Vohra Suspension Motion Fails

From an article on Marc Montoni’s “FreeVirginia” blog:

A motion to suspend Arvin Vohra (Twitter, Maryland US Senate Campaign Website, Facebook, MeWe) from his position on the Libertarian National Committee has failed.

Current LP chairman Nick Sarwark (Twitter, Phoenix Mayor Campaign website, Facebook) wrote up his opinion on the subject. I thought this part was the most cogent:

When I gave my speech for None of the Above for Chair in Las Vegas in 2012, it was due to the factionalism and infighting I saw on the LNC leading up to that convention. LNC members focused more on trying to oust each other or gain advantage internally than they did on trying to advance the goals of the Libertarian Party. That internal focus resulted in stagnant fundraising, candidate recruitment, and membership numbers.

Since 2014, our committee has been able to move away from the internal factional fighting and focus on moving the Libertarian Party forward. We are improving fundraising, candidate recruitment, and membership. These recent controversies have regressed us back to internal fighting instead of fighting the two old parties. We need to stop the internal fighting and focus on our real opponents.

Sarwark’s 2012 speech was in some ways a landmark event in the party’s history.  For a good portion of the previous ten years, the majority faction on the LNC had spent far more time setting up intrigues for removing the few radicals and anarchists who happened to be on the LNC — along with intrigues to make the LP a far more hostile place for anarchists and radicals in general — than they did trying new fundraising approaches and getting the LP’s day-to-day operations in proper order (after basically the same leadership had allowed everything to tank during that same ten years).  It was a landmark because while he was talking, one could almost feel the change in mood among the delegates.  The result was that a different culture emerged in the LP after that convention.

I don’t know if Sarwark is a radical libertarian, much less an anarchist. Based on his speech at the Colorado state convention last month, my suspicion is that he is not.

But I don’t really care.

Sarwark has been patient and understanding of all sides and an excellent moderator for getting the crowd to pay attention to actual business.

I voted for him for chairman twice because I was one of many who were tired of the internal Machiavellians who simply couldn’t keep their focus. I wanted to X out the hyper-factionalists. I didn’t get my wish to dump the worst of them altogether, but at least Nick has done pretty well at keeping their desire to dominate contained, and redirect that towards business.

When VC Vohra began writing his controversial articles on his personal Facebook page almost a year ago, what I saw was mostly the same old hyper-factional individuals seizing upon their controversial nature as an excuse to return the party to the slash-and-burn internal culture that was the case prior to Vegas.

Please note that there are also anarchist and radical Libertarians who are in favor of Mr Vohra leaving the LNC.  The above paragraph does not refer to them.  They have their own reasons that are not mostly motivated by partisan hackery, and I understand that — although I disagree with their position on removal.

I’ve made my position clear: I say things differently from Vohra. Of course, whatever opinions he puts up on his personal page are his and his alone.

I believe that his comments are infinitesimally less-damaging to the LP brand than the majority of LP candidates have been for most of our existence.   Several candidates in Virginia and almost all other states in years have in the past pushed the national retail sales tax [not to mention our most recent presidential candidate]. Johnson, for his part, suggested that Prohibition should continue, that Finking Feddie should maintain an “enemies list“, and that American soldiers should chase hobgoblins like warlord Kony in Africa, among many other off-the-reservation pseudo-alcoholic stumblings.

Bill Redpath — another sitting LNC member — in several of his campaigns for federal office,  supported various forms of gun control, continuing to send money to institutions of higher indoctrination, and tax schemes like a “revenue neutral” flat tax.

It was LP candidates who seemed unable to use the “A” word (“abolish”) that propelled me into the resurgent Radical Caucus movement in 2005-2006. When we formalized the Radical Caucus, the plan was to help fund candidates who didn’t damage the name “Libertarian” and instead advocated a bold, clear, consistent brand.

In any case, the question has been settled for the moment. Hopefully, until the opening day of the 2018 national convention.

At this point, I believe Vohra’s most recent comment about school boards was indeed over the line, and if I had said something like that I’d probably resign just so continued controversy didn’t distract the organization from more important things.This has indeed become a distraction and a diversion, and it’s time for all to move on.

That said, at some point, members of the LP are going to have a reckoning with the increasing hostility shown to anarchist and radical Libertarians.  Almost everything Vohra has said (with the possible exception of his ill-considered comment about school boards) in his writings over the past year have delineated correct, consistent libertarian ideas that are supposed to be part of the alleged “big tent”.  Most of the controversy swirling about Vohra over the last year has been a loud call for those ideas to be squelched and thrown out of the tent.

For instance, Vohra’s articles early last year criticized soldiers for making themselves pawns in the murderous games of the elites.  Many Libertarians became loudly offended.  Some understood exactly what he was trying to get across, however.

As John Kendrick Meadows said recently (note you will need to be a member of Facebook as well as a member of the particular discussion group to see the comment):

You can’t hate war, but worship the people committing those acts of violence, and justify it with “just following orders”….  You can’t be anti war and support the pawns of the military industrial complex. Those missiles don’t launch themselves. Those planes aren’t all autonomous.

[Note: Meadows is Former SSgt USAF Airborne Persian Linguist. 7 Combat deployments, 502 days.]

So, yes, I believe people are using his particular style as their excuse  for what they really object to.  It’s not a question of how the message is being presented; it is that the message is being presented at all.

If you don’t like what someone says, what’s the best response?

How about we all ignore those who say things we don’t like, and concentrate on doing what we’re supposed to be doing?

One thing we should all remember that Facebook is a social medium, not a political organizing medium.  If growing the Party is your goal, turn off Facebook, grab a few hundred LP flyers and a list of registered Libertarians and Party members in your area (your state LP can probably help with both) and start calling people, and (better yet) visiting them, and otherwise act like you’re serious about organizing Libertarians and aren’t just playing activist on Facebook.  It starts with *you* and organizing your own home precinct or neighborhood.

If you disagree with one of the 25,000-odd LP members (or one of the the ~50% of them who are on Facebook), the worst possible thing to do is to share their articles, comment on them, or refer to them.  Be the adult, and ignore those who say things to which you object.

Facebook has a “block” feature. Use it.

————————————————————

For more information about the Radical Caucus, see www.LPRadicalCaucus.org or see the Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2497146127/  .

————————————————————

Originally written April 2018, by Marc Montoni, for the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus.  This version released 2018.

Creative Commons License

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
————————————————————

94 thoughts on “Vohra Suspension Motion Fails

  1. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Good reminder of the context of this – those wasted years of conservatives trying to evict radicals and finally giving up and leaving.

    Vohra obviously became a victim of this renewed strategy when he made inartful comments on the libertarian view on not worshiping the military and being willing to hold them accountable for murder, especially if they join the military for the bennies and don’t care if they’ll be asked to murder innocent people.

    After that he went out of his way to make obnoxious comments on public schools and teachers, age of consent laws, and jokes about doing bad things to school board members. (Not quite as bad as the “joke” about shooting Arvin at NOLA 2018 that one LP Veteran Caucus member posted there.) These Arvin comments certainly deserved intelligent criticism. They did not deserve the DRIVE HIM OUT strategy that STARTED after his first comments on the military. I note one or more “drive him out” LNC members have left the LNC since then.

    Gross them out and drive them out are both bad strategies. Macho flash on both sides sucks.

    But being hard core radical – including advancing my favorite strategy, dissolution of large nation states through radical libertarian decentralism and secession – should NOT be a reason to be drive out of any libertarian party. (Constantly being an ass or advocating violence should be; Vohra will pay for whatever his sins may be by being defeated for Vice Chair NOLA 2018.) Being an uppity woman should not be a reason to be driven from office or radical activism – attn marc.)

    If the conservative types can’t take it, then then obviously are in the wrong party.

  2. Marc Montoni

    Being a racist and sexist bigot is, however, a very good reason to be driven away from polite company — regardless of whether the individual is female or not.

    Some individuals are just assholes, and deserve a policy of ostracism and aggressive ignoring.

  3. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Excellent article Marc.

    You and I disagreed at points but you are absolutely right on the anti-radical history.

    Many persons have tried to seize on this in a poorly disguised purgey attempt.

    The presence of radicals on the yes said destroys that attempt – you usually can tell who has that agenda by their convenient ommission of people like me in their narrative. It’s transparently amusing.

    Your scope on the historical context is very important.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    “you usually can tell who has that agenda by their convenient ommission of people like me in their narrative.”

    Maybe they’re just trying to give you a chance to live down your shameful conduct.

  5. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom, we disagree on this. It happens. Regardless of my personal opinion, the leadership of the states in Region 1 had that position and it is to their interests I promised to represent. By the time of the last incident, the one firm hold-out state contacted me to say they now joined the others.

    There are many problems in this Party including some Marc alluded to, but one thing Marc did very well in this article is recognize that it is possible to disagree in good faith.

    This was a great demonstration of the dynamic in 2006 which is painted now as a big anti-radical purge. It wasn’t. Many radicals voted to delete the Platform. Why? Ahhh that is the question. They remain radicals to this day. They had reasons that were good to them. Not everything is black and white – people see things and will see things differently.

    This is a big problem in the radical contingent. The moderates are much less rigid on what is the rule of deviation from agreement they will allow before going off into strident denunciations – and because of that – things inch towards their ultimate agenda. Radicals tend to have no such vision and it is why so far – if they continue that way – they will lose. I hope not. Radicals have a great way of turning neutrals or mostly radical friendly members into anti-radicals by this – when people get told enough times that they are Literally the Worst they soon shrug and stop trying to deal with those people.

    I see this happen with Larry Sharpe. I was that way with Larry Sharpe. I didn’t like him- I was suspicious, etc etc. I lowered that wall and Larry changed my mind. Larry is not a radical. But Larry is radical-friendly but this conformity policing will turn him anti-radical one day if it keeps up. People tend to live up to the labels you give them. I am now a strong Larry supporter and will work with him any day. I don’t require him to be a radical, just not hostile, and he doesn’t require me not to be a radical, just not hostile. I was wrong about him – and that doesn’t require agreement. He and I had a pretty public and friendly stand-off about the A word. No, not anarchy. Abolish. And came to an understanding.

    Regardless, I remain in my opinion, and carried out my duties as I clearly stated when I ran- I keep the promises I make. But it has given me a great “outsiders” view of how radicals can be perceived. If I wasn’t already on that side of the fence, the extreme posturing and yelling and refusing to concede any good reasons would have kept me away – probably permanently. I wonder how many others that would be great (not perfect) to advance our ideals have already had that experience.

    I said two years ago that if the interests of my region require it, I will cross factional lines. I have done it several times, this time being one. Am I aware that some of the folks on that side of vote have intentions I don’t agree with? Yes I do, and some of us being there have kept some really bad poison pill things from passing because we do see it.

  6. Matt Cholko

    I’m so fucking tired of this anti-Vohra crusade. It is very demoralizing, and has caused me to reevaluate my involvement in the LP. It is very hard for me to see any point to this anymore. We can’t even allow a single LNC member to make basic libertarian points on his Facebook page. So, there’s no way in hell we’re going to bring about this “world set free in our lifetime”.

    I’m not about to rage quit, burn my membership card, or anything else like that. But, I’ve lost a lot of respect for “The Party of Principle.” So, I’ll likely scale my activism back even further, and spend my money on more productive pursuits – like lighting it on fire.

  7. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I didn’t agree with Nick on the decision but I thought his post was reasonable and well-articulated.

  8. Anthony Dlugos

    “We can’t even allow a single LNC member to make basic libertarian points on his Facebook page. So, there’s no way in hell we’re going to bring about this “world set free in our lifetime”.”

    Matt, calling all servicemembers “accessories to murder’ is not a basic libertarian point. Suggesting gay Libertarian are hypocrites for not supporting the abolishment of Age of Consent laws is not a basic libertarian point. Suggesting shooting school boards is not a basic libertarian point.

    Can you not tell the difference? if you can’t tell the difference between the twat Vohra’s self-indulgent bombthrowing and “basic libertarian points,” I beg you to scale back your libertarian activism to zero.

    P.S.: We aren’t going to bring about a “world set free in our lifetime.” That is delusional religious claptrap. All that attitude does is turn one into an intransigent dogmatic lout with a savior complex. Try accomplishing something more befitting a human being and not a titan. Maybe get elected to your local town council and save a few bucks by getting some services privatized.

  9. Matt Cholko

    Yes, I am aware that there’s no actual “world set free in our lifetime” coming, regardless of what the LP does. Maybe a better way to say that would be – we’re never going to make this world substantially freer.

  10. Anthony Dlugos

    How is potentially upsetting all gay people, all school board members and all service members, plus anyone who knows a gay person, school board member or service member helping to make the world freer? Don’t we need those people’s support? I’m just curious.

    That phrase “a world set free in our lifetime” needs to be deleted from the conscious…and subconscious…of the Libertarian Party members minds. All it does is justify hurting people via the excuse of, “I have a greater mission here.” Its the Che Guevara effect in libertarian clothing.

  11. Marc Montoni

    “… calling all servicemembers “accessories to murder’ is not a basic libertarian point.”

    Meadows would disagree:

    “You can’t hate war, but worship the people committing those acts of violence, and justify it with “just following orders”…. You can’t be anti war and support the pawns of the military industrial complex. Those missiles don’t launch themselves. Those planes aren’t all autonomous.”

  12. Anthony Dlugos

    I’ll concede not everyone agrees with me that such a blanket statement about service members is inadvisable.

    That’s why the party presumably has a process to determine if the party as a whole finds it objectionable. Ultimately, that’s what counts.

    As an aside, although the vote fell one vote short of dismissal, it was effectively an 11-6 vote of no-confidence.

    If Vohra had any honor, he’d resign based on that reality alone.

    I don’t expect it.

  13. Marc Montoni

    I’m not too worried.

    Get rid of anyone who has the stones to call for eliminating the military, abolishing all regulations, and eliminating public schools, and the floor will be all set for Weld 2020 and an LP that means absolutely fucking nothing.

    Those of us who think government employees are *willing* cogs in a CCE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise) will just go somewhere else and start over while the statist swooners go back to fattening Leviathan as the “New Libertarians”.

  14. Marc Montoni

    Vohra is not resigning for the precise reason that he wanted to make apologists like yourself as uncomfortable as possible for as long as possible, only because you so richly deserve it for what you’ve done to the philosophy.

    I do not believe he wanted another term, knew that Weld was the next inside con job, and decided to use this year as a way to make a point and at the same time leave the leadership of the party of Weld with a few black eyes they’d have a hard time covering up with sunglasses in 2020.

    Libertarians today are ideologically weak in comparison to even the minarchists, much less the anarchists or radicals, of the early seventies. The way most fold when the basic ideas are challenged (or even stated, before anyone even has a chance to challenge them) is pathetic.

  15. Anthony Dlugos

    “If you don’t like what someone says, what’s the best response?”

    That depends who that person is and what my relationship is to that person. If they are some dope with a blog, I don’t give a sh*t. If they are in a leadership position in an organization I am part of, and what the person says is egregious enough, then I want them gone.

    I don’t block people on Facebook (I really don’t get on Facebook much), but if some idiot on Facebook publishes a post that argues the 16th amendment was illegally enacted, and henceforth he will not be paying his income tax, it is quite easy for me to ignore it.

    If the owner of my company makes the same post, I am going to start looking for a new job.

    See the difference?

    There is no organization in this universe that operates in the way you suggest, Marc: carrying on as if nothing is happening while a person in a leadership position acts like a twat. There is a reason organizations have morals clauses for important individuals within the organization. Its important to note that. with morals clauses, it doesn’t much matter where the offense occurs, private or not, if it goes public or might go public, and causes or might cause damage to the organization, it is grounds for possible removal.

    My sister is an ex-teacher who now runs a preschool. We have a cousin who graduated last year with a degree in teaching.

    The FIRST piece of advice my sister gave to our cousin at the outset of her nascent teaching career is to NEVER post any pictures on Facebook where she is holding an alcoholic beverage. Not “don’t drink on the job.” Don’t post ANY picture, private or not, off the job, vacation, St. Patricks Day…doesn’t matter. Any picture like that can be viewed by a school board she might end up working for as not an image they want to project to the public.

    Is that bad advice? Should my sister have told my cousin, “post what you want online, and if the school board approaches you about it, tell them to stick to their jobs and, if they don’t like the images you post on Facebook, there is an easy solution…just block me.” What kind of wisdom is that?

  16. Anthony Dlugos

    “I do not believe he wanted another term…”

    now THAT, you’ll get my full agreement on.

  17. DJ

    AD: a post that argues the 16th amendment was illegally enacted, and henceforth he will not be paying his income tax, it is quite easy for me to ignore it.

    Me: There’s some pretty convincing evidence on the posters side. That doesn’t mean he’ll win against the stacked odds of willing to spend millions to collect dimes from those “trained” to twist, spin and castigate in favor of intentional misinterpretation- but, it doesn’t make him/her wrong in the assessment. It does mean the actions of the spenders of other peoples money have unlimited funds at their disposal gained through questionable actions. Ignoring it means, IMO, you side with the perpetrators of questionable actions. Because you don’t like contrarian opinion doesn’t make you right or the actions not questionable. If that person is libertarian, Libertarian, or republican, Republican, Democrat or Independent voter I applaud his action of not paying his taxes, and his reasoning for his actions. Ignoring is, by default, supportive of the questionable actions. That “action” of ignoring a valuable will lead to ignoring a fundamental belief at choosing time for those designated to “speak for” the “group”- leading to confusing the issue(s), again, and gaining no traction for the group, again- but, *should you (or whomever) decide to stay in the group*, you, by default, have to abide by the groups decision-

  18. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    First, radicals shouldn’t quit the party unless the conservatives make such drastic changes to the https://www.lp.org/platform/ as to gut the preamble and statement of principles. Of course, if they gutted the three most hardcore planks of platform – abortion, self-determination and omissions – it would be almost as bad. It’s fun to see the outspoken conservatives give up and leave. Mostly cause they can’t control who the states run and these danged wacky radicals keep running and getting national attention.

  19. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    To be clear in my post above, I meant even IF conservatives dominated the LNC totally, they can’t stop hardcore libertarian candidates from running unless they take over all the states and even then there are actual primaries in some states.

    Of course, they haven’t been able to fully dominate the LNC and even then they can’t dominate everything every LNC member writes in their personal life. Even if Vohra had used the most sensitive language (including talking about children’s rights, with age of consent a side issue, which IS the proper context), he would have driven SOME of them crazy.

    Of course, if they’d publicized his MOST sensible comments, it only would have educated people. Unfortunately, the more sensible ones too often came after the stupid/offensive ones. Well, hopefully he’ll go back to being sensible again when he loses his job of being the LNC UBERgadfly.

  20. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Sounds like Marc is attacking someone specific. But can’t think who like that has LEFT the party.

    For those who are interested, Marc – who drove an Italian Jewish feminist from her job as a VA officer by constant criticism and getting his cronies to deny her resources and even communications – also doesn’t think Americans have ANY right to criticize the state of Israel. (I believe Mr. Knapp thinks it is ok.)

    For example, he probably thinks I’m a big anti-semite for sharing this excellent article by Eric Margolis about the neocons pushing us towards nuclear war, in part so Israel can steal a lot of Syrian land. Marc – a gentile? – probably thinks Margolis – a Jew – is a big anti-semite. https://ericmargolis.com/2018/04/playing-with-nuclear-matches/

    I think Marc’s definition of “anti-semite” is: anyone who dares to post an article critical of the STATE of Israel” after HE tells them just ONCE they are an anti-semite.

    However, I think Marc may have experienced bigotry in his own life. Growing up in 50s and 60s in New Jersey I found people were actually MORE prejudiced against Italians than Jews. Jews were considered educated and wealthy, while Italians were considered the opposite, and possibly tied to “the mob.” Of course, my grandfather having made lots of money transporting booze from PA to NYC during Prohibition had lots of Italian friends. So I still heard all the jokes in high school and from some members of my family.

    As a Sexagenarian (for two more weeks anyway) it is interesting to watch how bigotry diminished over time, from those of the 1890s-born generation distaste and disgust; to 1920s-born fear and bad jokes; to 1940s-50s-born increasing liberalism and embarrasment about past bigotry; to 1980s and on being so much more comfortable with the radical/ethnic/etc diversity they live with daily. In California and East Coast where I’ve lived, anyway. Can’t speak for the whole country. 🙁

  21. Anthony Dlugos

    I would be interested in someone telling me how & why Mr. Vohra did his about face.

    He went from penning a well-worded Facebook post right before or at the 2016 Convention, describing how Johnson was the most qualified man for the job, we can’t pass up this opportunity, and we don’t need a perfect libertarian candidate…watching the election results like the rest of us….then a couple months later announcing it was time to stop pussyfooting around, and turning into a bombthrowing radical par excellence.

    Its an odd transformation in under a year, seemingly without explanation. I’m not saying someone can’t go from moderate libertarian to radical (tho its probably rare), but it is strange to go from “Johnson’s the right man to the job,” to “Lets shoot up school boards.” to the point where many radicals washed their hands of him.

  22. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anythony:

    I’m disappointed you have never noticed the clear and obvious reason for the change. Within a few days of making his military-faux pas comments, Larry Sharpe and others, including state parties, were calling for him to be kicked off the LNC. And LP Veterans had a joke meme about shooting him at the 2018 convention.

    So as a bad tempered TAURUS THE BULL, like me (we’ve joked about it) he’s gone on a tear ever since. Think of the bull tearing up the pea patch for days!! Pink hair and breast flaunting in the service of removing the abortion plank from the platform had the same effect on me. Even if half the problem is over, the rage goes on and on and one. Don’t mess with the bull!!! Especially ideological ones.

  23. Marc Montoni

    Obsessed about him as you are, it’s somewhat surprising you haven’t read his own statements on the “why”, Dlugos.

    But certainly the intervening noise sounds like a better story.

    Carry on.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn Ann,

    “Regardless of my personal opinion, the leadership of the states in Region 1 had that position and it is to their interests I promised to represent.”

    It wasn’t the interests of the state parties’ “leadership” you promised to represent, it was the interests of the state parties themselves.

    Injecting steroids into the idiotic temper tantrums of the “leadership” in question was the opposite of representing the interests of the state parties.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    He went from penning a well-worded Facebook post right before or at the 2016 Convention, describing how Johnson was the most qualified man for the job, we can’t pass up this opportunity, and we don’t need a perfect libertarian candidate…watching the election results like the rest of us….then a couple months later announcing it was time to stop pussyfooting around, and turning into a bombthrowing radical par excellence.

    Its an odd transformation in under a year, seemingly without explanation.
    —–

    The explanation would seem to be right there in your description. Apparently after watching a campaign he had supported turn into a party-damaging train wreck, he re-thought his approach.

  26. Richard Winger

    I would love to see Nick Sarwark as the Libertarian presidential nominee sometime in the future. If we win the presidential debate case now pending in US District Court, I would be very happy with Nick on the debate stage in the general election of a future presidential year debate that included the Dem and Rep presidential nominees.

  27. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom I think I know what I said I would or would not do during my campaign.

    And also by far by every metric the membership of region 1 supported.

    Others do not agree with you. It happens.

  28. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Thomas L. Knapp April 18, 2018 at 18:57 quoted me: “(I believe Mr. Knapp thinks it is ok.)”

    and asked: Thinks what is OK?

    CM replies: As context makes clear, that Americans have a right to criticize the foreign state of Israel. (Obviously, with sensible qualifications like fact-based, without obvious bigoted language, etc.)

    Obviously one can quibble about “REAL” motivations if one finds fairly consistent and overt hostility.

    So not everyone might agree – i.e., quibble with – with my analysis of sexism by males who are hostile to uppity women. 🙂

  29. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    Yes, I know that others disagree with me. And some agree with me.

    You participated in an attack on the party. If that participation was unintentional, it seems like you’d show remorse at some point.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    Carol,

    Yes, of course I agree that people have the right to criticize Israel.

    In my experience, when you play the “sexism by males who are hostile to uppity women” card, it’s because you’re desperate because you’re losing an argument on the merits. But perhaps my experience is atypical.

  31. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Re: Vohra motivations in his own words:

    Vohra himself clearly states it is about getting people as fired up as he is about being hard core. (Or as pissed off as his taurus psyche is at NON-hardcore?) Also, he’s mad about unconscious selling out, which was very much what the military brouhaha and LNC resolution supporting veterans was about.

    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011485.html
    [Lnc-business] Fwd: Re: Recent VC Comments
    Arvin Vohra votevohra at gmail.com
    Tue Jan 16 01:42:39 EST 2018

    LNC –

    I have argued for the last months that for us to engage in serious
    politics, we must engage in the relevant culture wars, as the major parties
    do, as all major political movements have in human history. I’ve indicated
    my belief that we, as a party, have essentially internalized the values of
    our opposition. Sure, we’re willing to say “Taxation is Theft”, but it’s
    become more of an in-group code phrase than a substantive opinion.

    …None of this is to say that I believe Mr. Sharpe, or anyone on this board,
    is a statist. I don’t. But if even one of our most principled, savvy, and
    experienced leaders are subconsciously buying into the value systems of our
    opponents, we have work to do.

    Mr. Sharpe’s email drives my point home far better than I could. The email
    suggests that my words have bullied government school teachers, soldiers in
    the federal government’s army, parents who use tax-funded schools, etc.

    Imagine if we could get just Libertarians as infuriated about acts against
    adults that are done against their consent as they are about discussions
    about age of consent. Or if we could get the whole country fired up to that
    level. Imagine if there were the same level of social pressure, for
    example, against using government schools, for the simple reason that they
    are nonconsensually funded. That would be a $500 billion a year tax
    savings, neutralization of the state’s propaganda arm, a massive
    improvement in educational quality, more innovation, and more jobs as
    businesses came to the now most educated country on earth. Imagine if real
    considerations of actual consent were as emotionally charged as the
    squeamishness of even discussing age of consent. Imagine if we could get
    there not just logically, but emotionally.

    We’re there logically. Logically, we know that nonconsensual government
    acts are wrong. But we’ve come to emotionally accept them. Let’s work to
    get ourselves and others to where our emotions match our logic.
    ….

  32. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    What proof do you have I only charge sexism when losing an argument?

    Unless of course you mean that using other’s using smears against me to counter my argument IS winning an argument??

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    However, that e-mail from Arvin is from January of 2018.

    However, he made his intentions known about becoming a self-indulgent bombthrower in January of 2017 or so, less than a year after his post on Facebook, a post which not only said that Johnson was the best man for the job (written by him at a time when it was already known that Governor Weld was his preferred running mate), but said that the presidency is just a job, and one does not need to be the perfect libertarian to do the job.

    Who with half a brain did not realize that J-W were going to run a moderate libertarian campaign? That strains credulity. The only thing that happened in the intervening time between his post and his metamorphosis was a tripling of the previous best vote total for a Libertarian presidential candidate.

    I guess its possible for someone to argue that, while Vohra understood it was going to be a moderate campaign, he was unprepared for the extent of the apostasy that J-W perpetrated. But, as I said, Vohra didn’t just turn over a new leaf as a Radical. He went on a full-blown kamikaze mission.

    I stand with my original position: the brat Petersen got to him at the Convention, and Arvin figured the only way to personally get something out of being an unpaid Vice Chair was to be a Petersen-like troll artist.

    And look, it got him 1300-word Reason article. Mission Accomplished. To some extent.

  34. DJ

    CM: What proof do you have I only charge sexism when losing an argument?

    Me: LOL…. when else do you charge it? Often?

  35. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    So as to not make it appear I’m criticizing Knapp for criticizing the female Ms. Harlos, and having read many of LNC posts about her position on driving Vohra off LNC, I can agree with him here when he writes:

    April 18, 2018 at 04:07: “It wasn’t the interests of the state parties’ “leadership” you promised to represent, it was the interests of the state parties themselves. Injecting steroids into the idiotic temper tantrums of the “leadership” in question was the opposite of representing the interests of the state parties.”

    In my conspiracy theory, of course, it’s all about Harlos – a (still?) evangelical Christian (former rock&roll heathen) and big “save the fetus” fanatic – trying to suck up to the conservatives sellouts trying to take over the party while waving the radical flag/pink hair/cleavage. And screaming HARASSMENT! because people dare to criticize her and make funny memes about her. (Just like they make funny memes about Vohra.)

    Now I did hear some guy allegedly tried or did physical assaulted her at the CO convention recently. Would love to hear more details. But whatever sneaky/opportunistic/two faced nonsense she was up to this time, it certainly did NOT warrant a physical attack!!

  36. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anthony Dlugos, April 19, 2018 at 13:50 wrote: However, that e-mail from Arvin is from January of 2018. However, he made his intentions known about becoming a self-indulgent bombthrower in January of 2017 or so….”

    I really haven’t seen anything since before May of 2017 myself. Sharing it would help. In any case, the hyper racial statements didn’t really get a lot of attention across a number of media until the military/veterans incidents. Unless I missed something.

    Also there was a recent email to LNC where he said he was just going to keep it up. Maybe the one I sent where I missed copying a more explicit statement than what I included.

  37. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Ooops – above I meant re Vohra above, the hyper RADICAL statements didn’t really get a lot of attention …

  38. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DJ
    April 19, 2018 at 13:53

    CM: What proof do you have I only charge sexism when losing an argument?

    Me: LOL…. when else do you charge it? Often?

    There’s a difference between only charging sexism when you are losing an argument with a specific male person AND saying that sexist patriarchy is the basis of our moral and political order. Which of course I do say.

    But I also say patriarchy is based on fundamental human ignorance of the true nature and purpose of human existence. And I’d focus more on that if I did NOT allow myself to get constantly waylaid by the antics of foolish and even dangerous patriarchal males. The female bull must practice self-discipline and control!! (famous last words.)

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    “What proof do you have I only charge sexism when losing an argument?”

    I didn’t make a claim that requires production of proof. I merely offered an opinion based on my own experience with you. Any time you’re losing an argument, it all of a sudden becomes about male sexism. Unless the argument is with a woman, in which case it becomes about hair color and cleavage.

  40. DJ

    CM: There’s a difference between only charging sexism when you are losing an argument with a specific male person AND saying that sexist patriarchy is the basis of our moral and political order. Which of course I do say.

    Me: Ah- I thought there for a minute, oh wait. I guess you’ll call me sexist- but, your opinion is, to me, immaterial. It is a mans world. That’s not to say women don’t have any rights, or any say, but, you are, for one, out numbered, and, men have been making the rules since time began. Personal attacks using the latest ism or ist doesn’t help anyone- instant gratification is just that- very short shelf life. Putting anothers light out doesn’t make your’s shine brighter.

    Personally, I love women and have always held in them in high regard and really appreciate their perspective(s) – that doesn’t mean I should because – sexist, and it doesn’t mean I won’t strike back when struck- verbally of course- physically if physically attacked, by anyone, including the “fairer” sex. Men treat other men the same way they treat women, depending, largely, on their status, perceived or real- many, men AND women act as though they don’t put their pants on one leg at a time and believe themselves better than, what/whomever- they ain’t. Period. I will stand up for a woman against a man just to even the playing field- until she starts flinging ism and ist- then all bets are off.

  41. Carol Moore/Itsamansworldism.com

    Please detail your It’s-A-Man’s-World-ISM philosophy. I meant that probably is a BETTER phrase than PATRIARCHY anyway.

    You may have just revolutionized feminism!!! Quick, take credit for it before I do!!

  42. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    What’s with the “moderation” thing?

    Does it kick in when you’ve posted a certain number or something? I missed the memo.

  43. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Thomas L. Knapp
    April 19, 2018 at 14:42
    CM: “What proof do you have I only charge sexism when losing an argument?”
    TK: I didn’t make a claim that requires production of proof. I merely offered an opinion based on my own experience with you. Any time you’re losing an argument, it all of a sudden becomes about male sexism. Unless the argument is with a woman, in which case it becomes about hair color and cleavage.

    CM replies. Ah, ha. Now we are in the verifiable field of view. Opinions…

    I only have talked about one woman’s hair. And two women’s cleavage – and they are both obnoxious pro-lifers who claim NOT to be prohibitionists, though many pro-choicers find it difficult to believe their denials for a number of reasons.

    And since most libertarians DO want to keep the government out of the abortion area, the reason to be is pissed is not losing an argument, but the belief held by more than a few that they DO want more conservative anti-abortionists in the party.

    I mean they can’t even have a rational discussion of age of consent without going INSANE and finding pedophiles under every rock. (They’d probably do same with Children’s rights, even if sex not mentioned.)

    And having found a couple pedophiles during my time and exposing them, it’s annoying to see alleged libertarians politicizing the issue and making it a trojan horse for conservative statist takeover. And I don’t care what kind of a freak cleavage flag they fly.

  44. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    What’s with the “moderation” thing?

    paulie Post author
    April 19, 2018 at 15:11
    Your screen name and email have to match a previously approved comment. It’s an anti-spam measure.

    OK, so no playing with the name…

  45. paulie Post author

    I guess its possible for someone to argue that, while Vohra understood it was going to be a moderate campaign, he was unprepared for the extent of the apostasy that J-W perpetrated.

    Lots of people were unprepared for that.

  46. Anthony Dlugos

    “Lots of people were unprepared for that.”

    Really? I’m surprised.

    Just the fact that Johnson picked Weld as his running mate shoulda told everyone they weren’t going to toe the typical dogmatic Libertarian line.

    Maybe its just a matter of perspective after all. From mine, the heretical positions were nothing to get in a twist about., given that they were both in the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart.

  47. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    Who with half a brain did not realize that J-W were going to run a moderate libertarian campaign?

    Like many libertarians, I would have been perfectly happy if Johnson/Weld ran a moderate libertarian campaign. They didn’t do that.

    Johnson/Weld ran against the platform on a wide range of issues. He ran on a big new sales tax and new welfare scheme. He advocated for new wars. He opposed drug legalization except for marijuana. He wanted to ban burqas. Those are not libertarian positions by any stretch of the imagination — even attaching a modifier like “moderate”.

    I did not find those positions surprising. I strongly advocated that the delegates not nominate Johnson/Weld for that reason. However, it is possible some other people (not me) were surprised after the fact by how off the reservation Johnson/Weld were later in their campaign.

  48. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom,

    ==Yes, I know that others disagree with me. And some agree with me.===

    By any metric the vast majority of Region 1 does – and that is ultimately where my duty lies.

    ==You participated in an attack on the party. If that participation was unintentional, it seems like you’d show remorse at some point.==

    It wasn’t an attack on the Party – intentional or otherwise. It is Arvin who I believe should show remorse – but on that – we will disagree forever probably. And the fact that the issue has support from ALL OVER the spectrum highlights the issue.

    I find that a lot of the puzzlement over my position comes from not understanding that my starting point is nearly always a pretty hard deontological position.

    But anyways – on this, I have absolutely no reservation that I served my region well, and that the next representative will be asked the same questions. So far, each of the candidates for region 1/alt also agree and they are come from the more radical side. Radicals have a lot to loose in agreeing — when they do, it is because they have good reasons to do, come what may.

    I disagree with Nick in what he came down on, but I respect his reasoning, and he did take a firm stand in condemning the behaviour. I wish he had done that from the beginning.

  49. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Richard Winger, ME TOO!! Nick would make a fantastic top of the ticket candidate.

  50. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Paulie Post author
    April 19, 2018 at 15:25 wrote respond to carol’s ” The female bull ” — Cow?

    Since gender bending so popular now a days I’m doing it. 🙂

    to DJ: you can’t distract me from your having disgorged the biggest male club secret code word “man’s world”. ha ha ha

    But seriously, I don’t want to take energy away from all the other women posting here….

    OOOPSSS… it’s just two high testosterone ones… har har

  51. DJ

    CM: you can’t distract me from your having disgorged the biggest male club secret code word “man’s world”. ha ha ha

    Me: Disgorged? Distract? LOL, reading all the whining, the song is first thing I thought of- like it or not, it’s a fact. Listen to the words and tell me what’s incorrect. Better yet, read them.

    This is a man’s world
    This is a man’s world
    But it wouldn’t be nothing, nothing
    Without a woman or a girl

    You see man made the cars
    To take us over the road
    Man made the train
    To carry the heavy load

    Man made the electric light
    To take us out of the dark
    Man made the boat for the water
    Like Noah made the ark

    This is a man’s, man’s, man’s world
    But it wouldn’t be nothing, nothing
    Without a woman or a girl

    Man thinks about a little bit of baby girls
    And a baby boys
    Man makes them happy
    ‘Cause man makes them toys

    And after man’s made everything
    Everything he can
    You know that man makes money
    To buy from other man

    This is a man’s world
    But it wouldn’t be nothing, nothing
    Not one little thing
    Without a woman or a girl

    He’s lost in the wilderness
    He’s lost in bitterness
    He’s lost

    You’re not acting any different than those you try to disparage-or disgorge. Of course if you can disprove it I’m all eyes. Like it or not, men and women are different and men were the rulers long before women were desirous of the fame- and you’re not kidding anyone, even yourself, if you claim that isn’t what the desire is. Putting others light out doesn’t make yours shine brighter- there is no disparity of gender assigned. ha-ha-ha

  52. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Oh, DL, do an internet on “things invented by women” and variations of those words. Thousands of things. And that’s in HISTORICAL times.

    What it is about is RE-creating social and political institutions with women’s equal input. Bye bye militaries. Bye bye big nation states. Bye bye ATF/FBi killing religious minorities in their churches and homes. Bye bye SO MANY BAD THINGS….

    And that’s even maybe 1/2 of the NON-libertarian women. And the statist women are getting more and more fed up with daddy patriarchy who does nothing for them and just frustrations and demeans them.

    Right now listening to a two hour video on facebook of pissed off British women organizing after violent male protesters supported by numerous MPs have shut them down at previous gatherings. Some men just can’t stand women speaking up for themselves.
    https://www.facebook.com/TheJamJarBristol/videos/793672257494647/

    Will be interesting to see if UK’s fascist suppression of free speech blossoms even more in this country. Especially if Dems take power in congress and white house again. ugh….

  53. DJ

    CM: Oh, DL,

    Me: DJ- so easy even a woman can read it.

    You’re not acting any different than those you try to disparage-or disgorge. Of course if you can disprove it I’m all eyes. Like it or not, men and women are different and men were the rulers long before women were desirous of the fame- and you’re not kidding anyone, even yourself, if you claim that isn’t what the desire is. Putting others light out doesn’t make yours shine brighter- there is no disparity of gender assigned. ha-ha-ha

  54. DJ

    CM: What it is about is RE-creating

    Me: “Mother” Nature doesn’t like to be fooled. Men will fight regardless of who’s in charge. Men will commit aggression regardless of the alphabet assigned. Women will do what they’re told, just like men. It is Natural phenomenon.

    Like I said I love women- but, as my brother used to say; Women have hurt me more than coffee or cigarettes ever will.

    I hold no animosity toward women- but I have a great disdain for obnoxious and/or over bearing I don’t care what they look like, how they dress, or don’t dress- what their voice sounds like or doesn’t sound like, how they smell or don’t smell, or what they call them self or others, or what “sex” they happen to be.

    I particularly like women in shorts and flip flops. But sluts are sluts and when their dress and demeanor suggests they aren’t good Mother material then I am hurt- for the kids they will bear, and the absolute bad future the kids, especially female kids, will suffer. No man can bear kids. Many men don’t have the sense god gave a goose when it comes to rearing kids, but, women do- it’s Natural phenomenon.

    I’ve worked with, and for, women and admired them for their skills and talent- but I have also experienced, and witnessed, absolute she devil, full on I’m a woman and can do whatever I want because I’m a woman playing the the sexist/mysogynist card just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton play the race card.
    I tell men the same thing I tell women- how much more “fair” can I be- work hard in silence, let your success speak for itself.

  55. Anthony Dlugos

    “Like many libertarians, I would have been perfectly happy if Johnson/Weld ran a moderate libertarian campaign. They didn’t do that.”

    Anyone a Planck length down from full blown Anarchism Now! is in the authoritarian quadrant to you, Chuck.

    The bottom line is, to the typical voter, J-W were safely in the libertarian quadrant.

    Because of electoral math, where the J-W campaign was relative to your opinion…or mine…was totally irrelevant.

    In my outreach during the J-W campaign, any voter I spoke to was able to make the connection between “fiscally responsible, socially accepting” or some such formulation of libertarianism and J-W’s official position on drug policy. Why? Voters are not looking for strict ideological consistency. To them, federal decriminalization of marijuana and, say, young people gaining control of some or all of their social security funds is VERY libertarian.

    I never had one voter follow up my re-statement of the J-W position on drug policy with a comment like, “well, unless your guy stands for the immediate legalization of ALL drugs and an immediate release of all non-violent drug offenders, I ain’t voting for him.” Not once.

    In fact, my experience was just the opposite: if they did bring up other drugs, it was in reference to re-assuring them that our candidate does not intend to upend their world with a serious of drastic changes.

    The ONLY people who got distressed about J-W’s apostasies was the tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of Libertarians, the dogmatic Pharisees. Given the math of elective politics, those people do not count. Hell, I don’t count. I’m good with that.

    This is what happens when your make your focus the voters’ opinion, when you listen to them.

    As an aside, just because we might have converted a voter based on the J-W position on drugs does not in any way foreclose the possibility that such a voter will later get converted to full blown drug legalization, especially if federal marijuana decriminalization goes off without a hitch.

    In fact, the data indicates just the opposite: once we get them voting Libertarian, they get invested in continuing to do so, and the primary way we can f*ck up that process is to scare them away from the get go with your version of libertopia.

  56. robert capozzi

    cm: He wanted to ban burqas.

    me: True, but highly misleading, which I suspect you know. GJ reversed himself on that ill-conceived position rather quickly, IIRC. When he took that position, I made clear I would not vote for him, and the amount of pressure he got on that one made him see the error of his ways on that one.

    Citing that in a list of positions he took throughout the campaign indicates some form of malice on your part.

    I still feel good about voting for J/W, even though I disagreed with them on several issues. I would have stayed home had any of the other candidates been nominated.

  57. paulie Post author

    The ONLY people who got distressed about J-W’s apostasies was the tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of Libertarians, the dogmatic Pharisees.

    Not true at all. Regular citizens at, say, a gun show expressed many concerns and negative views about, for example, Weld’s position on guns, virtual endorsement of Hillary Clinton, etc. And of course Johnson acting goofy and stoned, appearing to not be familiar with foreign policy and other policy issues, etc.

  58. George Phillies

    Indeed, my liberal friends who had been considering Johnson saw the town hall where is supporters said he has always been laid back, and detractors claimed he was stoned out of his mind, and decided not to support him. Whish he was does not matter.

  59. paulie Post author

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160826/libertarian-vp-candidate-william-f-weld-continues-to-be-anti-gun

    In an August interview with Revolt.tv, Weld reiterated this position. When asked about what can be done “to control this flow of guns,” Weld responded, “you shouldn’t have anybody who’s on a terrorist watch list be able to buy any gun at all.”

    At another point in the interview Weld characterized commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines as potential weapons of mass destruction. Displaying a level of ignorance usually attendant to politicians carrying the endorsement of the Brady Campaign, Weld told the interviewer:

    The five-shot rifle, that’s a standard military rifle. The problem is if you attach a clip to it so it can fire more shells and if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon. And those are independent criminal offenses. That’s when they become essentially a weapon of mass destruction.

    Weld went on to suggest to the interviewer that both handguns and AR-15s are a “problem,” stating, “The problem with handguns is probably even worse than the problem of the AR-15.”

    That’s literally the first result in google for william weld gun control.

  60. Anthony Dlugos

    I just want to go on record stating I did not want to re-hash the 2016 presidential ticket decision…

    Now, I must take leave of you all whilst i give a fresh coat of paint to my Soviet T-34 tank.

  61. Andy

    I received more negative comments about the Johnson/Weld ticket while gathering petitions of any LP candidates ever, both pre-election and post-election, even surpassing the negativity from Barr/Root. Most of the negative comments were about their lack of libertarian principles, and/or them coming off as goofy and unprepared, or both. These negative comments mostly came from people who were otherwise sympathetic to the Libertarian Party, and/or to minor party and independents candidates in general.

    Even out of those who voted for Johnson/Weld, Most did so as a protest votes, because they did not like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, and not so much because they thought Johnson/Weld was a great ticket.

  62. robert capozzi

    PF,

    Yes, I certainly recall that he was shaky on the issue. He wasn’t planning on running and had not really thought things through when he took the interview.

    This is why having a Shiny Badge can be important, and that running for office takes a LOT of preparation and contemplation. NAPsters too often rely on robotic dogma and eschew political positioning and marketability of ideas as consideratiions.

    GJ has less of an excuse, as he was considering a run for more than 4 years, and out of the gates, he fucked up with his call for a burqa ban.

    Politics is not easy. Spouting rote, simplistic NAP nostrums without any consideration for the zeitgeist only requires a reasonably good memory.

    To be fair, I thought the burqa ban was SO dumb that if he’d stuck with it, I would not have trudged to the polling place, so it’s hard for me to be critical of CM’s and other’s lack of tolerance. I think there’s a difference, though, in that plumbline-deviation thinking is SO narrow and dogmatic that I’d suggest that plumbliners restrict themselves to pure philosophy rather than delving into electoral politics, more for their own good, as they are sure to become frustrated and often apoplectic over heresies.

    The burqa ban trial balloon was just flat-out dumb.

    Aleppo, sticking his tongue out at Kasie Hunt, and other missteps I could overlook. Politics is hard to do well, as I said.

  63. Anthony Dlugos

    “Yes, I certainly recall that he was shaky on the issue. He wasn’t planning on running and had not really thought things through when he took the interview.

    This is why having a Shiny Badge can be important, and that running for office takes a LOT of preparation and contemplation. NAPsters too often rely on robotic dogma and eschew political positioning and marketability of ideas as consideratiions.

    GJ has less of an excuse, as he was considering a run for more than 4 years, and out of the gates, he fucked up with his call for a burqa ban.

    Politics is not easy. Spouting rote, simplistic NAP nostrums without any consideration for the zeitgeist only requires a reasonably good memory.

    To be fair, I thought the burqa ban was SO dumb that if he’d stuck with it, I would not have trudged to the polling place, so it’s hard for me to be critical of CM’s and other’s lack of tolerance. I think there’s a difference, though, in that plumbline-deviation thinking is SO narrow and dogmatic that I’d suggest that plumbliners restrict themselves to pure philosophy rather than delving into electoral politics, more for their own good, as they are sure to become frustrated and often apoplectic over heresies.”

    +1000.

    The Libertarian Party needs so much more of that.

  64. paulie Post author

    He wasn’t planning on running and had not really thought things through when he took the interview.

    He said similar things as the nominated candidate. I don’t have links handy but saw it on TV myself.

    I just want to go on record stating I did not want to re-hash the 2016 presidential ticket decision…

    Me neither, and I usually try to stay away from that here. I just dispute the contention that people’s only objection to Weld is that he is a moderate libertarian. Reason magazine is for the most part moderate libertarian and they published this:

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/19/william-weld-isnt-a-softcore-libertarian
    William Weld Isn’t a Softcore Libertarian—He Just Isn’t a Libertarian At All
    If Weld wants the Libertarian Party to nominate him for the vice presidency, he’ll have to explain his positions on Iraq, guns, and eminent domain.
    Jesse Walker|May. 19, 2016 12:33 pm

    I think it’s still relevant since there is a lot of talk about Weld running in 2020. I’m less inclined to rehash Johnson yet again since I don’t think he will run for office again.

  65. Andy

    Yes, with Bill Weld it is not so much a matter of him not being libertarian enough, as it is a matter of him being not libertarian at all.

    I think the same could actually be said about Gary Johnson as well, the only difference being that Johnson did a better job of snowjobbing people.

  66. robert capozzi

    PF: He said similar things as the nominated candidate. I don’t have links handy but saw it on TV myself.

    me: Sure he did. I gotta believe it was a whirlwind for WW. GJ calls him, basically forces him on the Convention, endures Perry screaming and spitting on him, but my sense is they never had the time or staff to nail down their messaging.

    WW is SO naturally articulate that they probably just let him phone it in, and he was relying on his views from a decade prior, dusting off the cobwebs and generally wowing the media. GJ needed a lot more handling, since he is NOT naturally articulate.

    These are likely explanations, hopefully not excuses! They took their best shot. I’m not sure Nielson was their best Svengali, although he deserves propers for the videos and events, which were A/A-, in my view. In fact, I would not be surprised if the burqa insanity was something Nielson or another handler whispered in GJ’s ear. Regardless, that one should have been shot down immediately with appropriate ridicule.

  67. Andy

    Robert, do you think if say Ron Paul, or Andrew Napolitano, had come in last minute to be Gary Johnson’s VP nominee, that they would have sounded as bad as Bill Weld did, or Gary Johnson for that matter?

  68. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    I thought WW is the most articulate of the 3, and helped to position the ticket as sensible centrists with Shiny Badges. RP1 has a tremendous amount of hard-right baggage, and is among the least articulate pols out there. (He does have a sincerity about him that I think made him a somewhat effective pol.)

    Answering questions about Newslettergate 1 and 2 would not have helped. And he’s a plumbliner, so I don’t think he would have done it.

    AN is almost as articulate as WW, . He probably would not have tripped the plumbline as much as WW did. If he would have done it, in some ways he might have been the superior choice than WW, although WW gave them the TeamGuv angle. It would have been a more right-leaning ticket, which I’m not sure AN would have been better or not overall.

  69. Andy

    Ron Paul is way more popular, and is far more respected, than Bill Weld. Bill Weld is more respected in ruling establishment circles, but among the “regular” people, Ron Paul is more respected.

    Also, the job of Libertarian Party candidates is not to run a centrist campaign, it is to run a libertarian campaign. If Johnson/Weld wanted to run as moderates or centrist, they should have tried to get nominated by a Moderate Party, or a Centrist Parry, and.they should have sought 50 state plus DC ballot access under a banner like that, or they should have run ad independents.

    Running as a Libertarian Party candidate implies that you should run a campaign that could actually be accurately described as being libertarian.

  70. paulie Post author

    Paleoconservative/nationalist =/= libertarian.

    Authoritarian patriarchy =/= libertarian.

    Alt reich =/= libertarian.

  71. Andy

    So are you claiming that Ron Pail is not a libertarian? Is Andrew Napolitano not a libertarian?

    If so, try telling that to all of those people at Anarchapulco 2018, as Ron Paul was the keynote speaker there.

    Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano are scheduked to be at Anarchapulco 2019 (this will be the 1st Anarchapuloco appearance for Napolitano, assuming he makes it).

    A libertarian is somebody who supports property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle. If one supports these things, they are a libertarian, if not, then not.

    Now one can debate how to apply property rights and the NAP, or what is the best way to achieve a libertarian society, but the heart of libertarianism is property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle.

  72. Anthony Dlugos

    “I think it’s still relevant since there is a lot of talk about Weld running in 2020. I’m less inclined to rehash Johnson yet again since I don’t think he will run for office again.“

    Fair point, paulie.

  73. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Yes, I’d say RP1 is probably more popular than WW, although neither is especially popular in the big picture. RP1 was a more national figure than WW was, but that he was a MA guv shows he knew how to run and win with a difficult electorate. RP1 is also FAR more notorious than WW because of NewsletterGate 1.0 and 2.0.

    That WW got a bit out of his element on guns seems like a minor infraction to me compared with a decade of hate being published under his name.

    Like I said, your hypothetical doesn’t work since RP1 would not have done it, given that he’s a plumbliner except when it comes to his son.

    As I see it, L-ism IS centrist, as it’s neither right nor left. NAPsterism is also neither right nor left mostly because it’s not in the same dimension as this world! 😉 NAPsterism is a tiny branch of the LM which unfortunately was fused in the foundational documents of the LP, dooming it to the fringes.

  74. Andy

    Who being discussed here is a paleoconservative or a nationalist? I would at best only support nationalism over globalism, as I would support the US Constitution over the United Nations Charter, but I agree with Lysander Spooned, in that the Constitution ultimately should have no authority, so I support a systematic shut down of the federal government, as well as state and local government, which means a transition to s voluntary, private property based society. This option is pretty far off on the horizon, but that is how I believe things ought to be.

    The comments about Authoritarian Patriarchy are absurb, as is the Alt-Right comment (People on the left end of libertarianism define anyone who does not support mass welfare statist migration into democratic welfare states with public property and forced association laws as being “Alt-Right” (new bogeyman term), which is absurd. Once we get to the private property ancap society, you can invite whoever you want on your private property, but until we reach that stage, who enters countries is going to remain s political issue regardless of what policy is in place. For the interim, I have never suggested ending immigration, as I have only suggested there be an immigration policy that does not invite, or reward, Marxists, theocrats, welfare seekers, criminals, or people with communicable diseases, and that is not such a huge number of people that it overwhelms the listing population. So if my first preference of converting to an ancap society is not on the table, option B would still have immigration, and there would still be international tourism, as well as some international students and workers, just no more laying out the welcome mat for people with Marxist or theocratic ideologies, or welfare seekers, or criminals, or people with communicable diseases.).

  75. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    Anyone a Planck length down from full blown Anarchism Now! is in the authoritarian quadrant to you, Chuck.

    No, that is obviously false — as evidenced by what I’ve been saying consistently for over a decade.

    I don’t demand that any candidate campaign on anarchy or repeal of everything. What I expect is that Libertarian candidates advocate for less government, not more government. What I expect is that Libertarian candidates advocate for more liberty, not less liberty.

    When a candidate advocates for a big new tax and a big new welfare scheme, that advocates for growing government and curtailing liberty. It is not a libertarian position period. It is not a “moderate” libertarian position. It is an authoritarian position. It also contradicts the platform.

    We are the “libertarian” party, not the “centrist” party or the “shiny badge” party. Our candidates should be libertarian. When we run candidates who take authoritarian positions, that is like handing the ball for someone playing for the other team who is trying to score points for the other team. Doing so is insane.

    I’m willing to tolerate deviations from libertarianism, but only when those deviations are minimized in interviews (change the subject to the emphasized issues) and not the centerpiece of the campaign. The centerpiece of the Johnson/Weld campaign was to grow government and take away liberty with a huge new tax and welfare scheme.

    If people want to support milquetoast centrist or authoritarian candidates, that’s fine. They should never ever under any circumstances run as Libertarians though.

    I get that Anthony doesn’t agree. You don’t seem to care about libertarian ideology and would sell your mother for a chance to kiss a shiny badge. But most people involved with the LP actually care about libertarian ideology. We want candidates who further that ideology rather than work against it.

  76. robert capozzi

    cm: …a big new tax and a big new welfare scheme

    Me: This sounds highly disingenuous and misleading. While I don’t care for the FAIR tax, you neglect to mention that OTHER taxes would be abolished and that GJ advocated large net spending cuts.

  77. paulie Post author

    Doesn’t sound disingenuous to me. It’s a lot easier to add a new tax than abolish old taxes, so regardless of stated intent it’s likely we could end up with both the fraudulent “fair” tax and current taxes on top of it. While Johnson’s plan did call for spending cuts, the “savings” would go to deficit reduction, iirc, and he would have still had to get any spending cuts through congress. Regardless of any cuts in spending or whether or not old taxes could be successfully abolished or not, it’s a fact that the fraudulent “fair” tax scheme gets most people used to getting a monthly government check, among many other problems with this scheme.

  78. robert capozzi

    PF,

    We disagree, then, about CM’s disingenuousness here. I do agree that the FAIR tax proposal was weak in many ways, but ATC GJ was running as a lessarchist on this and most if not all points. What is important IMO is that a candidate give people a sense of the direction they’d like to move the country, and overall GJ did that well. He pointed to lessarchy, including on fiscal matters.

    Frankly, the pre-bate lines up with my neo-Georgist views. For some, that’s an unforgivable plumbline violation, one of several reasons I’ve transitioned from LP member to occasional LP voter.

    By the diktats of the 88 20-somethings + Hospers, zis es unacceptable, “leaky” thinking. Personally, I can’t understand why others choose to comply with their yoke all these decades later.

    To each his own, of course.

  79. Andy

    Robert, I disagree that Ron Paul is more “notorious” than Bill Weld, even with the newsletter controversy, which people like yourself have greatly exaggerated. Ron Paul may be disliked more by globalists, Marxists, warmongers, and police state bootlickers, as compared to Bill Weld, since Weld is one of them, but as for everyone else, they would favor Ron Paul over Bill Weld for sure.

    It is pretty obvious to me that Robert Capozzi lives in a bubble, and does not venture out and interact with “regular people” very often.

  80. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DJ wrote a whole lot of silly nonsense.

    QUOTE – Me: “Mother” Nature doesn’t like to be fooled. Men will fight regardless of who’s in charge. Men will commit aggression regardless of the alphabet assigned. Women will do what they’re told, just like men. It is Natural phenomenon.
    ….
    I tell men the same thing I tell women- how much more “fair” can I be- work hard in silence, let your success speak for itself.

    CM: Oh, right, like I believe the last line. You tell women that and joke with your friends about the good line you came up with to try to shut women up… I’m so happy young women today are REALLY uppity… A lot are far more uppity than I’ve ever been. YAY!!

  81. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    As we’ve discussed before, yes, you do speak with more people about politics than I do, given what you do for a living. But is there any data to validate your anecdotal evidence? Likely no.

    My guess is very few would recognize RP1, and fewer would recognize WW. Opinions about them would vary, but I suspect more would remember that RP1 was a hater newsletter publisher than those who recall that WW is a CFR member. RP1 probably has more fans than WW does.

  82. DJ

    CM: You tell women that and joke with your friends about the good line you came up with to try to shut women up

    Me: LOL… you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. I don’t try to shut anyone up. I just don’t listen to loud, obnoxious or over bearing regardless of their sex, (gender, or preference), or station in life, perceived or real, uppity or low life- slut or queen, sister, daughter, mother, brother, daddy, teacher, preacher, cop, criminal or political wanna be’s.

  83. Anthony Dlugos

    “No, that is obviously false — as evidenced by what I’ve been saying consistently for over a decade.

    I don’t demand that any candidate campaign on anarchy or repeal of everything. What I expect is that Libertarian candidates advocate for less government, not more government.”

    I do listen to what you say, CM. Everything you say, actually.

    I understand you THINK you’re reasonably open to a moderate libertarianism, but if the relaxation of your standards is such that Gary Johnson is a bridge too far…especially given his competitors at the 2016 Convention…then I stick to my previous analogy vis a vi your intolerance to anything a Plank’s Length away from anarchism/NAPsterism.

  84. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    I realize Ms. Harlos is overwhelmed with work, but she must read people’s IPR messages more carefully.

    Above I wrote in reply to Mr.Knapp’s criticism of Ms. Harlos:

    “In my conspiracy theory, of course, it’s all about Harlos – a (still?) evangelical Christian (former rock&roll heathen) and big “save the fetus” fanatic – trying to suck up to the conservatives sellouts trying to take over the party while waving the radical flag/pink hair/cleavage. And screaming HARASSMENT! because people dare to criticize her and make funny memes about her. (Just like they make funny memes about Vohra.) ”

    According to a screenshot from a source not yet blocked from Ms. Harlos personal website she wrote on April 19: “So Ms. (Carol) Moore is claiming that I am calling out her harassment because (sic) “because people dare to criticize me and make funny memes about me”

    Just to set the record straight. People have sent me other screenshots of her complaining about harassment from various people. I actually haven’t seen one where she specifically names me as a harasser; after all I haven’t sent her any personal FB messages or anything but LNC-wide emails (2, maybe three). I don’t call her on the phone. I’ve never seen her in person. If she has a twitter or istagram page, I haven’t signed up. I’ve even been polite any time I responded to her directly here or on FB on a couple of LNC related pages. But I don’t think I’ve technically HARASSED her, so I think legally speaking anyway that’s a libelous statement.

    I HAVE had other people tell me I’m being OVERLY CRITICAL in public forums, and I suppose I have been.

    Let’s face it, aggressive and successful take-over artists who couldn’t care less if the LP becomes a threat to the freedom of half the human race DO tend to annoy pro-choice libertarian feminists.

    I’m certainly not the only one. Just one of the more flamboyant ones. And without dying my hair pink. (Though since I’ve lost my two middle front teeth through bad dentistry in the last year, I have been thinking THAT might be a new trade mark. Round, cuddly, cute gray haired granny missing two front teeth. Almost as snotty and funny as Roseanne?)

    Also, I do wonder why after a few more paragraphs of criticizing me in ways similar to which I criticize her, she writes: “She’s been doing this for years to people. Clean our own house.”

    Is it her position as an LNC member that because of my alleged “harassment” (aka “criticism”) of her I should be driven from the party or something? And who are all these other people? Besides the platform gutting Steve Givot and the absurd Wayne Allen Root? Both of whom did their damage and then left the party. Inquiring libertarians doubtless would be curious. And Marc Montoni, of course, who has annoyed me since he drove a woman from her position as elected chair of LP VA a dozen odd years ago? Or is Marc behind this sudden Harlos public statement that the house has to be cleaned of Carol Moore? Hmmmmm

  85. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anthony Dlugos April 21, 2018 at 10:37 wrote:

    …I do listen to what you say, CM. Everything you say, actually….

    You mean CHUCK MOULTON, I see from search back. There are two CM’s here and it took a few minutes to figure out what you were talking about.

    So I’ll let you continue to argue about whatever… 🙂

Leave a Reply

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