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.

350 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

  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. Andy

    So is Julie Borowski is anti-women’s rights?

    Julie Borowski: Why You Should Be Pro Life

  70. 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?

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. 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.

  74. 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-

  75. 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.”

  76. 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.

  77. Anon-Tipper

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

  78. 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.

  79. 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

  80. 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.

  81. 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?

  82. 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”.

  83. 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?

  84. 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.

  85. 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.

  86. 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.

  87. 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.

  88. 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.

  89. 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.

  90. 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).

  91. 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?

  92. 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.

  93. 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.

  94. 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….

  95. 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?

  96. 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.

  97. robert capozzi

    more…

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

  98. Andy

    Check out part 1 of my interview with libertarian YouTuber, That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown) from Anarchapulco 2018, in Acapluco, Mexico.

    Interview with That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown) at Anarchapulco, 2/18/18 Part 1

  99. Andy

    Check out part 2 of my interview with libertarian YouTuber, That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown) at Anarchapulco 2018, in Acapulco, Mexico.

    Interview with That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown) at Anarchapulco, 2/18/18 Part 2

  100. 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?

  101. 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”

  102. 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?

  103. Seebeck

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

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

  104. 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.

  105. 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.

  106. 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.

  107. 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.

  108. 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.

  109. 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.

  110. 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…

  111. 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.

  112. 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.

  113. 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.

  114. 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.

  115. 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.

  116. 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).

  117. 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.

  118. 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.

  119. 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.

  120. 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.

  121. 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.

  122. 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.

  123. 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.

  124. 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.

  125. DJ

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

  126. DJ

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

  127. 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.

  128. 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?

  129. 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?

  130. 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.”

  131. 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.

  132. 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.”

  133. 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.

  134. 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.

  135. 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.

  136. robert capozzi

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

    me: Money line, in spades.

  137. 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.

  138. 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?

  139. 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.

  140. 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.

  141. 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?

  142. 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.”

  143. 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.

  144. 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.

  145. 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.

  146. 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.

  147. 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….

  148. 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….

  149. 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.

  150. 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-

  151. 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.

  152. 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?

  153. 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.

  154. 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?

  155. Anthony Dlugos

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

  156. 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?

  157. 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.

  158. 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.

  159. 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.

  160. 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.

  161. 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.

  162. 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.

  163. 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

  164. 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.

  165. 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-

  166. robert capozzi

    LD: …colored people in the USA …

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

  167. 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

  168. 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

  169. DJ

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

    LOL….. fucking idiots

  170. 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.

  171. 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.

  172. Anthony Dlugos

    re: labels

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

  173. 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.

  174. 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.

  175. 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.

  176. 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.

  177. 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.

  178. 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.

  179. 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).

  180. robert capozzi

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

  181. 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.

  182. 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.

  183. 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.

  184. 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.

  185. 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.

  186. 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.

  187. 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.

  188. 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

  189. 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.

  190. 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).

  191. 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.

  192. Anon-Tipper

    There’s an email chain on the NH re-elections: http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/012755.html

    I had mentioned it in another thread, but I believe (and it looks like it from these emails) that Stallcop is not running for re-election (I believe that he is going away for college). But the other two are, so just posting this to get the word out if anyone has time or money to help them. NH’s districts are very small so they need time to visit their constituents, and I think this could make or break their campaign.

  193. Seebeck

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

    And the winning man knows both what is right and what will sell, and how to connect them properly. -Me

    This is where Vohra failed and why he needed to go. He forsook the latter in extreme favor of the former, while forgetting that while in a position of leadership he needed to balance and connect both.

    As I stated elsewhere, the problem was that quality of what he stated was atrocious, and in the leadership position, the standard of what is acceptable in statements is far higher than the average rank-and-file. It comes with the position, which every person who has held those offices, or been a candidate, agreed to when they sought the office. That includes me, too, as I have been a party officer and candidate, so I write from experience.

    The Libertarian Party is in the business of selling, and the products are individual freedom, limited government, peace with self-defense and non-aggression, prosperity, personal responsibility, and the sanctity of property rights beginning with the individual. The rhetoric we use to sell those products, like selling products in the non-political arena, matters. Understanding the target audience matters as well.

    For example, “Where’s the Beef?” was ridiculously successful because it played both to the audience’s sense of humor with the oversized bun, but also because it played the message that the other guys’ burgers sucked without implicitly or directly saying so, because to do so would have too much for the market to tolerate.

    Other marketplace examples abound.

    Translating that to the political arena, marketing matters, and that is an area where the LP has been historically poor at, although it is getting better in spite of itself. Branding is only one part of it, but messaging is another.

    That leads to the key point: One can certainly present radical libertarian positions in a marketable manner without compromising the position!

    How do I know this? Because I have done this.

    In my last candidacy for CO state legislature, endorsed by the LPRC, I was at a candidate forum where the overall topic was the mental health of students in schools, with the desire to address the issues that lead kids to shoot them up. Despite the left-leaning nature of the forum, there never was any discussion of firearms in the slightest. It was focused entirely on the schools and their environment. Naturally, the libertarian position is to abolish the schools, but that was completely out of context for the forum, and while I did mention that, I also admitted that was a non-starter in that forum and moved to focus on the topic at hand. I then took it to a level that blew their collectivist socks off by presenting a collaborative and individualist approach to the problem. While their focus was on more staff for mental health services in the schools, which was just expanding government, I pointed out that it would be inefficient and a waste of tax dollars. Instead, I proposed changing the curricula to require that the kids learn how their words and actions impact each other, to get each of them to think about their interactions with each other, to get them all onboard with helping each other and lifting each other up instead of putting each other down (my exact words). I shifted it from being a discussion about top-down governance to bottoms-up collaboration with government only assisting the effort, placing the responsibility and accountability on the students instead. I framed the argument initially as, “instead of 1 or 2 counselors, why not several hundred?” and went from there. By the time I was done, the room resembled a Bobblehead shelf in an earthquake–people were nodding with wide-eyed understanding.

    THAT’S how you present a libertarian message in a statist market. I shifted away from the low-hanging fruit of “abolish the schools” to the much more sublime and appreciated “let’s help these kids grow up and help them help each other,” a classic individualist and libertarian response. Did I compromise the message? Not at all. I simply marketed it in a different manner towards what I perceived the nature of the receptiveness of the audience instead of going in with a predetermined spiel.

    In 2009 or so I presented a marketing seminar to LPCA candidates on branding and yard signs. I illustrated how branding attaches an impression of a product to the populace, and then applied that to how proper presentation through yard signs can build a candidate’s brand with the electorate (ask Norm “Firecracker” Westwell in Orange County about that, too, since he was doing it for years!). That included what worked and what didn’t and why. We need our candidates and our leadership to understand that the fundamental concept in politics is that perception is reality. With the LP being under the microscope with our opponents looking for every little thing to nitpick and criticize about, the attention to that concept and how we present ourselves to the public as candidates and party leaders must be even more tight and focused and disciplined, because the standard of perfection is imposed on them, justified or not, whether we like it or not.

    In the political arena, the libertarian brand and the LP brand matter and matter greatly.

    We have seen way too many candidates and leaders in the past fail to understand that. Barr/Root and Johnson/Weld are only the latest examples on the candidate side. The leadership side has seen their own examples with Vohra being only the latest.

    Where Vohra went off the rails is his simple lack of quality in his statements. Calling the troops “child murderers” or whatever it was to call attention to the fact that the troops should be questioning the policies and orders put forth by commanders and especially politicians is poor quality. Directly stating that peace is only achievable by having an informed and questioning corps of troops from officers on down to line enlisted is a far better way to state it without going inflammatory and embarrassing the Party. Calling for the murder of school board members, joking or not, in a party that explicitly disavows murder, is not only absurd and atrocious, but definitely doesn’t play in Peoria. Stating that school boards tend to exacerbate the problem inherent in the public schools, and therefore they need to be removed and the structure dismantled in favor of something that actually works, is not only on message but perfectly rational.

    In 2002 Colorado’s Senate candidate, who eventually went to jail for threatening a state judge, called on his opponent, a sitting US Senator, to be hanged. As the state Media Director at the time I had to issue a press statement that had the LPCO correctly disavowing that aggression. I got roasted for doing my job by the Rickbots, because we (LPCO) stated that the Senator should not be hanged, but just voted out of office. Rick Stanley was in the same bomb-throwing vein as Arvin Vohra and was just as much of a public perception problem then as Vohra is now. So, this stuff is nothing new, and it will likely happen again–unless we as a Party do better in developing our candidates, leadership, and infrastructure to support them.

    I, too, read Nick Sarwark’s reasons for his no vote. I respect his decision, because Nick is an extremely rational person and is probably the best LNC Chair we’ve had in decades, but I also disagree with him on those vote reasons. The positions of Party leadership are ones of representatives of the Party membership who have placed their trust in those persons to represent them on the LNC. That representation includes the public facing of the Party. While Nick has been exemplary in that role, Vohra has been far from it, and their positions are no place to play good-cop-bad-cop roles, either. IMO, Vohra abdicated his responsibility to the Party membership when he went off the rails, and that, coupled with the public face damage he has done to the Party, is why he needed to go.

  194. Seebeck

    My home town of Boulder is about to define me as a criminal if I do not disarm or move.

    They cannot; they only think they can.

    https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-29/miscellaneous/article-11.7/section-29-11.7-103/

    2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
    Title 29 – Government – Local
    Miscellaneous
    Article 11.7 – Regulation of Firearms
    § 29-11.7-103. Regulation – type of firearm – prohibited

    A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.

  195. Anthony Dlugos

    “And the winning man knows both what is right and what will sell, and how to connect them properly.”

    -Me

    I’m glad you feel this way, Me. After all, this is the arena of electoral politics, and we need to know what we offer will sell to our target audience.

    “One can certainly present radical libertarian positions in a marketable manner without compromising the position!’

    I would hope a radical would think this, or else what’s the point?

    “In the political arena, the libertarian brand and the LP brand matter and matter greatly. We have seen way too many candidates and leaders in the past fail to understand that. Barr/Root and Johnson/Weld are only the latest examples on the candidate side.”

    I’d say Johnson understood very well that the LP brand matters, and…just as importantly…he understood the limitations of the actual office he was running for, and the limitations of the campaign itself, limitations involving time, most specifically.

    Johnson had a modesty about what he would be able to accomplish if he actually won the Presidency, and a modesty about his explanatory powers in a campaign that lasts just a few months. This is why, when the “Bake The Cake” controversy bubbled up, he basically said, “I’m not going to get into that” or “That leads you down a black hole,” or some such comment. He had a list of policies which he thought were important, and he wasn’t going to be diverted from those.”

    Radicals typically lack this modesty. No matter what issue is brought up, its not a matter of that issue not being important. EVERY issue is important to the Radical, no matter how esoteric: its all in the marketing. The idea that a particular issue is beyond the scope of a particular campaign is almost instinctively objectionable to them.

    This is not surprising. If you are starting from a Utopian end game of “a world set free in our lifetime,” there is no way to respond to “Should people be able to own private nukes,” with a simple “No.”

    This is why defeating a Radical Libertarian in the electoral arena is a simple matter of Rope-a-Dope. Just pose to them a series of extreme policy positions. They’ll punch themselves out trying to defend them, or some position so close to them that really makes the difference moot.

    However, I could be wrong. It might be that a Radical could present an uncompromising radical message that is marketable. The question ends up being: how do we determine marketability? if you are willing to abide by the generally accepted metric in the electoral arena…votes…then I say, “good luck.”

    On the other hand, if you are going to suggest that, if a radical message wins an internal party vote or a radical wins an elective seat somewhere, that is proof a radical message can sell, but if a moderate like Johnson wins an internal party vote or an elective seat somewhere, he is eschewing principle in doing so and so the win means nothing, then you are just presenting me a “tails I win, heads you lose” argument.

  196. Seebeck

    It’s rather obvious that RJ missed the point completely and has overdosed on the Johnson Kool-Aid.

    I’d say Johnson understood very well that the LP brand matters, and…just as importantly…he understood the limitations of the actual office he was running for, and the limitations of the campaign itself, limitations involving time, most specifically.

    No, he didn’t because he never really embraced the brand, and his message should have been one of bipartisan governing success that the other candidates didn’t have. He deliberately walked away from that and wound up shooting himself in the foot, badly.

    Johnson had a modesty about what he would be able to accomplish if he actually won the Presidency, and a modesty about his explanatory powers in a campaign that lasts just a few months. This is why, when the “Bake The Cake” controversy bubbled up, he basically said, “I’m not going to get into that” or “That leads you down a black hole,” or some such comment. He had a list of policies which he thought were important, and he wasn’t going to be diverted from those.”

    Like banning a burqua, or not reading a bleeping map of Syria?

    If he had a list of policies, he sure didn’t present them at all.

    Radicals typically lack this modesty. No matter what issue is brought up, its not a matter of that issue not being important. EVERY issue is important to the Radical, no matter how esoteric: its all in the marketing. The idea that a particular issue is beyond the scope of a particular campaign is almost instinctively objectionable to them.

    Incorrect. We Radicals see that they all tie together, and that puts them on equal footing of importance. The issue is how to present them. You clearly don’t understand how to campaign much.

    This is not surprising. If you are starting from a Utopian end game of “a world set free in our lifetime,” there is no way to respond to “Should people be able to own private nukes,” with a simple “No.”

    Try again. I not only have responded to that with a No, but I have explained why in the past, and it’s a very simple reason, which is obviously lost on you. Private nukes are not part of a free society, and the fact that you jump into Utopian rhetoric only shows that you don’t understand the arguments, either. in my campaigns, nobody ever brought that extreme absurdity up, either.

    This is why defeating a Radical Libertarian in the electoral arena is a simple matter of Rope-a-Dope. Just pose to them a series of extreme policy positions. They’ll punch themselves out trying to defend them, or some position so close to them that really makes the difference moot.

    That has nothing to do with being Radical or not; it has everything to do with everything I stated above, which just proves that you missed the point completely.

    However, I could be wrong.

    You are.

    It might be that a Radical could present an uncompromising radical message that is marketable. The question ends up being: how do we determine marketability? if you are willing to abide by the generally accepted metric in the electoral arena…votes…then I say, “good luck.”

    It is, and I explained how above. Why you don’t understand that is your problem. I didn’t pull the highest vote percentage in the state and 4th highest overall in the nation (on $0!) because I got lucky.

    On the other hand, if you are going to suggest that, if a radical message wins an internal party vote or a radical wins an elective seat somewhere, that is proof a radical message can sell, but if a moderate like Johnson wins an internal party vote or an elective seat somewhere, he is eschewing principle in doing so and so the win means nothing, then you are just presenting me a “tails I win, heads you lose” argument.

    One again, you miss the point completely.

    Go reread what I wrote and actually think about it.

  197. Anthony Dlugos

    I read what you wrote. There’s really nothing new, and thus nothing to think about.

    I’m not gonna rehash the 2016 campaign. I say Johnson embraced the brand, you say he did not. We’ll never agree on that. However, I will tell you that this is electoral politics. He (or she) who wins the presidential nomination essentially defines the brand. That’s why we argue and debate about it.

    If you think the problem with the radical message is one that merely about presentation, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Its not just about private nukes. It could be about privatizing social security, ending Medicare, or some other radical change. Whether its one specific issue, or the cumulative effect of multiple positions outside the acceptable range of policy for the typical voter, the Radical will eventually make him or herself un-electable. Its not just marketing. There is a fundamental disconnect between what the radical thinks is within the range of acceptable policy positions and what actually is.

    In any event, there is a substantial difference between running for a state legislature seat and running for the Presidency.

  198. dL

    The Libertarian Party is in the business of selling, and the products are individual freedom, limited government, peace with self-defense and non-aggression, prosperity, personal responsibility, and the sanctity of property rights beginning with the individual. The rhetoric we use to sell those products, like selling products in the non-political arena, matters. Understanding the target audience matters as well.

    Politics is not a consumer products market. The fact that people are still selling snake oil in that “market” tells you that it isn’t.

  199. Anthony Dlugos

    Look, if Seebeck wants to argue that, had Vohra presented a radical message with a lot more couth, he would not have been on the ass-end of an 11-6 vote of no-confidence, I’d agree 100%.

    But that’s what I find perplexing about so many Radicals during this drama (obviously not including Seebeck): they should haven been the first ones to want to cut the guy loose, seeing what damage he’s done to their message.

    Not sure what they’d expect a moderate to do if you are telling said moderates that what Vohra has said is not ground for removal. I commend the radical for being honest about it, but why trust them in a position of authority again?

  200. Seebeck

    Politics is not a consumer products market. The fact that people are still selling snake oil in that “market” tells you that it isn’t.

    Oh, but it is a consumer products market, and the marketing methodologies are identical. The only difference is how and where you buy the products being sold.

  201. Anthony Dlugos

    “Oh, but it is a consumer products market, and the marketing methodologies are identical. The only difference is how and where you buy the products being sold.”

    Damn straight.

    And don’t forget something else: just like any other consumer product market, once a producer puts a product on the market, it gets affected by the wants/needs/desires of the consumers themselves.

    Be careful of the path you are taking, Seebeck, there are some Radicals who can see further ahead than you, and know where it leads. You might not like where it ends up.

  202. Seebeck

    I read what you wrote. There’s really nothing new, and thus nothing to think about.

    In other words, you have zero to state, because you refuse to see the reality and truth of what I have stated.

    I’m not gonna rehash the 2016 campaign. I say Johnson embraced the brand, you say he did not. We’ll never agree on that. However, I will tell you that this is electoral politics. He (or she) who wins the presidential nomination essentially defines the brand. That’s why we argue and debate about it.

    Yes, this is electoral politics, and I have run for office, more than once, and I have run campaigns as well. I was doing this rodeo long ago, saved my constituents tens of millions of dollars in the process, and averaged 32% of the vote on an average campaign cost of $25 total. Yeah, I sort of know what I’m doing. But I can guarantee you that whoever wins the Presidential nomination does NOT necessarily define the brand. Do you think Trump defines the GOP? Because if you pay attention to the GOP machinations, he doesn’t. He certainly is the most visible, but he does not the define the brand; he doesn’t even follow their platform, even less than Johnson/Weld did the LP platform. Johnson and Weld most certainly did not define the LP brand in 2016. Neither did Barr/Root in 2008, or any other LP Presidential candidate since Harry Browne. They defined their own brand, but not the LP—that is defined by the membership. I can tell you point blank that they never came up in either my campaign or any of the ones I knew about in CO. But then again, I’ve been doing this for almost two decades, so what do I know?

    If you think the problem with the radical message is one that merely about presentation, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Its [sic] not just about private nukes. It could be about privatizing social security, ending Medicare, or some other radical change. Whether its [sic] one specific issue, or the cumulative effect of multiple positions outside the acceptable range of policy for the typical voter, the Radical will eventually make him or herself un-electable. Its [sic] not just marketing. There is a fundamental disconnect between what the radical thinks is within the range of acceptable policy positions and what actually is.

    Well, that’s why you are wrong, because I’m walking proof that you’re wrong. You obviously are a novice when it comes to proper campaign techniques and how to market oneself politically and commercially. As I stated before, it’s about knowing your audience and framing the message properly. You refuse to accept that. Your loss. In the case of Johnson/Weld, their loss, too. I told Gary to his face, directly and in person, that he needed to lay off the cannabis stuff and focus exclusively on the governing experience across the aisles and being the DC outsider. I was discounted, and hey, guess what?—the outsider won, as was easily predictable when Trump announced in the first place.

    BTW, the proper form is “it’s,” not “its.” If you can’t even articulate using proper grammar and such, then why should we take anything you say seriously, since it shows you to be that novice?

    In any event, there is a substantial difference between running for a state legislature seat and running for the Presidency.

    Nobody said otherwise. But, that’s merely your deflection from the real issue, which is marketing. Nitpicking over the level of the race does zero to take away from the fundamental points I made in the first place, and nothing you have stated has done that, either.

  203. Seebeck

    And don’t forget something else: just like any other consumer product market, once a producer puts a product on the market, it gets affected by the wants/needs/desires of the consumers themselves.

    And consumers are also a very fickle crowd. Having owned a small business once a long time ago and having ran it successfully before I sold it for 100% of my original investment, I know exactly how that works. As stated before, know thy audience, and know thy market.

    Be careful of the path you are taking, Seebeck, there are some Radicals who can see further ahead than you, and know where it leads. You might not like where it ends up.

    Well, since you are neither a Radical or that forward-thinking, I doubt you have much of any idea. The road to freedom is difficult, and the road to electoral success also causes more scrutiny. But I have also seen a married mother of two kids publicly destroy a statist complaining about the legalization of prostitution with one brilliant and simple sentence, and I also understand how to convey the message without making libertarian thought out to be lunacy, which is something a lot of people simply don’t get (but some do), and those that don’t get it apparently includes you. It actually isn’t that difficult, either, if one thinks it out instead of applying stereotypes as you are doing.

    Do not assume me to be some sort of amateur, either. I am far from it, and my record in this party speaks for itself.

  204. Seebeck

    Look, if Seebeck wants to argue that, had Vohra presented a radical message with a lot more couth, he would not have been on the ass-end of an 11-6 vote of no-confidence, I’d agree 100%.

    I actually have said that in other places besides here, and I have been there dealing with other persons in the LP. Vohra’s lack of tact and lack of proper messaging is why he is perceived as a problem and why he must go. I called that back when he did the “troops are child murderers” schtick. I live in a county with 5 military bases, and that kind of message goes over here like a crate full of lead feathers. Again, know thy market and know thy audience.

    (Side note: Knowing one’s audience and market means that as a candidate and a political leader, one must understand the issues that are impacting that audience and market and have libertarian solutions beyond abstract verbiage that people glaze out on since it shows the person pontificating has no solution. That’s why even at the county level platforms should be customized to those local issues, and there should be programs to achieve the goals. Programs in the LP are as rare as ivory-billed woodpeckers. I ran on local issues from a libertarian perspective, which is rare enough.)

    But that’s what I find perplexing about so many Radicals during this drama (obviously not including Seebeck): they should haven been the first ones to want to cut the guy loose, seeing what damage he’s done to their message.

    There is a tendency in the LP to not let go of our own problem children, as reprehensible as they may be. Ask LPCA about Barnes, LPFL about their ongoing mess, or LPOR about theirs—or even why the Starr Chamber is still around the LNC after their rejection in St. Louis in 2010. While some of our own are definitely long-time assets to the LP, others are definitely long-time liabilities.

    Not sure what they’d expect a moderate to do if you are telling said moderates that what Vohra has said is not ground for removal. I commend the radical for being honest about it, but why trust them in a position of authority again?

    Why trust a moderate in a position of authority if they are going to undermine principles and common sense in favor of some misguided sense of loyalty to a person over loyalty to a cause? Got news for you, that problem runs across ideological lines and parties. It’s why the Democrats are imploding (Hillary) and why the GOP has an identity crisis between the Deep State and Trump.

    In the bloodsport of politics, sometimes the bloodletting requires turnover. The LP’s problem is that the turnover is harder because the people resources are far more scarce, and with that comes the reluctance to do so, and many good people who leave or get burned out never come back, while the bad others entrench and never leave even though they should. And that is why over the 18 years-plus that I’ve been doing this, some of the same old bad apples are still around and why so many great folk have left.

  205. Just Some Random Guy

    Politics is not a consumer products market. The fact that people are still selling snake oil in that “market” tells you that it isn’t.

    But people DO sell snake oil on the consumer products market. All someone has to do is look at how well the alternative medicine market is doing right now (I’m not saying all of it is snake oil but a good portion of it is).

  206. dL

    All someone has to do is look at how well the alternative medicine market is doing right now (I’m not saying all of it is snake oil but a good portion of it is).

    You mean vitamins? Vitamins/supplements are not snake oil.

  207. robert capozzi

    dL:[Politics is] a rent-seeking game…

    me: I track, to some extent. I’d note that in order to gain a position in the rent-seeking, a pol and its party needs to market benign-sounding ideas. Voters need to believe that they will benefit in some small way by the election of their candidate. There also needs to be some sense that the candidate and its party advocate for a fairer, more just, civil society.

    NAPsters tend to frame their positions as self-evident morality. Taxation is theft, government is coercive, therefore we need to abolish almost all of it…fast. While there are likely more NAPsters than there was in 1970, they still represent probably less than 1% of the population.

    Is this attributable to poor marketing by NAPsters? Does NAPsterist theory suffer from a fatal flaw?

    I’d contend both are true.

  208. dL

    Oh, but it is a consumer products market, and the marketing methodologies are identical.

    A consumer products market is one where a large number of roughly equal firms are selling roughly the same thing with relatively slight product differentiation. For example:

    https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=s9_acss_bw_cg_mclnav_2a1_w?_encoding=UTF8&node=2476517011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-4&pf_rd_r=XK21E0W5BTD4VXEZZK7F&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=8a8f09ed-5cb5-5dc6-8bb3-60e637fbcb91&pf_rd_i=1040658

    That’s not politics. I won’t bore you with a lecture on the Tullock Auction, the differences between perfect competition and Cournot (duopoly) competition, monopoly, oligopoly, etc. I will simply make a trivial observation vis a vis consumer products. When I make a consumer product purchase, I expect immediate consumer satisfaction. For example I can click on that link above, use my Amazon credit card, have the product delivered at my doorstep within two days, and when I use/wear it, I expect some level of immediate utility/ satisfaction.

    Now what is it that you are selling that can be delivered at my doorstep within, say, a week, and will give me immediate consumer satisfaction?

  209. DJ

    dl: Now what is it that you are selling that can be delivered at my doorstep within, say, a week, and will give me immediate consumer satisfaction?

    Me: Instant gratification = shortened usefulness. Voters don’t recognize that reality when voting, but, they do look for it in product selection and often their expectations of usefulness exceeds the gratification of instantaneous results, rendering their effort at gratification less than expected- yet they continue to spend on different a product, often with diminished expectations and accept lesser quality.

    Of course Amazon has changed that, somewhat, since nearly any product is available from it- however, we don’t have an Amazon for politicians who sell service, not product, though there are some sites who offer ‘ratings’ and personal testimony of service for those who offer service. The service is not always immediately available, regardless of their advertising its fast and 24 hr ‘promise’- which is what politicians offer, a “promise”, and voters trust the politicians because that’s what they’ve been taught to do and the media tells them to, covertly or overtly, depending on the politician favored- thus “marketing” is the key. Politicians market personality to gain trust to effect, or change, policy- then don’t = short usefulness based on instant gratification desires of “promise”.

    It’s a vicious circle played in a vicious cycle and instant gratification plays into the scheme well.

  210. dL

    Instant gratification = shortened usefulness.

    For better or worse, that is what a consumer product is. Of course, politics is not a consumer product, notwithstanding the gobbledygook being advanced here.

  211. dL

    I’d note that in order to gain a position in the rent-seeking, a pol and its party needs to market benign-sounding ideas.

    No, they don’t. The political discourse today is that other side is unfathomable evil, directed by conspiratorial forces(Russians, globalists, etc) intent on imposing tyranny on the country. Much of US foreign policy is implemented in secret, with no public review. Public legislation is often a complicated, convoluted foray into naked regulatory capture that by and large has dispensed with even a pretense of public debate. The phrase “We have to pass the bill to know what’s in it” is not an empty slogan. It means: we will know what the bill means only after the post hoc rent bargaining.

    Bob, you live in a fantasy world, a world that has no intersection with the real world.

  212. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Well, thanks for the feedback.

    It looks to me you see no difference between “running for office” vs. “what pols do once elected.” I see those as quite different. Pols generally don’t run on the convolutions you cite, they simplify and market themselves and their views.

    I may well live in a “fantasy world,” but on this matter, I am a realist.

    You generally disengage when you are mistaken. Will you maintain your track record? Odds seem good. 😉

  213. dL

    It looks to me you see no difference between “running for office” vs. “what pols do once elected.”

    Much less of a difference now than, say, 20 years ago. Nowadays the “shiny city on as hill” BS seems quite quaint.

    You generally disengage when you are mistaken.

    I “disengage” when I’m busy with other things, like I am now…

  214. robert capozzi

    dL: Much less of a difference now than, say, 20 years ago

    me: IOW, you see my point, put most elliptically.

    I just notice that when you get your facts incorrect, you avoid the subject or deflect.

    When you seem to think you are still on strong ground, you are relentless in pressing your point.

  215. Anon-Tipper

    Found this talk by Roderick Long on Rothbard’s earlier Left alliance ideas and how we should think about left and right, what is characterized by both, etc. He also mentions Herbert Spencer’s move towards working with the Tories and how it changed his thoughts and the implications this has for present day libertarians alliance with the right potentially corrupting libertarianism into apologizing for business, present-day capitalism, and current property titles. This came up in the LNC meeting thread, might be interesting for anyone here.

  216. George Phillies

    The Michigan Libertarian Gubernatorial primary will be contested between Mr. Gelineau and Mr. Tatar.
    Jeff Wood filed financial paperwork but did not have enough signatures.

  217. DJ

    Found this talk by Roderick Long on Rothbard’s earlier Left alliance ideas and how we should think about left and right, what is characterized by both, etc.

    Text version is at https://mises.org/library/rothbards-left-and-right-forty-years-later
    …………………….

    That’s all fine and dandy, until one looks at actions vs words.

    https://corpwatch.org/article/what-neoliberalism

    Both sides leadership subscribe to the same policy beliefs. They just use different rhetoric to sell their bullshit. Imperialism. Hegemony. Financed by the fed reserve. All 3 by forced association.

    The “left”, (especially in the US) as portrayed today, is by ‘militants’, usually students who have all the answers without knowing all the questions (typical teenagers), and ‘professional’ protesters who are paid by those whose skin in the game is rewarded by turmoil and forced association, using capitalist tools (market rewards) to promote to fund anti-capitalist agenda’s.

    All the philosophical beliefs, of past intellectuals, has been corrupted and not applicable to today’s (US) standards. Today’s US leftist are anti-freedom. Today’s US conservatives are anti-freedom. Both, leadership and voter, believe their ’causes’ are true American beliefs and both believe they can force their beliefs with no repercussions.

    Libertarians are eating each other debating esoteric nonsense. Libertarians should focus on libertarian philosophy- freedom. Win hearts, minds will follow. Think, plan and act long term. Instant gratification has a short usefulness shelf life. The above stated corruption(s) didn’t happen over night and they won’t be fixed, or even abated, in our life time. But, the plant of Liberty is a plant of rapid growth- all plants come from seeds.

  218. robert capozzi

    DJ: Libertarians are eating each other debating esoteric nonsense.

    Me: Agreed. The “esoteric nonsense” is embedded in the LP’s foundational documents, protected by legalistic depth charges. Hence, the “eating each other” is baked in, unfortunately.

  219. Anon-Tipper

    DJ: “Libertarians are eating each other debating esoteric nonsense. Libertarians should focus on libertarian philosophy- freedom. Win hearts, minds will follow. ”

    Roderick’s talk is more about who we have political alliances with, because libertarians have to get into an alliance if they want to have a place in government (libertarians are too small in the population in general) or influence policy, we need to be careful on where we place ourselves and who we work with. It has a more practical application than just thinking about political philosophy. It can be used to guide alliances, or a way to judge whether an alliance would be fruitful. And it’s a good way to evaluate the current libertarian conservative alliance.

  220. Andy

    Anon-Tipper said: “Roderick’s talk is more about who we have political alliances with, because libertarians have to get into an alliance if they want to have a place in government (libertarians are too small in the population in general) or influence policy,”

    This is an example of why promoting “open borders” into democratic welfare states with forced association laws is not a true libertarian position. Every statistical analysis shows that a super-majority of modern day “immigrants” (I use the term loosely, because I don’t think that a lot of these people even deserve to be called immigrants, as I would say that invader is a more appropriate term for a lot of these people) favor an expansion of the welfare state and more gun control laws, among other authoritarian political positions. This is not leading to more freedom, it is actually leading to less.

    The people you live around have a direct correlation to how much freedom you have. If you are surrounded by people with Marxist or theocratic or other totalitarian ideologies, you will not have freedom.

    If libertarians want to form a free society, they need to surround themselves with others who want the same thing.

  221. Anon-Tipper

    Andy,

    I’m going to doubt that most immigrants have marxist sympathies, if they even know much about it in the first place. It’s not a very common held view in the population in general. I don’t think libertarianism is a viable theory if it has to rely on authoritarianism (immigration restrictions) to be keep it stable (I however don’t think immigration would de-stablize it)

  222. paulie Post author

    Roderick’s talk is more about who we have political alliances with, because libertarians have to get into an alliance if they want to have a place in government (libertarians are too small in the population in general) or influence policy, we need to be careful on where we place ourselves and who we work with. It has a more practical application than just thinking about political philosophy. It can be used to guide alliances, or a way to judge whether an alliance would be fruitful. And it’s a good way to evaluate the current libertarian conservative alliance.

    Agreed!

  223. paulie Post author

    Andy’s nonsense about immigration has been disproven in past threads hundreds, maybe thousands of times. He just keeps repeating the same bulshit talking points which originate with open racists. Save yourself some time, don’t read and especially don’t engage any of his comments on the subject.

  224. Just Some Random Guy

    @ dL

    You mean vitamins? Vitamins/supplements are not snake oil.

    I was referring more to things like homeopathy.

  225. Andy

    Nothing I have said in regard to proper application of immigration/migration policy has ever been refuted by anyone. Also, the contention that this discussion is solely about race or ethnicity is not accurate at all. I have stated multiple times that I would apply the same standard to people who are white, as in I would not want a white person coming to the USA and sucking up welfare money, and becoming an American citizen and voting to strip people of the right to keep and bear arms, and to expand the welfare state. So if say Piers Morgan, who is English, wanted to become an American citizen, I would oppose him, due to his stance against the right to keep and bear arms.

    Trying to dismiss arguments about property rights, and how to best achieve a libertarian society, and to not have policies in place under the current construct in which we live (ie-a Democratic welfare state with forced association laws and public property), as being “racist,” is intellectually dishonest, and is meant to shut down discussion.

  226. Libertydave

    Andy,

    Everything you have said regarding the proper application of immigration/migration policy has been refuted by several people including myself but you ignore anything that goes against your prejudices.

    And you still haven’t answered my question.

    You claim that open borders violates you right to association because the government will force you to associate with people you don’t want to. This is a lie you tell yourself to justify your position on closed boarders. It doesn’t matter whether the boards or open or closed, the government will still force you to associate with people you don’t want to. But by advocating for closed boarders you are violating my right to association by not allowing me to associate with the people I want to.

    My question is this; how can you telling me who I can and can’t associate with be a libertarian position?

  227. robert capozzi

    LD: …refuted by several people including myself …

    Me: How can an opinion be “refuted”? They certainly can be disagreed with.

    I don’t agree with AJ’s immigration views, but I also don’t agree with fully open borders. I don’t kid myself that my opinion is “right” and others are “wrong,” I only disagree to some extent with other opinions.

  228. Andy

    So Liberty Dave, are you saying that there are no anti-discrimination laws on the books? Are you saying that there is no public property (as in property paid for by the resident taxpayers and managed by the government)?

    Would a private property anarcho-capitalist society have open borders, or would the borders policies be at the discretion of the private property owners, as in the private property owners could set a policy that was as open, or as restrictive, as they desire?

    None of the data I have provided about welfare usage and voting patterns of modern day immigrants has been refuted because you can’t refute facts.

    So my contention is that while government exists, it should have an immigration policy that does not invite or encourage people with Marxist or theocratic or other totalitarian ideologies to come here, and that it should discourage welfare seekers, criminals, and people with communicable diseases from coming here, and if they sneak in anyway, they should not be rewarded with government benefits or citizenship, and that the policy in place should not overwhelm the existing population.

    The purest libertarian position is that all property should be turned over to private hands, and coercive government should be abolished, and if this were too happen, the issue of borders/migration/immigration would be left to the discretion of private property owners.

  229. dL

    I was referring more to things like homeopathy.

    Ok. But there are essentially two reasons why something like that persists. One is the (artificially) high cost of convention medicine. I recall that old episode of Seinfeld where George is a given a choice between $4,000 surgery and a $40 homeopathic quack to cure tonsillitis, and George chooses the quack based purely on the price point.

    Secondly, and probably most importantly, there are a lot of chronic conditions that conventional medicine simply doesn’t have a cure for. That leads to exploring alternative methods. Some are quackery, some are not.

  230. Libertydave

    And once again Andy ignores my question.

    He then goes on a rant about what he imagines might happen as if his fears were facts. It doesn’t matter if the boarders are open or closed the government will continue to steal more and more until the people lose faith in the government. And mass migrations will happen regardless of whether the borders are open or closed. If there open they happen peacefully, if there closed they happen violently but they will still happen.

    Now answer my question. How can you telling me who I can and can’t associate with be a libertarian position?

  231. robert capozzi

    LD: How can you telling me who I can and can’t associate with be a libertarian position?

    ME: It’s not a question of the ability to associate, but WHERE you associate. You can associate with a murderer from Nepal, but you’d need to go to Nepal to do so. It strikes me as abundantly reasonable to bar the Nepalese murderer from entering the US.

    You may well disagree, in your opinion, but then you don’t always get to get your way, sadly.

  232. Libertydave

    robert capozzi, what gives you the right to tell me or anyone else where we can go?

  233. Andy

    Liberty Dave, the answer is property rights. I do not have the right to move into your backyard. If I do not live in a condominium complex or apartment building that has a pool, I do not have the right to waltz in and start swimming in that pool.

  234. Andy

    Do 1 million Italians or Russians have the right to move to Iceland, an island nation with a population of around 348,000 people?

    I would say no.

  235. Libertydave

    Andy, your property rights don’t give you the right to stop me or anyone else from going around your property so try again.

  236. Andy

    Actually, it does. If we all lived in a condominium or apartment complex, or a gated community, there are rules concerning bringing guests on property.

    Who owns the taxpayer fund public property and infrastructure in the USA? People in India? People in Nigeria? People in China? Or do the resident taxpayers of the USA own it? I would say the the people of the USA own it, and therefore have the right to use it. Foreigners have no such right. They can gain access to it under certain conditions, but they have no right to it.

  237. Libertydave

    Just because a gang of people stole money from you then improved the public roads doesn’t mean that you now own the public road. And you advocating the gang of people that stole the money should be the ones who get to say who can use the public road is about as far from libertarian as you can get.

  238. Andy

    1) This is how the world is presently arranged. There is no country where a person can waltz in with no questions asked.

    2) Just because the government is performing a function, it does not automatically invalidate that function. There would still be a demand to regulate who can come on what property and under what conditions in a libertarian society, it would just be regulated by private property owners, some of whom may put up fences or walls, or hire private security guards. The government performs lots of functions which would still be in demand in a libertarian society. Like firefighting. If your house were to catch on fire, could you not call the government fire department and just let your house burn down because government fire departments are funded via taxation.

    I notice you dodged my question about whether or not 1 million Italians or Russians had the right to move to Iceland, an island nation with a population of around 348,000.

  239. robert capozzi

    LD: what gives you the right to tell me or anyone else where we can go?

    Me: I didn’t say “I” have any “rights,” one way or the other. I said it is “abundantly reasononable to bar the Nepalese murderer….”

    I’m taking it you disagree, is that correct?

    It’s odd how NAPsters go to the personal so quickly. My opinions are of no consequence in the wider world…we’re just talkin’, and you lay this on me?

    I love the sentiment of this “rights” concept, but any concept taken too far requires a lot more scrutiny. Where does it say that a person in the US has the “right” to associate with a Nepalese murderer here in the US? Please share the citation.

  240. DJ

    RC: Where does it say that a person in the US has the “right” to associate with a Nepalese murderer here in the US? Please share the citation.

    Me: Where do rights come from? There is, to my knowledge, no citation of rights- the Declaration of Independence recognized there are rights and “among these are”- among and these (indicating a plural) being a key. The Constitution recognizes “a” right that is not to be infringed by a gov’t., as well as other “rights” citizens have that restricts gov’t actions.

    A person has the right to “associate” with whomever and whatever he chooses- legally and morally. Guilt by association is a revenue source only used to control public and known associations. Control being key. Forcing a negative by definition.

    I’d like your citation that allows one to choose for another in ANY circumstance, except in the Military, or ‘authority figures’ over the subservient, which is considered understandable and necessary to discourage association to help prevent emotions from ruling in an intellectual capacity.

  241. DJ

    This entire immigration thing is bullshit- man has, and will continue to migrate. Trying to stop it is futile, and makes a Natural endeavor an illegal pursuit allowing one to choose for another where his Happiness lies and where he can exercise his Liberty. The “libertarian belief” of an entire libertarian society will never occur. There are too many variations of the mind, the heart and personality. That’s not to say one shouldn’t act in a libertarian manner or hold politicians to libertarian standards, but, trying to use fear to sell a society into existence will fail and make the ‘innovator’ look foolish in his behavior and not further the cause, in the least, though it will attract like minded. Those it attracts are not really good candidates for a society, Andy. Though you may not be racist it will attract racist and you’ll wind up with “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”, “no you can’t ‘secede’ no matter what reason you give or what the law says”- you will be “forced” into associations “we” deem safe- and appropriate, the “we” being key.
    Voluntary assimilation, and acceptance, is the key to the future- gov’t’s come and go, laws change daily, but, the Individual has withstood the test of time and withstood all efforts to against him.
    You can’t be forced to associate with someone you don’t like no matter what the gov’t says. But, it would behoove you to question when ordered to, why, and look at the person or persons as humans and not enemies then consider the source of the order and how can you use it to advantage the Individual. The controlling entity is the problem. Not the Individual, even in mass, because at the end of the day, the human has rights, the entity has only authority, and rights will live on, authority comes and goes.

  242. Andy

    DJ, if it is inevitable for there to mass migration into a country (where most of the existing population objects to the mass migration ), how come this is not happening in Japan or Poland or Israel? How come Lechtenstein and Luxembourg and Switzerland are not being overrun with hostile migrants as is happening in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Sweden?

    I am still waiting for a response to my question about whether or not 1 million Italians or Russians have the right to move to Iceland.

  243. robert capozzi

    dj: There is, to my knowledge, no citation of rights…

    ME: Correct. I don’t know of an unimpeachable authority that has defined rights that are beyond reproach. The Founders and Framers threw out some ideas as a framework for thinking about this generally benevolent idea of “rights.”

    I’m glad we agree.

    DJ: A person has the right to “associate” with whomever and whatever he chooses- legally and morally.

    Me: Oops, I may have spoke too soon! 😉

    It seems you think there’s a right to associate with a Nepalese murderer in the US, then, in your opinion.

    Extraordinary view, I dare say.

  244. DJ

    RC: It seems you think there’s a right to associate with a Nepalese murderer in the US, then, in your opinion.

    Extraordinary view, I dare say.

    Me: A person has the right to “associate” with whomever and whatever he chooses- legally and morally.

    RC: Correct. I don’t know of an unimpeachable authority that has defined rights that are beyond reproach. The Founders and Framers threw out some ideas as a framework for thinking about this generally benevolent idea of “rights.”

    Me: Then why do you ask others for citations? The right to Life pretty well sums up ALL rights with Liberty and Happiness as achievements in it- to be defined by the exerciser, not a malevolent acting as a benevolent omnipotent, or a society’s preference.

  245. DJ

    Andy: DJ, if it is inevitable for there to mass migration into a country (where most of the existing population objects to the mass migration ), how come this is not happening in Japan or Poland or Israel? How come Lechtenstein and Luxembourg and Switzerland are not being overrun with hostile migrants as is happening in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Sweden?

    Me: I’m not a mind reader. Are you?

    The opposition here is based on disinformation, and an inherent prejudice based on arrogance- sold to the predisposed through fear.

  246. DJ

    Andy: I notice you dodged my question about whether or not 1 million Italians or Russians had the right to move to Iceland, an island nation with a population of around 348,000.

    Me: I addressed this the last time you brought it up- they have the “right”. Whether or not they exercise it has yet to be determined- the world hasn’t ended yet. IF the migration is stopped it will be done immorally- that doesn’t remove the right it just restricts it. Rights cannot be taken, or given, only restricted.

  247. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I said ” I don’t know of an unimpeachable authority …”

    That’s why I asked. Apparently, you don’t, either.

  248. Andy

    Implying that 1 million Italians or Russians have the right to move to iceland, even if it against the will of the Icelandic people, implies that these 1 million Italians or Russians have property rights in Iceland. Can you explain how 1 million Italians or Russians obtained property rights in Iceland, and how their “rights” supersede those of the people of Iceland?

  249. paulie Post author

    Nothing I have said in regard to proper application of immigration/migration policy has ever been refuted by anyone.

    Yes it was. Over and over and over. You just ignore it and repeat the same bullshit.

  250. paulie Post author

    Nothing I have said in regard to proper application of immigration/migration policy has ever been refuted by anyone.

    With facts, which have been cited here repeatedly in past threads. He backs up his opinion with alleged facts. Those have been countered with the real facts, including hundreds of citations of actual statistics, opinion surveys, studies, etc, etc.

  251. paulie Post author

    Andy, your property rights don’t give you the right to stop me or anyone else from going around your property so try again.

    Anyone who thinks regime gangs who style themselves as governments have legitimate property rights over all the property within their alleged borders is too far gone to argue with. Anyone who does not understand the difference can’t be reasoned with. If everything within the borders claimed by the US regime is its legitimate property, it can charge rent (taxes), regulate behavior in any and all ways… all libertarian theory goes out the window if we were to grant that. And this has been pointed out in too many previous IPR threads to count. Trying to reason with such nonsense is a complete waste of time.

  252. paulie Post author

    And yes, those bullshit arguments to originate with people who openly acknowledge being racist. They get parroted by people who don’t acknowledge and/or realize it about themselves but they don’t originate with them.

  253. paulie Post author

    It seems you think there’s a right to associate with a Nepalese murderer in the US

    I have the same right to associate with a Nepalese murderer in the US as I have to associate with an Oklahoman murderer in Texas. That is, I hope both are aprehended and brought to justice, but I don’t want to be stopped, questioned, detained, searched etc when crossing either the Oklahoma-Texas or US-whatever border, don’t want to have to apply for permission to cross either border, and so on. Nor does the government of either Texas or the US have any legitimate right to harass travellers or limit who goes when and where. Neither is a legitimate property owner. They are also not a condo association, since people don’t generally join a state or national government by consent.

  254. robert capozzi

    pf: Nor does the government of either Texas or the US have any legitimate right to harass travellers or limit who goes when and where.

    me: “Consent” is a major problem, ain’t it? It’s solved with the passage of Harlos Nonarchy Pod legislation into law, although getting such legislation passed seems quite remote. That’s because I suspect most don’t think in terms of “consent,” and if asked, they DO consent to a government to maintain domestic tranquility. The viewpoint is quite eccentric, IOW.

    The Neo-Spooners are technically accurate, and yet their construct just strikes me as SO unworkable that I take the view, “assume consent” for entirely practical reasons. I appeal to NAPsters to consider tabling this more fundamental question for a few decades or so.

    That said, my only problem with your sentence above is that it’s too coy. The NAPster view isn’t simply that TX or US governments don’t have a “legitimate” “right” to screen for/harass incoming travelers. It’s that their VERY EXISTENCE is not legitimate, per the NAPster, as governments are inherently coercive by their nature.

  255. Anthony Dlugos

    “Yes it was. Over and over and over. You just ignore it and repeat the same bullshit.”

    paulie, I am as disappointed and concerned as you are about the alt-right incursion into the LP, but I implore you to let Andy’s interminable xenophobic rants that he wants to be the official positions of the LP teach you (all of us, really) a lesson about political tactics.

    To wit, Pragmatic Rule #1: Dogma Attracts Dogma. In the electoral political arena, where what counts is who has the votes, it doesn’t matter how different the dogmas are.

    I imagine that Perry had as open a position on immigration as anyone in the 2016 campaign for the LP presidential nomination, surely more purely libertarian than J-W’s was. Yet Andy clearly preferred Perry to J-W. Why is that? Because Andy, at least intuitively, understands that he can debate dogma all day long, and he does. No matter how contrary to basic libertarian principles Andy’s xenophobia is, as long as the possibility exists that he and his hard right cohorts can cobble the support together to make a racist closed border position the official LP position, he’ll keep up his rants.

    As I have mentioned before, there are good Radicals in this party who end up running interference for the hard right by INADVERTENTLY keeping the party small.

    Do you want to run off Andy? In the electoral political arena, the solution is simple: Relax your principles. Across the board. Draw in people currently outside the party who generally agree with you. Beat Andy not with debating points, but with sheer numbers. Make it obvious to him that he can’t win. Not only will you run him off, but you will STILL have a position on immigration that is MUCH better than the position held by the Democrats and Republicans.

    Electoral Politics #101.

  256. DJ

    RC: I said ” I don’t know of an unimpeachable authority …”

    That’s why I asked. Apparently, you don’t, either.

    Me: The only “authority” required is being birthed and is unimpeachable = no citation needed.
    Approval by an alleged omnipotent isn’t required and is impeachable- citation being anything given, or granted, can be taken, rescinded, prevented, refuted or ignored, made suspicious, shown to be not reliable, questioned, retaliated against or stopped, legally.

  257. DJ

    Andy: Implying that 1 million Italians or Russians have the right to move to iceland, even if it against the will of the Icelandic people, implies that these 1 million Italians or Russians have property rights in Iceland. Can you explain how 1 million Italians or Russians obtained property rights in Iceland, and how their “rights” supersede those of the people of Iceland?

    Me: I’m not implying anything. I’m clearly stating- people migrate and have since they discovered walking takes them where the grass appears to be greener. That is a Natural activity and within their rights to pursue Life.
    “Authority” given, granted, or assumed has determined it has the authority to restrict, impede and impair to prevent or help prevent a contingent event.

    (In fact, though I’ve not done the math, I’d be willing to bet ALL laws are predicated on what “might” happen if X which equates to thought policing, which is inevitable when authority is granted to an entity that has to prove itself relevant.)

    That is not this libertarians belief. This libertarian believes (and knows) authority can be taken. Rights can only be restricted, not taken or given. This libertarian has an open mind and believes ALL men are created equal. This libertarian doesn’t see a caveat restricting, preventing or assuming differently because- whatever.

  258. robert capozzi

    DJ: The only “authority” required is being birthed and is unimpeachable = no citation needed.

    ME: IOW, “just because.” That may be a sufficient rationale for you, but not me, and probably not most.

    Your view leads to some highly eccentric positions, ones that open you up to ridicule. I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish by taking such positions, but I do wish you luck.

  259. paulie Post author

    It’s solved with the passage of Harlos Nonarchy Pod

    Opt-in vs. opt-out is a major issue. I propose Capozzi Archy Pods.

  260. robert capozzi

    pf: Capozzi Archy Pods….

    me: It’s been done. It’s called “the world,” with exceptions being sections of Somalia, Zomia, and Antartica.

  261. paulie Post author

    . It’s that their VERY EXISTENCE is not legitimate, per the NAPster, as governments are inherently coercive by their nature.

    Yes and no. If a group of people want to get together and call themselves a motorcycle club, neighborhood watch, arbitration service, citizens court, chess society, satanic temple, mutual protection association, rugby league or, say, the government of Texas or USA, that is not in and of itself a coercive action. The coercion comes in as far as what they do to enforce whatever territorial claim they make or any other action not normally permitted to an individual or any voluntary association of individuals.

    Beyond that, there’s also the existing level of coercion that is already being enforced by various criminal gangs and governmental organizations, so steps which reduce this existing level of coercion are welcome, so long as it is clear that they are in fact reductions and not increases. Thus, for example, while being stopped and questioned when crossing various alleged borders is not my ideal arrangement, it’s better than being detained for several hours, cavity searched and background checked, which in turn is better than being held up for months or years or indefinitely while begging for permission to cross various county, city, state, or national lines of demarcation. So, if a proposed law makes crossing these barriers easier as opposed to harder, I’m for it as an interim measure.

  262. Anon-Tipper

    Wow, I just received a death threat on social media (so probably shouldn’t take it too seriously), someone is threatening to come to NOLA and “eradicate” libertarians for not doing enough to get rid of alt-righters.

  263. paulie Post author

    I imagine that Perry had as open a position on immigration as anyone in the 2016 campaign for the LP presidential nomination, surely more purely libertarian than J-W’s was. Yet Andy clearly preferred Perry to J-W. Why is that?

    I’m going to guess that it’s because, no matter how far Andy has his head up his ass about immigration, it’s not at least yet so far enough up there so as to supersede all other issues combined. Just a guess.

  264. paulie Post author

    It’s been done. It’s called “the world,” with exceptions being sections of Somalia, Zomia, and Antartica.

    No, the exceptions are actually the rule. The fact that some gang or another claims every piece of land, water and air, and out into space in perpetuity, doesn’t make that control very effective. Nor does it make it consenting, or necessary, or legitimate. Capozzi Archy Pods should require explicit consent of all those who enter. That’s not the same as “the world.”

  265. paulie Post author

    but you will STILL have a position on immigration that is MUCH better than the position held by the Democrats and Republicans.

    That’s far from obvious. It wasn’t better, for instance, when we ran Barr-Root. Given that the most common definition of “libertarian” among the general public is “further to the right than the Republicans,” it’s easy to invite the far right by relaxing our principles.

  266. paulie Post author

    In other words, as I said yesterday – not sure whether it was on this thread or another – the enemy is not either radical or moderate libertarians, it’s right wingers in all their various forms – neocons, theocons, racist nationalists, America Firsters, paleocons, moderate conservatives, far rightists, eurofascists, “libertarian” conservatives, you name it.

  267. robert capozzzi

    pf: Nor does it make it consenting, or necessary, or legitimate.

    me: Is there ANY reason to believe that non-NAPsters WOULD NOT consent to the existence of a State, if asked?

    In my experience as a former NAPster, whenever I asked this question, not one person has indicated that s/he would opt out of the State if given the choice.

    You and DJ have a LOT of “educating” to do to get the masses to buy into a Spoonerite perspective and construct. My guess is it’s largely insurmountable objection from perhaps 98% of the pop.

    So, while I appreciate your flexibility vs. most NAPsters in acknowledging that the State is likely with us for decades, the NAPster measuring stick of crypto- to explicit-nonarchism is SO eccentric as to alienate virtually everyone in the body politic. Talk of “gangs” and such undermines a lessarchist message, which in my view is sellable TODAY.

    Communism largely failed, but Fabianism succeeded because of its incrementalism. I believe that Fabianism would have been even MORE successful had they not had to distance themselves from communists.

  268. Anthony Dlugos

    Anon-Tipper.

    I would report a death threat to the social media site it came through. I never block people, because frankly my skin is thick enough to not be offended.

    But death threats I would report, no doubt about it.

  269. paulie Post author

    In my experience as a former NAPster, whenever I asked this question, not one person has indicated that s/he would opt out of the State if given the choice.

    It’s all in who you talk to. I find people who basically agree with this all the time. Granted, most of them don’t vote, and most are not very intellectual about it. A lot of people just naturally and instinctively opt out of the state every chance they get, and many are actually pretty good at it. They just don’t talk about it very much.

    Communism largely failed, but Fabianism succeeded because of its incrementalism. I believe that Fabianism would have been even MORE successful had they not had to distance themselves from communists.

    I disagree. I think fabianism was more effective as a “reasonable” alternative to totalitarianism than it would have been otherwise, without that counterexample.

  270. Anon-Tipper

    I did, it’s reddit and the mods have ignored it. I reported it to the admins. I don’t expect much to happen. This person has been harassing me for days because I won’t say “yes, libertarians as a whole are fascists.” I complain about the alt-righters a lot here, but I’m not deluded enough to think it’s the whole movement. I’m going to just leave reddit at this point, I personally can’t take the constant personal attacks.

  271. DJ

    RC: IOW, “just because.” That may be a sufficient rationale for you, but not me, and probably not most.

    Your view leads to some highly eccentric positions, ones that open you up to ridicule. I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish by taking such positions, but I do wish you luck.

    Me: It’s really quite simple, Robert, which I explained and you ignored (*see below*) so what part of that do you not understand? The “lead to eccentric positions” is in the eye of the beholder.
    I don’t know how you find respect eccentric, but, I assure you, being ridiculed doesn’t bother me when I’m right- and though ignorance is a bit hard to deal with, it does validate my opinions about our education system, and piss poor parenting, which I find sad and do my best to help right the wrong(s) I see. I am passionate, but eccentric, not hardly. I am an individual and when that becomes the “accepted” definition of eccentric, I guess I’ll wear the name proudly, but, as you’ve pointed out I’m not real impressed with what the “vast, vast majority” thinks and don’t deal well with intentional misinterpretation.

    *Approval by an alleged omnipotent isn’t required and is impeachable- citation being anything given, or granted, can be taken, rescinded, prevented, refuted or ignored, made suspicious, shown to be not reliable, questioned, retaliated against or stopped, legally.*

  272. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I’m sorry, taking the position that there’s a right to private nukes is eccentric, the kindest word I can think of to describe such an outlying viewpoint. I get that you don’t care and that you are “right” and 99% of people are “wrong.”

    There may well be no way to get through to you on this.

    I will give you highly favorable odds that your position will not prevail. I could use the money! 😉

  273. dL

    I did, it’s reddit and the mods have ignored it. I reported it to the admins.

    An idle threat 99999 out of 100,000 times(unless it’s a pig making the threat). Nonetheless, the onus of security is on the user. A good start is the use of a VPN as a minimal dox buffer.

  274. robert capozzi

    pf: A lot of people just naturally and instinctively opt out of the state every chance they get,

    me: One is all in, or out. Zomians, for example, are out. You and I are in. The only gray area I can think of are people like the Unabomber, who was largely out, living in a primitive cabin in the woods. He did saunter into a reasonably civilized State, mostly to kill people.

    I’d need to know more about what you mean by these “opt out” cases that you have experienced.

  275. dL

    It’s all in who you talk to. I find people who basically agree with this all the time. Granted, most of them don’t vote, and most are not very intellectual about it. A lot of people just naturally and instinctively opt out of the state every chance they get, and many are actually pretty good at it. They just don’t talk about it very much.

    Of course, it’s illegal to opt out, and Bob supports the arrest and deportation of anyone who got caught trying to do it. The question is just trolling bait, equivalent to the “if you don’t like it here, LEAVE” tripe of the right wing noise machine.

    For example, it is illegal to leave the United States w/o a passport. Hence, if one opted out, and by “opting out” one must include tearing up one’s passport, one would be subject to immediate deportation back to the United States even if one somehow did manage to sneak out past the US border gestapo.

  276. robert capozzi

    dL: Bob supports the arrest and deportation of anyone who got caught trying to do it.

    me: Not sure HOW you reach this conclusion. Haven’t I explained the Harlos Nonarchy Pod to you? It’s the ultimate and complete opt-out option.

    For those who don’t choose to personally secede, I may or may not support arrest or deportation, depending on the infraction.

  277. dL

    Harlos Nonarchy Pod

    Is that some middle earth sanctuary? I never did get around to reading jrr tolkien…

  278. robert capozzi

    dL,

    No.

    For anyone who wants out of civil society and the rule of law, it seems right that they should be allowed to secede onto his or her own property. A nation’s laws would not apply to them any longer, so long as they stayed on their property/nation of one.

  279. paulie Post author

    One is all in, or out. Zomians, for example, are out. You and I are in. The only gray area I can think of are people like the Unabomber, who was largely out, living in a primitive cabin in the woods.He did saunter into a reasonably civilized State, mostly to kill people.

    Then you suffer from a lack of imagination. We all live in a gray area, and there are much more than 50 shades.

    I’d need to know more about what you mean by these “opt out” cases that you have experienced.

    I could teach you but I’d have to charge.

  280. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Thanks for the feedback, but my self-assessment is I’m a 9 on imagination scale of 10. 😉

    You and I live in the US and are subject to its laws. Yes, you might choose to, say, evade taxes or decide that murder is justified and commit one. In your mind, that might amount to selective opting out of those laws, but you run the risk of prosecution. Your “opt out” would not be recognized as a defense.

    I’m really not seeing any gray here, but I’m not willing to pay to hear the nuances of terminological doubletalk. Zomians and non-Mogadishu Somalians and the Unabomber in his Montana cabin might be able to avoid the long arm of the law, but the Thai government might decide to enforce its laws in the Zomia-zone at any time, despite its remoteness, just as the Unabomber was eventually apprehended in said cabin.

  281. paulie Post author

    Yes, you might choose to, say, evade taxes

    You might choose to try to avoid getting mugged. It may still happen.

    Some people don’t make excuses for it and some people are better at avoiding it than others. C’est la vie.

  282. paulie Post author

    May day! May day! It’s that time of the month. See you all in next month’s thread, coming up soon if my computer battery doesn’t die out here in the van, or tomorrow if it does (unless someone beats me to it).

  283. Anon-Tipper

    dL: “An idle threat 99999 out of 100,000 times(unless it’s a pig making the threat).”

    Definitely, good advice. Not worried, but still getting off reddit, it’s just filled with nonsense. I hate these idiotic arguments.

  284. robert capozzi

    pf: you might choose to try to avoid getting mugged. It may still happen.

    me: True. I love truth. But I can’t imagine how you think this is relevant in any way.

  285. paulie Post author

    But I can’t imagine how you think this is relevant in any way.

    There you go again, with your failure of imagination.

    Well, I can’t help you expand your imagination if you’re not willing to open your mind on your own.

    See you next month, in a few minutes.

  286. dL

    For anyone who wants out of civil society and the rule of law, it seems right that they should be allowed to secede onto his or her own property.

    Civil society is not the state. And that’s not some radical libertarian declaration; it’s a liberal tenant that traces back to Thomas Hobbes. Conflating the two is a common error committed by statists.

    and the rule of law

    If there was this so-called “rule of law,” the “opt-in’ers” would be standing trial at the Hague for war crimes. Until that day, the rule of law==obey those who make the rules, for those who make and enforce the rules get to murder with impunity.

  287. dL

    but still getting off reddit

    all the cool people abandoned that platform two months ago when reddit changed it’s ToS…

  288. robert capozzi

    dL: Civil society is not the state.

    me: The basic rule of law and some of the institutions designed to maintain domestic tranquility in fact ARE supplied by the State, i.e., courts, cops and national defense. The exceptions are VERY rare, i.e., parts of Somalia and Zomia.

    COULD civil society be sustainable in a stateless society? Sure. But I would submit that for 99% of the planet, the State and civil society are like a metamorphic rock — fused together. The State is certainly way too big from my perspective. Undoing it is no small task.

    Pulverizing the rock could be a good way to separate State and society. Unfortunately, that would be unacceptably disruptive to civil society.

  289. robert capozzi

    dL: If there was this so-called “rule of law,” the “opt-in’ers” would be standing trial at the Hague for war crimes.

    me: Interesting. Saying “so-called” suggests that you don’t believe there is a “rule of law.” Perhaps I’ve been misperceiving all these years, but there certainly appears to be a set of laws that govern a territory, and most seem to abide by the rules most of the time. Murder is illegal, and most don’t murder, even if most if not all have a murderous impulse on occasion.

    As for opt-iners being war criminals…are you saying that we’re all war criminals except for anarchists and the Unabomber? On its face, your statement sounds hysterical and deeply paranoid, wildly overstated.

    Or are the opt-in’ers only some in the military and some in the federal government? Here I’m open-minded.Part of me would like to see the Bushs, Clinton, Obama, and Trump in the Hague, although I’m not sure this concept is a ripe one, politically speaking.

    The Kokeshes and Perrys of the world may well run on a dL position of putting thousands of pols and bureaucrats in the Hague for war crimes. This, I submit, is worse politics than advocating the FAIR tax, MUCH worse.

    I’m guessing you don’t see that….

  290. dL

    COULD civil society be sustainable in a stateless society? Sure. But I would submit that for 99% of the planet, the State and civil society are like a metamorphic rock — fused together. The State is certainly way too big from my perspective. Undoing it is no small task.

    That’s the ancient, communitarian view. You’re not even a liberal, Bob…

  291. dL

    Perhaps I’ve been misperceiving all these years, but there certainly appears to be a set of laws that govern a territory

    The definition of the rule of law is not “a set of laws that govern a territory.” Look up the definition next time before presuming to lecture anyone else on the topic.

    As for opt-iners being war criminals…are you saying that we’re all war criminals except for anarchists and the Unabomber? On its face, your statement sounds hysterical and deeply paranoid, wildly overstated.

    Not unless you start claiming responsibility for the actions of your government, which is what you are doing when you start chirping “opt-in.”

    The Kokeshes and Perrys of the world may well run on a dL position of putting thousands of pols and bureaucrats in the Hague for war crimes. This, I submit, is worse politics than advocating the FAIR tax, MUCH worse.

    Hmmm, well I wasn’t making a statement vis a vis politics. I was making one regarding justice. But if it’s about politics, I would say that in Cali at least, it would be better politics than white identity politics…

  292. DJ

    RC: I’m sorry, taking the position that there’s a right to private nukes is eccentric, the kindest word I can think of to describe such an outlying viewpoint. I get that you don’t care and that you are “right” and 99% of people are “wrong.”

    There may well be no way to get through to you on this.

    I will give you highly favorable odds that your position will not prevail. I could use the money!

    Me: Spare your fake sympathy for someone who cares- if respect and self respect is eccentric then I’ll proudly wear the badge. There is obviously no way to get this through to you. Prevailing position, is by definition, disrespectful of the rights of the Individual- who will, BTW, prevail long after the groups, entities, opinions, positions and gov’t’s have changed.

    And, you still ignored what I said. Which is disrespect at its core- and cowardly I might add.

    *Approval by an alleged omnipotent isn’t required and is impeachable- citation being anything given, or granted, can be taken, rescinded, prevented, refuted or ignored, made suspicious, shown to be not reliable, questioned, retaliated against or stopped, legally.*

    Why is that Robert? Can you cite an alleged omnipotent that can’t have the above applied? Can you cite an alleged omnipotent that doesn’t force hes/its will to “prevail”? History has an abundance of Individual effort that turned many a tide of prevailing attitude- in fact, ALL tide turning was implemented due to Individual effort, usually changing hearts and minds followed, often at the cost of their life- but, the Individual prevailed. The entity, group, opinion, gov’t changed. Can you cite when a right has been taken? Or given?

  293. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Does dL stand for Deflect Liberally? 😉

    My metamorphic rock metaphor is simply an observation in the here and now. There’s nothing “ancient” about it. We live in a civil society in which the primary rules of the road are promulgated by governments and enforced by governments, and I note that there’s every reason to believe that the vast majority prefer it that way. There are of course other rules of the road that are not governmental.

    There’s nothing normative about my observation. It’s simply an observation about how things are. Clear?

    But, normatively, I would say that there’s an element of my — and most people’s — thinking that has a “communitarian” element. The only exception I can think of are some atomistic NAPsters. In my case, I’d like to see peace and liberty maximized while maintaining justice for all. For a variety of reasons, I’m attracted to political strategies and tactics that are sensitive to the least well off as well, as undoing the State should be done with care so as not to thrust those with the smallest margin for error into abject poverty.

    As for the “rule of law,” I’m not sure which definition is dL-approved, but this one sounds about right to me: “…the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws…” Another way to say that is “courts and cops,” even though I stipulate that our institutions of law are far from perfect. Whether the rule of law is appreciably better and less arbitrary in Zomia, I dunno. It might be! I’m pretty sure that the social order there is primitive compared with ours, so I’m not sure the Zomia experience is especially instructive for us in the US.

    And, no, I don’t claim responsibility for what the government does. Most of it is highly dysfunctional.

  294. robert capozzi

    DJ: Can you cite when a right has been taken? Or given?

    Me: As I’ve explained before…there are no tangible “rights.” “Rights” are a construct; they don’t exist. I like the idea a lot. I just don’t kid myself that they exist.

    If they DO exist, show me. Don’t quote Jefferson or Madison, since I don’t recognize their unimpeachable authority. They offered instead helpful opinions, ones that I generally support. I just don’t interpret their words to mean: Therefore, there is a right to private nukes!

    IOW, opinion =/= fact or truth.

    Now, if God materialized before my eyes, and He said: “DJ is right. The government cannot take his nuke away from him. I will smite them if they do,” I might change my mind! 😉

  295. DJ

    RC: If they DO exist, show me. Now, if God materialized before my eyes, and He said: “DJ is right. The government cannot take his nuke away from him. I will smite them if they do,” I might change my mind!

    Me: So, you’re saying an alleged omnipotent has to approve what you can do. Or a gov’t. Or just me and those who think like I do? Were you assembled on an assembly line? And only “given” certain parts?
    I say that isn’t the case- you have the right to do as you please. You don’t have the right to restrict another’s rights, but, you can get another to force your belief or try to yourself- beliefs aren’t tangible either. Force is a tangible, but, it doesn’t change my mind, or the facts. Authority can be taken. It can also be assumed, and granted, but, it isn’t a tangible- it’s an opinion, usually backed with a tangible- force. Omnipotent is an unlimited authority according to definition- but, that authority is based on a belief- a non tangible, man’s word. Man or men who were, as you like to point out- fallible, whose words were/are used to control the “vast, vast majority”= religion. My religion is the Individual. I thank the philosophers of the past who presented the idea- the Individuals- not the groups, or entities, religious or political and the Individual will be here long after the others have gone the way of those before them. Changed, disappeared- converted to dust and proven wrong in their beliefs- “I” will survive- in spite of, if not to spite the “prevailing”- the will of the people- the vast, vast majority, or “non-archy pods”.

    And I guess you don’t have the where with all to address:

    *Approval by an alleged omnipotent isn’t required and is impeachable- citation being anything given, or granted, can be taken, rescinded, prevented, refuted or ignored, made suspicious, shown to be not reliable, questioned, retaliated against or stopped, legally.*

  296. robert capozzi

    DJ: So, you’re saying an alleged omnipotent has to approve what you can do. Or a gov’t. Or just me and those who think like I do? Were you assembled on an assembly line? And only “given” certain parts?

    Me: Huh? No. No. No. And no.

    I’m simply — once again — saying that the concept of “rights” is a mere concept. One that I like and one that I think any laws written and enforced should respect.

    I wish I could put this in a way that you can understand. I’m sorry that I’ve failed you.

    I once again invite you to show us that rights do in fact exist.

  297. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Are you suggesting that non-voters are actually anarchists?

  298. DJ

    RC: Me: Huh? No. No. No. And no.

    Me: Then where do you find the authority to live? Citation please.

  299. paulie Post author

    I see hinting and asking don’t work. OK no worries, thread is now closed to further comment. Respond in the new thread and reference back or move on.

Comments are closed.