April Fool’s Day Open Thread 2018

It has been an IPR tradition to post “April Fool’s Day” articles every year. However, this year I am having a failure of imagination and my creativity is failing me. It seems that our other writers may be having the same issue. So, for the remaining two hours of April 1st, it will be up to our readers to come up with April Fools headlines, or whole stories if they so choose, in the comments here if they so choose. Feel free to use past articles as templates:

http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/04/01/
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/01/
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/04/01/
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/04/01/
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/04/01/
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/04/01/
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/04/01/
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/01/
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/01/

If you are a new IPR writer or just forgot about April 1 this year, of course you are still free to post a stand alone April 1 article of your own, or several.

Since it appears that no one has bothered to post an April 2018 Open Thread either this article can also become that, after today.

232 thoughts on “April Fool’s Day Open Thread 2018

  1. Jonathan Makeley

    Well here’s some April Fools Headlines
    Supreme Court Ruling Opens up Presidential Debates For Third Party Candidates
    Congress Passes National Uniform Ballot Access Law
    California Declares Independence
    New York Democrats Dump Cuomo, Nominate Nixon for Governor
    Senator Flake Changes Registration to Constitution Party
    Trump Sells Alaska Back to Russia
    Elvis Presley Comes Out of Hiding, Declares Run For President
    Mexico Agrees To Pay For Border Wall in Exchange For Return to 1835 Borders
    Libertarian Party of Florida Breaks From National Libertarian Party, Merges With Traditionalist Workers Party
    3 Republican Members of the Montana Legislature Defect to the Green Party
    Mayor of Birmingham Joins Prohibition Party, Pushes for City-Wide Ban on Alcohol
    Bernie Sanders Challenging Trump in 2020 Republican Primary
    Mike Pence Resigns as VP, Ivanka Named as Replacement
    Oprah Nominated For Supreme Court Justice
    11 Counties in Northern Colorado Secede From State, Declare New State of Jefferson
    Texas Established Universal Basic Income Program
    Puerto Rico, Washington D.C. Granted Statehood.

  2. Thane Eichenauer

    An FYI: My comment posted but the browser returned:

    “This page isn’t working
    independentpoliticalreport.com is currently unable to handle this request.
    HTTP ERROR 503”

  3. George Phillies

    Motion to suspend Vohra as Vice Chair appears to advance to vote:
    Motion by Harlos. Supports by Hewitt, Katz, and Redpath.

    WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party holds the non-initiation of force as its cardinal principle and requires each of its members certify that they neither advocate or believe in violent means to achieve political or social goals.

    RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends Arvin Vohra from his position of Vice-Chair for sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute, including making and defending a statement advocating lethal violence against state employees who are not directly threatening imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation of our membership pledge. These actions further endanger the survival of our movement and the security of all of our members without their consent. —

    In Liberty,
    Caryn Ann Harlos
    Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington

  4. dL

    Motion to suspend Vohra as Vice Chair appears to advance to vote:

    Not an April Fools joke…and it’s not over his “white nationalist” remark, which didn’t elicit one peep of reaction from the LNC. Instead, it’s over this:

    “Bad Idea. School Shootings.
    Good Idea. School Board Shootings.”

    And I had to go looking for what he said b/c the Harlos gang at the LNC is treating it like it was akin to child pornography. You can reference it, but you can’t look at it(well, maybe only through private screen shots).

    I was sent a copy of the screenshot. I queried the person as to there
    they saw it, and was told that it was a screenshot from a social media
    platform. Since I also have an account on that platform, I logged in,
    searched and found the person, but don’t see any posts, as they’re set
    to private and/or need to ‘connect”. (Which means someone with access
    leaked the screenshot.)

    I won’t name the platform at this time[facebook, lol, state secret :dL],
    as no point in others trying to go there to see it, by connecting on that site. (I’d be happy to share the screenshot I took, which shows nothing, but name and face of the person, so illustrate that it wasn’t posted ‘publicly”, per se.)

    Regardless, it has now been made public. Even if we weren’t
    experiencing a heightened public awareness, this would be an
    inappropriate message for an LNC officer.

    What a bunch of right-wing snowflakes…

  5. Richard Winger

    Law professor Rick Hasen and his electionlawblog had an April Fools article, that President Trump had chosen Roseanne Barr the new head of the election fraud division.

  6. Andy

    Is there going to be another Open Thread for April 2018? This one looks as if it is only meant for April Fool’s jokes.

  7. Andy

    I do not know the context of what Arvin Vohara said in regard to advocating violence against government officials, but I will say that saying that there is a right to violently revolt against a government that is violating individual rights, particularly if there is a long train of abuses, and redress for those abuses has been repeatedly ignored (as mentioned in the Declaration 9f Independence, which is what led to the Revolution), does not violate any libertarian principles. There is certainly risk involved with doing this, and it may not always be the best strategic course of action, but regardless of this, violently fighting back against an aggressor does not violate libertarian principles.

  8. George Phillies

    “Not an April Fools joke…and it’s not over his “white nationalist” remark, which didn’t elicit one peep of reaction from the LNC. Instead, it’s over this:”

    I think that’s related to people having missed it. There are a quite adequate number of people who would, I think, have spoken up if they had heard about it. I realize that is a dull explanation.

    If you have a link, I can raise the issue and see what the response is.

  9. George Phillies

    The motion to suspend Vohra does advance to a vote:

    ” We have an electronic mail ballot.
    Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by April 12, 2018 at 11:59:59pm
    Pacific time.”

  10. Jill Pyeatt

    I knew there was a new brouhaha over Arvin, but I thought it was about his repeating a tasteless joke from Chris Rock on Mewe, which was very bad, in my view.

    What’s wrong with Arvin that has him acting so bizarrely? Maybe he has a brain tumor or something . Or, perhaps he’s always been this undisciplined and off-the-wall, and he’s just showing it now.

    It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t want to be re-elected.

  11. ATBAFT

    Has the LNC ever removed any officer other than Chair Jim Turney in 1988? Turney was alleged to be ineffective; how does that stack up against allegations against Vohra?

  12. George Phillies

    ATBAFT Since 1998 or so: There was an effort a decade ago to remove At-Large member Angela Keaton, which turned into a committee being appointed, which ran out of steam when the member quit. There were a number of members who quit, sometimes for unclear reasons. There were bunches of people who did not run for re-election.

  13. Anthony Dlugos

    “What’s wrong with Arvin that has him acting so bizarrely? It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t want to be re-elected.”

    You pretty much answered your own question, although I’ll throw in my rampant speculation that he decided to take trolling lessons from Austin Petersen, but sadly for Arvin he is not nearly as good at it nor did he stop to think about the most important lesson about trolling for personal gain: is there a market for my trolls? There is for AP, there aint for Vohra.

  14. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Are you being sarcastic about AP?

    What is the likely effect of AP’s call for machine-gun legalization? He will lose the primary. Machine guns will not be legalized. And, to most, he just looks like an asshole extremist.

    What is the point of this particular exercise?

  15. Anthony Dlugos

    me?

    I don’t think Austin ever intended to or wanted to win the LP nomination or the GOP Missouri Senate seat primary. He wants a job babbling on Faux News, and chose the two highest profile campaigns he could plausibly run for and make a social networking name for himself.

    From that perspective, a young white male making outlandish statements make him unelectable but might get him noticed by his former employers at Fox, Tomi Lahren style.

  16. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, I could see AP and Weeks getting overnights on the weekends on Fox for all their efforts.

  17. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    Back in January, I read this excerpt from “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” by Michael Wolff that was in New York magazine. A breezy, somewhat interesting read, I think, but as a Libertarian, the first thing that jumped out at me was this tidbit:

    “As the campaign came to an end, Trump himself was sanguine. His ultimate goal, after all, had never been to win. “I can be the most famous man in the world,” he had told his aide Sam Nunberg at the outset of the race. His longtime friend Roger Ailes, the former head of Fox News, liked to say that if you want a career in television, first run for president…He would come out of this campaign, Trump assured Ailes, with a far more powerful brand and untold opportunities.”

    Again, rampant speculation on my part, but Petersen did work at Faux News. Did he hear Ailes say this? Or maybe it was relayed to him that Ailes said this? Or was that message less overt, but nonetheless something that seeped into the culture at Faux that Petersen picked up on? I don’t know, but Ailes comment is strangely on point with regard to Petersen as well as Trump, IMHO.

  18. Andy

    I am serious. I am glad to see Austin Petersen taking a bold stand in favor of the right to keep and bear arms.

  19. Steve Scheetz

    Vote totals so far:

    Marsh, Starchild and Demarest voted No

    Harlos, Katz, Hewitt, VanHorn, Hayes, O’donnell, Mattson, Goldstein, Redpath, Scheetz (alt), Merced(alt) voted Yes

  20. George Phillies

    Contrary to one of our resident trolls:

    In much of the United States, machine guns are currently legal for private ownership. You do need a Federal Class III license. I have at least one acquaintance with the needed paperwork. Indeed, when last I heard about it, which was a while ago, there was a gun club with a machine gun range here in Massachusetts.

  21. robert capozzi

    Forest/trees, GP. You argue technicalities, except when you lash out in rage and narc on your own party, claiming you had “no choice” when obviously you did.

    “Under the National Firearms Act of 1934 full auto firearms are required to be registered with the ATF. In order to register, you must have a tax stamp. To obtain the tax stamp, you must pay the ATF $200. The ATF will ask for some additional paperwork including fingerprints and a photograph – basically everything they need to do a background check. In conclusion: you can own a full auto if you pay the ATF $200. They will send you a “tax stamp” to let you know it is legal for you to possess the firearm in question.

    “The main issue with full autos is that the registry was closed in 1986; meaning no fully automatic firearms made after 1986 can be registered. So to obtain a full auto today, you have to find a full auto made before 1986 and convince the current owner to sell it to you. The limited supply means you will pay a pretty penny for a full auto firearm today.”

  22. robert capozzi

    GP,

    No, you didn’t have to narc; it was not “right” that you had no choice, or that it was in any way appropriate.

    As for your technicalities, yes, machine guns aren’t banned. The military still gets them, and yes some private citizens still have them. If that makes you feel good that you “got me,” knock yourself out! I’m not sure how you find that to be advancing knowledge in any way, but then again you probably still think you WERE justified in your infamous narc on your own party.

    Another example of “it takes all kinds.”

  23. dL

    You do need a Federal Class III license.

    Again, I believe that is a dealer requirement, not a buyer requirement.

  24. dL

    except when you lash out in rage and narc on your own party, claiming you had “no choice” when obviously you did.

    What is this in reference to?

  25. dL

    What’s wrong with Arvin that has him acting so bizarrely? Maybe he has a brain tumor or something . Or, perhaps he’s always been this undisciplined and off-the-wall, and he’s just showing it now.

    He’s deliberately trolling a party/party leadership that he thinks has become unprincipled.

  26. George Phillies

    dL You may be right, but I was told by the friend who had the license and was in the process of buying one that he needed one, and several folks I have known who owned them said they had a to have the license.

    It appears to me that part of our party’s anarchist wing has gone seriously off the deep end.

    George

    Choose one

  27. dL

    You pretty much answered your own question, although I’ll throw in my rampant speculation that he decided to take trolling lessons from Austin Petersen,

    No, Petersen is in lock step with GOP party leadership. Vohra is trolling party leadership as a protest action. Petersen actions are consistent with the actions of someone fully vested in a political career. Vohra’s actions are not.

  28. Anthony Dlugos

    “Petersen is in lock step with GOP party leadership.”

    Not gonna disagree that he is a better fit in the GOP than the LP. But there’s also no doubt Petersen has some libertarian leanings. Furthermore, its not like he had the option to run for the GOP nomination.

    “Petersen actions are consistent with the actions of someone fully vested in a political career.”

    Sorry. Someone fully invested in a political career goes and gets a law degree, or maybe has some sort of otherwise professional background like medicine, or spends substantial time as a business owner. Petersen has a theater degree.

    Furthermore, someone fully invested in a political career doesn’t demonstrate their seriousness by running for President at 35 with no previous background running for office, and then runs for the US Senate. That demonstrates a person only interested in chasing fame. Any half-wit interested in actually being a politician would be quite aware a person like Petersen does not have the background, connections, or financial support to run for a US Senate seat and win, or even make a decent show of it…unless he is not really concerned with winning, and just hopes a video of him shooting a weapon goes viral and he gets a call from Faux News.

    I can assure you he is considered a joke in the GOP.

  29. dL

    You may be right, but I was told by the friend who had the license and was in the process of buying one that he needed one, and several folks I have known who owned them said they had a to have the license.

    Old Glory Guns and Ammo says it can get you a class III weapon with a paperwork hassle less painful than buying a new car. And I did verify that claim through 2 other online dealers. The transfer to an individual owner does require ATF approval, but the individual is not applying for any license.

    http://www.oldglorygunsandammo.com/nfa-class-iii-weapons/

  30. Anthony Dlugos

    and, as I pointed out earlier, I do believe Vohra is trolling. I just don’t know what he thinks he’s gonna get out of it. Even if its a protest action, he has to have a base of some kind that supports his protest, e.g., the leading protesters of the civil rights movement had the support of millions of like thinkers.

    No one is coming to Vohra’s defense.

  31. robert capozzi

    dL: What is this in reference to?

    me: iirc, After Brother Phillies was not getting (for him) satisfactory answers about the Barr 08 campaign expenditures, he narced to the FEC. When it happened, he was unrepentant and claimed that he had “no choice.” Many brought several discreet options to his attention, which he refused to address.

    It’s noteworthy that this was easily seen as a case of sour grapes, since Barr defeated Phillies for the nomination. It was certainly childish, and it exposed the LP to potential investigations it didn’t need and could not afford.

    Here’s some more background:

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/10/george-phillies-criticizes-bob-barr-campaign-spending/

  32. dL

    Sorry. Someone fully invested in a political career goes and gets a law degree, or maybe has some sort of otherwise professional background like medicine, or spends substantial time as a business owner. Petersen has a theater degree.

    Theatre degree would get you in. I looked up some the previous occupations of current congress critters.

    Lawyer
    Car dealer
    Rodeo announcer
    Welder
    Funeral home owner
    Software engineer
    Physician
    Dentist
    Veterinarian
    Psychiatrist
    Psychologist
    Optometrist
    Nurse
    Minister
    Physicist
    Engineer
    Microbiologist
    Radio talk show host
    Journalist
    Accountant
    Pilot
    Astronaut
    Professional football player
    Filmmaker
    Farmer
    Almond orchard owner
    Vintner
    Fisherman
    Social worker
    Stockbroker

  33. dL

    It’s noteworthy that this was easily seen as a case of sour grapes, since Barr defeated Phillies for the nomination. It was certainly childish, and it exposed the LP to potential investigations it didn’t need and could not afford.

    Well, I’m pleased to discover you do actually have a threshold line for jackboot thuggery: reporting GOP politicos to the FEC.

  34. DJ

    RC: So to obtain a full auto today, you have to find a full auto made before 1986 and convince the current owner to sell it to you. The limited supply means you will pay a pretty penny for a full auto firearm today.”

    Me: LOL…. all you “need” is to know a good, discrete, gun smith (or learn to do it yourself) and a skeleton model.

  35. DJ

    RC: What is the likely effect of AP’s call for machine-gun legalization? He will lose the primary. Machine guns will not be legalized. And, to most, he just looks like an asshole extremist.

    Me: LOL…. “most”? Evidence? Asshole extremist = one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

    RC: What is the point of this particular exercise?

    Me: LOL…. “advertising works”.

  36. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    It’s my overwhelming sense that most oppose re-applying 2A to machine guns. Recent polls on bump stocks also suggest vast majorities are uncomfortable with highly rapid fire arms in the hands of citizens.

    Advertising CAN work. If AP is someone elected to the Senate on the strength of MO-ans desires to tote machine guns in KC and StL., I would adjust my assessment, of course.

    I’ll give you 3:1 odds that AP loses the primary, and 5:1 that he won’t be the next senator from MO.

  37. Andy

    Robert, the opinion on automatic rifles that says that they should be banned is clouded with mass media and government “education” brainwashing, which has been fueled in large part in recent years by hyped up shooting incidents, of which there is a mountain of evidence were false flag events, carried out to scare the public into accepting more gun control laws and a bigger police state.

    Regardless of this, reality is that very few crimes are committed using rifles of any type.

  38. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Possibly, on all counts.

    It still does not follow that it’s good politics to carve out the MOST extreme position. Why position oneself as a fringy wacko? What purpose does it serve, other than to self-marginalize.

  39. DJ

    RC: It’s my overwhelming sense that most oppose re-applying 2A to machine guns. Recent polls on bump stocks also suggest vast majorities are uncomfortable with highly rapid fire arms in the hands of citizens.

    Me: Populist desires don’t interest me one way or another, I’m sorry you’re overwhelmed.

    The “vast” majority are ignorant about rights- the “vast” majority also believes cops and military are the only ones who should have guns- the “vast” can be uncomfortable all it wants- they will come for them, it’s not a matter of if, but when.

    RC: Advertising CAN work. If AP is someone elected to the Senate on the strength of MO-ans desires to tote machine guns in KC and StL., I would adjust my assessment, of course.

    Me: Advertising does work. Period. To deny it or make light of it is ignorance. Period. TV is full of advertising, radio is full of advertising, bill boards, names on sports stadiums, name brands pay to be visible in movies- Whether it gets someone elected or not is not “the”, but “a” gauge.

    RC: I’ll give you 3:1 odds that AP loses the primary, and 5:1 that he won’t be the next senator from MO.

    Me: I learned a long time ago not to gamble.

  40. DJ

    RC: What is the likely effect of AP’s call for machine-gun legalization? He will lose the primary. Machine guns will not be legalized. And, to most, he just looks like an asshole extremist.

    Me: LOL…. “most”? Evidence? Asshole extremist = one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

  41. Just Some Random Guy

    I knew there was a new brouhaha over Arvin, but I thought it was about his repeating a tasteless joke from Chris Rock on Mewe, which was very bad, in my view.

    What’s wrong with Arvin that has him acting so bizarrely? Maybe he has a brain tumor or something . Or, perhaps he’s always been this undisciplined and off-the-wall, and he’s just showing it now.

    It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t want to be re-elected.

    I suspect that Vohra figured he’d likely lose re-election so he just decided to #YOLO.

  42. robert capozzi

    DJ: Populist desires don’t interest me one way or another, I’m sorry you’re overwhelmed.

    me: I can’t say I’m “overwhelmed” personally by this issue. When I say “overwhelming sense,” I simply mean that I see almost no support for your position on nukes and machine guns. Ultimately, I’m with you…I assess a situation without concern for other’s opinions. I will, however, listen to other views, since I find open-mindedness virtuous and because I am clearly not omniscient.

    That is different from seeking political progress. Here prevailing opinion is VERY important. If one strings together a range of fringy positions, odds are VERY good that few will give you the time of day.

  43. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    April 4, 2018 at 18:49
    AJ,

    Possibly, on all counts.”

    Wow. I Robert Capozzi finally starting to see the light when it comes to false flag terrorism?

    “It still does not follow that it’s good politics to carve out the MOST extreme position. Why position oneself as a fringy wacko? What purpose does it serve, other than to self-marginalize.?”

    Part of the reason is so the candidate can “move the ball down the field” as far as political discussion goes. Look at what Ron Paul did during his presidential runs. He took some positions that a lot of people considered to be extreme or fringe, and he got a heck of a lot more people talking about them than had been previously.

  44. Andy

    ” I Robert Capozzi finally ”

    Should read, “Is Robert Capozzi finally…”

  45. Andy

    Another left wing socialist piece of crap admits that the Democrats want to flood the country with 3rd world migrants so they can seize more political power (since they know that they will get on welfare in super-majority numbers, and that after they become “citizens” they will vote for more welfare statism and more gun control laws in super-majority numbers), and they are celebrating the idea of whites becoming the minority of the population within the next 25 years or so, because they know that once they happens, their power will become more solidified.

    Leftists Are Planning to Rig Elections

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmSQbV6dIlA&t=624s

  46. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    No, “possibly” means “it is possible.” And, of course, I have every reason to believe there have been false flags, but whether these mass shootings are false flags, I don’t think so. It IS possible, however, as are most things possible.

    RP1 did not move the ball down the field that I can see. The ball is moving still moving in the wrong direction. Worse, he breathed some life into an anachronistic view of the Constitution, which is a dead-end path.

  47. DJ

    RC: I assess a situation without concern for other’s opinions. I will, however, listen to other views, since I find open-mindedness virtuous and because I am clearly not omniscient.

    Me: I also listen/read others opinions virtuous or not, since I don’t claim a virtuousness or view my opinion as such. It allows an objective analysis. Trying to gain an objective requires subjective analysis vs reaching an objective conclusion- the objective achievement is ‘typically’ contradictory to rights of individuals for which I’m an advocate which is ‘my’ objective in my objective conclusions. My subjective input is based on Truth. Populist subjective is based on desire. Desire is fleeting and always changing. Truth is constant. History has recorded how often and how wrong populist opinion is. Truth, by definition can’t be wrong which doesn’t require or call for an omniscient presence.
    “Most” are ignorant of rights. The “vast majority” doesn’t have a good track record of anything political.
    That alone is evidence enough to disregard populist opinion and stand against it- in every arena.

    RC: That is different from seeking political progress. Here prevailing opinion is VERY important. If one strings together a range of fringy positions, odds are VERY good that few will give you the time of day.

    Me: Opinion, when based on feeling, is stupid. The sooner that’s realized the better for all concerned, regardless of what time it happens, but, when not spoken about that is VERY likely to never happen.

    I’m sure Petersen knows his “opinion” will VERY likely gain VERY little, if any notoriety- but, IF it calls attention to, then he has sown seeds that need sowing.

    “Petersen pushes back against the idea that advocating private civilian machine gun ownership is unbearably eccentric in the current gun control debate. “I want to bring the conversation back to our rights, rather than being about trying to justify why I need something, why don’t you tell me why I can’t?”

    https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/03/gop-senate-candidate-austin-petersen-wan

  48. robert capozzi

    DJ: That alone is evidence enough to disregard populist opinion and stand against it- in every arena.

    me: A very dark assessment indeed. If true, it is completely hopeless.

    Personally, I don’t believe it’s hopeless, because it’s my observation that humans are conflicted. People do yearn to be free on the one hand, but on the other they fear the unknown and they turn to the State for security.

    Appealing to better angels of freedom could be done tempered with a reasonable approach OR it could be attempted by advocating for machine guns and other shocking viewpoints.

    My sense is the former is the approach more likely to work. Your and AP’s approach is more likely to fail. Can either approach be proved “objectively”? I’d say no, there are too many variables to have a clean experiment.

    Of course, I don’t share your apparent view that the Framers stumbled upon “objective” truth; to my knowledge, no one has. How would we know if someone actually did possess and understand “objective” truth?

  49. DJ

    RC: Of course, I don’t share your apparent view that the Framers stumbled upon “objective” truth; to my knowledge, no one has. How would we know if someone actually did possess and understand “objective” truth?

    Me: I don’t recall anything about stumbling- in fact, their views were from studying the past- History.
    Maybe you should learn to read before reacting.

    Me: I also listen/read others opinions virtuous or not, since I don’t claim a virtuousness or view my opinion as such. It allows an objective analysis. Trying to gain an objective requires subjective analysis vs reaching an objective conclusion- the objective achievement is ‘typically’ contradictory to rights of individuals for which I’m an advocate which is ‘my’ objective in my objective conclusions. My subjective input is based on Truth. Populist subjective is based on desire. Desire is fleeting and always changing. Truth is constant. History has recorded how often and how wrong populist opinion is. Truth, by definition can’t be wrong which doesn’t require or call for an omniscient presence.
    “Most” are ignorant of rights. The “vast majority” doesn’t have a good track record of anything political.
    That alone is evidence enough to disregard populist opinion and stand against it- in every arena.

    RC: A very dark assessment indeed. If true, it is completely hopeless.

    Me: History shows it. Empires have an expiration date- though no time line is assigned the evidence suggests 200 or so years. Hopeless is in the eye of the beholder. The populist beliefs have created a near genocide in several instances- populist as a whole are generally ignorant. They subscribe to the politics of personality and vote accordingly. When someone (Petersen in this case) sows a seed some will respond positively, many will react negatively- it’s what they’re trained to do and they never consider monkeys can be trained = ignorant. And none of this addresses what I supplied with the link; “I want to bring the conversation back to our rights, rather than being about trying to justify why I need something, why don’t you tell me why I can’t?”

  50. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Oh, of course, you can talk about your theory of “rights” all you want. You can illustrate your rights by advocating wacko positions like the “right” to own private nukes as well.

    It is possible that by your flapping your butterfly wings on the subject, in 50 years, that will be a super-majority position and the law of the land. “A nuke in every garage,” or something. 😉

    Rights are a made up thing. In the state of nature, there are no “rights.” If there are, show us them. Of course, you cannot; you only keep repeating tautologies and self-referencing doctrines.

    This is not to say that the concept of “rights” is not useful, because of course, they are HIGHLY useful. A civil society with a reasonable rule of law allows for human flourishing, I’m convinced. But these are made up things; they are NOT intrinsic to the human (or animal) condition.

    There is ZERO evidence that the Creator endowed us with rights. This was a lazy cop-out. No one that I’m aware of has seen or had a real conversation with this Creator, unless we want to take Moses’s word for his particular — rather short — conversation, in which rights were really not discussed.

    Ever open minded, have you had a conversation with the Creator? Did S/He tell you that you have the right to your own Little Boy in your garage? Have you met anyone (not on an acid trip) who claims s/he talked with God about his desire to look down from the Heavens to see a population where most walk the streets with a Kalashnikov strapped their backs?

    No?

    In short, the Lockean premise falls apart with the lightest of scrutiny.

  51. DJ

    RC: In short, the Lockean premise falls apart with the lightest of scrutiny.

    Me: Populist opinion doesn’t interest me- nor do your educated beyond your intellect rants. I’ve told you more than once, I’m agnostic- I don’t care what your God looks down on.

    FYI- rights can’t be taken, given, or transferred because each of those can be rescinded- rights can only be restricted by force, i.e., populist opinion, and populist opinion has failed humans since time began because a lack of knowledge until the over educated came along to intentionally misinterpret and who should know better, but just have to try and prove themselves superior in their training- and fail-when scrutinized.

    RC: Of course, I don’t share your apparent view that the Framers stumbled upon “objective” truth; to my knowledge, no one has. How would we know if someone actually did possess and understand “objective” truth?

    Me: I don’t recall anything about stumbling- in fact, their views were from studying the past- History.
    Maybe you should learn to read before reacting.

    Me: I also listen/read others opinions virtuous or not, since I don’t claim a virtuousness or view my opinion as such. It allows an objective analysis.

    Trying to gain an objective requires subjective analysis vs reaching an objective conclusion- the objective achievement is ‘typically’ contradictory to rights of individuals for which I’m an advocate which is ‘my’ objective in my objective conclusions.

    My subjective input is based on Truth.

    Populist subjective is based on desire.

    Desire is fleeting and always changing.

    Truth is constant. History has recorded how often and how wrong populist opinion is.

    Truth, by definition can’t be wrong which doesn’t require or call for an omniscient presence.

    “Most” are ignorant of rights. The “vast majority” doesn’t have a good track record of anything political.
    That alone is evidence enough to disregard populist opinion and stand against it- in every arena.

    RC: A very dark assessment indeed. If true, it is completely hopeless.

    Me: History shows it. Empires have an expiration date- though no time line is assigned the evidence suggests 200 or so years.

    Hopeless is in the eye of the beholder.

    The populist beliefs have created a near genocide in several instances- populist as a whole are generally ignorant.

    They subscribe to the politics of personality and vote accordingly.

    When someone (Petersen in this case) sows a seed some will respond positively,

    many will react negatively-

    it’s what they’re trained to do

    and they never consider monkeys can be trained = ignorant.

    And none of this addresses what I supplied with the link; “I want to bring the conversation back to our rights, rather than being about trying to justify why I need something, why don’t you tell me why I can’t?”

  52. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    You keep repeating and repeating tautologies and self-referencing doctrine, but you apparently refuse or cannot respond to simple, straightforward questions.

    So far as I know, you don’t know me, my education, or my intellect. But, since you keep bringing it up, I didn’t quite finish a masters in economics at George Mason and whenever I’ve taken IQ tests, my score put me on the cusp of Mensa membership.

    That, of course, doesn’t matter. I like your passion, but it’s probably not the best use of your or my time if you cannot or refuse to answer this:

    > You say “rights can’t be taken, given, or transferred because each of those can be rescinded- rights can only be restricted by force,” but where do these “rights” come from?<

    I get you are agnostic, but you keep referring to the Framers and Founders, and their answer was that the Creator bestowed these "rights" on us. If you DISAGREE with them, you must have an alternative. What is it?

  53. DJ

    They will come for you!

    Grand theft auto — by the U.S. government

    On Sept. 21, 2015, Serrano drove to the Eagle Pass, Tex., border crossing, intending to try to interest a Mexican cousin in expanding his solar panel installation business in the United States. To have mementos of his trip, he took some pictures of the border with his cellphone camera, which annoyed two U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, who demanded the password to his phone. Serrano, who is what an American ought to be regarding his rights, prickly, refused to submit to such an unwarranted invasion of his privacy.

    One agent said he was “sick of hearing about your rights” and “you have no rights here.”

    So, they searched his truck — this was unusual for a vehicle leaving the country — and one agent said, “We got him!”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/grand-theft-auto–by-the-us-government/2018/04/04/6a079e94-3762-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html?utm_term=.58b751c41cbc

    A power that lets police take property for themselves — even when there’s no crime

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/civil-asset-forfeiture-doesnt-belong-in-the-law-enforcement-arsenal/2017/02/16/73d845f0-f22f-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.8ec7f690736b

  54. robert capozzi

    more…

    Can’t, btw, is perfectly understandable. There are many questions I cannot answer.

    Won’t, however, seems duplicitous to me. There’s no competition here. There really is no right or wrong answer, either. If your thought system has no basis, that IS understandable. Not admitting so is not.

    I mean, you could even say, I believe in rights, just because. I’ve really never thought about it further, I just assume them.

    Bringing up tangential references is a common deflection tactic, but I find it rather infantile, actually. I hate it when I do it, and if I’m in th

  55. robert capozzi

    more…

    Can’t, btw, is perfectly understandable. There are many questions I cannot answer.

    Won’t, however, seems duplicitous to me. There’s no competition here. There really is no right or wrong answer, either. If your thought system has no basis, that IS understandable. Not admitting so is not.

    I mean, you could even say, I believe in rights, just because. I’ve really never thought about it further, I just assume them.

    Bringing up tangential references is a common deflection tactic, but I find it rather infantile, actually. I hate it when I do it, and if I’m in the proper headspace, I immediately correct the record.

  56. DJ

    RC: I get you are agnostic, but you keep referring to the Framers and Founders, and their answer was that the Creator bestowed these “rights” on us. If you DISAGREE with them, you must have an alternative. What is it?

    Me: Learn to read before you react.

    I have, in fact, stated many, many, many times: All men have certain unalienable rights Endowed….. nowhere have I used the words you’re putting at my hand and I have done it intentionally. The Declaration states, by Endowed by their Creator- because they didn’t want to ‘promote” a state religion. Rights are inherent by being born- we’ve covered that AND IF you’d bother to actually read what I write you’d know that- hence, learn to read before you react- I’ll add, reaction is instinct or trained to do (Pavlov’s dogs- or monkeys)- respond is to offer a sound rebuttal to the question(s) or remarks made. To do that one has to read, with comprehension and ‘decide’ which precludes react/instinct/training.

  57. DJ

    RC: I get you are agnostic, but you keep referring to the Framers and Founders, and their answer was that the Creator bestowed these “rights” on us. If you DISAGREE with them, you must have an alternative. What is it?

    Me: Learn to read before you react.

    I have, in fact, stated many, many, many times: All men have certain unalienable rights Endowed….. nowhere have I used the words you’re putting at my hand and I have done it intentionally. The Declaration states, Endowed by their Creator- because they didn’t want to ‘promote” a state religion. Rights are inherent by being born- we’ve covered that AND IF you’d bother to actually read what I write you’d know that- hence, learn to read before you react- I’ll add, reaction is instinct or trained to do (Pavlov’s dogs- or monkeys)- respond is to offer a sound rebuttal to the question(s) or remarks made. To do that one has to read, with comprehension and ‘decide’ which precludes react/instinct/training.

  58. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    IOW, rights are endowed…just because, is that right?

    Or do you mean…rights are endowed because DJ says they are?

    Or do you mean…rights are endowed because the Founders and Framers said they were, and you agree with them?

    IOW, claiming that rights are “inherent” with no justification does not answer the question. Asking a question is not a “reaction,” it’s a question. Surely you see that!

    It’s possible that you have an absolutely bulletproof explanation that will take the logs out of my eyes, and I will see the Light of the right to private nukes. I’m quite open to that possibility. “Just because” or “because the Founders said so” or “because DJ says so” are woefully insufficient, however.

  59. DJ

    RC: I mean, you could even say, I believe in rights, just because. I’ve really never thought about it further, I just assume them.

    Me: You assume a lot- I have thought about it- a lot. Rights are inherent. Period. No one person or entity has the moral authority to tell another how another is to live. Period. In the case of the fed gov’t it doesn’t have authority’s it “assumes” and argues by intentional misinterpretation- like the black robed idiots who call a fine a tax- they didn’t/don’t have that authority- “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution doesn’t grant the gov’t the power to intentionally misinterpret. The SC job is to ‘judge’ laws by the constitution- not write it, period.

    shall not be infringed is self explanatory and definitive. It doesn’t matter what the vast majority feels or believes. Every man has the right to choose for himself. Period. IF and when another is harmed then the courts are supposed to help right the wrong- if there’s no harm to another person or property there is no wrong to right. Justice is alleged to be blind, and it is, blind to the law unless it can be spun, twisted or castigated through intentional misinterpretation to make law enforcement look competent- but the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary- the lawyers are educated beyond their intellect and pay others to teach (train) them how to lie legally- through intentional misinterpretation.

    But not to worry, Robert, you will at some point get your wish- the many will be punished for what the few “might do”- it’s called thought policing, which the judge in the above link stated- at least there’s one who’s right.

  60. Chuck Moulton

    Richard Winger wrote (4/52018 at 2:50 pm):

    This thread certainly is mis-named.

    It doesn’t matter what the thread topic is. Robert Capozzi will always use it as an opportunity to try to convince libertarians to abandon libertarianism. And Andy will always use it as an opportunity to try to convince libertarians to oppose immigration and a woman’s right to choose. And Anthony Dlugos will always use it as an opportunity to convince libertarians to run candidates who seek to expand government and reduce freedom — as long as they have shiny badges.

  61. robert capozzi

    DJ: You assume a lot- I have thought about it- a lot. Rights are inherent. Period.

    Me: Well, that’s certainly compact! You have thought about it a lot, and your argument is “Period.” On one level, that’s impressive. All that thought and one word answers any and all questions. Still inadequate for me, though.

    DJ: No one person or entity has the moral authority to tell another how another is to live. Period.

    Me: Now this strikes me as a richer view. You make a dubious, unjustified claim about “rights,” but shifting to what others can do to another seems more hopeful. Still, iirc, you do support incarceration and denying 2A rights to convicted criminals, so you are contradicting yourself, particularly given your use of absolutes.

  62. robert capozzi

    cm: Robert Capozzi will always use it as an opportunity to try to convince libertarians to abandon libertarianism.

    me: Well, a normal open thread has not been established this month. I felt AP’s vid on machine guns was a relevant, albeit cautionary tale.

    And “always” is inaccurate. When I hear a valid case for NAPsterism, I will happily re-convert. No one seems to have one. Often, in what appears to be something like embarrassment, when I confront NAPsters for a deeper justification for their fringe views, they have a strong propensity to evade and deflect. It’s often a sure sign of weakness and ultimately a lack of confidence.

  63. Andy

    Chuck Moulton is once again misrepresenting my positions.

    I am not and have never been opposed to immigration. I support property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle, which means I am capable of differentiating between an invader (a Marxist, theocrats, welfare seeker, or criminal, as in a non-peaceful person crossing a border)), and an immigrant (as in an actual peaceful and productive person crossing a border). I have no problem with immigrants, I have problems with invaders.

    I advocate a private property anarcho-capitalist society. If such a society were established, and Chuck Moulton wanted to buy some land somewhere and open up the borders of his private property to every Marxist, theocrat, and bum on the planet, or as many as would fit on his property, I think that Chuck should have the right to do this, provided that these people stay on his private property, and do not infringe upon the property of others.

    As for a woman’s right to chose, I think women have the right to chose anything that does not infringe on the rights of other human beings.

    A woman’s right to chose does not mean a right to commit murder.

    Can somebody explain how abortion can be done without violating the Non-Aggression Principle?

    Also, aren’t 50 or 51 percent of babies female? This would mean that lots of aborted babies are female. So what about their rights?

    Since men are necessary for a woman to become pregnant, and since men are held financially liable for supporting women and children, does a man have the right to force a woman to get an abortion? If women should have a “right” to commit murder, shouldn’t men have that same “right”, or should only women be granted special “rights,” and is all of this talk of “equality” just a bunch of bullshit?

  64. paulie Post author

    This thread certainly is mis-named.

    It was originally posted to let our readers post April Fools headlines and/or articles. One person posted a few headlines, but unfortunately did not make any of them into articles, even though he could have. If any more did after that I haven’t seen it yet.
    I had limited time so since no one had posted a monthly open thread yet and it was late in the day I said this can double as the monthly open thread too. I come back 5 days later and not only has no one posted a separate monthly open thread, but no one has posted any stories about anything. So maybe it should just be the “April Thread” if no one is going to post any other articles in April?

    As for more appropriate thread titles …

    Well, groundhog day isn’t in April. But then, every IPR thread these days turns into a de facto Groundhog Day Open Thread so maybe we should just rename IPR the Groundhog Day Open Thread Forum and have one Groundhog Day Open Thread where people will repeat themselves endlessly until the heat death of the universe, with no more articles/threads to be posted ever again.

    Perhaps this is in fact that thread.

    If no one else posts any new articles from now til the next Groundhog Day I’ll just rename it that and it will be a go.

  65. paulie Post author

    Chuck Moulton is once again misrepresenting my positions.

    Chuck once again got it right. You once again are wrong, on both of these issues.

  66. paulie Post author

    Is there going to be another Open Thread for April 2018?

    Maybe. Maybe not. You can put one up if you want. This one can do double duty, if you actually read the article I explicitly said it can. But it doesn’t have to.

    This one looks as if it is only meant for April Fool’s jokes.

    Only if you haven’t read the whole article. I don’t care either way. Either someone else will put another one up or this is it. Personally I care more that no one has bothered to put up any other articles so far this month besides open thread than whether we keep this one as is or start a new one. But in both cases I don’t care enough to do more than everyone else signed up to write here put together, unless something happens to inspire me. More of Andy’s right wing horseshit in IPR comments has the opposite effect. Sites which are polluted by alt reich blood and soil (bloody feces) are nasty and disgusting and not places where any sane person should want to spend time. Yuck.

  67. Anthony Dlugos

    “More of Andy’s right wing horseshit in IPR comments has the opposite effect.”

    He is really getting ornery in his old age, i noticed. I think he is perturbed that its clear GOP out-flanked us big time on the right.

  68. DJ

    RC: Well, that’s certainly compact! You have thought about it a lot, and your argument is “Period.” On one level, that’s impressive. All that thought and one word answers any and all questions. Still inadequate for me, though.

    DJ: No one person or entity has the moral authority to tell another how another is to live. Period.

    RC: Now this strikes me as a richer view. You make a dubious, unjustified claim about “rights,” but shifting to what others can do to another seems more hopeful. Still, iirc, you do support incarceration and denying 2A rights to convicted criminals, so you are contradicting yourself, particularly given your use of absolutes.

    Me: No, actually I support retribution and have stated that often. In regard to denying rights, to anyone, IF one commits harm to another they themselves abused their rights and retribution is in order. Not state determined incarceration, or, state fines that serve the state and leave the harmed insufficiently represented. IF incarceration occurs due to the harmed deciding it’s adequate the perpetrator knew going in what would happen.

    You keep wanting to make the simple complicated- pseudo-intellectual trying to appear intellectually superior- and failing. That inadequacy is on you, not me.
    Punishing the many for the “might” actions of a few is a populist ideology albeit supported by the vast, vast majority- but, the vast, vast majority is trained to accept the states decision(s), including incarcerating in no harm, no foul situations which are excellent revenue generators, nothing more, nothing less.

    Your disbelief speaks to your admission that you have an authority not granted- rights are not granted.
    No “justification” needed. Power is granted- it can be rescinded- rights can’t, no matter how loud the kids scream.
    Authority figures pretend they have that authority through intentional misinterpretation, and in some cases “don’t care”. Their authority can be rescinded- their right to choose to believe it can’t- but it can be restricted, which is what the Constitution helped ensure- restrict authority, especially in the words; shall not be infringed. That is the definitive.

    At the heart of the equation is choice. If you don’t believe a person has the right to choose there’s no hope for you and you should excuse yourself from calling yourself Libertarian, never mind libertarian- period.

  69. robert capozzi

    DJ: Not state determined incarceration, or, state fines that serve the state and leave the harmed insufficiently represented. IF incarceration occurs due to the harmed deciding it’s adequate the perpetrator knew going in what would happen.

    Me: Please clarify this. If DJ-an “retribution” is not “state determined incarceration,” who or what determines what the incarceration should be?

    I do note that many of those incarcerated and denied their 2A rights in the slam are INNOCENT. Many are falsely accused and convicted. As your writing above is unclear to me, you may have an actual response to this other than “period.” 😉

    As for your ad hominem attacks, honestly, I encourage you to save your finger-power and refrain from labeling me “pseudo-intellectual” or an over-thinker or whatever else. It elicits only compassion for you from me. It’s OK if you can’t or won’t answer basic questions, but consider having the integrity to admit so rather than projecting things onto me that are false or unknowable by you.

    Instead, consider giving us your best argument, and I assure you I will consider it. I’ve proudly changed my opinion on many things when presented evidence and a strong case for a perspective different from the ones I currently hold.

    Truly.

    Truth is: I once believed — briefly — in the right to own private nukes, even. Indeed, I feel great when someone persuades me that I have an error in my thinking. I may well be a “pseudo intellectual,” but labeling me that does not constitute an actual argument.

    Finally, I’m just curious, what was the last time you changed your mind on a political matter? What was the issue? And what convinced you that you were incorrect previously?

  70. Libertydave

    So Andy still insists that its perfectly safe for women to have babies despite the fact that every day 830 women die from pregnancy or childbirth related causes. He then goes off on how because women can have an abortion that it a double standard because men can’t make a choice about women’s decision to have a baby or not. Let’s get real here, Andy is the one calling for a double standard by demanding that abortion be banned. That is saying that while men have complete control of what happens to their bodies, women shouldn’t have that same control because they can have babies.

  71. dL

    I have previously suggested what IPR needed to do, and IPR did not agree with me. You are now down to a half-dozen posters.

    There’s more than 6. The Alexa traffic rank today is more or less the same as it was in 2014. There was precipitous drop off after 2012 that mirrored the macro shift from “the blogospehere” to social media.

  72. Andy

    LibertyDave, I never said that it was perfectly safe for women to have babies. There is risk involved in everything in life, including the act that created the baby. Walking across a street is a risk. Getting on an airplane is a risk. Life is full of risk.

    Ron Paul said that in all the years that he delivered babies, he never encountered one case where an abortion was necessary (to save the life of the mother). This dies not mean that it can’t happen, it just means that it is rare.

    The fact of the matter is that women giving birth is what allows human life to continue. It is a natural part of the life process.

  73. DJ

    RC: Truth is: I once believed — briefly — in the right to own private nukes, even. Indeed, I feel great when someone persuades me that I have an error in my thinking. I may well be a “pseudo intellectual,” but labeling me that does not constitute an actual argument.

    Me: Pseudo-intellectuals intentionally complicate the simple. I’ve said that dozens of times. That’s what you come across as doing. It’s not an ad hominem attack. It’s a stated observation.

    RC: Finally, I’m just curious, what was the last time you changed your mind on a political matter? What was the issue? And what convinced you that you were incorrect previously?

    Me: I’ve stated here, more than once, I used to be a Republican- until I started paying attention and determined there was 0 difference between the 2 major party’s outside their rhetoric. It happened when Romney was campaigning- I also looked at myself, my actions, my thoughts, my past, and beliefs and determined I am a libertarian- and Party, any Party, be damned.

    RC: Me: Please clarify this. If DJ-an “retribution” is not “state determined incarceration,” who or what determines what the incarceration should be?

    Copy and paste from above: Me: No, actually I support retribution and have stated that often. In regard to denying rights, to anyone, IF one commits harm to another they themselves abused their rights and retribution is in order.
    Edit- maybe I should have said, again, after the other again’s- personal retribution.

    IF said person harmed determines state incarceration is acceptable then the state should oblige. Either way the perpetrator knew going in his rights would be restricted if caught and charged and found guilty, he made the choice, which is his right- which is somewhat fair as he abused his right to choose and chose to inflict his will on another.

    ret·ri·bu·tion
    ?retr??byo?oSH(?)n/
    noun
    noun: retribution

    punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.

    As for the rest of your finger exercise- another truism- one must first want before one can. You don’t and no one can make you- it is a “choice” one must make personally- as also stated previously, choice is at the core of rights- if you don’t believe you have the right to make a choice then there’s no convincing you otherwise- but by the same token, the vast, vast majority doesn’t have the right, nor are they entitled, nor have they been granted the authority to make choices pertaining to rights for others, such as the stupid people in the news are doing with their gun control demands, especially in light of the fact that ALL statistics about gun crimes are available and don’t coincide with the narrative(s) used and in fact counter the arguments- like it or not is immaterial- it is what it is. Most people (voters) rely on the rule of law- the law clearly states: shall not be infringed. It is the definitive.
    Discussion is wasted energy on energy wasters- the ad hominem attacks on the NRA are stupid and unfounded (according to numbers available) the ad hominem attacks on people who choose what they want to use is an attack on the most basic of rights- choice. The ad homenin attackers don’t care- the squeakiest wheel gets the grease- they are tools being used to grease the decline and decimation of choice- but, they’ll cry like babies when a woman chooses an abortion just because she doesn’t want the baby- they, and apparently you, seem to believe it can’t happen here, or maybe y’all want it to happen here- but, they will come for you- it’s not if, it’s when, and History is proof- evidence- hard evidence- but, never let a qualified argument stop you from making the simple complicated-

  74. DJ

    More intentional misinterpretation bullshit by a black robed idiot-

    Second Amendment Does Not Apply to ‘Assault Weapons,’ Says U.S. District Judge

    In his decision in Worman v. Baker, Judge Young declared that “assault weapons and LCMs [large capacity magazines] are not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

  75. Libertydave

    Andy,

    So you admit there is danger associated with child birth but you still claim its right to force some woman to risk their life just so someone else might be born? By this standard then people should be forced to donate parts of their bodies like a piece of liver or bone marrow because someone else might die if they don’t receive the donation. I mean its rare that people die from surgery after all.

    Because that is what you are saying, that the babies right to life is more important than the mothers right to life or liberty.

  76. Anon-Tipper

    Anyone know how Laura Ebke’s campaign is going? Is she expected to be re-elected?

  77. Andy

    “Libertydave
    April 6, 2018 at 22:27
    Andy,

    So you admit there is danger associated with child birth but you still claim its right to force some woman to risk their life just so someone else might be born? By this standard then people should be forced to donate parts of their bodies like a piece of liver or bone marrow because someone else might die if they don’t receive the donation. I mean its rare that people die from surgery after all.”

    Your reasoning is faulty. A very small risk does not justify committing murder.

    Unless a woman gets raped (in which case, I think one can make a more valid argument for abortion), they make the choice to agree to the act that results in pregnancy. So they made the free choice. Regret over the choice does not justify murder.

    This is like if somebody agrees to give another person a ride in the car, airplane, or boat, but then during the trip, they decided they don’t want to transport the person they agreed to give a ride, so they just throw the person out while in motion, and don’t give a shit if the other person dies.

    Look at what is going on right now in terms of demographics. Every European based people has a low birth rate (thanks in large part to the promotion of radical feminism and abortion in the “education” system and the mainstream media), while the birth rates among third world people’s has been exploding, thus increasing the demand and an excuse for third world people’s to flood into 1st world European based countries. Once in these countries, these third world people are being used as pawns by Marxists, in order to destroy these countries and implement a Marxist agenda.

  78. Andy

    I have posted this here before, and now I’m posting it again.

    Look the birth rate of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa. Now compare it to the birthrates of European based peoples. Keep in mind that these Muslims come from a totalitarian culture, and that they are flooding into Europe, the USA, and Canada, and they are leeching off of the welfare systems in these countries in super-majority numbers, and having lots of kids.

    The type of people you live around has a direct correlation to your liberty and your overall quality of life.

    Muslim Demographics

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

  79. robert capozzi

    DJ: IF said person harmed determines state incarceration is acceptable then the state should oblige.

    Me: OK, so I’m taking it this to mean that the victim of the crime should be the judge? Or that the victim would determine the sentencing? At least that’s how I’m reading “person harmed determines state incarceration is acceptable….” Does this mean that the victim will “press charges”?

    I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t believe it works this way. It can’t work this way in the case of a murder, since the victim is dead. So if a single person with no immediate family is murdered, there is no one to “determine state incarceration is acceptable.” In this case, I would think the prosecutor should be able to prosecute any way. As I’m reading your response, it sounds as if you would not allow for that. Please clarify.

    I sometimes have a hard time understanding your writing, but I am trying.

    I’m not seeing you still will not address the issue of the falsely accused and convicted.

  80. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Sorry, last sentence should delete “not”. Probably better to say:

    You have still not addressed the issue of the falsely accused and convicted. It’s an important issue. What is your view on what to do when the justice system gets it wrong?

  81. DJ

    RC: This has nothing to do with your original opinion on guns, or rights- you’ve led me off course, again, intentionally no doubt. As for your inability to read (which explains a lot) reminds me of a conversation I once had with a small town newspaper editor, he said; you have to write at a 4th grade level for people to comprehend. You’ve helped prove him correct. Not that I doubted him necessarily- but I held out hope.

    I’m tired of repeating myself over and over and you veering off course over and over and asking the same questions using different words, over and over.

    I’m the one who first brought up falsely accused and convicted in the other thread. That you didn’t, or can’t remember is your problem not mine. Learn to read.

    Continuing to make the simple difficult is stupid. Period.

    I’ve stated my beliefs, make what you will of it, or not.

    one must first want before one can.

    You don’t and no one can make you- it is a “choice” one must make personally-

    as also stated previously,

    choice is at the core of rights-

    if you don’t believe you have the right to make a choice then there’s no convincing you otherwise-

    but by the same token, the vast, vast majority doesn’t have the right,

    nor are they entitled,

    nor have they been granted the authority to make choices pertaining to rights for others,

    Rights are inherent. Authority is granted. One can be taken, one can’t. Both can be restricted. You guess which one. It’s “your choice”.

  82. DJ

    I don’t normally get involved in the abortion argument, but, this whole abortion argument requires concession from both sides.

    At the core it is a choice, the most basic right. The double standard practiced by both sides puts the gov’t in the game- and the gov’t needs to recognize it’s role as well.

    The pro abortion group has to realize that others have the right to choices as well, in everything. That includes things they don’t approve of- most notably and currently, guns.

    The anti-abortion side has to realize the same thing.

    Both sides have to realize when the gov’t gets involved, in any issue, they have to also, eventually, accept a contrarian decision they don’t like- that’s how it works when gov’t is demanded to act, to do “something” to appease me and make me right, regardless of the issue- because when a bureaucrat smells votes he acts- consequences and authority granted be damned.

    The fed gov’t, in fact ALL gov’t’s, need to understand their main job is to protect ALL citizens exercising of their rights. Period. It needn’t be made complicated. All that does is keep lawyers employed.

    If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour? Thomas Jefferson

    The pro abortion people will eventually pay a price, emotionally. The anti-abortion people have to accept that as punishment enough, because, in the end the pro-abortion person exercised the most basic right- choice. They have to live with the eventuality- it’s called pragmatic; to be concerned with the consequences of thought and action.

    When one side or another produces statistics, or legal mumbo-jumbo, or even scientific evidence the ‘courts’ have to become involved and eventually the SC if contentious enough- I don’t think lawyers have enough intelligence to accept science- it is what it is. I don’t think judges are intelligent enough to wade through the legal mumbo-jumbo because they went to the same schools as the lawyers and leraned the same tactics of intentional misinterpretation and statistics can be skewed-

    This isn’t to say one shouldn’t stand up for their beliefs, but, one must understand no one will “win” when the gov’t gets involved, except the gov’t.

    If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?

  83. Andy

    Pro-choice is a bit of a misnomer because the dead baby doesn’t have a choice.

    I can certainly understand the allure of abortion, but this does not erase the question of is it a violation of the NAP to kill a fetus.

    It also does not erase other negative factors, such as the psychological impact of abirtion, as well as the decrease in birthrates of the cultures that promote/practice abortion, especially in light of competing cultures not practicing abortion and having a much higher birthrate.

  84. DJ

    Andy: Pro-choice is a bit of a misnomer because the dead baby doesn’t have a choice.

    Me: I don’t normally get involved in the abortion argument, but,

    >>this whole abortion argument requires concession from both sides.<<

    Disclaimer: I'm not pro-abortion.

  85. paulie Post author

    Paulie,
    I have previously suggested what IPR needed to do, and IPR did not agree with me. You are now down to a half-dozen posters.

    Yep, all the most active article posters and many of the best past active commenters have had enough of the repetitive alt right garbage and have left. And yes they did say Andy’s BS was the top reason for why they are no longer here. Yet William Saturn keeps saying he does not drive anyone away.

  86. paulie Post author

    The Alexa traffic rank

    Is just a measure of how many people use the alexa toolbar, and is not very useful, unless something changed. The actual traffic stats are down a lot. As for “6” I think George means people posting articles.

  87. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I’m so sorry you feel this way. For my part, you keep repeating yourself — that’s true — but you continually evade and deflect. You — perhaps sincerely — believe that “Period” is an argument, but I assure you it is not. Instead, it’s a mere assertion.

    Then you contradict yourself, saying, “Rights shall not be infringed, period” but that “period doesn’t mean period, since the exception is for those convicted — rightly or not.” Your refusal to engage on the point speaks volumes.

    You seem to have dug in your heels and show no sign of charity or open-mindedness. You are RIGHT and anyone who deviates even slightly from your view is WRONG. Period. Put yourself in someone else’s shoes, I suggest, and you might start to see how futile communicating with you is.

    Probably best to end this. Pushing on a string is a futile endeavor.

  88. dL

    The pro abortion group has to realize that others have the right to choices as well, in everything. That includes things they don’t approve of- most notably and currently, guns.

    Well, I do. I thought that 90s slogan “Pro-choice in everything” was pretty good. Should resurrect it.

  89. dL

    this whole abortion argument requires concession from both sides.

    Well, that’s what Roe v Wade is supposed to be. A compromise. There are few, if any, pro-choicers actively campaigning to overturn Roe v Wade for full blown AoD(which is my position).

  90. DJ

    RC: Your refusal to engage on the point speaks volumes.

    Me: LOL- your constantly moving the bar speaks pretty loud itself.

    RC: This has nothing to do with your original opinion on guns, or rights-

    you’ve led me off course, again, intentionally no doubt.

    As for your inability to read (which explains a lot) reminds me of a conversation I once had with a small town newspaper editor, he said; you have to write at a 4th grade level for people to comprehend. You’ve helped prove him correct. Not that I doubted him necessarily- but I held out hope.

    I’m tired of repeating myself over and over and you veering off course over and over and asking the same questions using different words, over and over.

    I’m the one who first brought up falsely accused and convicted in the other thread. That you didn’t, or can’t remember is your problem not mine. Learn to read.

    Continuing to make the simple difficult is stupid. Period. Edit: I stand by my assertion(s).

    I’ve stated my beliefs, make what you will of it, or not.

    one must first want before one can.

    You don’t and no one can make you- it is a “choice” one must make personally-

    as also stated previously,

    choice is at the core of rights-

    if you don’t believe you have the right to make a choice then there’s no convincing you otherwise-

    but by the same token, the vast, vast majority doesn’t have the right,

    nor are they entitled,

    nor have they been granted the authority to make choices pertaining to rights for others,

    Rights are inherent. Authority is granted. One can be taken, one can’t. Both can be restricted. You guess which one. It’s “your choice”.

    Now, Robert, who’s deflecting?

  91. DJ

    dl: Well, that’s what Roe v Wade is supposed to be. A compromise. There are few, if any, pro-choicers actively campaigning to overturn Roe v Wade for full blown AoD(which is my position).

    Me: Yeah- it is indeed but never should have come to the SC since both sides, at one time or another, claim to want the gov’t to stay out of their lives. SMH- beats all I ever saw.

    dl: Well, I do. I thought that 90s slogan “Pro-choice in everything” was pretty good. Should resurrect it.

    Me: Amazing how few realize life is about choice(s) until confronted with being restricted/limited when they don’t like the results…… this time…… they forget (quickly) about when it was in their favor.

  92. DJ

    Robert, I’ve addressed every issue you’ve brought up. That you don’t like my responses is on you. Period.

    I’ve reached my conclusions based on life’s experiences and observation- yours may very. THAT is “your choice” based on different experiences (or holier than thou attitude) and I don’t care how many times you “brielfy” thought something. Life and how one lives it is about choices, which is the most basic right. It is not within the authority of anyone to choose for another unless the liver of the life agreeingly defers to another.
    Assuming an authority is an act of aggression on another- it is an ill made choice- it is immoral, but, often made legal by those who pay others to teach them to lie- lawyers and law makers and judges. It is a egregious over reaching of a granted authority. A grant can be rescinded. A right can only be restricted.

    You show me where I’m wrong and I’ll reconsider my conclusions. That is my charity to you.
    But, I’ll never grant you the authority to decide anything for me, or mine, I don’t care what your title or station in life is. Period. Yes that is an assertion- backed by another assertion- come and take it. I’ll add; There will be personal retribution.
    And I’ll call you out when I know you’ve tried to with others. Those are the “choices” I’ve made.

  93. robert capozzi

    DJ: You show me where I’m wrong and I’ll reconsider my conclusions.

    Me: It’s impossible for me to determine whether you are correct or incorrect. You are simply offering assertions with no justification other than “Period.” Claiming that “rights are inherent” with no elaboration or justification (aside from “period”) is not something I can prove or disprove since I don’t know how you arrived at this “unassailable” conclusion/assumption.

    The truth is: I would LOVE it if rights were inherent. Sadly, I’ve seen no evidence that it is so.

    The horse is beaten and bloody….

  94. DJ

    RC: The truth is: I would LOVE it if rights were inherent. Sadly, I’ve seen no evidence that it is so.

    Me: So, you’ve made a choice. Is that not your inherent right right? Or was it forced on you by someone you granted that authority? If so, can you not rescind that authority? Or, can that decision be taken from you?

    I make assertions based on observation and experience in life, and rendering a conclusion, personally and professionally. My professional career was mostly Failure Analysis in industrial environments.
    I also make assertions of what I will tolerate. Period.
    I assert “I” will be here long after ANY group is gone. History proves it. I assert choice is the most basic of rights. I assert the philosophy this Country was founded on are in plain, easy to understand, simple English. That that philosophy failed to persuade is immaterial. It is still the Truth-it was true then, it is true today and it will be true tomorrow. It is “self evident”, as is the arrogance of those who ‘choose’ to try and change a knowing mind, and fail, and instead fill the sponges in school with opinion and falsehoods. It’s the reason politicians let only the immature (chronologically) fight wars they start; young men fight old men’s wars, poor men fight rich men’s wars, civilians fight politicians wars- through exploitation of the ignorant and misinformed.

    I assert you’ve not given evidence of your assertion. What you have given is, you don’t want it to be true, so, for you it never will be. As with any addiction one must first want to- after that it’s possible to change the chemistry. Period. When one doesn’t want to, one has made a choice, which is one’s right to do- that doesn’t make it a good choice though. It means continuing to fight the Truth- and winding up addicted to a chemical stimulant that has changed the internal chemistry to ‘rely’ on a falsehood for reality and security. Choices do have consequences. Deferring the right to choose to another produces consequences which often do not meet expectations which requires an absolving of guilt, or acceptance of guilt. You can bet your last dollar the one you gave that authority to will respond with; But you said I could, thereby absolving themselves of responsibility- so, who do you then hold responsible?

  95. robert capozzi

    DJ: you’ve made a choice

    Me: OK, you want to beat the horse carcass more.

    I don’t use the word “choice” as you do. I don’t “choose” as much as I observe. I have not seen a “right,” and I suspect you have not, either. “Rights” are a construct, a social convention. I like the social convention, and I find it a serviceable and virtuous one. But “rights” have no substance, and there is no authority that I know of that has laid down the “rights” law.

    You offer a rather extreme case for rights, one that the world doesn’t buy. I get that you’re OK with being an extreme outlier in this regard. I don’t like your chances of gaining many adherents to DJ rights rules.

  96. robert capozzi

    more…

    When I say “authority,” I mean a transcendent, impeccable authority, not merely the Constitution.

  97. DJ

    RC: I don’t use the word “choice” as you do. I don’t “choose” as much as I observe.

    Me: LOL…. And after the observation you do what?

  98. DJ

    choice
    CHois/
    noun
    noun: choice; plural noun: choices

    1.
    an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
    “the choice between good and evil”
    synonyms: option, alternative, possible course of action
    “you have no other choice”

  99. DJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  100. Seebeck

    And Vohra is retained in office by the Chair voting NO on removal.

    That’s the news, with no opinion offered on it.

  101. Anthony Dlugos

    “Arvin and the LNC made news at Reason.”

    1312 -word Reason article on the Vice Chair of the LP in a non-presidential election year.

    If you want to know why the self-indulgent Vohra went on a year-long bomb throwing tirade, that’s why.

    Too bad that’ll be the high-water mark for the idiot.

  102. Anon-Tipper

    Bondurant: “Arvin and the LNC made news at Reason.”

    Reason magazine regularly covers LP, LNC events, so it’s not out of the ordinary. The better indicator if this is going to travel in the news will be if other outlets pick it up, which I don’t think is going to happen.

  103. Anthony Dlugos

    However, they don’t regularly cover the ordinary meanderings of the Vice Chair, especially at any time other than the immediate pre- and post- of a presidential year election, and even then its unlikely.

    On the one hand, he managed a pretty mean feat: getting a 1300-word article written about him in a non-presidential year. Including a picture! This was probably his intention all along.

    On the other hand, it was all for short term gain. Not only did he immolate any future he had in the party (he still lost a vote of confidence 11-6), he just drove another nail in the coffin of the radical/purist/audacious/NAPster set. He gave a year long demonstration of why not to trust anyone who voluntarily puts themselves into any of those factions. (Or, as I put it, anyone in the party who argues there is something more important than winning. Lurking behind such a person…given that this a political party, working in the electoral arena…is either an idiot or someone who is essentially telling you if things don’t go their way, they are prepared to burn the whole thing down).

    Once the party gets bigger, this saga will be remembered, and the relative damage such people can do will be comprehended. (Right now, the damage is minor, as you point out…no one in the MSM is likely to pick up on this story). They won’t be trusted with trash detail at a convention, let alone any position of leadership.

    This is why the smart radical understood that even having a vote about the self-indulgent twat Vohra..the larger party membership paying any attention to him at all…is a very bad precedent for them. For the anarchist/radical/NAPster(along with the alt-reicher and various snake oil salesman) the indemnity for allowing their particular pet dogma in the Libertarian Party fold is letting ANYONE’s freak flag fly. Once the precedent is set that how said freak appears to the outside world matters, its only a matter of time for all those groups to be marginalized. After all, what’s the difference between “dump Vohra because of his extreme comments,” and, “privatizing social security NOW is an extreme position that needs to be dumped.”? Frankly, its only a matter of degrees. The Smart Radical understands this.

    Sadly, though, by refusing to cut ties with Vohra early on, the radical sows the seeds of their own destruction. Long term, instead of giving them a seat at the table for their pleasant utopianism, the pragmatic position (in the truest sense of the word) will be to not trust them at all. If the party does indeed get bigger, as I expect it to, that eventuality will be inevitable.

    In other words, its only natural that, in an alternate future where the Libertarian Party is a little bit bigger, the “deciding” vote will be cast favor of removal by a chair who is cognizant of the risk exposure having such a lunatic in a leadership position represents. No one has to direct that process. The only people with the c.v. fitting the position of Chair of Little Bit Larger Libertarian Party will be people who understand that risk exposure.

    Ditto the LNC overall: even now, with a tiny party, the vote fell only one shy of removal. Make the party 50% larger, and the vote for removal would safely pass. 100% larger and there’d only be a couple stragglers. 200% larger and the vote would be unanimous and would have happened much sooner. Five times the size and a vote wouldn’t have even been necessary. If such a lunatic even slipped through the myriad of obstacles in their way, the simple solution after his/her first harebrained comment would be for the Fixers in the Five Times Larger Libertarian Party would be to take the rabid dog out back and shoot the poor bastard.

    The forlorn purist might decry such an eventuality, but the reality is that, such a party, even with the Dallas Accord in the dustbin of history, will have plenty of wiggle room to win elections and move the country in a libertarian direction.

  104. Chuck Moulton

    Setting aside the Arvin matter — which is completely orthogonal to the radical vs. pragmatist debate — I see no foundation whatsoever for your assumption that a larger LP would be less radical and more pragmatic.

  105. Andy

    Arvin Vohara speaks for Arvin Vohara.

    The people who made up the Ron Paul r3VOLution were more radically libertarian than is the faction within the LP that gave us Bob Barr and Gary Johnson. The Ron Paul r3VOLution was also many times larger than the LP has ever been.

    I’m hearing that the separate efforts of Adam Kokesh and Michael Heise of the LP Mises Caucus are both recruiting a lot of people (relatively speaking, by LP standards), and they are both pretty radical. It will be interesting to see what happens between now and the 2020 presidential election.

    Donald Trump is pissing a lot of people off, including a lot of those who supported him. 2020 could be another big opportunity for the LP. Let’s hope the LP does not blow things again like it has in the last three presidential elections.

  106. Andy

    Anthony, the LP was on average more radical back in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s than it is today, and the LP also had more elected Libertarians back then than it does today. Back in 2003, the LP had over 600 elected Libertarians. Today it only has around 170. This blows a hole in your theory.

  107. dL

    Long term, instead of giving them a seat at the table for their pleasant utopianism, the pragmatic position (in the truest sense of the word) will be to not trust them at all. If the party does indeed get bigger, as I expect it to, that eventuality will be inevitable.

    As a reminder, Dlugos is a guy who recently threatened to leave the LP for the Democrats over any change in the platform abortion plank
    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2018/02/libertarian-party-national-platform.html#comment-3779179881

    And now he has self-promoted himself to pragmaticrat vanguard seat hander-outer. Dude…

  108. Anthony Dlugos

    Threaten to leave? It’s really not that big of a deal. If the party became irrevocably Prohibitionist, I would no longer be a member. No big whoop.

    I didn’t appoint myself part of a pragmatic vanguard. I’m not suggesting anything other than the pretty quotidian idea that any human organization’s primary motivation is self-preservation. Once this party gets big enough to have things to lose, and people carrying its label have things to lose, the Vohras of the world won’t be tolerated anymore. Neither will anyone with the potential to be a Vohra. That would happen whether I am part of the party or not.

    And if it doesn’t get any bigger, then this whole discussion is moot anyway.

  109. Anthony Dlugos

    “I see no foundation whatsoever for your assumption that a larger LP would be less radical and more pragmatic.”

    Chuck, do you think there are millions of people sitting on the sidelines in the American political scene waiting for a truly Radical Libertarian Party to present itself so that they can join? Seriously?

    Anyone holding the positions of a radical libertarian is already in the party, or the sort of person who would never join, since they are philosophically opposed to the state and all its trappings.

  110. Andy

    dL, that sounds like a good argument in favor of changing the abortion plank to me.:)

    The only people I really want to see drummed out of the LP are the Bob Barr/Gary Johnson/Bill Weld types.

  111. Anthony Dlugos

    “Anthony, the LP was on average more radical back in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s than it is today, and the LP also had more elected Libertarians back then than it does today. Back in 2003, the LP had over 600 elected Libertarians. Today it only has around 170. This blows a hole in your theory.”

    I’m not talking about marginal differences in party membership and number of elected Libertarians in non-partisan races for offices way down the trough. I’m talking about a substantially larger party, Like, orders of magnitude larger.

  112. Andy

    Regardless of the merits or demerits of anything Arvin Vohara said, keep in mind that Donald Trump made a lot of controversial statements, yet that did not stop him from getting elected to the office of President.

  113. Andy

    Anthony, the Libertarian Party was at its largest in terms of dues paying members in the early 2000’s (and note that US population has increased since then).

  114. Andy

    The Ron Paul r3VOLution was much larger than the LP, and Ron Paul’s message was pretty radical, certainly more so than any LP presidential candidate since Michael Badnarik in 2004.

  115. Anthony Dlugos

    Donald Trump’s behavior is our metric now?

    Besides, as I’ve noted before, Trump had a pretty standard populist…and popular…message, in addition to 100% name recognition. That allows you to get away with some things.

    Vohra has zero name recognition and a completely unpopular message that appeals to no one other than a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of party members.

    Trump was able to offer the Republican Party something in exchange for all his downside: the White House. Vohra is all downside.

    Here’s a hint for the dimwit Vohra: calling ONE ex-servicemember turned politician, John McCain, a coward was a high-risk, high-reward political move. Calling ALL servicemembers “accessories to murder” is brain dead dumb.

  116. robert capozzi

    As for the Abortion plank language, it’s certainly not great as worded. Speaking as a L voter, it would not be an improvement to say nothing on the subject. It would be far better to confess that which is true: That Ls disagree on the matter.

    Having briefly been on the Platcomm when the current language was squeezed out, I can say that it illustrates just how wrapped around the axles Ls have been on this and many issues. A more factual approach might work. Something like, “Some Ls are pro-choice, believing that the woman and her doctor should be in charge of whether the unborn should come to term. Some Ls are pro-choice with restrictions, believing that the viability of unborn should be taken into consideration and should be afforded legal protections. And some Ls believe that the unborn deserve the full protection under the law as the born should have. Abortion is a complex and emotional issue, one where people of goodwill can and do disagree. Ls reflect the range of positions on abortion in the broader public. There is no L position on the matter.”

    Or something.

    Of course, the deontological NAPster mindset recoils at the idea that there is no one “correct” position on this on any number of issues. This, to me, illustrates the confusion of NAPsterism, which views politics as a Newtonian physics equation, which it obviously isn’t.

  117. DJ

    RC: Something like, “Some Ls are pro-choice, believing that the woman and her doctor should be in charge of whether the unborn should come to term. Some Ls are pro-choice with restrictions, believing that the viability of unborn should be taken into consideration and should be afforded legal protections. And some Ls believe that the unborn deserve the full protection under the law as the born should have. Abortion is a complex and emotional issue, one where people of goodwill can and do disagree. Ls reflect the range of positions on abortion in the broader public. There is no L position on the matter.”

    Or something.

    Me: Something; It’s not in the authority granted to the fed gov’t to decide. It’s not in the authority of the SC to decide. It’s a local decision.

  118. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Many Ls would agree that abortion is a state issue. I’ve never heard any L claim it’s a “local” issue, however. You might get a large percentage agreeing with you if “local” is so “local” that it means “the individual,” but that position will alienate pro-life Ls and Ls like myself who think the Supremes actually stumbled on a serviceable approach even if I’d agree that they usurped powers they did not have.

    Your view would be insufficient for both pro-life and pro-choice Ls, since the legal technicalities avoid the issue of when life-that-should-be-protected begins.

    You can play constitutionalist Moses to the LM, but I’m guessing that most Ls are going to quibble and reject the DJ commandment on this issue.

  119. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    1% has to be a high estimate.

    Of course, the problem is worse than that for the Radical. Not only are they looking for anarchists, they are looking for anarchists of the free market variety. To call that looking for a needle in the haystack is an understatement. Given the myriad of granular arguments typical of the anarchists mindset, this is like looking for a needle in a haystack of constantly arguing haysticks, such that, even if you find a needle, it’ll likely be just another stick of hay prepared to argue to the death about the most esoteric of issues.

    It’s like trying to put together an effective organization made up of the most dogmatic of the dogmatic.

    On the other hand, “effective” is probably not the goal. Purity is.

  120. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    The only problem with your back-of-napkin abortion plank is that it concedes exactly what the Prohibitionists want: for the party to officially take no position on the matter. Given that the party is overwhelmingly pro-choice, that is as much as they are ever gonna get away with.

    On the other hand, you are right that silence is not an option, AND that, to the NAPster mindset, “no one answer” is psychologically disconcerting, a boll weevil burrowing into their brain. I’ve had more than one of them tell me that silence in the issue would be better than the mess of a plank that we have now.

    Of course, they are wrong, and not surprisingly, as they look at it philosophically and not politically. As unwieldy as it is, it keeps away the GOP infiltration that a lot of them claim was sure to follow J-W, a couple pro-choice ex-republicans.

    The single biggest reason the most active, “moral majority” disgruntled republicans…disgruntled because the GOP is not Christian enough… give me for why they would never join the LP is the abortion plank. These are the people most likely to do the work to turn the LP into an explicitly hard right Christian party.

    As unwieldy as the plank is, politically it does it’s work to keep them away.

  121. DJ

    RC: Many Ls would agree that abortion is a state issue. I’ve never heard any L claim it’s a “local” issue, however.

    Me: Ok. My bad. State issue. State is (in context, see below “or to the people”) local though. The authority was not granted to the fed gov’t- nor was the issue of abortion discussed, thus, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Moving a mountain? Start with small stones.

    Your pejorative terminology is not high brow, Robert. Life is really simple, we do our best to make it complicated- especially pseudo-intellectuals.

  122. DJ

    The superior man knows what is right. The inferior man knows what will sell- credited to Confucious.

  123. DJ

    In one of these thread Andy referenced the Ron R3VOLution as being fairly successful- does anyone remember what his ‘central’ theme was?

  124. Andy

    Ron Paul reached more people than anyone with a libertarian message. Ron Paul inspired more people than anyone, and he got more people into the Libertarian Quadrant of the Nolan Chart than anyone.

  125. DJ

    Andy: Ron Paul reached more people than anyone with a libertarian message. Ron Paul inspired more people than anyone, and he got more people into the Libertarian Quadrant of the Nolan Chart than anyone.

    Me: What was his central theme? Personally, for me, it was his message about the constant state of war. But, what was the official RP message that drew people to him?

  126. paulie Post author

    Sympathies to Paulie on his non-life-threatening medical issue on which I hope he is recovering.

    What issue? I had a flu and a kidney stone a few weeks ago, is that what you are referring to?

  127. Marc Montoni

    Chuck Moulton’s comment ought to be IPR’s subtitle on the main page:

    “It doesn’t matter what the thread topic is. Robert Capozzi will always use it as an opportunity to try to convince libertarians to abandon libertarianism. And Andy will always use it as an opportunity to try to convince libertarians to oppose immigration and a woman’s right to choose. And Anthony Dlugos will always use it as an opportunity to convince libertarians to run candidates who seek to expand government and reduce freedom — as long as they have shiny badges.”

  128. Anthony Dlugos

    “And Anthony Dlugos will always use it as an opportunity to convince libertarians to run candidates who seek to expand government and reduce freedom — as long as they have shiny badges.”

    To tell you the truth, I’ve been partial to the matte finish badge for quite some time now.

  129. dL

    Jeffrey Tucker thinks the LP should dispense with the NAP pledge

    https://steemit.com/libertarianism/@jeffreyatucker/why-the-libertarian-party-needs-to-remove-and-replace-the-pledge

    Although I agree with the premise(in fact, I’ve said the same thing myself many times in the past RE: factional disagreement over aggression), I don’t necessarily concur with the conclusion, largely because there really shouldn’t be much disagreement over statist aggression. If there is disagreement over statist aggression, then rest assured, loosing up the pledge is not going to result in a classical liberal renaissance of the LP. Instead it will open up the authoritarian sewer, although it is quite conceivable the sewer would refer to itself as “classical liberal.”

  130. robert capozzi

    ad: As unwieldy as the plank is, politically it does it’s work to keep them away.

    Me: I do hear this. Personally, I’ve long been pro-choice, although my stridency has waned for a variety of reasons. Speaking as only an L voter who’d love to see the LP lose the NAP millstone and actually challenge the status quo, I think it’s extremely important to keep in mind that there are many issues where voters will disregard or discount their positions IF the candidate or party packages their ideas in ways that appeal to their sense of virtue and fairness, on balance.

    Let’s also keep in mind that not all pro-lifers are Christian. And not all Christians are pro-life.

    Perhaps there’s room for more of a minority report kind of approach, something like:

    Libertarians have long been supporters of the right to choose. Our commitment to individual liberty includes whether or not a woman chooses to bring an unborn person to term. Clearly, though, abortion also involves a potential human being. Libertarians disagree about when and to what extent a fetus should have all the rights that children and adults do in our society. And, as a matter of good faith, it’s important to note many Libertarians believe that rights begin at conception or soon thereafter.

  131. DJ

    From the link:
    There are so many ways to interpret that sentence, so many words with malleable meanings and different interpretations. Pick one: certify, advocate, initiation, force, political, social. Every one of these words can be heard, understood, or applied in different ways.

    Making the simple difficult. I’m beginning to think this could be made into a cottage industry- oh, wait.

  132. robert capozzi

    The “simple,” DJ, is not the same thing as the “truth.” Personally, it makes sense that the truth is ultimately simple, but we can’t know the truth until we’ve eliminated a host of untruths.

    Perhaps you’ve done all this elimination work, but then you do advocate that there’s a “right” to private nukes, so you can color me skeptical…I see it as a tell for fuzzy thinking.

  133. robert capozzi

    JT: For the regular person, it sounds culty and odd.

    me: Money line, in spades.

  134. dL

    Clearly, though, abortion also involves a potential human being.

    Clearly? I think not. The fundies use language like “potential human being” to describe personhood at conception. Most pro-choicers do not view the embryo as a person nor view conception as personhood. “Potential” is a flaky term that I equate with something like “if fishes were wishes, we’d all swim in riches.” Potential is not a person

    Bob, if you are looking for a fundamentalist pro-life, “control the borders” party, I highly recommend the GOP. A pro-life position is a reliable predictor for right-wing authoritarianism, simply because the “pro-life” position usually masks an underlying position of compulsory parenthood(pro compulsory family). It’s one thing to say one has a duty not to terminate a pregnancy; it’s quite another to say that one has a duty not to terminate a pregnancy AND a duty for compulsory parenthood, even if it is against one’s will.

  135. Libertydave

    As I understand the NAP, it is embodied in the following statement; “No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.”

    I have a question for those who disagree with this statement. When is it ok to force other people, who have done nothing to harm anybody else, to do what ever you want them to do, and what gives you the right to do this?

  136. Anthony Dlugos

    “I have a question for those who disagree with this statement. When is it ok to force other people, who have done nothing to harm anybody else, to do what ever you want them to do, and what gives you the right to do this?”

    Its not that that isn’t an interesting question, its that it has no place in a political party. By entering the electoral arena, your conceding to the use of force, if for no other reason than that elections themselves are uses of force. If you object to that, I’m not saying your position is wrong, I am saying you are in the wrong arena.

  137. Anthony Dlugos

    re: dispensing with the pledge.

    1) From the article,

    “It also strikes the wrong tone for a political party, which is a group generally agreeing on a broad principle (such as “we should have more liberty”) rather than a prescriptive ethical/philosophical assertion.”

    That’s a big 10-4, buddy.

    From the article:

    2) “I also grant that the pledge does some good, e.g. keep out the alt-right, antifa, and so on.”

    I don’t grant that. In fact, the evidence contradicts that. There are alt-right in our midst. Not surprisingly. Dogma attracts the dogmatic. The alt-right was attracted to the the LP because:

    a) they see the closest thing to a national platform that ain’t part of the duopoly.

    more importantly:

    b) they see a party (I don’t necessarily mean specific members, I mean the organization as an organic whole), willing to swallow dogma. The pledge is one thing that signals that. What dogma such an organization accepts is mere details, or merely a matter of bringing in YOUR kind of dogmatic people.

    The way to defeat the dogmatic is to become less dogmatic. Making the alt-reichers sign a pledge is not going to keep them out of the party. What will keep them out is a more-or-less classically liberal…but much larger party.

  138. robert capozzi

    dL: Clearly? I think not. The fundies use language like “potential human being” to describe personhood at conception.

    me: OK, well, I guess we need to break this down, then. As far as I know, every human being alive was once a fetus, yes? Not all fetuses come to term, some due to miscarriage, some due to abortion. Let’s pick a number for argument’s sake. Say 80% of all fetuses are born and live for at least an hour.

    It, then, should be a fair use of the word “potential human being” to describe fetuses. While I have always been pro-choice, I have no problem with using a pro-lifer term IF IT’S ACCURATE. And, unless you can tell me why it’s INaccurate, I’m sticking with accuracy and truth over rhetorical smears.

    Note that many who call themselves L are pro-life. Some NAPsters are pro-life. Some Ls are Christian, and some are pro-life and some pro-choice. Some Ls are atheist, and some of them are pro-life and some pro-choice. etc etc etc

    I would contend that many who might otherwise be lessarchist-leaning are pro-life. Since:

    a) Politics is a numbers game, and

    b) The point at which a potential human being should have legal protections is not a math equation, but is a matter of subjectivity

    I conclude that taking a strident stand on abortion is poor political judgment. Personally, abortion is not a litmus test for me. I voted for RP1, BB, GJ and Ed Clark, 2 pro-lifers and 2 pro-choicers.

    dL: Bob, if you are looking for a fundamentalist pro-life, “control the borders” party, I highly recommend the GOP.

    me: I — again — am pro-choice. More importantly, I am pro truth. I really can’t imagine how you arrive at this conclusion, other than some kind of ill will.

    I think the Wall is a crazy idea. OTOH, I don’t think anyone can go anywhere anytime. I’m somewhere in the middle on the question of borders, and I don’t have a specific position on the matter.

    You may be falling for the syndrome known as the narcissism of small differences.

    Or are you being contrary for fun?

  139. robert capozzi

    JT: “It also strikes the wrong tone for a political party, which is a group generally agreeing on a broad principle (such as “we should have more liberty”) rather than a prescriptive ethical/philosophical assertion.”

    me: Yes! Call this what you want, I call it “lessarchism.”

  140. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    Oddly, while JT understands the solution, he sadly finishes the article with the idea for a different pledge, which he calls an affirmation, thus signaling that we are still enthralled to the idea that we need some kind of dogma, less we spin off our axis into the nether-universe of statism.

    Here’s the solution: no pledge of any kind.

  141. robert capozzi

    more on abortion…

    It strikes me that there is no obvious correct position on the pro-life/choice spectrum. We cannot say 2+2=4, therefore the Roe position is absolutely the correct one. It happens to be my position, but I recognize that it’s only my opinion and judgment which concludes that the Supremes landed on the most reasonable position, ATC.

    If vast majorities were convinced that late-term abortions should be unregulated, or if vast majorities were convinced that life begins at conception and the fetus should be afforded full legal protections, the law would shift in those directions. If either happened, I’d be OK with them, since I recognize that this is fundamentally a subjective matter.

    Most NAPsters don’t like to hear this, but that doesn’t make it untrue.

  142. Anthony Dlugos

    “If either happened, I’d be OK with them, since I recognize that this is fundamentally a subjective matter.”

    Well, as a political party, I do think we should have some say in the matter, not just stand athwart history yelling…whatever.

  143. DJ

    RC: me: I — again — am pro-choice. More importantly, I am pro truth. I really can’t imagine how you arrive at this conclusion, other than some kind of ill will.

    RC: The “simple,” DJ, is not the same thing as the “truth.” Personally, it makes sense that the truth is ultimately simple, but we can’t know the truth until we’ve eliminated a host of untruths.

    Me: LOL…. make up my mind, Robert.

  144. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, I agree the Pledge is a bad idea. Too cultish. One of the many relics of Randian/Rothbardianism that led me to lapse my LP membership, despite my and others attempts to cleanse the foundation of unworkable philosophical confusion.

    As I went down the rabbit hole of the bylaws, I concluded there was no way around what Harlos calls the “depth charges” that were set there. We came close to deleting the insane CotOS language in Portland, but there were still more than 1/8th NAPsters in the hall, and that’s all they need to block sanity.

    Perhaps you can figure out a better workaround….

  145. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I see no contradiction where you apparently do. Let me put it a different way: Truth on an absolute level is true. It’s simple. It’s unitary. We might call it something like peace, love, and understanding.

    On the relative level, things can seem to get complicated. Truth is not as easy to discern. In fact, on the relative level, we spend most of our time identifying and rejecting UNtruths. In doing so, we can begin to triangulate truth without ever 100% identifying it. We can’t because humans are perceiving machines, and perception is subjective and imperfect. Language is not arithmetic. Words have multiple meanings, and linguistic context is often highly variable and yet vital to understanding.

    Ever spoken with someone who learned English as an adult? They often say things that sound silly, even though they have used the rules of the English language correctly but in the wrong context or idiom.

    For your consideration….

  146. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    What is CotOS, by the way?

    I commend you on your previous attempts to bring some sanity to the platform/bylaws. Its possible that, from a hindsight perspective in the future, it won’t have been in vain.

    Since you mention it…

    I don’t think there is a better workaround in a tactical sense. I’d just suggest the mentality of the moderates in the party needs to change:

    First, our target audience is not in the party yet.

    Second, anyone that has to resort to a 1/8th faction to hold off the majority has already lost. That faction lost the moment such a depth charge was put into the bylaws. It concedes the inevitable.

    Our proximate target audience are the professionals in the political world ready to jump ship, which they have to be given the unpopularity of the dinosaur parties. Getting the platform changed is not necessary. We just need to demonstrate to those professionals that there is a coherent, disciplined, organized practical faction of the party.

    Even if we fail to survive the depth charge every two years, it doesn’t matter. Its the attempt that matters. At the margin, it might be enough to get the right professional (Amash? My personal preference is John Mackey) to look at the political landscape one year, the unpopularity of the duopoly parties, and think, “I can work with that.”

    At that point, with the surfeit of practical people in the party, we can come together and wistfully toast the SoP, Pledge, and Dallas Accord, things, more honored in the breach rather than the observance.

  147. DJ

    Robert, as I said; “Making the simple difficult. I’m beginning to think this could be made into a cottage industry- oh, wait.”

    Referencing

    From the link:
    There are so many ways to interpret that sentence, so many words with malleable meanings and different interpretations. Pick one: certify, advocate, initiation, force, political, social. Every one of these words can be heard, understood, or applied in different ways.

    https://steemit.com/libertarianism/@jeffreyatucker/why-the-libertarian-party-needs-to-remove-and-replace-the-pledge

    To join the Libertarian Party, you have to sign a pledge that reads: “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

    The simplicity is, well, quite simple. Don’t pledge- to any group because by doing so you will, at some point, have to defer to group think- that is a truth. ALL Party’s, political or otherwise are disrespectful of the Individual- the Individual who pledges allegiance, or agrees to, has to or be ousted, ridiculed or shamed or whatever multiples of words the group/Party chooses. The ‘intent’ is lost in the confusion.

    To throw out a bunch of doubt in the form of words is making the simple complicated. Making the complicated simple is a ‘true’ intellectual approach- ( I learned that from William Buckley, Jr. btw, which I believe is a truth and is a validation of: knowledge isn’t bias in its origin and can manifest itself in ways unimaginable and that [manifest itself in ways unimaginable] I learned from listening to Rush Limbaugh) using multiple words to make the simple complicated confuses ANY issue-

    In this particular issue; Party growth, why confuse the issue?

    But, is Party growth the ultimate goal? Or is electing libertarians the ultimate goal? That is a decision the Individual should concern himself with- that is what should be addressed, politically. For noted Libertarians (author of the link) to confuse an issue seems, to me, working towards a cottage industry, which is, again, to me, an over filled niche market filled with R and D rhetoric selling the same bullshit with different words intentionally confusing issues.

    This isn’t to say I disagree with what you asked me to consider- I’d ask of you the same consideration for the above-

  148. DJ

    I’ve seen a meme on Einstein- it says

    The problem with smart motherfuckers is, they sound like crazy motherfuckers, to dumb motherfuckers-

    I’d say that comes from making the simple complicated- and I don’t claim to be smart. Or dumb.

  149. Libertydave

    So only one person will respond to my question and he evades the question instead of answering it by saying that the NAP has no place in a political party.

    For those who don’t believe that the NAP has a place in politics consider these two people from history that changed the political landscape in two different countries.

    The first was Mahatma Gandhi who started organized peasants, farmers, and urban laborers in India from 1915 to 1921 and took over the country and achieved self-rule using nonviolent civil disobedience.

    The second is Martin Luther King Jr. who was a leader of the civil rights movement from 1954 to 1968 who changed the political landscape of the USA using nonviolent civil disobedience.

    So after these two examples are you still going to claim the the NAP has no place in politics?

    As for everyone else complaining about the NAP, quit being cowards and answer my question.

    When is it ok to force other people, who have done nothing to harm anybody else, to do what ever you want them to do, and what gives you the right to do this?

  150. Anthony Dlugos

    The nonviolence of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr does not equal the NAP.

    Neither of those individuals suggested deploying the NAP to its logical conclusion, in other words anarchism. Neither of these individuals were anarchists.

    King was for a guaranteed basic income. Hardly in keeping with the NAP.

    The NAP has no place in politics. At least not electoral politics.

  151. Libertydave

    The nonviolence of Gandhi and King is exactly what the NAP is all about.

    Just because they didn’t take their politics to the logical conclusion, they both moved their countries toward more freedom. Indians in India and colored people in the USA are no longer considered second class citizens. And they didn’t use force to achieve the goals.

    Anyway you are still evading my question.

    When is it ok to force other people, who have done nothing to harm anybody else, to do what ever you want them to do, and what gives you the right to do this?

  152. Anthony Dlugos

    Yes, I explicitly evaded the question from the outset. as something pointless in the electoral political arena.

  153. Libertydave

    Anthony Dlugos, you claim that the NAP is pointless in the electoral political arena. So I have a different question just for you.

    Your claim that the NAP is pointless means that it requires the initiation of force to succeed in the electoral political arena. Please explain what force is necessary to succeed and when should we initiate this force?

  154. paulie Post author

    We’re starting from a point where a lot of force is already being initiated on an ongoing basis. Coming into any sort of shared power within a multi-party, multi-branch, multi-level system of government will involve continuing some initiation of force while we are trying to minimize it. Even if we could somehow come into total control of all branches of government at all levels it would take time to wind down ongoing government force without creating massive social displacement. And, at least until we have done a much better job of persuasion than we have to date, getting any meaningful level of influence in the political process will involve running on – at least in the short term – a platform of leaving a lot of the ongoing government-initiated force in place, at least for some period of time.

  155. robert capozzi

    DJ: To throw out a bunch of doubt in the form of words is making the simple complicated.

    Me: Unless doubt is TRUE. On the relative level, it’s a world full of doubt. We — as imperfect perceivers — should do our best to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it’s important — I believe — to recognize that we’re not perfect in separating wheat from chaff. Sometimes we get it wrong, or at least I do.

    DJ: Making the complicated simple is a ‘true’ intellectual approach.

    Me: Yes, here I agree. The insightful are skilled at boiling down the complicated into its primary factors, and assembling a workable model to make sense of nonsense.

    Agree or not, this is what I did with the LP. With all the pluses for a party committed to advancing lessarchy, I realized that the dysfunctional booby traps and depth charges make it a largely futile endeavor. The LP’s founders protected the NAPster core of the party’s foundation all too well.

    This is not to say that I don’t support the LP when it offers semi-sane tickets like Johnson/Weld, because I do. I certainly hope AD and those like him can somehow make the LP into a viable political vehicle. The obstacles the NAPsters have put in their way are surely formidable.

  156. Anthony Dlugos

    paulie, great post.

    I bestow upon you the Order of the Moderates for the day. Your half-zip Cato pullover is en route to your location.

  157. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, through the years, PF has established a remarkable ability to compartmentalize his NAPsterism (which is quite hardcore) from his political positioning. MNR had the one deviation rule. PF has broadened that to something like applied lessarchism. In theory, he’s at the ramparts with Roderick Long. In practice, he’s for pretty much anything that’s pointed in the freedom direction. And he’s almost always fair.

    I don’t know of another NAPster in the Frankel mold.

    I salute him, too.

  158. Anthony Dlugos

    I agree 100% on your assessment of paulie, RC. He’s about the most gregarious radical I’ve come across in my time.

    I’d say he’s the Libertarian analog of neoconservative journalist Irving Kristol. Not in terms of philosophy, of course.

    But, to paraphrase Kristol, he’s a neolibertarian: a radical libertarian who’s been mugged by reality.

  159. DJ

    RC: Unless doubt is TRUE. On the relative level, it’s a world full of doubt. We — as imperfect perceivers — should do our best to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it’s important — I believe — to recognize that we’re not perfect in separating wheat from chaff. Sometimes we get it wrong, or at least I do.

    Me: You forgot the preface of my statement-

    To join the Libertarian Party, you have to sign a pledge that reads: “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

    The simplicity is, well, quite simple. Don’t pledge- to any group because by doing so you will, at some point, have to defer to group think- that is a truth.<<<

    ALL Party’s, political or otherwise are disrespectful of the Individual- the Individual who pledges allegiance, or agrees to, has to or be ousted, ridiculed or shamed or whatever multiples of words the group/Party chooses. The ‘intent’ is lost in the confusion.<<>> that is what should be addressed, >>>politically<<>>intentionally<<< confusing issues.

    Which is it? Party growth or electing libertarians?

    See how confused "I" am? I'm not smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff in this instance. I do see, however, a lot of disagreement in the Party,(which validates my beliefs about Party affiliation)- as does signing the pledge, which I addressed, simply. The blog linked wants to question every definition of every word in the sentence introducing confusion to fairly established conclusions (definitions)- in my estimation involving the author in a "cottage industry", which, when reading his bio he claims to be an "internet entrepeneur"- which leads me to question sincerity of chaff separation-which I summed up with the R and D comparison.

    So, what was his point? Party growth or electing libertarians? Or, just certain libertarians who can discern, or can't, as the case may be fluid, which explaining would create more confusion and accomplish nothing but creating havoc and introducing yet more 'factions' for esoteric argument.

    My contention is: arguments like the linked are self serving, not Party serving, or election fulfilling- therefore, nonsensical, in presenting another esoteric version contributing to a "cottage industry" growth of intentionally confusing the issue, which causes divisiveness, which causes loss of Party participation and does not help gain votes for libertarians- a lose, lose situation for the Party and libertarians.

  160. DJ

    This format sucks- really hard to make a point.

    The ‘intent’ is lost in the confusion.

    that is what should be addressed, politically

    intentionally confusing issues

    is a polar opposite

  161. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Really not sure what you are getting at. I think the Pledge is a bad idea. Party growth and electing Ls both work together, particularly as a third party. Run for office with credible candidates and attract more lessarchists to the party. Elect people, attract more. Do a good job in office, attract more.

    That’s not the LP’s model. It’s more of a NAPster cult, a means to gather a vanguard of committed crypto anarchists to preach the Gospel of the Non-Initiation-of-Force.

  162. DJ

    RC: Really not sure what you are getting at.

    Me: Thanks for making my point. I’m not sure what the author of the link was getting at either- My contention is: arguments like the linked are self serving, not Party serving, or election fulfilling- therefore, nonsensical, in presenting another esoteric version contributing to a “cottage industry” growth of intentionally confusing the issue, which causes divisiveness, which causes loss of Party participation and does not help gain votes for libertarians- a lose, lose situation for the Party and libertarians.

    RC: Party growth and electing Ls both work together, particularly as a third party.

    Me: Not necessarily. Registering as a Party voter doesn’t mean the Party size has increased, regardless of the label.

    RC: Run for office with credible candidates and attract more lessarchists to the party. Elect people, attract more. Do a good job in office, attract more.

    Me: Theoretically perhaps. Credibility has malleable meaning, right? Doing a good job in office is after the fact and may, or may not, attract more of anything- except more derision.

    The above validates why I say- KISS. One foundational belief that no one can disagree with vs factional and malleable, lengthy, and/or esoteric endeavors. All men are created equal- that can’t be denied, or argued, legitimately or esoterically- it is all encompassing- gov’t exists to defend Natural rights, not parse them out as it sees fit. That can’t be denied, legitimately, without esoteric deviation. Esoteric deviation leads to intentional misinterpretation, AND confusion- which is easily pointed out in the many areas of over reaching the gov’t executes-
    Then, “build it and they will come” and all questions can be answered “simply”- be it NAP or financially or whatever- everyone wants to believe he counts- and he should, or no one should- divisions among voters is not going to go away and airing dirty laundry in public won’t make them. That airing is what happens when ‘factions’ demand whatever- it also drives away the simply curious who want to play but don’t have a place or feel comfortable- it’s rare that the average voter is bold in his actions, or associations, politically. They’re looking for comfort with a promise of results-

  163. robert capozzi

    LD: …colored people in the USA …

    Me: There’s a term I’ve not heard in decades.

  164. Andy

    It looks like Alex Jones is jumping off of the Trump train. This is a must see.

    Hey Alex, I know you hated Hillary, and for good reasons, but Donald Trump was never really on your side.

    Alex Jones Has Profanity Laced Meltdown Over Trump’s Strikes in Syria

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wG3QP5cvQk

  165. Andy

    Alex, this is what happens when you play the lesser of two evils game. You of all people should have known this.

    I know that the Libertarian Party nominated a lousy ticket in Johnson/Weld, who were basically nothing more than controlled opposition, and I know that the Constitution Party’s ticket of Castle/Bradley only made the ballot in 24 states, and I know that there was nobody else that whom it was really worth voting, but this was still not a good reason to get behind Donald Trump. Trump had no history of being any kind of libertarian on constitutionalist. He never endorsed or donated money to any pro-liberty causes. He had a history of supporting establishment candidates. He had a history of flip-flopping. So Alex, none of this should be a surprise. I’m glad to see that you are still out there fighting for liberty.

    Alex Jones: “F*ck Trump and his Family!” after Trump bombs Syria

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq7Q2Gi5ClI&t=141s

  166. DJ

    I just heard on the local news the govt’s’ fix for the opioid crisis- limit production.

    LOL….. fucking idiots

  167. Anon-Tipper

    Capozzi: “In theory, he’s at the ramparts with Roderick Long. In practice, he’s for pretty much anything that’s pointed in the freedom direction. And he’s almost always fair.”

    Unfortunately, when people think of libertarian anarchists they think of the Rothbardians (there are some left-Rothbardians though) and now the Hoppeans because there’s so many more of them. The left-leaning ones like Roderick Long I can find a lot more common ground with even though I’m not an anarchist. And a lot of the left-libertarian anarchists have been very consistent on the alt-right entryism.

  168. DJ

    A-T, Robert, Anthony, and anyone else who happens to read this, and whether you respond or not.

    Labels confuse any issue- they infer exclusivity at worst, an esoteric knowledge at best, or vice-versa, depending on the intent then the perception generated by the one(s) being labeled. It can be likened to religion. Some are zealots some are passive and ALL are confused- by the labels of denomination demands= factional= equals a divisiveness and weakening of “the” message- in the case of Libertarians I assumed when I first came here the message would be that of Liberty- now I find I have to be labeled to something agreed upon by the in crowd faction = group think- which is the antithesis of Liberty.

    Robert tells me rights don’t exist because they aren’t tangible and that NAPster is a fallacy, politically, even though rights are inherent and a non-aggression principle exercised by gov’t has never been implemented- paulie tells me the original leftist was ant-gov’t and if I’m not a leftist I’m alt-reich- when clearly the ‘modern day American leftist’ is pro-government- names are bandied about (with zeal and esoterically) as though they are prophets in a religion= denominations which are but factions struggling with “the” message, weakening the entire effort.

    I’m really confused. There are some obviously intelligent people here, and, I, a non-formally educated rube can see the problem(s) the Party faces and the only person who wants to engage me is Robert. No offense intended Robert. That alone validates the above- exclusivity, though factionally divided is still exclusivity. It equates to, IMO, close minded which is not good, politically, personally, or professionally.
    But, I “get” it. Not just anyone is welcome to participate in Liberty= exclusivity of different minded, differing factional belief, unless/until one vows to a label.

    SMH- get out of the forest so you can see the trees. Each tells a story- collectively it’s just a picture, and, in the middle of it, without a compass, one can get lost.

  169. Anthony Dlugos

    re: labels

    just to be clear, calling paulie “NeoLongite” or NeoRothbardian was meant slightly tounge-in-cheek.

  170. Anon-Tipper

    DJ: “Labels confuse any issue- they infer exclusivity at worst, an esoteric knowledge at best, or vice-versa, depending on the intent then the perception generated by the one(s) being labeled.”

    They can be useful so we don’t have to make statements on exactly what people’s stances are and can be useful to group together people with similar beliefs. At least, that’s how I use them.

  171. DJ

    A-T: At least, that’s how I use them.

    Me: There are exceptions to every rule. But, any grouping forms an exclusivity which demands an esoteric statement so the new comer knows his place- why can’t Liberty be all encompassing with a resounding statement that ensures the new comer has come to the right place? A place to feel comfortable vs the discomfort of unsurety. Make information of the esoteric variety easily available and let the new comer and the just curious decide for themselves which “group” they “choose” vs a provider choosing for them based on a preconceived notion.

    The arguing or discourse(?) among those who allegedly stand for Liberty is not very welcoming to the unknowing and not everyone is as curious, or convicted, as I am to put up with the back and forth petty bullshit that only labels afford. My conviction, BTW, is; All men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, Endowed- the conviction(s) I see here are esoteric and “groups”, by definition disrespect the Individual and that (with a few exceptions) is what I’ve observed- throw in the “at least that’s how I use them” means the Individual has already been put in a box not necessarily of his choosing but based on a perception, which typically is preconceived because- esoteric.

  172. Anon-Tipper

    DJ,

    Just use libertarian for the generic. If you want to talk about the thoughts around a specific group or movement, use the specific term. Every group has in-group terms, we can’t really control it, we needed to come up with terms to be able to describe sets of views to make it easier to communicate with each other; it’s just the natural process of language. And libertarianism is and always has been an umbrella term so it’s inevitable. It’s natural for some people to take those group labels and stereotype, we can try to be better about it, but the labels are not going to really go away as long as there are different types of libertarians.

    You just have to be around for a while to pick up on the in-group language, but everyone is libertarian so you can at first get familiar with the overall libertarian point of view, then just pick up the rest as you go.

  173. DJ

    A-T, generic fits. But, let me ‘expand’ on my conviction and it isn’t ‘just’ language, per se’.

    Rights are inherent to the Individual. Groups are granted authority and often assume an authority not granted. To me, libertarian is about the rights of the Individual, not the groups authority, granted or assumed or perceived.

    You said, (insert copy and paste) You just have to be around for a while to pick up on the in-group language,

    I addressed that with (insert copy and paste) it also drives away the simply curious who want to play but don’t have a place or feel comfortable- it’s rare that the average voter is bold in his actions, or associations, politically. They’re looking for comfort with a promise of results-

    I have found no “comfort” here, at all. I came here (insert copy and paste) in the case of Libertarians I assumed when I first came here the message would be that of Liberty- now I find I have to be labeled to something agreed upon by the in crowd faction = group think- which is the antithesis of Liberty.

    I see a lot of back and forth about how to grow the Party, this labels message, that labels message and each is an esoteric presentation with various pigeon holes, assigned by the in crowd(s) in each label. Unless you want a bunch of snobs group exclusivity is not the most expedient- growing anything, except weeds, requires dedication and time. Individual effort. Every group is made up by Individuals- all count or none do. Party’s are made up of Individuals- groups are a by-product of like minded Individuals in a particular environment- not an insiders opinion.

    Voters are looking for like minded and comfort. Comfort is the hard part to sell, but the most simple to address, yet, all I see here is petty bickering, very discomforting. Why? Labels. He’s this, he/she’s that, usually stated very derisively, e.g., NAPster is cult like, he’s alt reich, whoever is a prophet- those phrases validate my refusal at any Party affiliation- they are no different than the ones they profess to be against, politically- yes, it is “language”. Language is a tool to be used as the Individual sees fit- the “group” here uses it just like R and D’s- divide- show superiority of one over another, does it’s best to put out another’s light falsely believing it makes it’s light brighter-

    I’ve offered unsolicited from me advice stated several ways- being an ‘outsider’ affords me the opportunity to see the trees because I’m not blinded by the forest- it’s very frustrating that all anyone wants to do is argue- to what end I don’t have a clue- but, at the end of the day, as I’ve told Robert numerous times; “I” will survive- long after the Party, or group, or label has gone- coincidentally “I” is the first letter in Individual- the Party has an opportunity, fruit to be harvested from seeds of discord and discomfort others have sown, yet here we are arguing factions= discord and discomfort to the curious SMH- vs sowing more seeds- not of discord, but of Liberty, for ALL who are created equal.

  174. Anon-Tipper

    DJ,

    Yes different groups will argue with each other. Other political groups do too such a left-liberals and progressives in the Democratic party. Libertarianism and the Libertarian party is made up of a collection of people that roughly agree to similar moral stances, policy recommendations, and empirical generalizations. Unless you want it to be a contradictory mess, eventually we have to divide up libertarians into different groups, at the very least anarchists and non-anarchists.

    When talking to someone unfamiliar with libertarianism I think it’s best to just recommend some of the big names so Nozick, Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard; then to read some contemporary libertarian philosophers such as the people at the University of Arizona and the Bleeding-Heart Libertarians blog.

    Then recommend something like Reason magazine so they can see what a libertarian perspective of the world looks like (not everyone at Reason has the exact same libertarian sub-group, there’s some anachists, Hayekians etc. but you can tell that they have similar enough beliefs).

    Then Cato to see what libertarian policy recommendations look like since Cato also has different sub-groups of libertarians there yet they manage to be a coherent organization.

    If people want to argue between anarchists and non-anarchists, idc it’s going to happen, the best we can do is try to keep the party focused more on the short-term so everyone can come to an agreement on what to do now, as opposed to what we’ll do in the future.

  175. DJ

    A-T, I know all that (sorta)- where we disagree is on the instant gratification part. The future is what you will meet, if lucky, and has to be attended to now to help ensure those who do get to meet the future have been left a better present. In order to accomplish that seeds must be sown- we are, at present, reaping the harvest of seeds sown long ago.

    I agree with keeping focus- on what really counts- the future. A short term focus is easily accomplished- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, Endowed- all else is secondary. My experience when I tell people I’m libertarian is eyes glazed over- when I ask if they believe all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, they agree they do. When I tell them there is no discernible difference between D and R they often agree- then vote however they were going to in the first place. When I ask what have Republicans ever done to enhance your liberty, which is their constitutional job, they change the subject. When I ask what have Democrats done to roll back the damage Republicans have done they admit nothing- when I regain their attention I sow seeds of Liberty- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, Endowed- that doesn’t say allowed by Republican or Democrat.

    I’m leaving my space a little better than I found it- it helps ensure a better future, and my present actions can manifest themselves in ways unimaginable- I can’t control what others do. I can’t control what others think- but, I can assure them, by my actions, and with words, that respecting others is what counts and that will happen when one accepts the Truth- all men are created equal-

    Everything popular has a hook, from songs to 30 second sound bites to news headlines- I’ve yet to hear anyone use the phrase from arguably the most profound document ever penned- make it known that’s what Libertarians are about.

    From what I can tell, the Republicans I know (the majority of my acquaintances and those I call friend) are afraid of the Libertarian Party because it’s been presented as in favor of pot being legal- truly, that is what I’ve experienced. The 2 democrats I know are life long Party voters and both agree with my assessments and questions- yet they continue to vote democrat- but, I’ve sown seeds. Immediate gratification means immediately discarding when the new has worn off- seeds sown bear fruit- the harvest is yet to be determined- knowledge manifests itself in ways unimaginable, usually in the future, which I may, or may not be privy to- but I sleep well knowing I’ve done the best I can at spreading Liberty seeds for future harvesting.

    Y’all do what you want- “I” will survive, long after groups and Party’s have ceased to exist.

  176. Anon-Tipper

    DJ,

    When I say short-term vs. long-term I mean we shouldn’t squabble on what the end-state society (minimal state, anarchy, etc.) would look like, not necessarily that we shouldn’t care about the future.

    I agree with your approach with talking to people, I think most people are not into political philosophy and voting for the political party they know feels more secure than voting for a potential wildcard, but it’s still good to talk to people about issues they care about and show them a different way to think about an issue (which can then effect their future thoughts and how they approach issues).

  177. robert capozzi

    All words are just labels. If we wish to communicate, we have no other viable alternatives to words and labels.

  178. DJ

    RC: All words are just labels.

    Me: Wow! Who knew? I’m continually amazed at your vast knowledge and depth of thought- simply amazing.

  179. DJ

    A-T: When I say short-term vs. long-term I mean we shouldn’t squabble on what the end-state society (minimal state, anarchy, etc.) would look like, not necessarily that we shouldn’t care about the future

    Me: Gotcha- thanks for clearing that up. I couldn’t agree more.

  180. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Well, thanks.

    It’s not obvious that you actually understand the point, since you read the words in the Constitution as literally as you apparently do.

  181. DJ

    RC: Well, thanks.

    Me: No, let me thank you. I enjoy learning- knowledge isn’t biased where it comes from- and can manifest itself in ways unimaginable- literally- obvious or not. And I also want to thank you for the opportunity’s you present for sowing seeds.

    FYI- the constitution is the law, the rules, by which the governers are to abide by and all others are to be judged by through the judiciary- explicit terminology is not open to debate. Intentional misinterpretation produced the results we’re living- literally. Interpretation cannot exist without definition- literally. Obviously, interpretation is used to achieve a goal- not always to one’s liking- intentional misinterpretation to achieve a goal is by definition (IMO) lying. Law makers pay others to teach them to lie legally- literally- and have achieved a goal- control over the population which was not the original intent which is obvious to anyone not trying to twist, spin, or castigate to effect a pre-determind outcome not conducive to enhancing or protecting citizens from tyranny or trying to look smarter than they are- and IMO failing in their desire, but, effectively convincing the vast, vast majority that they have been empowered with not-granted authority to act as an omnipotent with pretentiousness bordering on hallucinations of grandeur, which ain’t bad for a servant- literally. That has been achieved by the sowing of seeds and the spreading of manure to fertilize the mind of the young- literally. Those seeds produced fruit- the quality of the fruit is open to interpretation- the results are obvious- sowing seeds works.

    Now, you may disagree with my interpretation, or not, but don’t pretend you know better than I what is good for me or mine- nor does the vast, vast majority- and that authority was not granted in the constitution- obviously, but was, IMO, addressed with the enumerated powers granted- granted power or authority can be rescinded- rights can’t- they are inherent and can only be restricted- if not then life has no meaning, or use, to the pursuer- and it is obvious the rulers who have deemed themselves omnipotent can use the life of others as cannon fodder because- intentional misinterpretation. You (and others) may be comfortable with that. I’m not. And I believe I am obligated to point it out- literally.

  182. Anon-Tipper

    I updated the Laura Ebke article (http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/04/libertarian-state-senator-laura-ebke/) since someone posted a follow up story of the bill. (https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/18/nebraska-just-passed-a-major-licensing-r) Thought I would post it her just in case someone misses the old article, but wants to know what happened. Still waiting for the governor’s signature, he’s currently helping her opposition in her re-election campaign, but she’s optimistic that he’ll sign.

  183. DJ

    Oh, and Robert, “I” will survive, in spite of, if not to spite the will of the people, a Party, the group et al- literally. History provided the evidence. It’s not an interpretation just a recognition that the Individual will be around for all time.

  184. DJ

    A-T, I appreciate this attempt to bring licensing to light. I’ve long questioned that authority, and this is a step in exposing another fee (revenue generation) for control over an Individual’s rights of their pursuit(s) in Life, never mind the restricting of Liberty and adversely affecting Happiness.

  185. DJ

    LOL….. about time.

    Gorsuch Explains His Vote in Deportation Case: “The Constitution Demands More”

    Gorsuch said in his concurring opinion:

    Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolution, the crime of treason in English law was so capaciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders cited the crown’s abuse of “pretended” crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. See Declaration of Independence ¶21. Today’s vague laws may not be as invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same—by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.

    The law before us today is such a law. Before holding a lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya subject to removal for having committed a crime, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows. The law’s silence leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate. In my judgment, the Constitution demands more.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/28783-gorsuch-explains-his-vote-in-deportation-case-the-constitution-demands-more

  186. Gina

    I bet most of the students “walking out” went off to smoke weed for 4/20, not protest for gun control much less celebrate Hitler’s birthday.

  187. Andy

    If only what Gina said above about the school walk out were true (as in that the kids were walking out to smoke weed, or just to cut class, rather than marching in favor of gun control).

  188. DJ

    Andy: If only what Gina said above about the school walk out were true (as in that the kids were walking out to smoke weed, or just to cut class, rather than marching in favor of gun control).

    Me: It probably is true- just not covered that way. The media doesn’t like the truth.

Leave a Reply

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