodies in any attempt to catch up.

  42. DJ

    Now vs future….. legacy vs instant gratification. Maturity vs immaturity. Sow seeds reap a harvest.

  43. Libertydave

    robert capozzi, you deliberately mischaracterize my views to use fear to justify you advocating the use of force on other people to make you feel safer. And you say you will apologize for lying only if I will agree with your lies.

    The ability to consent is not dependent on age. It is dependent on mental ability. And anyone who thinks that basing the ability to consent on mental ability instead of age means that 7 year old children will be able to consent to sex is an idiot or they are being deliberately dishonest.

    So which are you? Are you an idiot or are you being deliberately dishonest to force other act like you believe they should.

  44. robert capozzi

    LD,

    My guess is that there’s no “right answer” for you other than “I am an idiot.” Which may be a comfort to you, and probably isn’t true, which for me is the most important thing.

    I don’t, btw,

    Unfortunately, your frame is apparently that of a Destinist. I’d like to see LESS force tomorrow. I like to see a lot less over time.

    If there’s a way to discern “mental ability,” I’d be for adoption of that standard for age-of-consent laws. Do you know of a way to arrive at the right answer?

  45. dL

    In any event, I tend to agree with you: Ed Clark, the 1980s prototype for “moderate libertarian,” would today be regarded as a flaming radical. Given that the most radicals are the tip of the spear, and either already in the party or opposed to the party on principal, isn’t that moderation inevitable?

    I don’t think you quite get my point.

    (a) Today’s moderate libertarian would regard tomorrow’s moderate libertarian as a mindless authoritarian whereas tomorrow’s libertarian would regard yesterday’s moderate libertarian as an unthinkable radical dinosaur.

    However, the supposed tradeoff moderate libertarians are making today in the name of increasing liberty should reverse the previous sentence:

    (a2) Today’s moderate libertarian would regard tomorrow’s moderate libertarian as an audacious radical whereas tomorrow’s moderate libertarian would thank yesterday’s moderate libertarian for services rendered but would nonetheless regard yesterday’s moderate libertarian as a timid dinosaur.

    The world works according to (a), not (a2). The only tradeoff moderate libertarianism is making is trading principle for #meToo respectability.

  46. Anthony Dlugos

    “The only tradeoff moderate libertarianism is making is trading principle for #meToo respectability.”

    Incorrect. The tradeoff I am making is trading a juvenile vision of Libertopia which only appeals to a small fraction of the already converted, in exchange for a libertarian message that appeals to the people we are SUPPOSED to be appealing to: the great mass of voters who just want better solutions, and have no desire to vote for someone or some party if that means they have to buy some dogma lock, stock, and barrel.

    Does that mean my primary concern is “#meToo respectability?” If so, I plead guilty.

  47. Anthony Dlugos

    From the o.p. here:

    “Instead, we’re talking to valium-popping socialist soccer moms and beer-swilling sports-bar union thug dads…”

    Here’s a thought: in the electoral arena, insulting any portion of your intended audience doesn’t work. Its likely that even your target customers…if they even exist…will get turned off if you insult other customers.

    It doesn’t work if you are Democrat Hillary Clinton going after the “basket of deplorables.”

    It doesn’t work if you are Republican Mitt Romney’ suggesting the 47% who vote Democratic are lazy leeches.

    It won’t work if you are Libertarian Marc Montoni characterizing voters as drug-addicts and thugs.

    The Libertarian Party works in the electoral arena. We exist at the pleasure of the voters, they don’t exist at ours. Our principles are constrained by their whims. We can offer them libertarian solutions to the extent they are willing to accept them. If that means we have to accept certain statist or partially statist elements they are unwilling to give up, then its our job to craft libertarian solutions that comport with that requirement. We don’t get to fantasize about some hidden majority of anarchists that are just waiting for a principled NAPster to come around, a majority that appears to be hidden away from every election in this country, from every poll, from every exit interview ever done.

    Prove me wrong. Get elected on an anarchist platform. Hell, get elected on an anarchist platform inside the temple of the Libertarian Party itself. Prove to me this market exists.

  48. dL

    The tradeoff I am making is trading a juvenile vision of Libertopia which only appeals to a small fraction of the already converted principle in exchange for a libertarian message that appeals to the people we are SUPPOSED to be appealing to ME the great mass of voters who just want better solutions , and they I have no desire to vote for someone or some party if that means they I have to buy some dogma principle lock, stock, and barrel.

    Yeah, that pretty much nails it…

  49. Anthony Dlugos

    Doesn’t nail it at all. 100% incorrect.

    I would prefer an immediate dissolution of social security. There is no market for it among the voters. So I understand, as I’ve noted before, that our solutions have to be constrained by the frame of reference of the voters.

    Radicals/purists don’t care about voter preference at all. What matters is what appeals to them. That can be dressed up in the NAP or your Median Voter Theorem or some other excuse, but its all just plain resistance to listening to the voters, and adjusting our message to their preferences.

    If you are suggesting I am wrong, there is a market for whatever principled message you believe in, then great, we have a way to prove it: market the message, get the delegates, and get your guy nominated, get the platform changed to reflect your preference, recruit candidates that reflect your message, and demonstrate the attractiveness of their message by vote totals.

  50. dL

    Doesn’t nail it at all. 100% incorrect.

    Oh, it does. Your basic claim is that your private voting interest equals what the voters want. Claiming private interest ==the public interest is an old trick, older than the world’s oldest profession.

    Radicals/purists don’t care about voter preference at all. Radicals/purists don’t care about voter preference at all. What matters is what appeals to them.

    Well, that’s democracy. lol. I would assume voters vote according to the issues that appeal to them and do not vote according to a calculation of how the issues appeal to the preferences of others. Apparently, you claim moderate libertarianism will rewrite the political science textbooks on voting theory!

    your Median Voter Theorem or some other excuse

    Well, I hate to break it to you, but adherence to the Median Voter theorem is what you are advocating. Before you presume to lecture others on politics, perhaps you should first read a book.

    If you are suggesting I am wrong, there is a market for whatever principled message you believe in, then great, we have a way to prove it: market the message, get the delegates,

    I’m not suggesting you are wrong. You are wrong. The basis for that conclusion is not libertarianism nor anarchism nor the LP platform nor ideology; instead, the basis is simple political science 101 of social choice and public choice theory, particularly as it pertains to the politics of 3rd parties in a plurality voting system[winner take all]. Arguing with you on that matter is like arguing with someone who denies the validity of the law of gravitation.

    then great, we have a way to prove it: market the message, get the delegates, and get your guy nominated, get the platform changed to reflect your preference, recruit candidates that reflect your message, and demonstrate the attractiveness of their message by vote totals.

    Well, that’s the fallacy of the misplaced burden. The burden is on you(and I’m guessing you actually have never done what you are demanding others to do) . Moderates and conservatives have systematically weakened the platform for two decades with little to show for it. Of course, that’s an easy prediction to make. But there was no need to play it out, any more than there would be a need for one to actually climb up on top of a roof and drop a stone to verify the law of gravitation.

  51. Don Wills

    Reading this comment thread is like listening to an argument about how many angels there are on the head of a pin. The arguments are about how to get to some fantastical volunteerist future whose inhabitants will embrace via the ballot box, and live in peace an harmony for millenia.

    A far more important and very real concern I have is this – will it be possible to arrest the slide into a collectivist tyranny overseen by alternating governments just as Orwell predicted in 1984? Unfortunately, my current betting is that the answer is no. I’d actually be ecstatic if my grandchildren were to live in a society that is as relatively free as we are today, but alas, I doubt that will happen.

  52. Anthony Dlugos

    “Well, that’s the fallacy of the misplaced burden. The burden is on you(and I’m guessing you actually have never done what you are demanding others to do) . Moderates and conservatives have systematically weakened the platform for two decades with little to show for it.”

    Why do I need to take on that burden anyway? Apparently, what we are doing is already working (in the effort to weaken the platform), per your statement. Why waste time proving anything to anyone?

    Get your votes by proving we are weakening a platform that didn’t need correction, or that we have nothing to show for such weakening. If you can’t find those votes, I’m just going to assume you are wrong., and that the party just doesn’t agree with your assessment.

  53. robert capozzi

    dw: will it be possible to arrest the slide into a collectivist tyranny overseen by alternating governments just as Orwell predicted in 1984?

    me: Great question. That why it’s so important for Ls to get both theory and practice reasonably correct. 45 years of NAPster/Destinist domination was almost completely ineffectual.

    This battleship turns too slowly, but the LM does seem to be moving in a lessarchist/Directionist direction, and early indicators are positive. The rearguard Destinist elements are resisting the shift, along with paleo/alt-right L forces.

  54. Chuck Moulton

    Bob,

    I am a “lessarchist”. I advocate for less government and more freedom. For some reason you keep arguing for more government and less freedom. That seems to make you a “moreachist”.

    The whole impetus of this article was Marc seeing so-called libertarians make a case for more government.

  55. Andy

    “Don Wills
    March 22, 2018 at 12:40
    Reading this comment thread is like listening to an argument about how many angels there are on the head of a pin. The arguments are about how to get to some fantastical volunteerist future whose inhabitants will embrace via the ballot box, and live in peace an harmony for millenia.”

    I think that the most realistic option for achieving this are what Roger Ver is trying to do with the Free Society project, that is buying some land from some poor country, and working out an agreement with that country to not interfere with that land, and then forming a new libertarian society (or country, or non-country as he calls it) there, and what Vit Jedlicka is doing with Liberland, as in he is starting a new libertarian country that is on land that is in between Serbia and Croatia, and was unclaimed by both countries. Another realistic option is the Liberstad private libertarian city project in Norway, but the bad thing about that one is that they’d still be under the jurisdiction of the Norwegian government.

    Interestingly enough< I spoke to Roger Ver and Vit Jedlicka at the recent Anarchapulco event in Acapulco, Mexico, and they both said that they support immigration by contract, private property borders, and physically removing contract violators. I also communicated via email with somebody from the Liberstad private libertarian city project in Norway, and this person also said that they agreed with me about migration/immigration to the private city via contract, and they support physical removal of contract violators.

    Notice how the libertarians who are actually taking real steps to build a libertarian society do not embrace open borders?

    Vit Jedlicka of Liberland specifically stated that he does not want socialists, communists, Nazis, or religious extremists (he specifically mentioned Muslim extremists) in Liberland. He wants Liberland to be a place for libertarians. Vit Jedlicka knows that if Liberland were to embrace open borders that it would not be long before they'd be overrun by Marxists and/or Muslim theocrats.

    "Open borders" is not a real libertarian issue. The real, purist libertarian position on borders and immigration is that all land should be privately owned, the state, along with taxes, and democratic elections (unless they are held by voluntary organizations, and only effect the people who consented to the election), should all be abolished, and migration/immigration across private property borders would be regulated by private property owners. This does not mean "open borders, dude. Share the land, bro." It means legalized discrimination, and physical removal, at the discretion of private property owners. If a private property owner chooses to have a very law entrance policy to their land, they can do that, but I seriously doubt that any property owner would have a completely open border to their land (or if they did, I don't think such policy would last very long, as it would mean that unlimited numbers of squatters could show up on their land). Land that is unclaimed could be "open," while it is unclaimed, but if somebody homesteaded that land, they would then become the private property owner, and would set the migration/immigration policy onto their land.

    Since we don't live in private property anarcho-capitalist society, private property owners are prohibited from enacting most regulations on border policy and migration/immigration, so this is a function that has been ceded over to governments (which is how the world is presently arranged). Just because government controls the land, it does not give free license to late comers who are not a part of an already established society (know in our present world as countries) to enter into a land territory with no questions asked, and to have free and automatic unlimited access to the land, infrastructure, and public services, all paid for by the resident taxpayers of said land territory (ie-the "citizens"), and to have access to a society's system of government. Reality is that we live in a country that has devolved into being a democratic welfare state that has forced association laws. A situation like this attracts people who come to take advantage of these systems. This is not to say that there should be no immigration, and it certainly does not mean no tourist, and no foreign workers, but reality is that the way the laws are set up and being interpreted right now, that many people who are actually destructive to the liberty and interests of the existing population are flooding into the country (I'm talking about the USA here, but the same situation exists in Canada, as well as in many countries in Europe), and the statistics prove that they are sucking up disproportionate amounts of welfare money, and money from other government services, and they that after becoming American "citizens" (which I would say is being done in fraudulent manner, as the citizenship oath includes swearing to protect and defend the US Constitution, and it is blatantly clear that the majority of these people do not agree with or understand the US Constitution), they vote in super-majority numbers to increase the welfare state and pass more gun control laws. Some of these so called "immigrant" groups (I would say that invader is a more accurate description for some of these people) also have crime rates that are higher than that of most of the existing population. A good example of this is that countries in Europe that have allowed for mass migration of Muslims have seen a huge increase in violent crime, especially the crime of rape, and it is because of the Muslim migrants (a high percentage of whom are on government welfare). The same problem exists in the USA and Canada with Muslim migrants, but it is not quite as bad as in Europe yet, because the European countries effected have higher percentage of these people.

    Anyone who thinks that this current situation with immigration into the USA, Canada, and countries in Europe (like Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc…) has something to do with libertarianism is at best naive and/or uniformed, and at worst they are intellectually dishonest.

    The current statist migration into European based countries is a Marxist and globalist plot to destroy these countries, and to bring about the New World Order. Yes, it is a literal evil plot, and any self described "libertarian" who supports it is either a useful idiot or a collaborator with the enemy (whether they realize it or not).

    Fortunately, not every libertarian is naive or unprincipled enough to support this statist "immigration" scam.

  56. robert capozzi

    cm,

    Where exactly did I advocate for more government?

    If you mean that my support for the continuing ban on machine guns and existing age-of-consent laws, that seems like a neutral position to me.

    Both laws MIGHT in theory be up for revisiting at some point down the line. For the foreseeable future, I support these laws. There are many, far more impactful, areas of government needing chemotherapy. There are some programs and departments that should be scheduled for a function-ectomy.

    In some ways, James Weeks was a great mirror for the LP. And if you are going to position yourself as a wacko, why not go all the way? A machine gun in every pot and pre-pubescent orgies!

    Why not? If you are not going to position yourselves as serious, Weeks is the wayshower!

  57. Andy

    There has been another big rape scandal in Europe, where gangs of Muslim migrants raped and abused English women, and in some cases they even murdered them after raping and abusing them. Some of these women were underage.

    “Peaceful people crossing borders, dude.” (Sarcasm intended.)

    Stefan Molyneux: What Pisses Me Off About The Telford Grooming Scandal

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cREIck1n9os

  58. robert capozzi

    Wow! Wacko-ism’s Force is strong here!

    Exhibit B, right here on IPR:

    “A Michigan candidate for US Senate has proposed arming homeless people with pump-action shotguns in an effort to reduce crime.

    Brian Ellison, who is running against Democratic incumbent Debbie Stabenow, says homeless people are “constantly victims of violent crime” and providing them with firearms would provide a deterrent.”

  59. Anthony Dlugos

    Indeed, RC.

    Clearly Johnson-Weld’s fault for drawing that wacko into the party.

  60. Libertydave

    robert capozzi

    You really should quit reading peoples comments then claiming that they believe something that has nothing to do with the comments. It is dishonest on your part and you are generally wrong.

    For example you stated that from my comment you think that I believe in destiny. I believe in free will and believing in destiny is to deny free will. People who claim to believe in destiny use it as an excuse to harm others claiming that they have no choice because it was destined to happen.

    Everybody always has a choice and they should be responsible for the choices they make.

    Also equating the non aggression principle with believing is destiny is flat out wrong. How you get having a principle that help you determine if your choice is a good choice or a bad choice means that you believe all your choices are made for you is beyond me.

  61. Libertydave

    robert capozzi

    your comment was; “Unfortunately, your frame is apparently that of a Destinist. I’d like to see LESS force tomorrow. I like to see a lot less over time.”

    from the Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.
    Destinist
    Des´ti`nist
    n. 1. A believer in destiny; a fatalist.

  62. Libertydave

    Andy;

    Claiming that because some Muslims are rapists that all Muslims are rapist is the same as claiming that because some Catholic Priests are pedophiles that all Catholics are pedophiles. Are you really this much of a closed minded fool that lets fear override their reason?

    And as far a closed borders being a libertarian position, you still haven’t answered my question. How can you telling me who I can and can’t associate with be a libertarian position?

  63. robert capozzi

    LD,

    Oh, it’s a word! I did not know that. Thank you.

    I guess I have to use “destinationalist,” then. A bit awkward. Maybe I continue to use NAPster, then.

  64. DJ

    SMH again. Classic example(s) of why I will never officially (or personally) endorse a Party of any stripe.

    The Party will tell you what you can or can’t believe in, officially- and demand you endorse it by voting for “less” or “more”- “officially” denying an Individual’s right to choose, which is the most basic of rights, or you’re not Libertarian…..Jeezus h christ. Make the simple complicated.

  65. DJ

    RC: Destination, not destiny. You misunderstand.

    Me: Life is a journey not a destination. Hitting a brick wall at 90mph is the end of the journey, but undoubtedly not the destination.

  66. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Exactly!

    We have choices IN THE MOMENT and we select our direction based on a combination of probabilities; the special knowledge of time and place; and intuitive feelings.

    NAPsters tend to not reject this, BUT they invent grandiose moral constructs and they try to map out the “ideal” path toward their imagined endstate. They tend to advocate for things that are simply not plausible in the near term. Instead, they attempt to use their moralistic and often sanctimonious positions less to propose improvements to the social order but rather to illustrate the construct that they hope may someday prevail through an “education” process. Honest NAPsters know that vast portions of the State are not going to be abolished tomorrow. They are, rather, playing a very long game, if I may be so charitable.

    Politics, however, is not a long game.

    I can’t say that NAPsters are “wrong” in their approach. I can share that I see NO evidence that it’s working. Statism and statist thought is, if anything, on the rise.

    Sadly.

  67. Mikester

    The Libertarian Socialist Caucus has done an amazing job of reaching left radicals. These are people who already reject the state and don’t have to be persuaded. The only thing that has held them back is the rude behavior of ancaps who think the teeny little square in the lower righthand corner of the political compass inhabited basically only by Rothbard and the hand he masturbates with are the whole of libertarianism. In reality, the entire bottom row of squares from left to right are our people!! Thanks to the #LibSocCaucus, they are learning that they too have a home with us. #winning

  68. Libertydave

    robert capozzi,

    So when fear doesn’t work for you, you make up words to confuse the issue.

    It is you who is obsessed with the destination, not those who follow the NAP. Your the one who is advocating that the end justifies the means. In other words it is you who doesn’t care who gets hurt as long as in the end you can feel safe.

    Those who follow the NAP believe that how you get there is as important as where you go. If you achieve peace through the threat of violence then your peace will only last as long as the threat of violence lasts. If you achieve peace through understanding of each other then you will have a peace that will last forever.

  69. robert capozzi

    LD,

    I have asked NAPsters for a better term previous, and none that work for me has been suggested. If you have an answer other than “libertarian” or “radical,” I would be much obliged.

    I don’t happen to believe that the ends justify the means, actually. As I look at that question, I suggest that means are ends in themselves.

    OTOH, I don’t think that the NAPster nostrum, “Taxation is theft…and therefore taxation should be abolished,” is helpful. Not at all. I say this for 2 reasons: 1) It’s not going to happen. 2) If it somehow were to happen, my sense is the dislocation would probably be catastrophic.

    Taxation is undeniably force, but the question becomes, “What is the alternative?”

    Ends and means, then, are not neat little moral pop quizzes. It’s more complicated than that, in my judgment.

  70. DJ

    One step at a time- win hearts minds will follow.

    All men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed. That is a blanket statement.
    Non Aggressive Principle is an individual effort. That means it’s a personal choice to illustrate, display or exemplify or, an attempt to win a heart or hearts. Example is the best teacher and often the most expensive.
    A foundation must be solid- All men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed. Until that is understood all else is just self-serving, regardless of the alphabet letters assigned, or the economics entailed.

    The “Party” reps here don’t seem to understand the most basic tenants of leadership. “Good leadership is for the benefit of the followers not the enrichment of the leaders”. “Leadership is not wielding power, it is empowering people”. “Win hearts, minds will follow”. More importantly (at least from what I see here) is the “blanket” refusal of building a solid foundation. Posters choose to classify and factionalize because, well, it’s more interesting. I’ll agree (to an extent), but, the devil is in the details- details divide and move a focus away from empowering people.

    Now, maybe I’m missing something and ‘all’ believe the foundation is an accepted- but, from what little I’ve read here and what little conversations I’ve had away from here, it isn’t. The reaction I get when I tell someone I’m libertarian is the glazed eye, far away stare, or subject change. That tells me that outside a very small circle no one knows what the Libertarian foundation is.

    Voters ‘buy into’ sound bites- lengthy esoteric discussions lose attention and cause eyes glazed far away stares. “All” principles can stem from; “All men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed” – after the fact the esoteric factional beliefs can be addressed.

  71. dL

    NAPsters tend to not reject this, BUT they invent grandiose moral constructs and they try to map out the “ideal” path toward their imagined endstate. They tend to advocate for things that are simply not plausible in the near term.

    Actually, with the passage of the Cloud Act, you are now living under a global lawless capitalist regime. Reality. From EFF:

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflected-cloud-act-passes

    Enable foreign police to collect and wiretap people’s communications from U.S. companies, without obtaining a U.S. warrant.
    Allow foreign nations to demand personal data stored in the United States, without prior review by a judge.
    Allow the U.S. president to enter “executive agreements” that empower police in foreign nations that have weaker privacy laws than the United States to seize data in the United States while ignoring U.S. privacy laws.
    Allow foreign police to collect someone’s data without notifying them about it.
    Empower U.S. police to grab any data, regardless if it’s a U.S. person’s or not, no matter where it is stored.

    This was pushed by the global cloud computing providers and snuck into the omnibus spending bill w/o one second of public debate. Remember kiddies, collective action is dominated by the minority. And though this is probably not exactly what the advocates of anarcho-capitalism had in mind, it is nonetheless an example of the political digital economy operating completely outside of any legal jurisdiction. The only real debate now is what regime version of anarcho-capitalism you want to live under. Brave New World!

  72. DJ

    dl: Actually, with the passage of the Cloud Act, you are now living under a global lawless capitalist regime. Reality. From EFF:

    The genie’s out of the bottle.

    As the CLOUD Act sneaks into the omnibus, big tech butts heads with privacy advocates

    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/cloud-act-sneaks-omnibus-big-000611981.html

    In a February 6 letter, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook and Oath (TechCrunch’s parent company) co-authored a letter calling the CLOUD Act “notable progress to protect consumers’ rights.”

    In a late February blog post, Microsoft Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith addressed the issue. “The CLOUD Act creates both the incentive and the framework for governments to sit down and negotiate modern bi-lateral agreements that will define how law enforcement agencies can access data across borders to investigate crimes,” Smith wrote. “It ensures these agreements have appropriate protections for privacy and human rights and gives the technology companies that host customer data new statutory rights to stand up for the privacy rights of their customers around the world.”

  73. robert capozzi

    dL: And though this is probably not exactly what the advocates of anarcho-capitalism had in mind, it is nonetheless an example of the political digital economy operating completely outside of any legal jurisdiction.

    Me: This doesn’t sound like applied NAPsterism…at all. States and government coercion continue on in all territories with a few isolated exceptions in Asia and Africa.

    dL: The only real debate now is what regime version of anarcho-capitalism you want to live under. Brave New World!

    ME: I guess this could be construed as true only because you say “real” debate. In my day-to-day life and most media from a multitude of perspectives that I monitor, I have NEVER heard anyone discussing anarcho-capitalism or anything like it. No, this “debate” is reserved for fringe echo chambers of the L variety. Ancaps are a fringe of a fringe, by all indications.

    But maybe you’re making some kind of “unseen” argument. That while States seem to be, if anything, becoming more intrusive, secretly they are ceding power to MNCs or something.

    Regardless, my actual point stands. The NAPster political agenda is failing, and NAPsters tend to advocate for unrealistic change.

  74. dL

    This doesn’t sound like applied NAPsterism

    I didn’t say it was applied WhateverTheFuckism…I simply pointed out the regime of digital political economy is now lawless capitalism. Globally. Fact. Reality.

    Anarcho-capitalism is lawless capitalism, although advocates for it would deny the present form is what it would look like w/o the state; critics, however, would say this exactly what anarcho-capitalism would look like.

    You keep pontificating about reality and so on… I just wanted to point out exactly what that reality is.

  75. DJ

    RC: The NAPster political agenda is failing, and NAPsters tend to advocate for unrealistic change.

    Me: When was it given a chance to succeed?
    Unrealistic is in the eye of the beholder. Change is inevitable, it’s a law of life. It’s called evolution. Change brings opportunity.

    I’d speculate that had the US adhered to trade with all, ally with none, we’d be only defending our sovereignty vs invading others sovereignty. I’d speculate that had Lincoln not inflicted his will on the south 100’s of 1000’s wouldn’t have died. I’d speculate this is a monkey see monkey do world and when the head monkeys set a bad example follower monkeys will follow the lead. I’d speculate a non-aggression principle hasn’t had a chance because ego won’t chance it. That doesn’t mean it’s agenda is failing- it means ego ignores it. Even so, what was it Edison said about failing?
    It’s only a failure if you give up. You’re demanding someone give up because you don’t think(?) it’ll work. You want it to fail because- ego.

  76. robert capozzi

    dL: …digital political economy is now lawless capitalism. Globally. Fact. Reality. Anarcho-capitalism is lawless capitalism, although advocates for it would deny the present form is what it would look like w/o the state; critics, however, would say this exactly what anarcho-capitalism would look like.

    Me: You and the critics are being unfair to the Ancap view. If a segment of the economy is “lawless” and “stateless,” that doesn’t mean that Ancap-ism has prevailed in a territory formerly labeled a “nation.”

    Ancap-ism requires the State to be replaced by contracts, as I understand it. I’m not sure if even the slice of the economy that’s digital is subject to a durable rule of private law. The US political economy clearly is not so.

    Do you have a definition of Ancap-ism that differs from Wiki’s?:

    == Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. ==

    IOW, if it’s a “fact” that the State has been eliminated, I’d a thunk I’d a heard about it!

  77. robert capozzi

    DJ: It’s only a failure if you give up.

    Me: Had Edison tried to eliminate gravity, he’d have been wise to give up. It strikes me as far more ego-driven to attempt highly-improbable-to-impossible feats. Humility is wiser than hubris, in my book.

    This is not to say that someone someday might cancel gravity, although I’m not sure it’s a good idea to do so.

  78. Libertydave

    robert capozzi,

    Should the Wright Brothers have given up because then everyone knew that it was impossible to fly?

    The only hubris I see here is coming from you claiming that just because right now a majority of people agree with you that you know better then anyone else how people should behave. And you keep calling for the use of force to make people behave the way you want just because you are afraid of what they might do.

  79. DJ

    Ld: The only hubris I see here is coming from you claiming that just because right now a majority of people agree with you that you know better then anyone else how people should behave. And you keep calling for the use of force to make people behave the way you want just because you are afraid of what they might do.

    Me: Indeed! He is a Populist calling himself a Liibertarian because he’s read some books- though not enough books to understand the difference between natural phenomenon and human endeavor- hubris personified.

  80. Anthony Dlugos

    RC: The NAPster political agenda is failing, and NAPsters tend to advocate for unrealistic change.

    Me: When was it given a chance to succeed? Unrealistic is in the eye of the beholder

    In the electoral political arena, its given its chance to succeed on a regular basis, and it fails just as regularly.

    e.g., Darryl Perry would obviously be considered as hewing more closely to NAPsterism than Governors Johnson/Weld. Johnson-Weld routed Perry in 2016 at the convention. Hence, the NAPster political agenda failed.

    e.g., outside the Libertarian Party proper, there is little to no market for policies that are derived from NAPsterism. NAPsterism taken to its logical conclusion (at least by some folks’ reckoning), is so far outside the politically viable, its never even included in any polling of voters or likely voters.

    I am not even asking you to find me a poll ANYWHERE that demonstrate mainstream acceptance of the abolishment of age of consent laws. Please just find me a poll where its included as an option. Find me the think tank that puts out a white paper arguing for their abolishment. Find me the politician that dares sponsor a bill arguing for their outright abolishment. Find me the poll that includes as an option the complete abolishment of any restrictions whatsoever against anyone, no matter the age, on gun ownership. The question isn’t even asked. The bill is never proposed, the discussion is never had ANYWHERE outside the “fringe of the fringe and NAMBLA meetings.”

    That’s because there is no market for it. I am not saying there is no market for some nebulous “don’t hurt people, don’t take their stuff” general disposition. There actually is. I mean, there is no market for. “don’t hurt people, don’t take their stuff, and therefore here are the public policy changes that entails: abolishment of all age of consent laws, abolishment of all gun laws, an immediate dissolution of social security, medicare and medicaid, an abolishment of any and all border and customs laws, a release of all nonviolent drug offenders, an immediate legalization of all drugs, etc, etc, etc…”

    Hell, Mr. Montoni, is conceding such a market does not exist in the original o.p. here. That, try as he might, even people he considered slavishly devoted to the logical inferences of the NAP are unwilling to take it to its logical conclusion on particular issues. And let me emphasize: the people Mr. Montoni is talking about aren’t some random collection of Americans. Nope. On the Nolan Chart, or whatever metric you want to use, this is the tippy top of the spear, the very singularity where NAPsterism taken to its logical conclusion should exist…and it does not. If there was ever a market for Vohra’s bombthrowing “abolish all age of consent laws” pronouncements, it would be a Libertarian convention. A non-presidential year Libertarian convention, for that matter. What does that tell you about such a position in the general public? Go ahead, you can make an inference. Is it that the LP membership is a milquetoasty bunch of cowards who refuse to put its imprimatur on the abolishment of all age of consent laws that the public is demanding? Seriously, WTF?

    Unrealistic is not in the eyes of the beholder. A soda pop that tastes like cow dung is unrealistic. The fact that it hasn’t been tried is evidence FOR that proposition, not against it. We know what people like their sodas to taste like. Cow dung ain’t it. (The fact that YOU may think NAPsterism/anarchism/ancapistan/radical libertarianism should not be compared to Cow Dung Soda is really quite irrelevant. The mass of voters we need to appeal to would pretty much equate those philosophies with Cow Dung Soda, and so those philosophies need to be dispensed with…explicitly…because what you want doesn’t count. Its what the voters want, or what we can get them to accept, that counts.)

    That doesn’t mean the radical has to give up their beliefs. It does mean they have to realize that refusal to give up their beliefs means they can be ignored, and ignored without consequence. In the electoral political arena, I fail to see how there is any other way to look at it

    So, we can dispense with the notion that NAPsterism hasn’t been tried. Its been tried in the electoral political arena, and its been found to have a market so vanishingly small, its ludicrous to even worry about pissing such people off. In the political arena, they don’t count. There aren’t enough of them to matter, even if every single one of them joined the LP. Calling it the Hill Of Beans Caucus would be the understatement of the century.

    That doesn’t mean they are wrong, however. It may very well be true that a society based on the NAP would be the ultimate human society. Perhaps its a worthwhile educational endeavor because such work might result in a stateless society a millenia from now.

    And if I am wrong about all this, there is a very simple remedy: find these Logical Conclusion NAPsters and get them to join the LP, become delegates, and nominate people for various offices willing to argue for Thunderdome, willing to argue that a philosophically sound but catastrophically unqualified neophyte is a better candidate for President than an ex-governor, warts and all, who might get this country to take a few steps in a libertarian direction.

    Good luck, all you need are the votes!

  81. Libertydave

    For those that believe that the Non Aggression Principle can’t work, please read about the life and times of Mahatma Gandhi

  82. dL

    Good luck, all you need are the votes!

    One of the arguments against even having a libertarian party is that when your not wasting time fending a takeover by white supremacists to discredit the name, you are wasting the rest of your energy debating sheep and trolls. On a week when the government eviscerated the 1st and 4th amendments, the sheep are only concerned with trolling the non aggression principle. Pragmaticrat priorities!

  83. robert capozzi

    LD: …right now a majority of people agree with you that you know better then anyone else how people should behave.

    me: This is false. I hold many positions that are non-majority positions. I have some theoretical views that are as “out there” as any NAPster’s theoretical stances.

    The difference is that the positions I take are not batshit crazy ones with 1% support. I compartmentalize my theoretical opinions from positions that are reasonably ripe and not SO out of bounds that taking the position would open me up to ridicule.

    I’d like to think that I know the difference between post-bong-hit dorm-room exploration and running for public office.

    I have no problem with NAPsters who hold to their theory of what a virtuous society might look like. I share that taking these extreme positions in a POLITICAL CONTEXT hurts the cause of liberty. Flaky and goofy performances like Weeks’s also contributes to a non-serious positioning.

    Could my assessment be incorrect? Could a politician calling for legalizing 7 year olds having sex while clutching machine guns be a winning approach? Yes, it could, although I doubt it, severely so.

  84. Libertydave

    robert capozzi,

    If you have any positions that are non-majority positions, you haven’t stated them here. Here all you are doing is lying about what other people write then call them crazy. Also you claim you’re right because your desire to feel safe trumps the rights everyone else.

  85. robert capozzi

    LD,

    I advocate exiting SEATO and NATO in an orderly fashion; I advocate actual cuts to government spending, both domestic and defense; I advocate ending the drug war, probably first by treating drug abuse as a health issue, while continuing to protect children; my position on 2A is unique to my knowledge.

    I’m completely unaware of any lies I’ve told on IPR. If I have, I’d like to know about them so I can clean them up.

    You don’t know me and my desires, but my feeling safe is fairly low on the list of things that motivate me. Consider the possibility that you are making inferences based on past experiences that has NOTHING to do with me.

    I am a former NAPster, and I don’t believe it’s per se crazy. It does SOUND crazy at times to the uninitiated. MNR, for example, held that fetuses are parasites. That sounds “crazy,” but on some level, it’s actually correct.

  86. DJ

    AD: In the electoral political arena, its given its chance to succeed on a regular basis, and it fails just as regularly.

    Me: Unrealistic is in the eye of the beholder. Change is inevitable, it’s a law of life. It’s called evolution. Change brings opportunity.

    I’d never heard it even discussed until I came here, on a regular basis. So, no, it hasn’t failed on a regular basis in the political arena. It’s not been given the chance.
    It may very well “fail”- but, again, anything is a failure only if one gives up.

    A non-aggression principle is a personal choice anyway- a gov’t policy is a dictate. A gov’t’s role should be to protect personal choice vs aggravating entire nations, or Individuals, aggressively. Matter of fact I believe that’s why this country was founded- to help ensure that wasn’t a gov’t role- trade with all, ally with none- that it didn’t work out that way is indicative of human failure, not a philosophy of life failing. That it isn’t publicly discussed is a human failure, not a policy failure. Non-aggression is non-intervention and it’s becoming more popular- ask Trump, it helped get him elected. That he has failed to adhere to it is a human failure, not a policy failure. He essentially “gave up” on it- or he was lying. (but that’s a whole different argument). He did ‘promote’ it, though there was very little discussion, if any.

    Talking down about it doesn’t help your argument either. It comes across as aggression which creates a defensive posture in those you’re talking down to. I, for one, will not tolerate being talked down to and will retaliate in kind defending myself against an aggressor- count on it. So, I repeat;

    Me: Unrealistic is in the eye of the beholder. Change is inevitable, it’s a law of life. It’s called evolution. Change brings opportunity.

    Show me where I’m wrong.

  87. Libertydave

    robert capozzi,

    The last lie you told is in the last sentence of the previous comment. You know, the lie about people who support changing age of consent laws approve of children having sex.

    As far as your desire to feel safe, you use it as an excuse all the time to advocate for the government to ban automatic weapons.

  88. robert capozzi

    LD,

    I’m sorry, but my sentence does not use the word “approve.” It merely says “legalizing.” My understanding is that is the NAPster position–that age of consent laws should be abolished. Isn’t that correct?

    My view on automatic weapons has nothing to do with my personal safety concerns, I assure you. It makes sense to me that some weapons are unacceptably dangerous, and that their widespread ownership would injurious to domestic tranquility.

  89. Libertydave

    robert capozzi,

    Repeating a lie doen’t make the lie the truth. Abolishing the age of consent laws do not mean that sex with children will be legal. And your statement that it makes sense to you that some weapons are unacceptably dangerous is all about your fear of guns and the statement that their widespread ownership would be injurious to domestic tranquility is all about your need to feel safe because both statements are false. It is false that one weapon is more dangerous than another and widespread ownership is not injurious to domestic tranquility.

  90. robert capozzi

    LD: Abolishing the age of consent laws do not mean that sex with children will be legal.

    Me: Intriguing. Care to elaborate?

    LD: all about your fear of guns

    Me: Have we met? Are you a long-distance mind reader? How can you POSSIBLY make such a statement? I don’t have a particular fear of guns or anything else.

    LD: It is false that one weapon is more dangerous than another and widespread ownership is not injurious to domestic tranquility.

    Me: Again, intriguing. Explain, please, how a BB gun and a machine gun are equally dangerous.

  91. Libertydave

    robert capozzi,

    In past comments I have elaborated on age of consent laws and you just ignored them and continued to tell your lies.

    And I don’t need to read your mind, all I need to do is read your comments. You make your thought known when you write them down.

    A BB gun is not a weapon but a toy that was used to teach children how to handle weapons when they get older.

    Any more lies you want to imply or say outright.

  92. robert capozzi

    LD,

    I didn’t ignore them. IIRC, you said something about changing the standard from a bright-line age test to some kind of mental ability standard. You didn’t elaborate how that standard would be established and enforced. I’d think your new standard would need some clarification if it’s to be a useful legal signal.

    If you consider a BB gun a toy, that’s fine. Swap in the least powerful gun gun, and tell us how it is just as dangerous as a machine gun.

  93. Libertydave

    To be fair I will explain why one weapon is no more dangerous than another. A weapon is a tool use by someone to hurt or kill another. Anything can be use as a weapon and does it matter what is used if you end up dead? How dangerous a weapon is depends only on the intent of the person using the weapon not on the type of weapon used.

  94. Libertydave

    How do people determine the ability to consent after the age of 21. Does everyone over the age of 21 have the ability to consent? Look into this a little bit and you will find that there are a lot of people over the age of 21 that don’t have the ability to consent. And like the people who are over 21 who don’t have the ability to consent it has to be evaluated case by case because there is no magic age at which people develop the ability to consent and just pulling an age out of your ass, be it 18 or 21 doesn’t change this. It will only hurt those around the age you pick. It will harm those that develop the ability before the age you pick because it denies them the opportunities they otherwise would be able to take advantage of and it harms those who don’t develop the ability because of evil people will use the assumption that they are able to consent to steal or harm then claim because they are of age they said it was ok.

  95. robert capozzi

    LD: How dangerous a weapon is depends only on the intent of the person using the weapon not on the type of weapon used.

    Me: Wait. 2 people with the intent to kill. 1 has a handgun. 2 has a machine gun. It’s true that each individual victim would be ambivalent over which weapon kills him or her. However, #2 can kill many, many more people. That to me makes #2 more dangerous than #1. Not you? Really?

    Yes, it’s true that some of majority age are incompetent, true. These are rare exceptions. Having an arbitrary standard like 18 helps us to know the basic rule that applies to 98% of situations. And that general rule has utility for a civil society.

  96. DJ

    RC: Wait. 2 people with the intent to kill. 1 has a handgun. 2 has a machine gun. It’s true that each individual victim would be ambivalent over which weapon kills him or her. However, #2 can kill many, many more people. That to me makes #2 more dangerous than #1. Not you? Really?

    Me: Pseudo-intellectual BS- making the simple complicated. The danger is immaterial. Both will kill. The intent is what’s important in the argument you’re presenting- that requires mind reading (thought policing) until the evidence is supplied by action. Or, do you “feel” it is imperative to punish those you “feel” might supply evidence? You know, punish the many for the actions of a few- which hasn’t been presented- only speculated because- can (though it hasn’t) thought police.

  97. DJ

    RC: Me: Have we met? Are you a long-distance mind reader? How can you POSSIBLY make such a statement? I don’t have a particular fear of guns or anything else.

    Me: Might- your mantra- thought policing (mind reading) your tactic.

  98. DJ

    DW: dL is right. The LP is a debating society. And nothing more.

    Me: Yep- about whose dick is bigger- (whose plank is better)-which faction ought to do what- round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows-

  99. DJ

    RC: My view on automatic weapons has nothing to do with my personal safety concerns, I assure you. It makes sense to me that some weapons are unacceptably dangerous, and that their widespread ownership would injurious to domestic tranquility.

    Me: It doesn’t matter what makes sense to you- you (nor the gov’t) has the authority, legally or morally, about wide spread ownership of anything. Domestic tranquility is in danger with shallow arguments used to control- shall not be infringed- definitive. No room for wiggle, no caveat. Shallow arguments are used by pseudo-intellectuals (and kids) to restrict others- while refusing to acknowledge the cities with the highest murder rates (by hand guns btw) are the cities with the most restrictive gun laws.

  100. Libertydave

    robert capozzi,

    So you show your ignorance of weapons but think you know better than others because of your fear.

    You just claimed that a machine gun can kill more people because it can fire bullets faster. In reality the number of people who can be killed depends not on the type of gun but the number of bullets you have. A handgun while it only fires once per pull of the trigger is more accurate than a machine gun on full automatic. This means that a handgun will hit more people for the same amout of bullets fired from each gun.

    You also claimed that you don’t have a particular fear of guns or anything else. This leads me to think that you don’t understand what fear is other than an emotion you feel. Fear is a negative expectation of a future event. You tell us about your fear of machine guns when you say “It makes sense to me that some weapons are unacceptably dangerous, and that their widespread ownership would injurious to domestic tranquility.”

    As far as your stance on age of consent laws you just stated that because your arbitrary standard covers a majority of cases that it is ok to force injustice on the minority of cases because you are to lazy or just plain uncaring to find out the truth.

  101. robert capozzi

    LD: In reality the number of people who can be killed depends not on the type of gun but the number of bullets you have.

    Me: Yes, but I would have thought that obvious. An automatic weapon with one bullet defeats the purpose.

    LD: A handgun while it only fires once per pull of the trigger is more accurate than a machine gun on full automatic. This means that a handgun will hit more people for the same amout of bullets fired from each gun.

    Me: So stipulated. An automatic weapon in a crowd is the concern that the vast majority has, which is why most in the Arms community itself are not agitating for re-legalizing automatics.

    LD: Fear is a negative expectation of a future event.

    Me: Yes, this is how the law works. It should be obvious that murder is wrong but killing in self-defense is acceptable. Based on experience, civil societies make sometimes arbitrary rules to signal which behaviors are unacceptable. The civil society we live in has decided that automatic weapons are too great a risk. It’s also established 18 as the age of majority, although sometimes the rules change where under 18 can drive legally but 21 is the drinking age.

    Are any of these rules perfect? I’d say No. Does it follow that there should be NO rules on the potential rapid lethality of weapons or age of consent? I’d say No. The rules are helpful, like guard rails on a highway. Is there a 12 year old who can drink and drive safely? I’d say there probably IS such an extraordinary being out there, but I consider it unwise to allow a 12 year old to drink and drive. It may well be unfair to the extraordinary exception.

    You and DJ and a few holding outlying positions may believe that all such rules are unnecessary and unjust. DJ especially doesn’t seem to care that his positions on such matters do not play well with the general public.

    You may not see that there’s a difference between theoretical discussion and political discourse. The L who’s running for Senate now who advocates shotguns for the homeless. This is just about as tone-deaf an issue I’ve seen. In politics, perception is reality, and the widespread perception would be the Senate candidate is a strange extremist.

  102. Anthony Dlugos

    “I’d never heard it even discussed until I came here, on a regular basis.”

    Exactly my point. There’s no market for it in electoral politics.

    “A non-aggression principle is a personal choice anyway.”

    100% agreement, again. Its of no use to an elected politician, except maybe as a pleasant rule of thumb. In a campaign setting, it probably comes off as too pedantic to everyone other than the already converted. In that setting, I’d probably lean towards, “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff,” but even then, I’d very quickly be moving on to actual policy proposals, because voters aren’t interested in a candidate’s personal philosophy as much as they are in concrete proposals for the actual job that is on the other side of the election.

  103. Anthony Dlugos

    “On a week when the government eviscerated the 1st and 4th amendments, the sheep are only concerned with trolling the non aggression principle. Pragmaticrat priorities!”

    On a week when the government eviscerated the 1st and the 4th Amendments, the purists are:

    a) worried about the implications of bouncing from a leadership position in the LP a self-indulgent bombthrower who seems to think one of the important issues of 2018 is the abolishment of age of consent laws

    b) experiencing a crisis of conscience because a couple anarchists, a group which is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the electorate, refuse to follow the implications of the NAP to their logical conclusion.

    One particular Purist, the o.p. here, would rather insult the “Valium-popping socialist soccer moms and beer-swilling sports-bar union thug dads” we would actually need to reverse course on the evisceration of the 1st and 4th Amendment (not to mention the others), instead of telling the aforementioned self-indulgent bombthrower that, if he can’t stay on point on the ACTUAL practical issues of the day that matter, he can get the f*ck out of his leadership position and we will find someone who CAN stay on point. See, such a Purist understands that, while the Vice Chair of a currently-small third party is not exactly a high-profile position, there’s no time like the present to start demonstrating to party members, one and all, that the Libertarian Party operates in the world of practical politics, and not in the fantasyland of coffee house debates and NAMBLA meetings, and if the practical issues of the day bore you, you can leave, especially if you wish to sit in a position of leadership. Go start a blog where you can rant and rave all you want about any issue you want, no matter how irrelevant it is to the actual voters we are trying to appeal to, because we here in the Libertarian Party understand that we NEED those voters, we don’t need to alienate them.

    Such a Purist further understands that, while this website isn’t exactly at the top of the list of highest trafficked political websites, the decent of this thread into a pointless, idiotic debate club discussion…instead of focusing on the evisceration of the 1st and 4th Amendments…is HARDLY some kind of anomaly that wouldn’t occur in the larger society if the LP WAS a larger party, but should be illuminating as to how not ready for prime time this party is, because, instead of staying on point, we CANNOT help but shoot ourselves in the foot, an irony considering how attractive a moderate libertarian message COULD BE to the typical voters, if we just insisted on speaking to THEIR concerns, and not ours.

    We have a surfeit of targets, 1st and 4th Amendments eviscerations among them, targets we could easily frame in a way valium popping socialist moms and union thugs could understand, but no, we’d rather advocate for the lunacy of ensuring a public policy environment of no age of consent laws and no restrictions whatsoever on firearm ownership.

    FIFY.

  104. DJ

    AD: Exactly my point. There’s no market for it in electoral politics.

    Me: A non-aggression principle is a personal choice anyway- a gov’t policy is a dictate. A gov’t’s role should be to protect personal choice vs aggravating entire nations, or Individuals, aggressively.

    Matter of fact I believe that’s why this country was founded- to help ensure that wasn’t a gov’t role- trade with all, ally with none- that it didn’t work out that way is indicative of human failure, not a philosophy of life failing. That it isn’t publicly discussed is a human failure, not a policy failure.

    Non-aggression is non-intervention and it’s becoming more popular- ask Trump, it helped get him elected.

    That he has failed to adhere to it is a human failure, not a policy failure. He essentially “gave up” on it- or he was lying. (but that’s a whole different argument). He did ‘promote’ it, though there was very little discussion, if any.
    ……………

    You ignored the rest of what I said. This particularly: “Non-aggression is non-intervention and it’s becoming more popular- ask Trump, it helped get him elected.”

  105. DJ

    RC: . In politics, perception is reality, and the widespread perception would be the Senate candidate is a strange extremist.

    Me: Perception is “a” reality in life- strange is subjective. I don’t think his “perception” is strange given the environment. I don’t think it will “sell”, based on my “perception”. That doesn’t change or negate the fact, which is not a perception- shall not be infringed- THAT is the law which you admit is necessary in a civilized society. There is a mechanism for changing the law, that isn’t a perception. Perception is believing a bunch of kids protesting will change it, as though it can be circumvented, which can only happen by intentional misinterpretation and ignoring the Truth which remains constant. The kids “perception” is flawed. A big thing about maturity is finding your own way- the kids (and apparently you) have been intentionally lied to to create a “perception” and sell fear to punish the many for the actions of a few which “might” happen- might designates a perception with little evidence to back it- that is a fact. The evidence clearly shows hand guns kill far more people and in cities with the most stringent “law”- which shatters the tools and your theory and yours and theirs perception of a more tranquil. Unless of course that’s where this is all leading- make all guns illegal- then the “law” will have justification to do as it pleases- oh, wait. Tranquil- civil society- un-armed citizens-law- fear- perception- no reality allowed. They will come for you.

    But, like I said earlier; You will get your fears assuaged. I only wish I’d be around long enough to see your reaction(s) when nothing changes in regards to the mentally disturbed being mentally disturbed- and laugh at the stupid kids when they finally see they are just being used as tools- like you are- a tool for politicians to keep people divided to ensure, and insure, their ill perceived, often ill gained, power over you, and them when they come for you- LOL that alone would be worth the price of admission. But, in the mean time, the reality is: “My cold dead fingers”- the perception being ill conceived authority by a bunch of tools will be on your side to protect you-

  106. dL

    On a week when the government eviscerated the 1st and the 4th Amendments, the purists are pragmaticrat response is:

    a) worried about the implications of bouncing from a leadership position in the LP a self-indulgent bombthrower who seems to think one of the important issues of 2018 is the abolishment of age of consent laws

    a) use it as an opportunity to re-litigate a discussion from last year that no one else is talking about

    b) experiencing a crisis of conscience because a couple anarchists, a group which is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the electorate, refuse to follow the implications of the NAP to their logical conclusion.

    b) troll the non-aggression principle

  107. Anthony Dlugos

    “a) use it as an opportunity to re-litigate a discussion from last year that no one else is talking about”

    no one else is talking about? To what is the o.p referring to here:

    “You become a libertarian when you understand that it’s wrong to run the lives of others.

    You become an anarchist when you understand that there simply are no exceptions.”

    “A month ago, a whole bunch of self-styled anarchists jumped on the “under 18 cannot consent to sex” bandwagon — despite the fact that it is just another government regulation like any other (and despite the fact that millions do just that, year after year).”

    and here:

    “Arvin Vohra, who has been trying something very different, will be replaced at the national convention in 2018 with someone far more milquetoasty who will go in the exact opposite direction.”

    Sounds like someone is re-litigating non-aggression principle to me. I see nothing in the o.p regarding the 1st or 4th Amendment eviscerations.

  108. Anthony Dlugos

    Furthermore, the self-indulgent Vohra doesn’t get a pass. He demonstrated himself too stupid to understand what the important issues in this country are over and over again over the past year.

    We don’t just forget about piss-poor leadership. We hold them accountable and boot them first chance we get.

    What should we do? Just ignore him and hope he doesn’t do it again? What kind of thought process is that?

  109. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Radicals/purists don’t care about voter preference at all. What matters is what appeals to them.”

    OK, you’ve been given enough explanations of why you’re wrong about that, and enough chances to correct yourself, that the only plausible conclusion at this point is that you’re a liar.

    It’s not that you don’t know the facts or can’t understand the facts.

    It’s that you just don’t give a shit about the facts.

    So go fuck yourself.

  110. DJ

    TK: OK, you’ve been given enough explanations of why you’re wrong about that, and enough chances to correct yourself, that the only plausible conclusion at this point is that you’re a liar.

    It’s not that you don’t know the facts or can’t understand the facts.

    It’s that you just don’t give a shit about the facts.

    So go fuck yourself.

    Me: LMAO- aggressively too.

  111. robert capozzi

    AD: Radicals/purists don’t care about voter preference at all.

    Me: Personally, I find both the terms “radical” and “purist” inaccurate and misleading. Regardless, methinks you overstate a bit here. NAPsters DO engage in SOME calibration, particularly coming down from their Destinational framework into the political arena. They may well want to re-legalize automatic weapons; abolish age of consent laws; and equip the homeless with shotguns, but most of the time they don’t lead with these bracing, caustic, self-marginalizing positions. They can be baited pretty easily by the media into exposing their extremism, after first attempting the Ransberger Pivot, which is an obvious deflection when employed.

  112. Anthony Dlugos

    “Regardless, methinks you overstate a bit here.”

    Perhaps. I might miss the mark entirely here. Its possible they DO believe the millions out there who disapprove of Congress and the president’s job performance, and laugh at late night talk show jokes about crooked politicians “understand that the entire construct of our government is one big fraud and long con,” and would vote for philosophical anarchism, and its attendant legalized automatic weapons and abolishment of age of consent laws.

    In that case, I was WAY off.

  113. robert capozzi

    AD,

    In my decades as a NAPster, and in the decade since I became an apostate to the One True Belief, I don’t think that most NAPsters are THAT out to lunch. It’s more that they hope to shock people awake with their unassailable moral position, and then that needs to be followed up with intensive re-education.

  114. DJ

    RC: They can be baited pretty easily by the media into exposing their extremism, after first attempting the Ransberger Pivot, which is an obvious deflection when employed.

    Me: The obvious deflection is one recognized by non-professional debaters- twisting, spinning, castigating, intentionally misinterpreting, and denying (or ignoring others responses LOL) Truth is what the pro’s and non-pro’s do- it’s a monkey see monkey do world. But, it doesn’t change the facts and probably very few (if any) minds never mind any hearts.

    Extremism is in the eye of the beholder and is often as not looked for, so the one can say- see I told you so- which artificially gives merit, unearned as it may be- but, in a trophy for showing up world that’s what you get. Take for instance the kids from Parkland High School- they’ve not earned ‘life’ merit, but they’re being ‘given’ cred- by the show up and get a trophy crowd- the media. They are just cashing in on their celebrity because they don’t know any better (life merit) – their trophy’s will soon be forgotten, or used up…. I don’t think they’re being extreme- just stupid kids being taken advantage of- shouldn’t there be a law against that? Why has no one asked them why they want to punish the many for the actions of a few? Why has no one explained to them they don’t have the right, nor are they entitled, to force their beliefs on others? They’ve reached the age of consent though- which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the law is arbitrarily applied- and defended by stupid.

  115. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “In my decades as a NAPster, and in the decade since I became an apostate to the One True Belief, I don’t think that most NAPsters are THAT out to lunch. It’s more that they hope to shock people awake with their unassailable moral position, and then that needs to be followed up with intensive re-education.”

    A fine mission, I believe.

    Probably not best suited for an electoral campaign people spend at most few minutes to a couple hours a week, over perhaps 3 or 4 months, in an effort to find the best person for a public office position, rather than begin an educational process that promises to give them a whole new political philosophy.

  116. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Agreed. Consider the options for a zealous NAPster who is not an academic. Rather than publish a dissertation on the evils of age-of-consent laws, they have fewer outlets that feel somehow consequential. Many of them are not writers, so blogging is not a viable alternative. Jude — the Apostle of Lost Causes — is the model for most non-academic NAPsters. Their political activities may well be futile (and I’d say even counter-productive), but is their best option to advance the millennial-long effort to bring about a stateless society.

  117. DJ

    LOL… yeah. Have “academics” fix what they fucked up by making the simple complicated. That’ll work- LOL

  118. DJ

    AD: an educational process that promises to give them a whole new political philosophy.

    Me: It’s not really new- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed- from that “simple” statement all issues can be addressed- it need not be complicated, nor esoteric, to be effective.

  119. Libertydave

    robert capozzi,

    So you agree that a person with a handgun can be more dangerous than someone with an automatic weapon. But then you say that automatic weapons should still be banned because automatic weapons are scary.

    If you think that your fear give you the right to take my property then that make you no better than a thief.

    Then you take a definition of fear and claim that it is how the law works. Again you show how confused you are. Fear isn’t how the law works. Fear is how bad laws are passed. Fear makes tyranny possible. It is because of cowards like you that has enable every tyrant in history.

    It is cowards like you who are willing to trade freedom for the illusion of safety are the cause of most of the suffering in world today.

  120. robert capozzi

    LD,

    Yes, while a handgun COULD be more dangerous than a machine gun, I’d score the machine gun as inherently more dangerous than a handgun because of the potential lethality of automatics is much greater than a handgun.

    As for fear and law, I was simply agreeing with your statement: “Fear is a negative expectation of a future event.” As I see it, laws address the “negative expectations” you cite. We don’t have laws on blue skies, for example, because there are no negative expectations about blue skies. We DO have laws against murder because such wrongful deaths qualify as a negative expectation.

    Do you think that the law against murder is a bad law?

  121. Libertydave

    robert capozzi,

    Now you are being intentionally dishonest. Laws against murder aren’t based on fear, they are based on harm. The same as laws against theft. The law is supposed to punish people for the harm they cause others. When cowards like you pass laws that punish people who haven’t caused any harm to anybody then the people who enforce these laws become no better than the criminals they where hired to stop and the law loses all meaning other than to turn the citizens into slaves of the government.

    It is because of cowards like you that the government feels safe to ignore the constitutions and violate the rights of innocent people. It is cowards like you who are dragging this country into tyranny.

  122. robert capozzi

    LD: The law is supposed to punish people for the harm they cause others.

    Me: I’ve heard this theory, but I completely disagree. The law is supposed to dissuade harmful behavior. It’s NOT about punishment at all. It’s a signal. People fear being harmed or killed, so the law addresses those fears.

  123. Libertydave

    robert capozzi,

    If the law is supposed to dissuade harmful behavior then how come it not working. There are laws against murder yet people still murder. There are law against theft yet people still steal. Laws in and of themselves do nothing to stop criminals from committing crimes. And it doesn’t matter how many times you lie to yourself that laws stop bad people from committing crimes, it won’t change the fact that bad people don’t care about laws.

  124. robert capozzi

    LD: Laws in and of themselves do nothing to stop criminals from committing crimes. And it doesn’t matter how many times you lie to yourself that laws stop bad people from committing crimes, it won’t change the fact that bad people don’t care about laws.

    Me: Are you sure about that? Your truth claim doesn’t ring true for me. Were murder not illegal, there’s a lot of reason to believe that we’d have MANY more murders.

    Because it is illegal and has consequences if apprehended, those who have a murderous impulse generally don’t follow through on the impulse. The after-the-fact punishment does nothing to repair the act, aside from possibly satisfying the survivor’s sense of vengeance, which is of course an irrational perspective.

    I do note that there’s a third reason for laws other than dissuasion and punishment that some NAPsters hold. The law’s purpose is merely restitution. MNR held this view, IIRC. Kill someone, pay the estate for damages. I held this view when I was a Randian/Rothbardian. It has many limitations and weaknesses, but I sense many in the LM still hold this perspective.

  125. robert capozzi

    more…

    I also note that your “punishment” argument also is not infallible. Civil society punishes murder, and yet there are still murders.

  126. Libertydave

    robert capozzi,

    Are you really that stupid. Laws aren’t meant to stop crime. There is only one way to stop crime from happening. Its simple in theory, all you need to do is kill every person on earth. Because as long as there are people there will be crime. And if you believe different then you are being willfully ignorant.

    I think I am beginning to understand what your problem is. Much like the thief who justifies their crimes with the belief that because they steal then everyone steals. You seem to think that because your afraid to brake the law then everyone is afraid to brake the law. Well I’ve got news for you, just because you’re a lying coward doesn’t mean that everyone is a lying coward.

  127. dL

    Are you really that stupid. Laws aren’t meant to stop crime.

    Well, the conservative theory of criminal justice views harsh punishment to be a deterrent to crime. The most obvious problem with that theory in practice is that those who hold that view generally hold little constraint to how many laws should be on the books. A lot of laws, a lot of criminals, notwithstanding the severity the punishment. Accordingly, you end up with a carceral state exceeded historically only by Stalinist Russia.

    I think I am beginning to understand what your problem is.

    Yeah, you are being trolled. lol. Liberty is presumed; it is not something to be justified. Arguing with those who operate according to an authoritarian assumption results in endless objections that cannot be falsified.

    For example: why should you be able to go from A to B? Prove to me you will not harm or injure citizen Y along the way. If you cannot prove this, then there should be laws regulating your travel from A to B. Well, obviously you cannot prove you won’t. So, the proper response is to simply not take the bait; instead a retort of the form, “stick it up your ass, motherfucker. if you claim going from A to B injures citizen Y, then find your citizen Y victim and prove it,” will suffice.

  128. Anthony Dlugos

    DJ,

    “It’s not really new- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed- from that “simple” statement all issues can be addressed- it need not be complicated, nor esoteric, to be effective.”

    Its new if you are a political party that intends to, or implies, that our policymaking will take that base philosophy to its logical conclusions, with no exceptions and no equivocation of any kind. Getting to the point of a government that would demonstrate the full, logical, consistent application of the NAP…given where we are now…would be the most complicated undertaking in human history. At that point, you are signaling to voters that you are going to upend their world. Voters with jobs, homes, mortgages, various other bills, pensions, kids in school, businesses, future plans, college trusts to fund, etc, etc, etc.

    I can assure you voters sense that, and that’s why the LP’s record of success is so minimal.

    From another perspective, I absolutely agree with you: moving this country in a libertarian direction…again, given where we are now, need not be complicated or esoteric to be effective. There is no need to propose radical ideas like the abolishment of age of consent laws or the elimination of all gun regulations in order to deal with the problems of criminal justice reform and mass shootings. All the radical/purist does by making such extreme suggestions is complicate what should be easy issues.

  129. robert capozzi

    LD: Laws aren’t meant to stop crime.

    me: I didn’t say “stop.” I said “deter.”

    LD: I think I am beginning to understand what your problem is. Much like the thief who justifies their crimes with the belief that because they steal then everyone steals. You seem to think that because your afraid to brake the law then everyone is afraid to brake the law. Well I’ve got news for you, just because you’re a lying coward doesn’t mean that everyone is a lying coward.

    Me: I just don’t know where to begin to address this. Each sentence is jam-packed with nonsense. I suggest you read up on the concept of psychological projection. You may find it eye-opening, I know I did.

    And while you’re at judging people’s intellect, you might work on the whole brake/break thing.

  130. robert capozzi

    dL: the conservative theory of criminal justice views harsh punishment to be a deterrent to crime.

    me: Yes, that’s how I recall their position as well. I always sensed it was more vengeance than deterrence, but both are true, as I indicated previously.

    But…you mischaracterize my views. I DO presume liberty. I advocate Harlos Nonarchy Pods. Anyone should have 100% unconstrained liberty is s/he chooses that option.

  131. DJ

    AD: Its new if you are a political party that intends to, or implies, that our policymaking will take that base philosophy to its logical conclusions, with no exceptions and no equivocation of any kind. Getting to the point of a government that would demonstrate the full, logical, consistent application of the NAP…given where we are now…would be the most complicated undertaking in human history. At that point, you are signaling to voters that you are going to upend their world. Voters with jobs, homes, mortgages, various other bills, pensions, kids in school, businesses, future plans, college trusts to fund, etc, etc, etc.

    I can assure you voters sense that, and that’s why the LP’s record of success is so minimal.

    Me: I assure you, when havoc is created, chaos ensues and catastrophe is inevitable- also, no dynamic can have an abrupt change of direction or stopped w/o catastrophic results- I can also assure you it takes longer to build than to tear down- I can also assure you that if seeds are not sown no fruit is harvested- I can also assure that instant gratification fails in the long run- I can also assure you there are no time lines assigned to any of the above- education is key- sowing seeds is effective- education is sowing seeds- there are no guarantees- but, it’s a ‘safer bet’ that a solid foundation built on will out last a shifting sand foundation- the foundation of a good education is Truth- the Truth is; all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed- all building begins with a foundation- all issues/questions can be addressed from that simple understanding-

    I proposed before “advertise” in local news papers- I said the Declaration of Independence- I was ridiculed, here- in a Libertarian forum- short, sweet and to the point- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed- signed, The Libertarian Party- the results could be the curious to look at the Libertarian web site- don’t concern yourselves with planks or factions- the DoI is sufficient- it’s the most informative and profound document ever penned by man for man- the Constitution- as originally written should be there also, at least the pre-amble- I suspect most who are interested in politics are at least aware it exists-a refresher can not go wrong- have a comment section- avoid the trolls- stay focused on the 2 documents and how they express- liberty and justice for ALL- that is the ultimate goal- that is a libertarian perspective- how it’s best achieved is by sowing seeds-

    I remember reading that an Indian (native american brand) philosophy was to think about the effect of 7 years down the road- that’s not instant gratification-

  132. Anthony Dlugos

    “I can also assure you that if seeds are not sown no fruit is harvested…education is key- sowing seeds is effective- education is sowing seeds- there are no guarantees- but, it’s a ‘safer bet’ that a solid foundation built on will out last a shifting sand foundation- the foundation of a good education is Truth.”

    You won’t get an argument from me about how necessary education and a solid foundation are. Its absolutely vital…just not in the arena of electoral politics. There, education is a secondary concern. The player in the political field, be it candidate, party leader, or party activist, has to be primarily focused with affecting change. Small, incremental change that voters will accept. The hope for such changes is that they will cause the voter to accept further incremental changes. But its always focused on the short term, concrete steps. These steps are probably so small and trivial for the NAPster, they probably see no benefit in taking them.

    The mission you are suggesting is a worthwhile one…just not in the arena of electoral politics. That mission is too big picture.

  133. dL

    Arvin Vohra, who has been trying something very different, will be replaced at the national convention in 2018 with someone far more milquetoasty who will go in the exact opposite direction.

    Well, after Vohra’s latest facebook post, I think he weeded out his remaining supporters…

  134. DJ

    AD: That mission is too big picture.

    Me: Big picture is what counts- especially in politics, to implement change. Instant gratification will not produce change- it will create more havoc which leads to chaos which leads to catastrophe- it is inevitable. Catastrophe can be minimized- but only with Truth, and there is no time line assigned and is determined only by how the education bears fruit. The instant gratification ticket will neither educate, nor have implemented even gradual change. In fact, I’d venture to say that IF a Libertarian somehow succeeded at the national level it would be a fluke simply because of a lack of education on the big picture and any change wrought would be short lived. (He could however at least have a presence to educate for the future on a national stage, I’ll give that). The big picture has to see into the future, good, bad or indifferent and stick to the main goal- freedom. Voters don’t comprehend freedom. They know very little outside the gov’t approved curicculum of D and R politics- it is ingrained from a young age. The parents HAVE to be re-educated. There is no other way to ever gain effective power electorally. Ron Paul made a dent with his fed reserve beliefs but even that didn’t sway enough voters (and that would improve their lot in life financially)- or even the media. Voters want instant gratification produced in 30 second sound bites- until they come to the realization (as I did) there is not a dimes worth of difference between D and R except rhetorically. I “educated” myself when I was educated by my oldest son when he told me during Obama’s first run; “This whole US crap is just that. Crap.” He got me to look at Ron Paul and Bush and Obama in a different light- except for RP there was no difference outside the rhetoric to sell their brand of “crap”. The red, white and blue of the personality of the seller.

    Since that time, roughly 10 years ago, I’ve determined what I now know, to be succinct- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed- they pre-date the constitution. Rights can’t be granted or given or taken, only restricted through force. And I was an avowed Republican since the age of 14 (56 years later as we speak) which nearly gave my southern democrat grandmother a heart attack. LOL But, I digress- the big picture- it has to be implemented to be effective.

    I still say, those who care do read the news- full page ads in local newspapers to begin the process- work up to national news papers then the media CAN’T ignore the message.

  135. DJ

    AD: All the radical/purist does by making such extreme suggestions is complicate what should be easy issues.

    Me: Yes, and that plays into the hands of R and D politicians and US brand leftist media bias.

  136. DJ

    dL: the conservative theory of criminal justice views harsh punishment to be a deterrent to crime.

    Me: On paper and sold as such. In reality it’s a revenue source only and they know that.
    Punish the many for the actions of the few- (perverted) fines are revenue, taxes are required for enforcement/administrative etc. and the parking in a no parking zone makes you a criminal- yet people still park there, they still break laws and cost even more money to enforce and more fines paid, more incarcerations- it’s perverted- no retribution only “financial” punishment for the many. But hey, we are “civilized”. Perverted, but a civilized society none the less- LOL and have the audacity to wonder why we’re in the mess(es) we find ourselves in.

  137. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I’ve not indicated my wish. What makes you think you know what my wishes are if I’ve not told you them?

    My view is actually pretty clear: I believe adults have the right to possess weapons of defense on their property, subject only to weapons that should be banned or severely controlled because they represent a catastrophic risk for other citizens, like WMD, automatic weapons, and others whose lethality is deemed too dangerous to be possessed by citizens. I don’t have a specific list of weapons that should be banned or otherwise controlled because I am not a weapons expert.

    I think there is a case for revising the language of 2A to clean up the massive confusion from many sides on what it means.

    The story you linked to indicate that Stevens advocates repeal of 2A. That doesn’t involve any “interpretation.” It merely invokes a power and a procedure in the Constitution.

  138. DJ

    RC: The story you linked to indicate that Stevens advocates repeal of 2A. That doesn’t involve any “interpretation.” It merely invokes a power and a procedure in the Constitution.

    Me: read the link in its entirety- his belief is off base. His thinking(?) is questionable at best and he’s not the only one- many who are ordained with a black robe, or a title, believe themselves to be what they aren’t- omnipotent. Of course they disguise themselves but their ego’s usually get the better of them, to wit: this particular idiot trying to look smart and failing abjectly.

    That said, your wish is to punish the many for the actions of a few based on what “might” happen.
    That is thought policing at its finest- it’s also a populist position of quite a few whose education is based on shifting sand not a solid foundation of Truth- rights are not negotiable, period. They can only be restricted through force in spite of populist beliefs and they will come for you- it’s not if, its a matter of when.

  139. DJ

    Speaking of “feeling” safe-

    “Since he was in middle school, it was no surprise to anyone who knew him, that he was the shooter. Those talking about how we should have not ostracized him? You didn’t know this kid! OK? We did!”

    Which is to say, González just made a startling admission. Parkland students bullied Nikolas Cruz.

    https://spectator.org/parkland-students-bullied-shooter/

  140. DJ

    Seeds being sown

    what transpires in government schools today is so bizarre that sometimes you’d be inclined to say “You can’t make this stuff up” —
    ……………

    Fruit being harvested

    I often cite the 2002 Barna research group study showing that most Americans do not believe in Truth (absolute by definition) and are most likely to make what should be moral decisions based on feelings

    Craziness in Kids’ Classes

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/28586-craziness-in-kids-classes

  141. Anthony Dlugos

    paulie post,

    March 27, 2018 at 19:30
    I don’t think he lost his remaining supporters with that.

    The somewhat perplexing thing about Vohra is that, during or right before the convention in Orlando, he wrote what I thought was a pretty good Facebook post, explaining in pragmatic terms why Governor Johnson was the best candidate we had: that we are not looking for the perfect representation of libertarianism in corporeal form, that there is a job on the other side of the election, and he was the most qualified candidate for the job.

    Not even two months later, after J-W’s record setting result, he declares that that’s enough of being milquetoast, that ain’t working, its time to be bold and unapologetic. Then he starts his year of vituperative bomb throwing. Its a very odd transformation.

    Maybe he was just tired of wasting his time on a job with a lot of time commitments and no remuneration, and decided to go out with a bang.

    On the other hand, I do note that his predilection for social network trolling started after we as a party witnessed a slimy aluminium siding salesman of a troll artist punched way above his weight and finished in 2nd place in the ballot for the LP nomination. Maybe there is a connection there.

  142. robert capozzi

    AD,

    I’ve not met Vohra, but this transformation you describe is actually not all that surprising. Psychological fracturing is predictable when a person adopts a thought system that is at odds with reality. It may seem a bit far-fetched, but it’s why I critique NAPsterism as much as I do.

    If one adopts the NAP as the One True Way, and yet one experiences the world in which NAPsterism is obviously unworkable, we can see why a NAPster might swing from accommodating the world as it is, and then swing wildly in the other direction, holding high the banner of incendiary anarchism. It appears to be a form of bi-polar disorder.

    This is why NAPsters do not like their thought system questioned. They can’t defend it because it’s obvious nonsense upon even mild examination. They have a few weak defenses and deflections, but when pressed, they run away or start in with the personal insults.

  143. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    That makes plenty of sense.

    The question is whether he is a legitimate dogmatic, or is this just self-aware trolling to grow an audience?

    To answer that, you would probably need to know the man.

    Although I would think that the legitimately dogmatic would be more likely to stick to posting more thought-out arguments, perhaps at sites like this one. Vohra seems to be primarily concerned with Facebook bombthrowing for effect, which very much reminds me of Petersen.

    The problem for Vohra (if he is merely trying to create a social network following) is that Petersen’s trolling had a legitimate target audience: largely young, largely impressionable, very right-leaning “conservatarians.” He could easily turn his shtick into a Fox News gig/appearences.

    I see no viable target audience for Vohra’s trolling. Appealing to inflammatory NAPster anarchists is a ticket to nowhere.

  144. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yep, certainly a ticket to nowhere from a consequentialist POV. However, NAPsterism is more cult-like than that. Bearing witness to the One True Way in its most raw form is — for the NAPster — a kind of personal salvation. It matters not that almost no one else buys what the NAPster is selling. Indeed, the lack of popularity of NAPsterism validates their sanctimoniousness even more!

    True blue NAPsters will die with the thought: I AM RIGHT! And, perhaps, FUCK THE WORLD!

  145. DJ

    RC: This is why NAPsters do not like their thought system questioned. They can’t defend it because it’s obvious nonsense upon even mild examination.

    Me: How’s that nonarchy pod thing working out for you? It didn’t work too well for Indians- can your model fend off those with an army intent on killing you? Can your model stop your inhabitants from starvation? Can your model fend off “manifest destiny” Christians? That’s just a “mild observation”- an in depth study “might” find more flaws- but the ones presented are pretty compelling thought. Both ‘structures’ require co-operation from outside, however, at some point most would probably see the benefits of non-aggression since their lives wouldn’t be in danger from those outside- Switzerland comes to mind if examples need to be referenced- oh wait, Switzerland is heavily armed- my bad. But, I digress, let’s go a little more in depth. What “control” would be used in your pods? What policy would be implemented for dealing with others if they didn’t agree with your pod’s “laws”? How do you plan the implementation of pods? Force? Education? Which would be most effective? Most expedient? Inquiring minds want to know.

  146. DJ

    RC: True blue NAPsters will die with the thought: I AM RIGHT! And, perhaps, FUCK THE WORLD!

    Me: I don’t know that I’m true blue anything other than Individual- however, there are a few sayings that fit “your” sanctimonious fit- “you got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything” is the first that comes to mind and probably the best- falling for populist beliefs is hardly very compelling for Individual rights which are to me libertarian- another is; the problem with smart motherfuckers is they seem crazy to dumb motherfuckers- I don’t claim to be smart but I can see what the saying is saying- and it isn’t esoteric nor does it need an explanation making it more complicated than it is- KISS- it works, it is what it is-

  147. Anthony Dlugos

    DJ,

    As a personal philosophy/disposition, I have zero problem with the NAP and anarchism, and an educational mission to advocate for changes in people’s thinking that would potentially bring about statelessness. Its a worthwhile, if somewhat idealistic goal.

    What I have a problem with is deploying it in the setting of electoral politics, where it has no place. What good is the NAP when an elected politician is faced with a 1500-page bill that has some good and a lot of bad? Its of no use, even though the some good might be worth voting for the bill.

    There are HUGE untested market opportunities for a moderate libertarian message in the arena of electoral politics, both in terms of specific policy proposals, and in the total package of policies that a particular candidate could put forth. its the “six-lane highway going right up the middle” that Governor Weld spoke of during the 2016 campaign. Relative to where this country is now, such a message would be massively popular, and would result in concrete benefits to Americans.

    But alas, such a message comes into conflict with the dogma that is weighing down the party.

  148. DJ

    Anthony,
    Weld was a tool and had no charisma and came across as dumb as a box of rocks, which, if you’ll recall, the media like to portray anyone other than a Democrat as ignorant. On top of that it’s highly doubtful he would have even attempted a Libertarian perspective never mind a libertarian one since he is/was in fact neither except in random instances rhetorically.

    I’ll give you that dogma angle, but so is massive popularity. Look at RC’s views on the 2nd amendment (populist) for affirmation. In a world that has no foundation being reduced to a campaign of personality with absolutely no substance you get what we got. We get the politicians we deserve, and idealistic or not that’s a fact. One of, if not, the main reason we “deserve” what we have is a lack of education founded in Truth- period. It runs the gamut from the ignorant to the highly educated- it demands a popularity contest at election time and it ain’t gonna change any time soon- at least not in y’all’s lifetime. I said y’all because I’m 70 y/o so it’s a given I won’t see ANY appreciable change. Therefore sowing seeds is the only alternative- going to your grave knowing you left your space a little better than you found it is all you can do- and it is enough.

    Now, did Libertarians “deserve” Weld? I don’t think libertarians did. But, he was “popular”(?) because of name recognition only- how much substance does that give the Party? How much popularity did the Party gain? IMO- 0. So now it has to start all over, again, with yet another character or characters trying to convince the already convinced that he is the one that will change everything- it ain’t gonna happen.
    Fatalistic? Perhaps. But age does offer a wider and deeper perspective- in conjunction with a life time of observation with very little participation and ‘some’ formal training on failure analysis conclusions tend to seem that way- but one thing I learned in my training was; if you don’t find the root cause and correct it you’ve only repaired a flaw that will happen again.

    Now, let’s address the education “format”- like I’ve repeated over and over- ads in local newspapers (full page) stating libertarian belief(s) one at a time, starting with “all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, Endowed”- signed, the Libertarian Party. Explain rights are inherent, not given, not granted and can only be restricted by force. Since time is of the essence go one month at a time before changing the “message” with elaboration of say, force, or “a Republic if you can keep it ma’am”…. explain ‘succinctly’ THESE United States- not THE United States- or, liberty and justice for ALL-

    Of course it takes money- pool resources, choose local news papers which are less expensive- the messages WILL draw attention to the Party website- there “policy” can be put forth in KISS form. And it needn’t be esoteric, nor confrontational or cause confusion or create fear- the more Liberty is exercised the better off everyone is- when “all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, Endowed”- another is Justice which does not happen in this Nation- a perversion occurs probably on an hourly basis- people know that, even the ignorant. The highly educated rely on it- Justice is ‘supposed to be blind’ in application, not “blinded by” anything- especially revenue generated for the purpose of en”force”ment-

    At some point, the media will have to address the full page ads- if not they will be crucified by the ‘one’ who does in the ratings- “popularity”.

    Personally, my views are too extreme for most- just leave me alone- I do unto others as they do unto me- I don’t do groups or Party’s- but, I am libertarian to the core- I would “support” the ads but on a very limited income it wouldn’t be much- but many not much’s add up.

    The “Party” has some choices to make- personally I don’t care what it does. It won’t affect me one way or another- I will say though, I’ve already decided that should I win the lottery I will personally run the ads and sign them “a” libertarian.

  149. Anthony Dlugos

    Well, I don’t have a particular problem with RC’s views on the 2nd Amendment. They seem reasonable. Far more importantly, they would come off as potentially reasonable to the average voter, as opposed to the dogmatic “NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER” hands over the ears NAPster attitude.

    To that end, here’s a funny anecdote: I was on politicalwire.com yesterday in a comments section of the “Repeal The Second Amendment” article, referring to JP Stevens op-ed yesterday. Of course, I was taking a pro-2nd Amendment position, and of course, I wanted to put in a plug for the LP and distinguish myself from the right-wing Trumpster Republicans in my defense of the right to self-defense, so I made sure to mention that I am a Libertarian.

    What was the first response I got to that?

    “Oh, the guys who want to be allowed to own private nukes.”

    I’m not making this up, you can review the comments here;

    https://politicalwire.com/2018/03/27/repeal-the-second-amendment/#comment-3828050655

    The point is, I can assure you that RC’s posts here regarding the 2nd Amendment and the staid demeanor of a qualified VP candidate like Governor Weld are HARDLY the LP’s biggest problems.

    They are only problems to the tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the LP that is most dogmatic about the NAP/anarchism. That, and decidedly right-wing conservatarians that we have made far too many concessions to lo, these many years since a substantial segment of the party fell under the Rothbard/Ron Paul/paleo sway.

  150. dL

    I was taking a pro-2nd Amendment position, and of course, I wanted to put in a plug for the LP and distinguish myself from the right-wing Trumpster Republicans in my defense of the right to self-defense, so I made sure to mention that I am a Libertarian.

    What was the first response I got to that?

    “Oh, the guys who want to be allowed to own private nukes.”

    (1) You apparently ascribe to placating your political enemies most uncharitable views of your position. Selectively, though. Would you likewise cower at the cons most uncharitable views of pro-choice, pro-immigration(e.,g pro-infanticide and pro sharia law 3rd world domination)?

    (2) Would a Johnson/Weld admin, given how much they were up Mitt Romeny’s ass, actually served as differentiation from Trump?

  151. dL

    True blue NAPsters will die with the thought: I AM RIGHT! And, perhaps, FUCK THE WORLD!

    The “wanting to see the world burn” constituency more accurately describes the dedicated viewership of Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow. Indeed, both sides accuse each other of being for exactly that. And in this instance, each is right.

  152. Anthony Dlugos

    1). I guess I would suggest pro-choice & pro-immigrant is a viable political position, as opposed to pro-private nukes.

    2) yes, I think so. Perhaps that’s the crux of the difference between the pragmatic and the purist. But I can’t imagine a guy like Johnson nominating a guy like Sessions. Also, a president who would merely do nothing on the marijuana front, for example, would seem to be a massive upgrade from the current situation. Who knows what could be accomplished at the state level in that case. Call that wishful thinking, if you must.

    Heck, I imagine that the reality of a Johnson-Weld administration would have been a disappointment in many areas, even for an admitted moderate like myself. I would have to remind myself that, from the perspective of the typical voter, many of the milquetoast J-W policies would probably be seen as a great leap of faith.

  153. robert capozzi

    DJ: How’s that nonarchy pod thing working out for you?

    Me: Exceedingly well. It’s a theoretical view that makes sense to me AND to many NAPsters. I don’t consider it a practical concept at this time. My agenda was to plant the Nonarchy Pod seed in the heads of NAPsters, because if they think it all through, they will eventually recognize the folly of NAPsterism.

    DJ: Weld was a tool and had no charisma and came across as dumb as a box of rocks, which, if you’ll recall, the media like to portray anyone other than a Democrat as ignorant.

    Me: Actually, I saw a few interviews of WW on MSM in which they thought he should have been on the top of the ticket. Given that WW is clearly a man of superior intellect, you might go back and watch some of those interviews.

    I’d be very surprised if WW ever got lower than a 160 on an IQ test.

    I note that I very frequently don’t agree with Noam Chomsky and Sam Harris, but I acknowledge that they have superior intellects, by all indications. I wonder if your assessment of WW is not about his intellect but simply that you disagreed with what you heard him say.

  154. Anthony Dlugos

    I think DJ is a paleo, so Weld’s comments about Trump being far worse than Hillary (a correct assessment, I think), and Weld vouching for Hillary pretty much makes the Governor the spawn of Satan.

  155. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes. Anyone who uses “these United States” is almost certainly paleo.

    My assessment pre-election was there was no upside with HRC, but that ATC she was the less dangerous choice, which is why I was rooting for her to win. DJT has huge downside risk, but that I could imagine some possible upsides. So far, DJT has not been as bad as I imagined he might be on SOME things, but that he has 3 years to really hose our country. To be fair, some of his efforts have been minor pluses for the cause of lessarchy.

  156. DJ

    AD: The point is, I can assure you that RC’s posts here regarding the 2nd Amendment and the staid demeanor of a qualified VP candidate like Governor Weld are HARDLY the LP’s biggest problems.

    Me: Nowhere did I say anything about Weld being the biggest problem for the LP.
    “Quote”: ’ll give you that dogma angle, but so is massive popularity. Look at RC’s views on the 2nd amendment (populist) for affirmation.

    Make note of populist. Make note that “populist” subscribe to punish the many for the actions of a few that “might” happen, to wit: Parking violations.–re., revenue generators, nothing more nothing less.

    AD: They are only problems to the tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the LP that is most dogmatic about the NAP/anarchism. That, and decidedly right-wing conservatarians that we have made far too many concessions to lo, these many years since a substantial segment of the party fell under the Rothbard/Ron Paul/paleo sway.

    Me: A “problem” I see here is responding to something believed to give the other a leg up. Call it what you want, but, ignoring the rest of what I said ‘proves’ a solution is not what’s wanted- only fodder for whose ideas are better- Dogma!

    Like I’ve said- “I don’t care”. I don’t subscribe to Party.

    My observations, coupled with what little knowledge I have, are offered from an outsiders perspective to ‘help’ effect positive outcome vs dumbing down of the “populist” which is where your votes are going to have to come from- AND you’ll have to live with the results = non-libertarian “policy” because the dumbed down know only R or D- due to a lack of an education founded on Truth.

  157. DJ

    RC: Exceedingly well. It’s a theoretical view that makes sense to me AND to many NAPsters. I don’t consider it a practical concept at this time. My agenda was to plant the Nonarchy Pod seed in the heads of NAPsters, because if they think it all through, they will eventually recognize the folly of NAPsterism.

    Me: In theory? Ask the Indians how it worked for them and answer the other questions I asked.

    I’m sowing seeds as well. Are your seeds better than my seeds? Education vs theory- Which will bear fruit first? Which fruit is sweeter?

    It’s easy to theorize anything- difficult to implement almost anything- people not hurting one another speaks to the heart then the mind- isolating one or 100,000 or whatever number applies creates a country or state or city that has to be controlled by the everyone’s equal except the more equal, the controllers, which is what we have now who don’t oppose using force to ensure and legislation to insure their power.

  158. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Indian tribes were not and are not Nonarchy Pods. Nonarchy Pods are where individuals secede onto their property to establish a nation-state of one.

  159. DJ

    AD: I think DJ is a paleo,

    Me: DJ is an Individual- who will survive in spite of if not to spite the/any collective, or labels.
    It is the Individual who has rights- it is the Individual who makes a choice- it is the Individual who has stood the test of time- it is the individual who suffers consequences, the groups, the Party’s are a dime a dozen and last just til the next best thing comes along- labels change- allegiances change- knowledge evolves Truth is constant- Republicans are Democrats, Democrats are whatever they say they are, today- they both subscribe to the same neo-liberal philosophy of the 60’s- they both ignore the paleo- they both intentionally misinterpret, some (if not most) are lawyers. That means they pay to be taught how to intentionally misinterpret-or lie, whatever suits their agenda du jour…. mine is and has been all my life- do unto others as you would have them do to you- I exercised a non-aggressive principle before it was labeled- that it has become a derogatory term amongst libertarians baffles me-

    And lastly-

    AD: I’d be very surprised if WW ever got lower than a 160 on an IQ test.

    I note that I very frequently don’t agree with Noam Chomsky and Sam Harris, but I acknowledge that they have superior intellects, by all indications. I wonder if your assessment of WW is not about his intellect but simply that you disagreed with what you heard him say.

    Me: Sorry I’m not impressed- they all put their pants on one leg at a time- their intellect is immaterial- I said “the press makes anyone not a Democrat appear dumb”- he has no charisma (I said that)- neither has anything to do with his intellect- fawning over others is not my bag, except musicians I like, and then it’s just a respect for their talent- being a used car salesman requires talent- being intellectual requires paying attention- comedians are pretty good at it- some are quite intellectual as well- but they are intellectual enough to know bullshit when they hear it so they tend to stay out of politics- except to joke about it. But, there are ‘some’ who want us to believe their comedy is based on intellect which speaks volumes about how dumbed down we are a “civilization”….

    These United States is what was originally intended- if Truth is ancient so be it. It is true today and it will be true tomorrow.

  160. DJ

    RC: Indian tribes were not and are not Nonarchy Pods. Nonarchy Pods are where individuals secede onto their property to establish a nation-state of one.

    Me: Well there you go- a good theory shot all to hell. Good luck in your journey- your destination is in jeopardy.

  161. DJ

    Populist belief. Punish the many for the actions of the few that “might” happen.

    Vermont House approves gun restrictions as opponents look on

    Speaking at a Statehouse news conference, Republican Gov. Phil Scott said he understood that he has disappointed many of his supporters with his stance backing some form of gun restrictions but realized he had an obligation to *do something* after a teenager was arrested last month for plotting to shoot up the Fair Haven Union High School.
    ……………….

    the Vermont debate was spurred by what officials described as a near-miss in Fair Haven. In that case, a friend of the teenager accused of plotting a shooting told police about him and he was arrested.

    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article206962634.html#storylink=cpy

    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article206962634.html#storylink=cpy

  162. DJ

    RC, your theory requires educating of an esoteric endeavor to be enacted- seeds have to be sown- so first your idea/theory has to produce seeds, from those seeds fruit can be harvested- the journey to the harvest is a long, lonely road- you’ll never see it happen = being in jeopardy.

    Unless of course you want to force others (for instant gratification) to exercise a sovereignty the “vast, vast majority” don’t even know they have. But, forcing the issue infringes on sovereignty which is diametrically opposite your theory.

  163. Marc Montoni

    Don Wills said:

    …will it be possible to arrest the slide into a collectivist tyranny overseen by alternating governments just as Orwell predicted in 1984…

    I don’t believe so.

    Not when even when “anarchists”, much less “libertarians”, have found so many exceptions to the list of things they’d be willing to abolish.

    Dlugos said:

    If you are suggesting I am wrong, there is a market for whatever principled message you believe in, then great, we have a way to prove it: market the message, get the delegates, and get your guy nominated, get the platform changed to reflect your preference, recruit candidates that reflect your message, and demonstrate the attractiveness of their message by vote totals.

    Oh, I have no question that train has already left the station.

    As I admitted in the above article, it’s in no small part because I and others spent decades recruiting the very kind of LP members [and therefore delegates] who will vote exactly in the opposite direction.

    Which is why my recruitment habits have come to a full stop.

    Essentially I have helped fill the room with people like Dlugos.

    I’m simply saying I’m no longer willing to keep filling the room with people like him.

  164. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Actually, I saw a few interviews of WW on MSM in which they thought he should have been on the top of the ticket. Given that WW is clearly a man of superior intellect, you might go back and watch some of those interviews.

    I’d be very surprised if WW ever got lower than a 160 on an IQ test.

    I note that I very frequently don’t agree with Noam Chomsky and Sam Harris, but I acknowledge that they have superior intellects, by all indications. I wonder if your assessment of WW is not about his intellect but simply that you disagreed with what you heard him say.”

    If this is true, this shows that Bill Weld is evil, as in he is not too stupid to understand libertarianism, he just prefers being a control freak asshole and a part of the ruling establishment gang of criminals.

  165. Marc Montoni

    Dlugos said:

    Apparently, what we are doing is already working (in the effort to weaken the platform), per your statement. Why waste time proving anything to anyone?

    Get your votes by proving we are weakening a platform that didn’t need correction, or that we have nothing to show for such weakening. If you can’t find those votes, I’m just going to assume you are wrong., and that the party just doesn’t agree with your assessment.

    By any realistic measure, this is a flat-out lie. The LP has been fading as an organization steadily for almost twenty years now.

    Where are all of those “millions of voters” who pulled the Johnson lever in 2016?

    They didn’t join the LP, that’s for sure.

    Active Donors 20 year

    They’re not donating, either:

    Revenue 20 years

    [Hell, the “new, improved” LP can’t even match the revenue during the Badnarik campaign. Adjusted for inflation it looks even worse: The paltry $2.5 million the LP raised in 2016 dollars is actually less than the $2 million it raised in 2004. I don’t blame the staff. I blame the culture in the LP that has made the LP’s philosophical direction almost noncommittal. Who wants to invest in an organization that whispers?]

    And they’re not candidates, either.

    The above graphs are available in the LNC End-of-Month report for February 2018.

    The only thing the moderate Johnson/Weld campaign won was some unearned publicity for an idiotic national retail sales tax and Bill Weld.

  166. robert capozzi

    DJ: the journey to the harvest is a long, lonely road- you’ll never see it happen = being in jeopardy.

    ME: Highly likely correct. So too is constitutionalist and non-constitutionalist NAPsterism. My guess is we continue to slide toward morearchy. I am under no illusions that a lessarchist approach will right the ship and see the rising of a political force to slow and even reverse the morearchistic trend.

    I am as sure as I can be that NAPsterism is completely inconsequential at best, and actually counter-productive at worst.

  167. Andy

    Marc Montoni said: “By any realistic measure, this is a flat-out lie. The LP has been fading as an organization steadily for almost twenty years now.

    Where are all of those ‘millions of voters’ who pulled the Johnson lever in 2016?

    They didn’t join the LP, that’s for sure.”

    Marc Montoni is right, and I’ve been pointing out the same things for a long time. The Libertarian Party has gone downhill by most measures. The number of dues paying members is down (while US population has increased), the number of elected Libertarians is way down, and, as Marc pointed out above, the fundraising numbers really aren’t that good when adjusted for inflation.

    The presidential ticket got more votes in terms or raw numbers, and percent of the vote, than any past LP presidential ticket, but they also ran under the most favorable set of circumstances of any past LP ticket (and note that the circumstances were also pretty good in 2008 and 2012, but they were even better for the LP in 2016), with a record level of disgust for the major party candidates, and no other higher profile or better funded minor party or independent candidates on the ballot, and with the LP’s ticket being the only ticket to qualify for the ballot in all 50 states plus DC (most of the work for which was done by the LNC, and/or the state parties, and this was helped out by some favorable changes in the ballot access laws). Jill Stein was Gary Johnson’s closet competitor, and she only qualified for the ballot in 44 states plus DC, and the only other notable minor party or independent candidates in the race were Darrell Castle, who only qualified for the ballot in 24 states, and Evan McMullin, who jumped in the race late, and who only qualified for the ballot in 10 states. Stein, Castle, and McMullin were not well known people, yet Stein got over 1.4 million votes, which is the best the Green Party has done in a presidential race since the last time they had Ralph Nader as a candidate, which was in 2000. Castle got over 203,000 votes, which was a raw vote total record for Constitution Party presidential candidates, and Castle got on the ballot in less states than past Constitution Party candidates for President. Evan McMullin jumped in the race late, and he only qualified for the ballot in 10 states, yet he received over 716,000 votes. There were also apparently a relatively significant number of write in votes for Bernie Sanders, and he did not even run a write in campaign for President, nor did he even endorse people writing him in for President, as he endorsed Hillary Clinton, even though it was pretty obvious that Hillary and the DNC had robbed him of the nomination.

    Another factor that helped the Johnson/Weld ticket was that there were marijuana legalization initiatives, and medical marijuana initiatives, on the ballot in a lot of states, and since taxing and regulating marijuana was one of their campaign issues, this helped propel their vote total, as lots of people went to the polls to vote to “legalize weed”.

    I was on the ground gathering petition signatures in several states throughout 2016 and 2017, up until the present, and I can tell you that the feedback I have gotten from the public about the Johnson/Weld ticket has been mostly negative, and most of the negative comments have come from people who are libertarian, or libertarian leaning, or from people who are otherwise sympathetic to minor party and independent candidates. Even most of the people I have talked to who said that they voted for Gary Johnson lacked enthusiasm for him, and they admitted that they voted for him as a protest vote because they did not like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Sure, I have run into a few people who liked Gary Johnson, but these were people were what I’d call low information voters. The only people I have encountered who have had anything good to say about Bill Weld were not even remotely libertarian. The general consensus I have gotten from the public in regard to the Johnson/Weld ticket is that they were not very principled, and that they came off as goofy and unprepared, and that the Libertarian Party blew a major opportunity to get ahead in 2016 by nominating them. I have discussed this with other petition circulators, some Libertarian, and some not, who have been on the ground during this same time frame, and the feedback they have received from the public about the Johnson/Weld ticket is similar to the feedback that I have gotten.

    I heard feedback from two people who made Libertarian Party fundraising calls off of the Gary Johnson 2016 donor list, and they found that there were lots of people on the list who were Democrats or Republicans (Never Trumpers, who are not remotely libertarian, even though Trump is not libertarian either) who had no interest in the Libertarian Party, or in libertarianism, and they only donated because they were trying to influence the outcome of the presidential race.

    The word libertarian has become more popular than ever, thanks in large part to Ron Paul, as well other well known people such as Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel, using the word, and there are now more people than ever identifying as libertarian, yet the Libertarian Party is failing to capitalize on this.

    I am hoping that the efforts of Adam Kokesh, and also from Michael Heise and the LP Mises Caucus, breathe some new life into the Libertarian Party.

  168. paulie Post author

    The LP has been fading as an organization steadily for almost twenty years now.

    The chart you posted to prove this shows the slide ended in 2006 and the numbers of dues paying national members have been largely steady or improving since then. As for before that, BCRA and UMP were discussed above and there are a bunch of other reasons.

    When you look at vote totals, voter registrations and many other measures the LP is growing, not fading.

    Hell, the “new, improved” LP can’t even match the revenue during the Badnarik campaign.

    A more positive way to look at that is that it just had its best first quarter fundraising since 2004.

    And they’re not candidates, either.

    There’s an ambitious candidate recruitment goal this year. We’ll see if real progress can be made on that front.

    idiotic national retail sales tax

    Let’s not forget that it’s also a near-universal welfare program as well, among other things.

    What I like about the LP in the last several years is that it’s less right wing than it was before that. We need to keep that progress up and fight off the reich wing takeover attempt.

  169. paulie Post author

    Andy’s overly long wall of text comment was as often the case unreadable, but I managed to catch this much

    I am hoping that the efforts of Adam Kokesh, and also from Michael Heise and the LP Mises Caucus, breathe some new life into the Libertarian Party.

    Hell no! The “Mises” (more accurately Hoppe) caucus is the exact opposite of what the LP needs. Reich wingers raus!

    I’m hoping their invasion/takeover attempt is decisively defeated in New Orleans and that all of the paleo/alt reich elements leave the LP as soon as possible after that. We need to decisively and completely cut our ties, as a party and as a movement, to the right wing, whether it be the establishment conservative-libertarian fusionist element or even more so the nationalist, racist far right masquerading as libertarian or libertarian-leaning when they are actually the exact opposite.

  170. Andy

    Paul said: “The chart you posted to prove this shows the slide ended in 2006 and the numbers of dues paying national members have been largely steady or improving since then. As for before that, BCRA and UMP were discussed above and there are a bunch of other reasons.”

    US population has also increased since then, so when you factor this into the equation, the number of dues paying LP members has really gone down the toilet.

  171. Andy

    Paul said: “What I like about the LP in the last several years is that it’s less right wing than it was before that. We need to keep that progress up and fight off the reich wing takeover attempt.”

    The LP is also less libertarian than it used to be. The party was more libertarian back in the Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik days than it is now.

  172. robert capozzi

    aj: If this is true, this shows that Bill Weld is evil, as in he is not too stupid to understand libertarianism, he just prefers being a control freak asshole and a part of the ruling establishment gang of criminals.

    me: Yes, from your perspective, ALL non-NAPsters are “evil.” Alrighty then.

  173. Andy

    Paul said: “Hell no! The ‘Mises’ (more accurately Hoppe) caucus is the exact opposite of what the LP needs. Reich wingers raus!”

    This is a complete mischaracterization of the Mises Caucus. Not that I think that there is anything wrong with Hoppe, but I’d say that the Mises Caucus is more Ron Paul than anything else. I talked with Michael Heise, founder of the LP Mises Caucus, at great length, as documented in my video interview with him, that is posted here on IPR, plus we talked more off camera. He wants to recapture the spirit of the Ron Paul r3VOLution of 2007-2012, which was the most successful, in terms of outreach) and highest profile thing that the libertarian movement has ever done, and bring that to the Libertarian Party. Heise is also completely on board with promoting jury nullification, the Deputize ‘Em plan (electing a libertarian Sheriff, who appoints libertarian deputies/see my video on this subject, posted right here at IPR), and on Libertarians taking over local government bodies in places where this is a realistically achievable goal.

    Just in case anyone reading this missed it, or needs a memory refresher, click this link and check out parts 1 & 2 of my interview with Michael Heise.

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/02/andy-jacobs-interviews-michael-heise-founder-of-the-lp-mises-caucus-2-3-18-parts-1-2/

  174. paulie Post author

    Increase in US population has been pretty negligible. The national LP has just not been as good at selling its annual newsletter subscription program, especially since it has been delinked from state/local membership and many ways that state, local and national parties coordinated before BCRA have now been made illegal. Most other measures of LP membership such as pledge signers and registered LP voters are only going up.

  175. paulie Post author

    The LP is also less libertarian than it used to be.

    I think it’s more libertarian than it was in the Barr-Root era. We are still recovering from that, if anything, while fending off yet another invasion from another corner of the far right, this time an even uglier one associated with hardcore bigots.

  176. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Yes, from your perspective, ALL non-NAPsters are ‘evil.’ Alrighty then.”

    I think that one could make this argument, but one could also say that a lot of them are just ignorant or misguided.

    Bill Weld is worse than that though. He knows exactly what he is doing, and he knows that he is infiltrating and sabotaging the Libertarian Party. He is despicable, and I find it appalling that anyone in the Libertarian Party is still taking him seriously. The only thing that is serious about him is that he represents a serious threat to the Libertarian Party and movement, and libertarians ought to shun him.

  177. paulie Post author

    This is a complete mischaracterization of the Mises Caucus.

    It’s not. They are “very open” to working with the American Guard, a far right nationalist migrant-bashing militia which denies being racist while being chock-full of members who also maintain their membership in other openly racist gangs. Heise and Smith are not shy about paling around with the likes of Ryan Ramsey. My characterization of them is completely accurate and anything else they try to pass off is just a fig leaf.

    Not that I think that there is anything wrong with Hoppe

    The problem there, of course, is with the way Andy thinks.

    He wants to recapture the spirit of the Ron Paul r3VOLution of 2007-2012

    But has succeeded more at recapturing the spirit of the Ron Paul Newsletters, the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, the Blood and Soil Institute, et tedious cetera.

    To hell with any and all of that.

  178. Andy

    Also, trying to paint Michael Heise as some right wing guy who just wants to do outreach to conservatives is BS. He is completely on board with calling for a complete end to the War on Drugs (not just taxing and regulating marijuana, like Gary Johnson and Bill Weld promoted), he’s strongly in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy, and he has worked with some black guy in Philadelphia who is promoting the right to keep and bear arms in predominantly Democrat urban areas. The guy in question started a group called Black Guns Matter, which is a take on Black Lives Matter, and if you watch my interview with Heise, he is wearing a Black Guns Matter shirt, and I even asked him about it during the interview.

  179. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Well, I must certainly be “evil” in your eyes, since I’m certainly up on NAPsterism even more than WW is. I’m still in recovery. WW was never a NAPster, so he probably never went down that rabbit hole. He’s probably never even considered whether fetuses are parasites or not.

    Did you ever see the vid of Perry shouting/spitting at WW at the convention? I do admit I felt his pain. NAPsters really can’t handle deviationism. IIRC, MNR allowed for one and only one deviation from the korrect line.

    More seriously, why not use a term different from “evil”? Why not just say you strongly disagree with non-NAPsters? Why make use a label shot through with sanctimony?

  180. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    March 29, 2018 at 15:45
    AJ,

    Well, I must certainly be ‘evil’ in your eyes, since I’m certainly up on NAPsterism even more than WW is. I’m still in recovery. WW was never a NAPster, so he probably never went down that rabbit hole. He’s probably never even considered whether fetuses are parasites or not.”

    Robert, I assume that you believe what you say you believe, so assuming that you are not lying, I assume that you are at least a minarchist, maybe not a radical minarchist, like say Michael Badnarik, but I assume that you’d like to see some fairly large cuts in government. So I would not call you evil. I’d say that you are just a guy who wants there to be more freedom, but you question whether or not hardcore NAPsterism is realistically possible.

    “Did you ever see the vid of Perry shouting/spitting at WW at the convention? I do admit I felt his pain. NAPsters really can’t handle deviationism. IIRC, MNR allowed for one and only one deviation from the korrect line.”

    Yes, and I agree with Perry. Weld deserves to be run out of the Libertarian Party and movement.

    “More seriously, why not use a term different from ‘evil’?”

    Evil is the best description of the ruling establishment, and given that Bill Weld is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is one of the ruling establishment’s leading clubs, and given that he’s a long time crony of the Bush family, the Clinton family, and Mitt Romney, he is one of them,, as in he is a part of the ruling establishment.

  181. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    I’d think that the Weld threat to NAPsterism ended in 16. Why are you so worried about him?

  182. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    I’d think that the Weld threat to NAPsterism ended in 16. Why are you so worried about him?

    Andy is worried because Weld might seek the LP nomination in 2020. I’m worried too.

    Paulie wrote:

    Hell no! The “Mises” (more accurately Hoppe) caucus is the exact opposite of what the LP needs.

    I completely agree.

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    DJ: How’s that nonarchy pod thing working out for you?

    Me: Exceedingly well. It’s a theoretical view that makes sense to me AND to many NAPsters. I don’t consider it a practical concept at this time. My agenda was to plant the Nonarchy Pod seed in the heads of NAPsters, because if they think it all through, they will eventually recognize the folly of NAPsterism.

    DJ, I’m not sure why you don’t recognize Bob is trolling. He just flat out admitted it here.

  183. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “AJ,

    I’d think that the Weld threat to NAPsterism ended in 16. Why are you so worried about him?”

    Bill Weld is still lingering around the Libertarian Party, and at least a few state parties are booking him to speak at their state conventions (the fact that any Libertarian would want Bill Weld to speak at their convention is quite disturbing).

    I do agree that Bill Weld is not likely to get nominated to run for office as an LP candidate again, at least not for President or Vice President (I still think that it is possible that he could pull something in a state and run for some other office as an LP candidate). I think that he pissed off too many people for this to happen.

    The problem is what Bill Weld represents, which is a hijacking of the LP’s by the ruling establishment. He’s basically a Deep State plant that is operating openly in the Libertarian Party, and his ties to the ruling establishment are in fact well known. He and his ruling establishment cronies are basically openly mocking us. They must get a good laugh behind closed doors.

    Beyond this, the very real threat that he represents is the role that he could play in trying to get the LP to nominate more candidates like him in the future. I expect that there will be yet another attempt by the ruling establishment to hijack the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket in 2020, as they did successfully in 2008, 2012, and 2016. I don’t know who the establishment hijacker(s) are going to be this time, but names such as John Kasich and Jeff Flake have already been floated.

    Hopefully, the Libertarian Party will have a strong candidate for the presidential nomination for 2020 that is in the legitimate libertarian camp, like Adam Kokesh, or maybe somebody else, who will thwart any attempts by ruling establishment players to hijack the 2020 presidential ticket.

  184. Andy

    Another threat that Bill Weld represents to the LP, is that as long as he is in the party, he discredits the organization. Bill Weld should not act as a representative for the Libertarian Party in any capacity.

  185. paulie Post author

    Also, trying to paint Michael Heise as some right wing guy who just wants to do outreach to conservatives is BS. He is completely on board with calling for a complete end to the War on Drugs (not just taxing and regulating marijuana, like Gary Johnson and Bill Weld promoted), he’s strongly in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy, and he has worked with some black guy

    So I guess by that standard Augustus Invictus and Ryan Ramsey are not right wingers either.

  186. robert capozzi

    cm: Bob is trolling.

    Me: Aren’t we all, in a sense? We state our position, make a case for it, consider the audience and their assumptions, and offer rhetoric to counter those assumptions to be replaced by more serviceable and true ones.

  187. paulie Post author

    I’d think that the Weld threat to NAPsterism ended in 16.

    Why would you say that? Every place I see people speculating about likely 2020 presidential candidates Weld is at or near the top of the list.

  188. robert capozzi

    PF,

    I’ve not seen those speculations. Perhaps the Evil One will mount One Last Mad Dash, with a running mate with the name of Rothschild or Rockefeller. 🙂

    Were he to run, I suspect he’s been studying up on NAPsterism. He probably wasn’t aware of its twisted tributaries prior to getting the call from Gary in 16.

    Separately, I see that Austin Petersen is now calling for re-legalizing machine guns. And he was a NAP denialist, so I can’t attribute that insanity to NAPsterism. He probably gets creamed in the primaries.

  189. DJ

    RC: I am as sure as I can be that NAPsterism is completely inconsequential at best, and actually counter-productive at worst.

    Me: Tangible evidence?

    It’s a monkey see monkey do world. Set an example it will, or won’t, be followed. I’m as sure as I can be that if I exercise non-aggression and am met with aggression it won’t be pretty- but, I set an example. Some will recognize it and value it, some won’t, but I’m as sure as I can be that I’ll leave my space a little better than I found it, which is our main job, because sure as shooting, no group, or Party, will accomplish making my space a little better by insisting I defer to- no theory will make my space a little better than I found it, but, my setting examples will-

  190. DJ

    RC: Aren’t we all, in a sense? We state our position, make a case for it, consider the audience and their assumptions, and offer rhetoric to counter those assumptions to be replaced by more serviceable and true ones.

    Me: What evidence can you provide (not just rhetoric) of more serviceable and true?

  191. Anon-Tipper

    I can’t believe how long these threads go on for, and the same topics over and over again.

  192. DJ

    What I see here, as an outsider, rivals any dysfunctional family ever portrayed anywhere. There is no harmony about anything except name and even that has vitriolic differing opinions/factions. The “Party” is in such disarray it’s no wonder people are reluctant to endorse or support it. The results speak for themselves.

    You all want and are demanding instant gratification, which, as adults, you should know how that will turn out. The result of the past election ‘may’ look good on paper, but, apparently no one is rushing to join, support, or endorse the Party. Yet, RC backs moderation- of course he also thinks the populist agenda to punish the many for the actions of the few is a good idea- then we have the ism’s separations which are esoteric regardless of how they’re thought of- KISS is considered too much trouble, or too hard, or take too long- but, simple is not spelled easy, and nothing easy is lasting- simple is because people of today are simple- they try to appear complex but they aren’t which is where the pseudo-intellectual psyche fails miserably- making the simple complicated only empowers the complicator- making the complicated simple is what’s needed. KISS- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed-

    The past few days I’ve been reading a lot of the comments in the Parkland articles. The number of times I’ve seen “inalienable” is appalling- those kids from Parkland are tools as well- but the media is fawning all over them- why? Why do people not know the words of The Declaration of Independence? Why does the media fawn over kids that have 0 credibility in life? Yet, no one here wants to address educating the voters in anyway other than arguing about it.

    Those of you recruiting, how difficult would it be to pass out a simple piece of paper? Would it be effective? Is what’s being done now effective?

  193. dL

    I can’t believe how long these threads go on for, and the same topics over and over again.

    Well, the only thing worse than hundreds of comments re-litigating the same ole shit is no comments at all…

  194. dL

    Me: Aren’t we all, in a sense? We state our position, make a case for it, consider the audience and their assumptions, and offer rhetoric to counter those assumptions to be replaced by more serviceable and true ones.

    That’s called argument, debate.

    A troll in this instance is someone like, er, you, who would manage to turn a discussion, say, around quantum gravitational fluctuations in the early universe into a diatribe against private nukes and the non aggression principle

  195. robert capozzi

    DJ: What evidence can you provide (not just rhetoric) of more serviceable and true?

    Me: Evidence that NAPsterism is not serviceable: LP vote totals. And the State has gotten nothing but bigger for the last 50+ years.

    Truth is ineffable, but untruth is easy to spot most of the time. I happen to believe there is One Truth, but we can’t know it with precision. Ultimately, we can adopt relative truths and hopefully that truth will more or less prevail with majorities and even super-majorities.

  196. Andy

    I mentioned above that Michael Heise was promoting and working with a black guy who is promoting gun rights to people who live in large urban areas which are heavily Democrat. I could not think of the guy’s name, so I just went to the website for Black Gun Matter (which I think is a great idea, because it is like intellectual judo, as in rather than combating Black Lives Matter for going off in a Marxist direction, they are using a similar concept to promote a pro-freedom message, one that people in these areas desperately need to hear).

    Anyway, the guy’s name is Maj Toure.

    Here is a link to Black Guns Matter.

    http://officialblackgunsmatter.com/about/

    From the site: “ABOUT BLACK GUNS MATTER
    The Black Guns Matter mission is to educate urban communities on their 2nd amendment rights and responsibilities through firearm training and education.

    ABOUT MAJ TOURE
    Maj Toure is a Solutionary Hip Hop artist turned 2nd Amendment activist from North Philly. His following began after he was featured on the cover of the Philadelphia Weekly as “the Prophet of Philadelphia.” He founded the Black Guns Matter movement in 2015 and tours across the country providing 2nd amendment education and information to urban communities. Maj has been featured in the New York Times, Breitbart News, National Public Radio, and NRANews for his out of the box approach to 2nd amendment advocacy.”

  197. DJ

    RC: Evidence that NAPsterism is not serviceable: LP vote totals. And the State has gotten nothing but bigger for the last 50+ years.

    Me: LOL- that’s not evidence, never mind tangible, on not serviceable. That’s rhetoric. Period.

    Your “evidence” proves bad marketing, or a lack of marketing. I’d never heard of the non-aggression principle before coming to this web site. I’ll admit I don’t pay attention to any Party rhetoric, but I’d think that at least one politician would have mentioned it- I don’t recall seeing it anywhere which must mean it’s not advertised- that no politician mentioned it doesn’t mean it isn’t serviceable, that it isn’t advertised doesn’t mean it isn’t serviceable- what it does mean goes on at this site- a dysfunctional family who can’t agree on anything, and you are the epitome of that.

    Serviceable, in this instance, is your opinion, based on, your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. The state getting bigger is inevitable and it’s not going to be stopped w/o catastrophic failure- not even ‘your’ “theory(s)” can change either.

  198. robert capozzi

    DJ: Your “evidence” proves bad marketing, or a lack of marketing. I’d never heard of the non-aggression principle before coming to this web site. I’ll admit I don’t pay attention to any Party rhetoric, but I’d think that at least one politician would have mentioned it- I don’t recall seeing it anywhere which must mean it’s not advertised- that no politician mentioned it doesn’t mean it isn’t serviceable, that it isn’t advertised doesn’t mean it isn’t serviceable- what it does mean goes on at this site- a dysfunctional family who can’t agree on anything, and you are the epitome of that.

    ME: My feedback is You asked me for an empirical answer, and I gave you 2 solid facts that explain the results. Now you appear to move the goalposts and blame low LP vote totals and the nation’s statist direction on “marketing.” Marketing requires budgets, and budgets require significant numbers of supporters. Since the LP is setup as a vehicle for NAPsterism, and since there are very few NAPsters (especially ones interested in doing politics), fundraising is likely to always be highly constrained.

    btw, GJ repeated the NAP in the 16 campaign, as well as more colloquial versions many times.

    DJ: Serviceable, in this instance, is your opinion, based on, your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

    ME: In a sense, yes, everything that we believe is subjective. But I do do my best to take into account OTHER PEOPLE’S opinions. Most do this, I suspect. Some 2A enthusiasts might agree with you that automatic weapons should be re-legalized, for ex. However, they have the wisdom to keep their opinion to themselves, knowing that that will position them as wackos.

    DJ: The state getting bigger is inevitable and it’s not going to be stopped w/o catastrophic failure- not even ‘your’ “theory(s)” can change either.

    ME: OK, now we’re gaining insight into DJ-ism. At root, it sounds as if you are an apocalyptic catastrophizer. I note you are an absolutist on this score.

    Many NAPsters are apocalyptic catastrophizers. I’ve half expected a collapse of the western world since about 1980 or so. As I shrugged off NAPsterism, this dour worldview has also been shedded. This is not to say that collapse won’t happen, but rather to suggest that things could do what they’ve done throughout most of history: Muddle along, with punctuated periods of technological leaps forward.

  199. paulie Post author

    “Some of my best friends are” arguments are apparently common among this set. On FB, Alex Merced claims that since he or his family is from Guatemala a picture of Joshua Smith eating at Taco Bell with Merced is proof that Smith can’t be a nationalist. As far as I know Merced was being serious with this ridiculous “proof.”

  200. Andy

    I never made the claim that someone who has a black friend can’t be a right winger.

    This of course is irrelavent, since the discussion was about Michael Heise, who is a Libertarian, as in he is at the top of the Nolan Chart.

  201. Andy

    The other point was that Heise is in fact doing outreach across the political spectrum. He is not just reaching out to conservatives as some have falsely claimed.

  202. DJ

    RC: My feedback is You asked me for an empirical answer, and I gave you 2 solid facts that explain the results. Now you appear to move the goalposts and blame low LP vote totals and the nation’s statist direction on “marketing.” Marketing requires budgets, and budgets require significant numbers of supporters. Since the LP is setup as a vehicle for NAPsterism, and since there are very few NAPsters (especially ones interested in doing politics), fundraising is likely to always be highly constrained.

    Me: Do you think I can’t remember what I wrote? Or go back to what I wrote?

    Review at your leisure.

    Me: What evidence can you provide (not just rhetoric) of more serviceable and true?

    You provided rhetoric.
    …………..

    RC: OK, now we’re gaining insight into DJ-ism. At root, it sounds as if you are an apocalyptic catastrophizer. I note you are an absolutist on this score.

    Me: Now? I’ve said it more than once more places than here. When havoc is created, chaos ensues, catastrophe is inevitable- it can’t be avoided only minimized- with Truth. A dynamic cannot be stopped, nor have an abrupt change in direction w/o catastrophic failure. There is no time line assigned- a beginning is arguable for arguments sake. The “good” thing, if the future is involved, is the young will adapt- the question becomes; To what?

    Label me any way you like- it absolutely won’t change anything.

    RC: This is not to say that collapse won’t happen, but rather to suggest that things could do what they’ve done throughout most of history: Muddle along, with punctuated periods of technological leaps forward.

    Me: LOL…. okay. Since you “now” seem to want to rely on History, why do you ignore it when touting populist belief?

    RC: In a sense, yes, everything that we believe is subjective. But I do do my best to take into account OTHER PEOPLE’S opinions. Most do this, I suspect. Some 2A enthusiasts might agree with you that automatic weapons should be re-legalized, for ex. However, they have the wisdom to keep their opinion to themselves, knowing that that will position them as wackos.

    Me: No, everything you’re taught to believe is subjective, but less likely to occur in the sciences since numbers don’t lie. That disables objective thinking at worst and hinders it at best. It denies a big picture observation and narrows it to a perceived flaw, or opinion, with ‘some’ fact laced with excuses that can’t be explained with reason (sound explanation of an event). We witness it daily- unless one is intentionally obtuse, or willfully ignorant.

    RC: Now you appear to move the goalposts and blame low LP vote totals and the nation’s statist direction on “marketing.”

    Me: Jesus, do you not read? How many times have I said “pool your resources andadvertise” in this forum as a means of making aware? Apparently you have had another “now” moment.

    RC: btw, GJ repeated the NAP in the 16 campaign, as well as more colloquial versions many times.

    Me: Colloquial version? LOL…. I also said elsewhere in this forum that RP was the only one I heard come close, colloquially (though I didn’t try to appear smart saying it)- non-intervention. Johnson didn’t have a snow balls chance in hell of being heard, never mind paid attention to- IMNSHO. BTW, Robert, that isn’t advertising which is what I’ve said, clearly, several times, even if he did and I don’t know that he did.

    RC: As I shrugged off NAPsterism, this dour worldview has also been shedded.

    Shed vs. shedded – Grammarist
    grammarist.com/usage/shedded/

    Nov 16, 2012 – The verb shed is uninflected in the past tense and as a past participle. For example, she shed some fur yesterday and she has shed her excess fur are correct, as is we found some shed skin on the ground. Shedded appears occasionally, but dictionaries don’t recognize it, and it is rare in edited writing.

    …………

  203. dL

    No better cautionary tale for “pragmatic libertarianism” than Dana Rohrabacher, the former libertarian anarchist/activist/folk singer who used sing lyrics like this:

    “I don’t own nobody. Nobody does own me. I’m just an individual man, just want to be free….”

    someone–according to Sam Konkin–without whom there would have been no libertarian movement

    who now sounds like this after 35 years in congress as a pragmatic freedom fighter. Progress!

  204. itdoesntmatterttomuch

    “40 years of banging around between 10,000 and 25,000 annual donors.”
    Wilt Chamberlain would be proud.

  205. robert capozzi

    dL: No better cautionary tale for “pragmatic libertarianism” than Dana Rohrabacher, the former libertarian anarchist/activist/folk singer….

    ME: I do believe that he gave up the L label long ago. While you are at it, why not cite MNR’s sidekick Bill Evers and Alan Greenspan. We could also cite RP1 and RP2.

    These folks all decided to join the GOP. While I can understand the move, it never interested me and I’d say there are too many compromises needed to do so. I note that history would not have been altered one way or another had these Ls not become Rs. (Greenspan and probably Milton Friedman were somewhat consequential, although Greenspan’s were morearchistic and Friedman was a bit mixed. In AG’s case, had he not been Fed Chairman, someone else would have likely pushed bad policies. )

    Similarly, the combined works of Konkin, Rothbard, Long, and de Jasay, have changed nothing that I can see. They have persuaded some people to adopt NAPsterism.

  206. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Yes, I looked at “shedded” for a second, but I’m not sweating over my grammar here. You and most others here also make these sorts of errors all the time, as the spirit of this commentariat is more free-wheeling than to slave over drafts of comments.

  207. DJ

    RC: You and most others here also make these sorts of errors all the time

    Me: He did it first mommy.

  208. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Did not say 1st. My grammar errors may well be first. You DID correct grammar first (thanks), but I’m sharing that we let those go here, and your posts have many errors that we also let go.

  209. DJ

    RC: Did not say 1st. My grammar errors may well be first. You DID correct grammar first (thanks), but I’m sharing that we let those go here, and your posts have many errors that we also let go

    Me: Okay- he did it ‘too’ mommy.

  210. dL

    ME: I do believe that he gave up the L label long ago.

    Nope. He hasn’t repudiated the label. He basically cops your LessArchy/Pragmaticrat line(or you’re aping him). From a 2011 interview with The Daily Bell.

    http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/anthony-wile-dana-rohrabacher-on-free-markets-saving-the-world-and-surfings-satisfactions/

    In the late ’60s, I took everything to its ultimate extreme in terms of my philosophizing about what I am and what the world should be. That, of course, sometimes puts you in a position where you’re really not having any major impact on the world because now you have put yourself as the ultimate purist and purists generally don’t have any impact on policy.

    So after I worked as a journalist and got to know firsthand the workings of our democratic system, I was much more inclined to be practical about my ideals rather than radical. I became more focused on a reduction of government power rather than insisting that we eliminate all the controls over our lives.

    So, one man’s practical lessarchist is just another’s bat shit crazy xenophobe…

    Similarly, the combined works of Konkin, Rothbard, Long, and de Jasay, have changed nothing that I can see.

    Well, it beats the apparent crown jewel of lessarchy, which was putting the likes of bin Laden on the CIA payroll and setting the stage for the 9-11 security state.

  211. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Nope, DR is not the model for a lessarchist pol. GJ would be much closer.

    It doesn’t surprise me that NAPsters would swing wildly from one extremist position to another. MNR, Cantwell, Evers…the list is frighteningly long.

  212. dL

    Nope, DR is not the model for a lessarchist pol. GJ would be much closer.

    Yes, he is. By his own words. Or or you practicing the same doctrinal purity exclusion you spend your time trolling others of doing. Shall we now label you a purist lessarchist?

    It doesn’t surprise me that NAPsters would swing wildly from one extremist position to another.

    Obviously, you exclude yourself(a self-admitted former “NAPster”) from this propensity for extremism…

  213. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Thanks. More precisely, he’s not MY model lessarchist pol.

    Yes, “doesn’t surprise” allows for a person evolving from NAPster to sane moderate lessarchist L. I know many, although they tend to not be LP activists.

  214. dL

    Thanks. More precisely, he’s not MY model lessarchist pol.

    Additional precision is not needed. You made it clear before that you’re a purist lessarchist…

  215. Anthony Dlugos

    RC: Nope, DR is not the model for a lessarchist pol. GJ would be much closer.

    dL: Yes, he is. By his own words. Or or you practicing the same doctrinal purity exclusion you spend your time trolling others of doing. Shall we now label you a purist lessarchist?

    me: actions speak louder than words. Johnson switched parties, Weld switched parties, Rohrabacher did not. In the arena of electoral politics, what else matters?

    Now, one could say GJ switching parties was the effect, not the cause, and GJ started from a more libertarian position than DR does. Alternatively, one could say (more cynically) that GJ switched only after it was clear he was not going to win the GOP nomination.

    Then again, one could say that GJ was eliminated early from the 2012 GOP campaign only because, or primarily because, he started from a more libertarian position.

    Or you could say that getting beat in the 2012 GOP campaign got Governor Johnson to thinking about which political party he felt more comfortable in, and what his personal philosophy was, and that self-reflection caused him to realize he was a Libertarian.

    As for me, if someone switches parties to the LP, I say “welcome aboard, go and sin no more.” Even if we know they probably will, I think we all do.

  216. robert capozzi

    dL: You made it clear before that you’re a purist lessarchist…

    me: A “model” is not the same as “purism.” If DR — whom I met back in the day — were to either run as an L or start voting like a lessarchist, I’d consider supporting him. Same with RP2, Massie, and Amash. OTOH, if Cantwell — another NAPster who has gone off the rails — recanted his racism, I’d not be inclined to support him. The tapes of him in Charlottesville make him radioactive to the cause of lessarchism.

    I’d even consider supporting Cynthia McKinney, but frankly I would scrutinize her a bit more closely, as she’s bounced from D, to G, and now hangs with Kokesh. I was more positively inclined toward Gravel and even Eugene McCarthy as possible lessarchists.

    In short, my lessarchism is pretty broad. It’s also the case that it’s probably narrower than most conservatives and progressives, in that so few pols advocate lessarchism.

  217. dL

    A “model” is not the same as “purism.”

    “Model” is just another man’s gobbledygook for “principle.” And I have enough experience in mathematics, physics and OO programming to know exactly what “model” means and to know when it is being misused. And you are misusing it. You mean criteria, i.e, specification, i.e, standard, i.e, principles.

    The fact is that Rohrabacher used the pragmatism(or lessArchy or whatever) rationale for his “evolution.”

    I took everything to its ultimate extreme in terms of my philosophizing about what I am and what the world should be. That, of course, sometimes puts you in a position where you’re really not having any major impact on the world because now you have put yourself as the ultimate purist and purists generally don’t have any impact on policy.

    So after I worked as a journalist and got to know firsthand the workings of our democratic system, I was much more inclined to be practical about my ideals rather than radical. I became more focused on a reduction of government power rather than insisting that we eliminate all the controls over our lives.

    He could have lifted the statement almost verbatim from you. Or maybe you copped your schtick from him. Regardless, that’s textbook pragmatism or lessArchy, or whatever. Yet, you expel him from your club because of why? A sitting congressman for 35 years doesn’t meet your criteria? You must have some esoteric, pristine standards as an apparent membership requirement. You must be a stickler, a quibbler, i.e, a purist…Yes, I know, I know, you admit Gary Johnson into the club. And that means you have exactly one politician more in your club than I have in my club.

  218. DJ

    dl,
    You’re a hoot, and smart, I’d like to know you.

    That and a buck 50 will get you a cup of coffee …… somewhere.

  219. dL

    me: actions speak louder than words. Johnson switched parties, Weld switched parties, Rohrabacher did not. In the arena of electoral politics, what else matters?

    Well, if one views the LP as end in itself, it probably matters that Weld, despite switching his voter registration to LP, is nonetheless still fundraising for the GOP.

  220. robert capozzi

    dL,

    I said: “If DR — whom I met back in the day — were to either run as an L or start voting like a lessarchist, I’d consider supporting him.”

    I didn’t expel him. I agree with his quote that you shared. My understanding is he veered well out of the lessarchist camp long ago. But the truth is I’ve not been following him for a long time. Does he deserve another look?

  221. robert capozzi

    dL: “Model” is just another man’s gobbledygook for “principle.” And I have enough experience in mathematics, physics and OO programming to know exactly what “model” means and to know when it is being misused.

    me: I use the word as it’s used in business. Business people use words much more flexibly than academics do. I was unaware of your usage, actually.

    Cars, for example, have “models,” and that involves choices….sedans, sports cars, SUVs, etc.

  222. dL

    I didn’t expel him. I agree with his quote that you shared. My understanding is he veered well out of the lessarchist camp long ago.

    Rohrabacher does not think he has veered away from anything. He still considers himself in the limited government camp. That quote above from the Daily bell is only a few years old. When you say that he has “veered well out of the lessarchist camp,” that’s just another way of saying “I’ve expelled him.”

    Does he deserve another look?

    I think Rohrabacher these days is bat shit insane. A joke. I only bring him up to demonstrate the folly of the “practical about ideals rather than radical” schtick.

  223. dL

    Cars, for example, have “models,” and that involves choices….sedans, sports cars, SUVs, etc.

    Yes, the purist lessarchist model…

  224. robert capozzi

    dL: When you say that he has “veered well out of the lessarchist camp,” that’s just another way of saying “I’ve expelled him.”

    Me: You can conclude whatever you’d like, but that doesn’t make it true. What IS true is that I’ve not thought much at all about DR for decades now. You just brought him up, and I’ve heard that his voting record and positioning are now morearchistic, despite what he says to the DB.

    Maybe he’s batshit crazy; maybe he slowly lost his way; maybe he was never a lessarchist (although that seems unlikely to me).

    We could speculate about other NAPsters like Evers and Rothbard, each of whom fell away from NAPsterism in unseemly ways, I’d suggest.

    You can point out his hypocrisies, just as you can point out the areas you disagree with GJ. This really doesn’t address my advocacy of a lessarchist approach to politics. I’ve never claimed that any one pol or even a specific lessarchist approach is ideal. Politics is NOT ideal. Rather, it’s about advancing an agenda; my lessarchist agenda is that if the messaging from lessarchists was edgy-but-sane, the odds of rolling back the state would increase compared with the failed NAPster approach.

    I don’t see the point of sounding like soapbox lunatics. Perhaps this is a failing of mine. Perhaps staking out what are widely perceived as wacko positions is a winning formula.

    Based on results thus far, I see no evidence for the efficacy of NAPsterism.

  225. dL

    Me: You can conclude whatever you’d like, but that doesn’t make it true.

    Well, i’m not drawing my conclusions from the buffet line. You say you didn’t expel him, but you then allot the next 4 paragraphs explaining why you expelled him…

  226. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Not seeing the 4 paragraphs “fact.” But I’ve clarified that your inference is incorrect.

  227. dL

    The Audacious Caucus and many of its members appear to be batshit crazy. For example, Jeff Wood is advocating terrorism. No one should associate with such people ever.

    Chuck, you should probably find an alternative news source to the Triggertarian mailing list…

  228. Chuck Moulton

    dL wrote:

    Chuck, you should probably find an alternative news source to the Triggertarian mailing list…

    There were screenshots. Are you saying those screenshots were inaccurate?

  229. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Triggertarian?

    I thought you object to coining new terms like this, NAPster, and lessarchist. 😉

    I might want to use Triggertarian, but I’m not sure what it refers to. Please define.

  230. dL

    There were screenshots. Are you saying those screenshots were inaccurate?

    No…the intent of the audacious caucus is to be deliberately provocative.

    https://www.facebook.com/LPAudacious/

    The very fact that triggertarians are taking screenshots of propaganda of the deed agitprop when you have a world full of real violent statist injustice probably explains why they are doing what they’re doing.

  231. Chuck Moulton

    In other words they are attention seeking crazy people… which was my point in the first place. We shouldn’t be promoting them or ignoring them… we should be disassociating from them entirely.

  232. robert capozzi

    So, like, would Weeks be a Triggertarian? Vohra? Starchild? When they were in the LP, Root and Petersen?

    Does Triggertarian = Macho Flashers?

  233. dL

    In other words they are attention seeking crazy people… which was my point in the first place. We shouldn’t be promoting them or ignoring them… we should be disassociating from them entirely.

    attention-seeking, yes. Crazy? i dunno, one man’s “crazy” is another man’s principled anarchist. Most self-professed anarchists(most who arrive at that stage do not do so lightly***) usually are not offended by the free speech of the propaganda of the deed. Now, they may not have much of a sense of humor about it, but they aren’t going to be taking screenshots while revolting in horror.

    Now, I’m really wasn’t that familiar with Mr. Wood before you brought him up. But now, thanks to you, I looked him up(a mini Streisand effect!). This is his most recent essay on the topic.

    [The Triumphant Return of Libertarian Macho Flash]
    https://medium.com/@JeffWood4Office/the-triumphant-return-of-libertarian-macho-flash-86d3603f684b

    What exactly do you find so crazy in that piece as to merit disassociation?

    RE: the audacious caucus. I’m curious as to what you find so disagreeable In the feed below.

    https://www.facebook.com/LPAudacious/

    Finally, I’m intrigued where you draw the line RE: any implied violence against statist thugs. For example, should Thomas Knapp be ostracized from the movement for this recent piece?

    [There really need to be repercussions]
    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2018/03/there-really-need-to-be-repercussions.html

    ***if not for that particular specie known as the HoppeBot, I would have written “all” in lieu of “most”

  234. dL

    I thought you object to coining new terms like this, NAPster, and lessarchist

    unlike the your own self-coined terms “NAPster” and “lessarchist,” terms used exclusively by you to obfuscate the traditional terms(radical and moderate) used by everyone else, I neither coined the expression nor am I the sole user of it. Trigger obviously refers to snowflake, and “Triggertarian” is an apt coinage to refer to a contemporaneous practice of scouring obscure social media to find moral offense when there are more pressing matters at hand.

    But just to make it clearer…in lieu of another thousand words

  235. dL

    So, like, would Weeks be a Triggertarian? Vohra? Starchild? When they were in the LP, Root and Petersen?

    Does Triggertarian = Macho Flashers?

    Obviously, not. Bob, you’re not really cut out to be a purveyor of the “meme” thing…

  236. Anon-Tipper

    I scrolled through their facebook and didn’t find anything on par with what I could easily find on the Mises Caucus facebook, and I will scroll for a while to find stuff. They mostly had posts talking about entryism.

  237. robert capozzi

    dL: obfuscate the traditional terms(radical and moderate) used by everyone else,

    me: You are newer to this particular commentariat, so may not have heard my response to this setup. “Radical” seems to be an inappropriate label for those Ls who base their political views on the NAP (NAPsters). I say this because most/all NAPsters will not respond to more fundamental questions, in my experience. A true radical relishes going there, to “strike the root,” as it were.

    At least that’s how I see it.

    I had to come up with a term other than anarchist/minarchist, since I am neither. I landed on lessarchist, but if you have a better term, I am all ears. I’m a theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist, meaning that I’m convinced that we should aim for statelessness as a long-term goal, but that in the meantime, we should opportunistically seek to slow and reverse the scope and scale of the State. “Moderate” is a fine label for me as well.

    (Whether a fully stateless society is viable is a question best answered when a nightwatchman state is achieved. I’m open to the possibility, but we don’t have enough information to opine on the sustainability of full-on anarchy. At least I certainly don’t.)

    I actually offered “lessarchist” as a term that unites all Ls, since anarchists and moderates all seek to shrink the State. That effort has largely failed, at least here in commentariat world. As a general observation, those I label NAPsters seem motivated to advocate more extreme positions, regardless of their practicality or lack thereof.

  238. Anthony Dlugos

    lol at that idiotic meme at 20:14 on 4/6/2018.

    The self-indulgent Vohra spends a year flouncing around in fringey fringe libertopia, ignoring the alt-right infiltration that you’d think a leader of the party would be more concerned with, the party decides he is either too stupid to realize the infiltration is going on, or frankly doesn’t care or doesn’t see it as a priority, and finally decides to boot him, and the Purists suggest pinning the problem on the people doing the right thing in booting the dope.

    Doesn’t matter. He’ll soon be gone, hopefully replaced by someone who won’t be sidetracked by libertopia inflammatory masturbatory actions.

  239. dL

    A true radical relishes going there, to “strike the root,” as it were.

    Yes..that’s true. That’s why there is a difference between radicalism(root striking) vs extremism(branch chopping).

    I say this because most/all NAPsters will not respond to more fundamental questions, in my experience.

    NAP views aggression vs non-aggression as the most fundamental root striker. You may not agree, but is disingenuous to say it ignores “more fundamental questions.” I don’t particularly ascribe to NAP b/c there is no agreement on aggression within the libertarian tradition and NAP is not much of a rejoinder against liberal social contract theory(that more or less begins with a NAP premise). Personally, I find it to be Randian/Rathbardian residue that I can do without…

    I had to come up with a term other than anarchist/minarchist

    Anarchy means what it means, but Minarchy originally was Konkin’s pejorative coinage to denote intellectually corrupt retreatism.

    I actually offered “lessarchist” as a term that unites all Ls, since anarchists and moderates all seek to shrink the State.

    We’ve discussed this previously. “Moderate” doesn’t work the way you say it works. If it did, I probably wouldn’t have much issue with it. That is, e.g, “if tomorrow’s moderate was today’s radical(i.e, what is radical today will be moderate tomorrow), then i would concur. But it works in reverse. Tomorrow’s moderate is today’s collectivist(i.e, what is authoritarian today will be viewed as moderate in the future). So, I have to concur with Konkin: moderate is retreatism.

  240. robert capozzi

    dL: You may not agree, but is disingenuous to say it ignores “more fundamental questions.”

    me: I appreciate your fairness here, dL. I agree that NAPsters sincerely believe they are striking the root, but when we start to get closer to the root, it’s by my experience that NAPsters refuse to be tested further, and they start to deflect and evade, typically.

    dL: Personally, I find it to be Randian/Rathbardian residue that I can do without…

    me: Here we wholeheartedly agree.

    dL: Anarchy means what it means, but Minarchy originally was Konkin’s pejorative coinage to denote intellectually corrupt retreatism.

    me: I did not know that. Thank you.

    dL: Tomorrow’s moderate is today’s collectivist(i.e, what is authoritarian today will be viewed as moderate in the future). So, I have to concur with Konkin: moderate is retreatism.

    me: Here we disagree. We have much collectivism, we seem to agree. The question for me, at least, is how to undo that collectivism. We can, as NAPsters do, challenge ALL collectivism, in the hope that a critical mass of anti-collectivists gather and agitate to topple the collectivist State. Or we can be more realistic and humble, seeking means to begin the process of undoing collectivism. My and many moderate Ls choose the latter approach. There is no “retreat” involved. Rather, there is calibration and calculation about where statism is weakest. We seek to unwind the State opportunistically…a dirty word for Rothbardians, but not for me. I find it to be the most-likely-to-succeed approach.

    The odds for moderate L-ism to work are not great, btw. They’re just way better in my view than the NAPster’s odds are.

  241. DJ

    RC: We can, as NAPsters do, challenge ALL collectivism, in the hope that a critical mass of anti-collectivists gather and agitate to topple the collectivist State.

    Me: To create a critical mass is to form a collective. Agitating is an act of aggression.
    Sowing seeds of Truth (all men are created equal and have unalienable rights Endowed) will bear fruit.
    That action requires Individual effort. The Individual has a choice to sow or not to sow. What was it George Washington said about liberty being a plant of rapid growth? Are plants made of thin air or platitudes? No, they come from seeds. He also believed: “Truth will ultimately prevail where there are pains to bring it to light.”

    We all know nothing worth having is easy- Individual effort requires an expending of energy- working for that which is simple, ‘easy’ to understand, hard, and at times painfu,l to be excercised against a collective, but, ultimately on the right (moral) side of History (the big picture). The collective (especially in today’s society) doesn’t understand the simple concept this country was founded on- the Truth- they’ve been inundated with the collective ideology of gov’t (the most malevolent collective) is the be all end all to all their worries and the gov’t pretends a moral authority of the power to absolve personal responsibility- the seeds were sown, the fruit has been born and consumed and we are living the results, yet want to deny the effectiveness. SMH- what was that commercial? so easy even a cave man could see it- yet Libertarians want to argue about getting at the root- which in and of itself is the correct approach, because no problem is solved until the root cause is addressed. The root cause of the problem is piss poor education for far too many- the only answer is to educate with Truth. Sow the seeds, they will bear fruit.

  242. dL

    Well, some great publicity for the Arkansas LP

    The likelihood of a fag catching HIV is 1000% more likely then any straight person…fags are disgusting.

    https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2018/04/02/libertarian-statehouse-candidates-anti-gay-slurs-online-end-up-in-tv-spotlight

    The reporter writes:


    As an aside, this episode raises a question: Just what exactly does it mean to be a libertarian these days, now that partisan political identity seems to be both everything and nothing? I get the impression some folks out there now think “libertarian” just implies “to the right of conventional Republican,” rather than being a distinct political philosophy in itself. Jones’ website declares that “symbols of Christian heritage should not be removed from public and government spaces,” for example. Is the state Libertarian Party vetting these people?

  243. dL

    me: Here we disagree.

    Bob, I’m not speculating or hypothesizing. It’s what is observed. It’s not a matter of opinion.

    For example, perhaps a moderate in 1981 or 1991 would have not called for the immediate abolition of the FBI, but no moderate back then would have stomached the prospect of a Patriot Act. But today, not only did the LP run a VP candidate who could easily stomach it but in fact ran one who enthusiastically supported it. Today’s moderate would be viewed as a boot licker by a moderate in, say, 1981. Is that an advance or a retreat?

  244. robert capozzi

    dL: I’m not speculating or hypothesizing. …but no moderate back then would have stomached the prospect of a Patriot Act.

    Me: You’re not speculating? 😉

    It’s true that the State has gotten bigger and more intrusive than it was in 1981. Moderates do tend to operate in the frame of reference that exists, vs theoretical constructs.

    My sense is that there were few Ls that were moderate in 1981. There were also a LOT fewer Ls back then. There were some Ls who recognized that the rhetoric Pope Rothbard and Queen Ayn used was bad politics.

    As the years have rolled by, the LM has grown (but is of course still maybe 10-20% of the pop. at most.) In that process, many who are not inclined to the nirvana fallacy have resonated with the idea that individual liberty should be maximized and the coercive State minimized. Being more grounded in reality, today’s moderate looks for ripe ideas that can advance a freedom agenda.

    That agenda is unsatisfying to NAPsters and other Ls who enjoy holding high the banner. I believe I understand that impulse, and even the sanctimony that often informs that impulse. But it’s certainly not justified and it’s not productive.

    And, yet, here we are…..

  245. Anthony Dlugos

    “I get the impression some folks out there now think “libertarian” just implies “to the right of conventional Republican,” rather than being a distinct political philosophy in itself. Jones’ website declares that “symbols of Christian heritage should not be removed from public and government spaces,” for example. Is the state Libertarian Party vetting these people?”

    No one would confuse Johnson-Weld with such a position. In fact, the charge leveled at them is/was just opposite: “liberal republican,” or some variation thereof.

    Electoral politics is a popularity contest, not a philosophical debate. Given this, the way to defeat the extremists of the world is NOT with another extreme position (I only mean “extreme” in the pure numbers sense of a position held by a tiny minority), its with a moderate, but more popular positions that would still manage to move the country in a libertarian direction, if adopted by the voters.

    If this bothers you, if you can’t stomach the practical reality of “…a moderate in 1981 or 1991 would have not called for the immediate abolition of the FBI, but no moderate back then would have stomached the prospect of a Patriot Act. But today, not only did the LP run a VP candidate who could easily stomach it but in fact ran one who enthusiastically supported it..” then I am not suggesting you are wrong, I am suggesting you are in the wrong arena.

    For the Goat Blood Boys, alt-reichers, Texas far-righters and Justin Jones of the world…philosophically pure, but small, they can deal with. Large and moderate, they cannot, because…math.

  246. Anthony Dlugos

    “Moderates do tend to operate in the frame of reference that exists, vs theoretical constructs.”

    Right-o.

    That’s why I sometimes call the radicals/purists/NAPsters “photon Libertarians.” Not only does it flatter the radicals to imply their mind works faster than ours, it points out that like photons, they have no frame of reference. a fatal weakness in the electoral arena.

  247. dL

    For the Goat Blood Boys, alt-reichers, Texas far-righters and Justin Jones of the world…philosophically pure, but small, they can deal with. Large and moderate, they cannot, because…math.

    No, this is math

    GOP essentially dominated by ethno nationalism, the Dems dominated by neo-Mccarthyism. That is political science. Collective action is dominated by the minority.

  248. dL

    There were also a LOT fewer Ls back then.

    Not really. The tech/hacker world was dominated by cyber libertarianism back then. Lot less of that today.

  249. dL

    Moderates do tend to operate in the frame of reference that exists,

    Not disputing that. That’s exactly why I say moderate is just a trailing indicator for today’s authoritarianism. There is no case for “moderate” advancing liberty.

  250. Anthony Dlugos

    “Collective action is dominated by the minority.”

    Like hell it is. Johnson was the LP nominee in 2016, not Perry.

  251. dL

    Like hell it is. Johnson was the LP nominee in 2016, not Perry.

    That’s not what I’m referring to. What I’m referring to is the notion that a broad organization is immune from domination by a minority. That is an uninformed opinion.

    [The Logic of Collective Action]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

    It develops a theory of political science and economics of concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs. Its central argument is that concentrated minor interests will be overrepresented and diffuse majority interests trumped, due to a free-rider problem that is stronger when a group becomes larger.

  252. Anthony Dlugos

    “That’s not what I’m referring to. What I’m referring to is the notion that a broad organization is immune from domination by a minority”

    Immune? No. Better protected? Of course. Why? We count votes.

    Even Minor Interests A of the Logic of Collective Action requires more votes than Minor Interests B, C, and D in order to get their minor interests enacted.

    I’ll not deny that the tactic of moderating the message lops off the radical message along with all other “extreme” positions, but given that the moderated message would STILL be a step in the right direction relative to where the country is now, having the radical message be a casualty of lopping off the alt-reich and homophobic messages is fine by me, and tactically sound.

  253. robert capozzi

    dL: Not really. The tech/hacker world was dominated by cyber libertarianism back then. Lot less of that today.

    me: In 1981? Was there cyberpunks then? I’m not even sure if there were modems then!

    But, the bigger point is that geeks are a growing but still small portion of society. Yes, in 1981, a very high percentage of Ls were geeks, and probably a high percentage of geeks were L. As the idea of maximize liberty has grown, many non-geeks associate with the L label. And, as the tech world has grown, non-Ls have gravitated to geekdom.

    My sense is that there are even more NAPsters than ever, but their numbers are a fringe of a fringe. NAPsters dominated the LM in 1981, but their percentages have probably fallen as a percentage of the LM.

  254. Chuck Moulton

    dL wrote:

    Well, some great publicity for the Arkansas LP

    […]

    Is the state Libertarian Party vetting these people?

    Sigh.

    In my years of involvement in the LP I have noticed almost zero vetting except at the presidential level. I routinely vote against nominating bad candidates (I probably vote yes around half the time), but most people rubber stamp candidates with even large red flags. The only time I see organized opposition to nominations is when people who always support Republicans don’t want to run real libertarians.

Leave a Reply

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