May 2018 Open Thread

Hey, anyone who’s still with us. It’s that time of that month again, and that means a lot of things, starting of course with a new monthly open thread. By now, you should know what to do and what not to do. What not to do starts with not posting any more comments on last month’s thread.

479 thoughts on “May 2018 Open Thread

  1. i3utm

    I am attempting to talk to my local politicians, Libertarian group, and Chamber of Commerce about blockchain technology and crypto-currency. Any thoughts and / or advice? I’m starting from a grass-roots level. And yes, I do own some coinage. Thanks!

  2. Fred Stein

    open thread. An interest to Libertarians, but maybe not libertarian. TV and Movies……. Free State of Jones this movie is out on DVD. It is about a community during the Civil War that wanted to secede from the confederacy. Walking Dead the tv show. The NRA or some gun groups should buy an ad. Every time a bad group takes over a territory guess what what the first thing they do? They take away the guns from the defeated group. The movie “The Founder” about how McDonald became the first hamburger chain.
    And on showtime “Billions” and the comedy show “I’m Dying Up Here”

  3. paulie Post author

    I wonder what part of “there’s a new monthly thread, so stop posting in the old one and move conversations here” people are having a hard time with?

  4. dL

    And on showtime “Billions”

    “Chuck, we went to the same schools, clerked with the same justices, read the same books on ethical justice by guys like Rawls, Dworkin….the suppression of liberty is al most always likely irrational…and I used to buy into that crap. But eventually a man must grow into who he is…and who the fuck I am is man who is not going to allow a prisoner to shank a guard…these are the types of matters we are interested in seeing brought to justice under the current regime.”

    “Chuck, I watch different TV shows and read different websites than you….the more the NY Times covers a poor mistreated prisoner, the more Breitbart is outraged over a dead prison guard”

    Attorney General Waylon “Jock” Jeffcoat

    That show definitely has taken on a different tone in season 3 after the long hiatus(in the interim, the Trump Administration has come into power). Originally, it was the Randian libertarian vs the politically ambitious proggie federal prosecutor(the season one finale last scene confrontation was classic dialogue). No it’s pitted contest between two criminal conspiracies….

  5. Anthony Dlugos

    Anon-Tipper,

    You have to question the decision making capacity of anyone willing to share a dais with David Icke, not to mention people with “dragon,” “vigilante,” “wizard.” and “psychonaught” “and ‘healer” in their titles.

    There’s enough pseudo-science on that speaker list to shame the most shameless conman.

  6. paulie Post author

    Wow. That’s a very sad state of the libertarian movement at this time. I’m finding myself increasingly not at home among people who would take David Icke seriously and welcome all the far right, alt right, paleo and Putinist nuts and bozos with open arms. The conventional left and right are as shitty as ever, and only getting shittier. I am highly tempted to say fuck it to all social/political movements, parties and politics, other than that I have an unhealthy addiction to it and just can’t make myself let go. I don’t know what else to do with my life. But every party and movement out there is terminally screwed up as far as I can see, including the one I had been calling my own for the last few decades. What can I achieve by staying involved? I don’t know.

  7. Anthony Dlugos

    I wouldn’t worry about it too much, paulie. I don’t see the LP in any way associated with that event, unless I am missing it.

  8. paulie Post author

    The LP does not exist in isolation from the libertarian movement. They shape each other whether we like it or not. The LP has many of the same problems with fending of paleos, racial-nationalists and wackos as the movement as a whole does.

    And I’m not worried about it. Just feeling kind of helpless and useless. It’s a personal problem, but I’m not going to pay a shrink, so there it is.

  9. Anthony Dlugos

    “The LP does not exist in isolation from the libertarian movement. They shape each other whether we like it or not. The LP has many of the same problems with fending of paleos, racial-nationalists and wackos as the movement as a whole does.”

    This is true. Sadly true. We may disagree on some things, but you are sounding the proper alarm on those dark, demented factions.

  10. paulie Post author

    Since some people can’t take a hint or a polite request I’ve closed last month’s thread to any further comment.

    If anyone wants to follow up on a discussion in last month’s thread do so here.

    It’s the same every month. When a month ends just stop commenting on the previous month’s thread and move to the next one. It’s why we put up a new one every month. You can include a link back to the comments you are replying to, quote them or both.

  11. DJ

    Okay- instructed not to carry over comments from last months thread- now blocked comments from lasy months thread and instructed not to carry over conversations-
    Fuck it

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

    Me: Oh I understand and you’ve failed yourself, not me. You believe differently and don’t want to believe otherwise because you would rather someone else be responsible- somebody/something has to be in charge. You “choose” to believe differently. That is your right. The results of choice can be tangible.

    You asked for unimpeachable citations for what you don’t believe. I show you impeachable citations for what you do believe- yet, you still “choose” (exercising your right) to disbelieve.

    You are a very confused person.

  12. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Okay – who is Icke? I confess that’s a new one to me.

    I would love to hear Paul and Nap. No idea who Icke is.

  13. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Barking moonbat. Got it. The last name then isn’t false advertising.

  14. paulie Post author

    The last name sounds like “Ike,” not like “ick.” The latter would indeed be more appropriate.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    An anonymous source tells me that Carol Moore is one of the reptilian shape-shifters who secretly rule us all.

    I don’t know if it’s true. It’s just something I heard.

  16. Anon-Tipper

    Paulie: “The conventional left and right are as shitty as ever, and only getting shittier. I am highly tempted to say fuck it to all social/political movements, parties and politics, other than that I have an unhealthy addiction to it and just can’t make myself let go.”

    Feeling the same here, getting stressed, it’s not worth it to be associated with the worse of us. I try to put some of it in perspective, I think we have been more self-critical than say, conservatives of their nonsense with Trump. You can see this in work by Cato, Roderick T Long lately for example.

    We have a serious problem with the (literal) MAGAsters at places like Liberty Hangout trying to divide the party, scare people with absurd smear pieces. We need to overpower them by looking at the sources of our problems honestly, gatekeeping, working on messaging that repels these people

    idk what’s going to happen in the next two years, I think this MAGA stuff can’t sustain itself longer (and I think the paleo surge is in direct relation to this) and I think we will in the end be okay, hopefully.

    Either way, know how you’re feeling.

  17. paulie Post author

    Yes, the fb page also stopped auto-posting articles that same day. I informed Warren Redlich about it and he said he does not know what the problem is. Anyone have any idea about that?

  18. Andy

    “Anon-Tipper
    May 2, 2018 at 01:51
    ‘(look at the speaker list)’

    Icke”

    For those who do not know, David Icke is an English conspiracy researcher. I have been aware of him for a long time. I think that some of his material is good, but he gets into some really far out stuff (which I do not endorse), most notably the shape-shifting Reptilian theory. He says that there are shape-shifting Reptilians, I believe he claims that they are from another Dimension, who take human form, and who are among the ruling elite on this planet. He actually does provide some backup for this seemingly far out theory, but many in the “truther” community disagree with him/do not endorse some of his more “far out” claims.

    I know that he was a member of the Green Party at one time in the United Kingdom, but I do not think that he’s been involved with the Green Party in a long time. I am not sure if he is now a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist or not, but regardless of whether he is or not, Jeff Berwick is pretty open minded and he likes to provide people with different views a chance to speak or debate.

    I think that if nothing else, having David Icke at Anarchapulco 2019 will be entertaining.

    There are lots of speakers at Anarchapulco, so if you go and you don’t like a particular speaker, you can skip their speech, or you can argue with them if they have a Q & A, or if they do not, you can argue with them if you see them walking around at the event.

    “Caryn Ann Harlos
    May 2, 2018 at 04:25
    Wow I would love to go to that.”

    I have been following Anarchapulco since it started in 2015, and I finally went this year. It was pretty cool. I got to go to Mexico for the first time (I have been right next to the Mexican border in California, Arizona, and Texas, but I’d never actually been there), and it was the first time I had been out of the USA since the 1980’s. The beach there was great and I went to the beach every day I was there. I wanted to rent a surfboard and a jet ski, but I unfortunately never got around to that. I got the opportunity to talk to a lot of interesting people who were in attendance at the event, most notably Jeff Berwick (who is the founder and chief organizer of the event), Ben Swann, Adam Kokesh, Cynthia McKinney, Vit Jedlicka, Eric July, G. Edward Griffin, That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown), and Lauren Southern, to name just a few. I will probably go back in 2019. I see that they have already booked Andrew Napolitano and Doug Casey for 2019, which will be the first Anarchapulco appearance for both, and both of them are very interesting speakers (Andrew Napolitano/Doug Casey would make an amazing LP presidential ticket for 2020, but I doubt that either are interested in running).

  19. Andy

    ” and it was the first time I had been out of the USA since the 1980’s.”

    Unless you count flying over Canada, but I am not counting flyovers. I have never actually set foot in Canada. I have been right up to the Canadian border, but like I was with Mexico prior to the Anarchapulco trip, I have never actually been to Canada.

    I have been to England and Ireland (although I never left the airport in Ireland, but I was in England for a week or a week and a half or so), and I spent a day on an American military base in Germany on the way back from Engliand, although since I was on an American military base, it was like being in the USA, and I never saw anything German except for outside an airplane window.

    I have been to the 48 contiguous states of the USA, as well as Washington DC and the US territory of Puerto Rico.

  20. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    May 2, 2018 at 08:27
    Wow. That’s a very sad state of the libertarian movement at this time. I’m finding myself increasingly not at home among people who would take David Icke seriously”

    I do not know who booked David Icke to speak at Anarchapulco, or what led to this. I assume that it was Jeff Berwick, or somebody connected with Jeff Berwick (perhaps Nathan Freeman, who works with Berwick to organize the event). I have followed Berwick for a few years now, and I have never heard him mention David Icke, and although Berwick does get into a lot of “conspiracy” stuff, I have never heard him mention anything for which is unique to Icke, most notably the shape-shifting Reptilian theory.

    Maybe he was booked just because he’s a well known and interesting person who will help sell tickets. Maybe he was booked because some attendees requested him. Maybe Icke reached out to the organizers of Anarchapulco. I don’t know. I may get a chance to talk to Jeff Berwick soon, and if I do, I will ask him about it.

    There was a diverse group of speakers at Anarchapulco 2018. Speakers included Ron Paul, Jeffrey Tucker, Ben Swann, Mark Passio, Jim Bell, G. Edward Griffin, Roger Ver, That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown), Derick Broze, Vit Jedlicka, Luke Rudkowski, Adam Kokesh, Larken Rose, Lauren Southern, and others. Larken Rose and Lauren Southern had a debate on borders/migration/immigration policy, and there was some craziness that happened when Roger Ver was speaking, as some Bitcoin Core supporters got up and started screaming at Roger Ver about BitcoinCash, and Roger Ver challenged them to come up on stage and to make a monetary bet with him. Only one of these people had the balls to walk up to the stage, but once they got up there, they ended up chickening out, and then they walked away.

    So it is not like everyone at Anarchapulco agrees with everyone about everything, or have the same lifestyle. There is diversity among the liberty movement, even at an anarchast oriented event.

    This is no different than any Libertarian Party convention or meeting, and it has always been this way. Look at the last LP National Convention. Vermin Supreme showed up and ran for the LP’s Vice Presidential nomination, and I think that he got at least one or two votes. There were several other oddball candidates there as well. Rocky de le Feunte actually had a table in the lobby in front of the convention hall, and he was actually at the table during part of the convention. I was going to talk to him, but I walked away, and by the time I got back he was gone, and he had other people manning his table. Look at the speakers at that convention. There was Adam Kokesh. There was Tom Woods. There were a bunch of other speakers from different backgrounds and with some different takes on different things. Look at the main candidates for nomination for President and Vice President. There was the late Marc Allen Feldman, Darryl W. Perry, John McAfee, Austin Petersen, and Gary Johnson, for President, and Judd Weiss, Will Coley, Larry Sharpe, Alicia Dern, Derrick Grayson, and Bill Weld, for Vice President. That’s some diversity, and this does not even include all of the oddball and lessor known candidates.

    Having people with different opinions and different backgrounds and different lifestyle choices is normal and healthy for these types of events.

  21. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    May 2, 2018 at 16:35
    ‘conspiracy researcher.’

    LOL. Antisemitic conspiracy nut =/= researcher.”

    Video description from YouTube: “David Icke talks about the difference between the Jewish people and Zionism. It’s the Rothschild empire that created the Zionism that we see in America and around the world. The Jewish people have nothing to do with it.”

    Rothschild Zionism – David Icke P1

  22. Andy

    I don’t think that it is fair to label David Icke as an “anti-Semite” (and technically, lots of Muslims are also Semitic people), when he clearly says that not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Jews are involved in a conspiracy.

  23. Anthony Dlugos

    Anon-Tipper,

    Thanks for posting.

    Just to clarify, however, my dream candidate would be John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods, if he were so interested. I say that based only on his background, as no one has actually seen him campaign.

    On the other hand…from the article:

    THIS GUY GETS IT, Part One:

    “I’m looking also at the national level for people who could be helpful to the Libertarian Party, and there are two types,” [Weld] told me. “One is people who are office-holders or have been office-holders in the R and the D parties, but who really are Libertarians underneath it all. Another is billionaires who could fund the operation—because we can’t afford to be caught short, as Gary [Johnson] and I were last time.”

    THIS GUY GETS IT. Part Two:
    (Sarwark)

    “Politicians who put on suits and get up on debate stages are not as effective without people standing in the streets with signs threatening to strike or picket or do direct action. Both are important in order to move public policy forward and get to a world set free in our lifetime. We need people on the outside agitating to move the Overton Window of acceptable discourse to where it looks libertarianish, then we need somebody—like Governor Weld, just for an example, because I can see him from here—running up in a suit, inside the Overton Window, going: ‘Oh my gosh, look at all those crazy people out there! They really want freedom. You know I’m more reasonable. You can just elect me!’

  24. paulie Post author

    “David Icke talks about the difference between the Jewish people and Zionism.”

    All you have to do is follow the wikipedia link for Icke, it’s easy to do.

    His endorsement of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in The Robots’ Rebellion, combined with Holocaust denial in And the Truth Shall Set You Free, led his publisher to refuse to publish his books, which were self-published thereafter.

    Icke has been described as an antisemitic conspiracy theorist;[17] according to Political Research Associates, his politics are “a mishmash of most of the dominant themes of contemporary neofascism, mixed in with a smattering of topics culled from the U.S. militia movement.”[11] Campaign Against Antisemitism refers to Icke as “a modern-day antisemitic hate preacher who uses social media, his books and his stage performances to incite hatred towards Jewish people.”[18]

    ….

    Icke’s next manuscript, And the Truth Shall Set You Free (1995), contained a chapter questioning aspects of the Holocaust, which caused a rift with his publisher, Gateway.[93][101][102] In addition to Holocaust denial, Icke claims in the book that Jews “dominated the Versailles Peace Conference and created the circumstances which made the Second World War inevitable. They financed Hitler to power in 1933 and made the funds available for his rearmament.”[102]

    In other words antisemitic conspiracy nut.

  25. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “Just to clarify, however, my dream candidate would be John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods, if he were so interested.”

    John Mackey would probably be a better candidate than Bob Barr, Gary Johnson, and Bill Weld, but I lost a lot of respect for him when he would not allow Libertarians to gather ballot access petition signatures in front of Whole Foods. I documented this here before, but he was initially contacted about this years ago by Wes Benedict, and he turned him down. He was later contacted by Jake Witmer, and he turned him downm, and then after that, I actually communicated with him, and he turned me down as well. I thought that he gave very weak, and weasel like answers when Jake, and later, I, responded to his objections.

    So given John Mackey’s very weak position on free speech and on giving libertarian candidates and issues a fair chance to get on ballots, I am a lot less excited about him as a candidate than I may have been otherwise.

    Anthony, although you are a Shiny Badge worshiper, you seem to dislike former Congressman Ron Paul, even though he has a Shiny Badge. Are you aware of the fact that John Mackey donated money to Ron Paul for President when Ron Paul was running for the Republican nomination?

  26. paulie Post author

    Bill Weld Lays Groundwork for 2020 Libertarian Presidential Run

    I for one don’t welcome our new reptilian wannabe overlord 🙂

  27. Andy

    Note that people have already gathered petition signatures at Whole Foods in states that have deemed it to be a legal activity to gather petition signatures or voter registrations in front of stores that are open to the public, namely in Washington, California, Massachusetts, and Colorado (although this has been under serious attack in Colorado in recent years), and anywhere in the country where the entrance to Whole Foods is directly off of a city sidewalk. John Mackey told Jake, and later myself, that we can gather petition signatures at Whole Foods in states where such activity has been deemed legal, or if the entrance to Whole Foods is directly off of a city sidewalk, as the US Supreme Court has ruled that free speech activities are legal on all city sidewalks, as long as you don’t block pedestrian traffic, but that we can’t petition at any other Whole Foods (even though he conceded that I was correct, that some Whole Foods are built on land that was seized via eminent domain, and that many shopping centers where Wholes Foods are located are subsidized, or even owned, in part or in full, by government entities, and that government entities had in fact purchased stock in Whole Foods). Gee, this was mighty big of John Mackey…..not!

  28. Andy

    Paul said: “All you have to do is follow the wikipedia link for Icke, it’s easy to do.”

    Or you can listen to what the man actually says instead of jumping to conclusions based on what other people have said that he believes.

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    A) Whole Foods is a private business. I wouldn’t let petitioners on my property either. Customers are there to buy rice and quinoa, not get accosted.

    B) I donated to Ron Paul in 2008. A donation to Paul hardly makes Mackey unable to be nominated. I’m willing to accept defectors from the dinosaur parties. I hardly eliminate someone for donating to a dinosaur party candidate.

  30. Andy

    “We need people on the outside agitating to move the Overton Window of acceptable discourse to where it looks libertarianish, then we need somebody—like Governor Weld, just for an example, because I can see him from here—running up in a suit, inside the Overton Window, going: ‘Oh my gosh, look at all those crazy people out there! They really want freedom. You know I’m more reasonable. You can just elect me!’”

    The point made by Sarwark here has some validity to it, however, Bill Weld is not the right guy to appear as the “reasonable” libertarian.

    When it comes to Bill Weld, it is not so much that he’s not libertarian enough, it is that he’s not libertarian at all.

  31. Anthony Dlugos

    I dislike Ron Paul because he’s too conservative, and more importantly, his tone deafness on multiple issues draws in some very nasty elements. That makes him someone the party should distance itself from.

  32. Anthony Dlugos

    “The point made by Sarwark here has some validity to it, however, Bill Weld is not the right guy to appear as the “reasonable” libertarian.”

    And you’re defending an anti-Semite who thinks some people are reptilians. I shan’t listen to who you think appears reasonable to John Q Voter.

  33. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    May 2, 2018 at 18:07
    A) Whole Foods is a private business. I wouldn’t let petitioners on my property either. Customers are there to buy rice and quinoa, not get accosted.”

    If you read what I said above, John Mackey conceded that I was correct, in that there were Wholes Foods stores located on land that was seized through eminent domain (as in a government entity stole the land, and handed it over to shopping center developers/note that eminent domain was meant for public use, not so private companies could profiteer), and that shopping centers where Whole Foods was located also took taxpayer funding (ie-corporate welfare), and that some of these shopping centers were in fact owned in part, or in full, by government entities (sometimes through shell corporations), and that government entities had in fact purchased stock in Whole Foods (which means that taxpayer funded entities had used taxpayer money to become partial owners of Whole Foods). So he basically conceded that Whole Foods does not operate as a truly private entity, and that it is in fact in bed with the state, yet he still thinks it is cool to ban free speech there.

    Also, the US Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v Alabama that corporate property that is opened for the public to come and go is in fact fair ground for free speech activities. Unfortunately for us, most parts of this country are not abiding by this court ruling, however, a few states have similar court rulings, like the Pruneyard case in California, and Mackey even admitted that we can petition in front of Whole Foods in those states, or in places where Whole Foods entrances are directly off of city sidewalks, since the US Supreme Court has ruled that free speech activities are legal on all city sidewalks, as long as pedestrian traffic is not blocked.

    Petitioning in front of stores/shopping centers if very common in some states (most notably, Washington, California, Massachusetts, and Colorado), and while it is less common in some other states, it happens pretty much everywhere there are petitions (every state has some kind of petitioning that happens, although it happens less frequently in some states than in others). Most stores in most states actively chase off petition circulators, but there are a few stores that have actually had pro-free speech policies (K-Mart and Giant had these policies for awhile, but I am not sure if they still do). There are a few stores where the managers don’t care, or will even grant permission to petitioners, but for the most part in most of the country, most stores and shopping centers will actively try to keep petition ciruclators out.

    The problem comes when groups trying to place candidates or issues on the ballot need to get thousands upon thousands of signatures to get on the ballot, but can’t go hardly anywhere where there are actually people to get them.

    Anthony, you live in Ohio, where the LP has been gathering petition signatures for well over a year now to try to regain ballot access. How many signatures have you collected for LP ballot access? What places did you go to collect them?

  34. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    May 2, 2018 at 18:10
    I dislike Ron Paul because he’s too conservative, and more importantly, his tone deafness on multiple issues draws in some very nasty elements. That makes him someone the party should distance itself from.”

    Ron Paul is far more libertarian than Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

  35. Andy

    Ron Paul is also the most popular libertarian that there is. Ron Paul has done more to promote liberty, and to get people into the philosophy of libertarianism, than anyone.

    When Ron Paul spoke at Anarchapulco, the room was more packed for him than for anyone else, and he received a standing ovation.

  36. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “And you’re defending an anti-Semite who thinks some people are reptilians. I shan’t listen to who you think appears reasonable to John Q Voter.”

    I said that I don’t think that it is fair to write David Icke off as an “anti-Semite” when he clearly said that he does not believe all Jews are Zionists, or are taking part in a conspiracy, and I also clearly stated that I do not agree with David Icke on everything.

    If I go to Anarchapulco 2019, I will probably go to his speech, assuming that you don’t have to pay extra for it. I am thinking that he might have two speeches there, one that will be part of the general admission, and then another one, which will probably be longer, for which there will be an extra charge. This is what some of the speakers have done. If this is what happens with Icke, I may skip his pay extra event (although if I’m doing well enough financially, maybe I would go for kicks), but I will definitely go to his speech that is a part of the main ticket price, and I would talk to him if I get the chance.

    Just because I may have a disagreement with somebody, it does not mean that I can’t listen to them, or that I won’t talk to them.

  37. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “I shan’t listen to who you think appears reasonable to John Q Voter.”

    If a person is outside the Libertarian Quadrant of the Nolan Chart, like Bill Weld is, then it does not matter what he sounds like.

    Bill Weld is not any kind of libertarian, unless you want to say that he’s a fake libertarian.

  38. Andy

    When it comes to David Icke’s promotion of the shape-shifting Reptilian theory, I agree with what Jesse Ventura said about it, as in show me the body of one of these Reptilians if you want me to believe it.

    I have long wondered if David Icke is actually working for the globalists, as in I have wondered if they send him out to say a lot of things that are true and documented, but then throw in some wild and outlandish sounding stuff, like the shape-shifting Reptilian theory, in order to make people who question official government stories look crazy.

    It is also possible that David Icke really believes what he said he believes.

    Regardless of what the real story is, I do not endorse everything he says, but right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle, I do think that he’s an entertaining fellow.

  39. paulie Post author

    Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups

    Any wikipedia article has a talk section where you or anyone can dispute any quote, citation or characterization. But Icke’s antisemitism can’t be seriously disputed. His own words are quoted in the wikipedia article and the many articles it cites.

  40. Anon-Tipper

    paulie, I read that some people were able to get the twitter and facebook publisizers to work again by just disconnecting and connecting them.

  41. robert capozzi

    DJ (from April thread): Then where do you find the authority to live?

    Me: My best, accessible answer is Descartes, who taught us, “I think, therefore I am.” There’s virtually nothing we can be sure of, but I have consciousness, and I assume you do, too. To deny that is immediately contradictory, since denial requires consciousness as well.

    DJ: I show you impeachable citations for what you do believe- yet, you still “choose” (exercising your right) to disbelieve.

    Me; You quote Jefferson and Madison, among others. I respect that you find them “unimpeachable,” but I don’t. Both were slaveholders, and that’s all the evidence I need to reject them as “unimpeachable.”

    DJ: You are a very confused person.

    Me: Yep, it’s the human condition, near as I can tell. I can say I feel less confused than I was when I was a NAPster and prone to cite the Founders and Framers as authorities. Then, again, I remind myself that I’m communicating with a person who believes there’s a right to private nukes, which to me is the apex of confusion, candidly.

    Consider thinking that one through a bit more…..

  42. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Hello LP members interested in Bylaws and truth rather than barking moon-battery.

    I am not a running mate of Joshua Smith. I am a very well known friend and supporter of Nick Sarwark, though I have made no, and will make no, endorsements of any chair or vice chair candidates and have made no decisions on who I will vote for except that I definitely will not vote for Vohra. I oppose slates. Smith is also a friend and he has impressed me with his follow through on making more effort than I have seen in a long time to actually get out there. The only endorsement I intend to make will be for region 1 at the regional caucus.

    The proposal was written by LP members and submitted by me. I have submitted many proposals including ones I disagree with. I do agree with this one but the text is authored by LP members. It did pass out of committee but not with a large margin and if things need to be cut to preserve time, that one will likely be one of them depending on the survey results.

    There are medications for extreme preoccupations with individuals. They can help.

  43. Anthony Dlugos

    “When it comes to David Icke’s promotion of the shape-shifting Reptilian theory, I agree with what Jesse Ventura said about it, as in show me the body of one of these Reptilians if you want me to believe it.”

    lol. Andy just can’t bring himself to call a conspiracy theory garbage.

  44. DJ

    RC: Consider thinking that one through a bit more…..

    Me: Ok…….. RC: When I say “authority,” I mean a transcendent, impeccable authority, not merely the Constitution.

    Me: Authority is impeachable. It’s width and breadth and depth is opinion. In the case of the constitution it’s intentional misinterpretation is evidence it can be taken, rescinded, ignored and impugned. The “I”nidividual, along with his rights, will be here long after an authority is merely a memory.

    RC: You quote Jefferson and Madison, among others. I respect that you find them “unimpeachable,” but I don’t. Both were slaveholders, and that’s all the evidence I need to reject them as “unimpeachable.”

    Me: Nope. Never made any such claim. I have, and will, say they were really sharp men. They did make good arguments about their beliefs and helped incorporate those beliefs into an “authority” for “authority” figures to abide by.

    RC: I breathe therefore I am-

    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.

  45. Anon-Tipper

    Anthony: “lol. Andy just can’t bring himself to call a conspiracy theory garbage.”

    His whole defense is a mess, he was seriously comparing Icke, Lauren Southern, and That Guy T being at that event to Vermin Supreme showing up to the LP convention. If the party just denounces Ron Paul et al we could lose this contingency overnight.

  46. Anthony Dlugos

    Anon,

    Based on his rants, I think what attracted Andy to the LP wasn’t the promise of liberty for the individual, but libertarianism’s unfortunate tendency to present itself as a dogmatic, gnostic movement. I.E. “we have an elevated knowledge. an ultimate answer, a secret truth know only to us. We have to explain this knowledge to you before you can properly call yourself a libertarian. Until you understand that mystic system, any political opinion you have, any vote you might make, is suspect.”

    This Gnosticism presents itself in various ways, such as the NAP (non-aggression principle), or calling legitimate experience in public office as a “shiny badge” (i.e, not very important, what’s important is our gnostic knowledge), or a distrust of any source of information labeled “mainstream.”

    In Andy’s case, the Gnosticism is particularly virulent. The more esoteric and jarring, the better. Everything is a conspiracy. Ron Paul’s flirtation with Trooferism secret government conspiracies explain why these Gnostic “libertarians” were attracted to him, and rabidly. (I helped out with the Paul campaign for the GOP nomination in 2008. Almost EVERYONE in the volunteer group in NE Ohio was a 9/11 Troofer) .

    Andy’s opinions that ultimately coincide with libertarianism coincide the same way a broken clock coincides with the proper time,: by accident, and its explains why someone who might actually hold a few libertarian beliefs ends up holding other beliefs that are completely at odds with with spirit of the philosophy. (In Andy’s case, the rampant xenophobia that demands a police state to keep out the hordes,…marxists, welfare cheats, rapists. all tinged with the implication that they are non-white and so cannot possibly understand libertarianism.

    Ultimately, its a defense mechanism. I’ve posted this link to Christopher Hitchens talking about Michael Moore before. Watch the first 3:27, it very much explains Andy’s mindset, and to various extents, the mindset of these gnostic libertarians:

  47. robert capozzi

    AD,

    “Gnostics” may be a better term than NAPsters! I actually like some Gnostic concepts, in truth.

    Although I see the NAPsters more like the Opus Dei of the LM. 😉

  48. Anthony Dlugos

    ha. Opus Dei of the LM. I like that.

    As a non-believer, non-churchgoer, I like some of the gnostic concepts too.

    Feel free to use the gnostic terminology.

  49. Anon-Tipper

    Anthony,

    It reminds me of the first part of Roderick Long’s paper Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class (https://philpapers.org/rec/LONTAL). He goes over libertarian capitalism, libertarian socialism, and libertarian populism and how each form of libertarianism has had trouble in not separating itself from it’s authoritarian version. LibCaps with Thatcher and Reagan, LibSoc with state-socialist regimes, and LibPop from the toxic conspiracy and far-right elements. It doesn’t mean all of course, but sometimes they crossover. That combined with what you said explains at least part of this.

    For me, I was never attracted to this stuff, I was a teenager during the Ron Paul stuff, I can’t recall if I ever liked him that much, I think I was turned off by some of the hero worship, thought he was too conservative, etc. I was introduced through people like Penn Jillette and Reason magazine. It’s hard to tell, at least for me, how many are really deep in this, I think it’s a minority compared to the whole libertarian population, but idk.

  50. Anon-Tipper

    But I also don’t want to apply this to everyone, just the hero worshiping of Paul segment.

  51. Anon-Tipper

    But I also don’t want to apply this to everyone, just the hero worshiping of Paul segment.

  52. Anon-Tipper

    And I don’t want to apply that to everyone, but the hero worshipping of Paul that drifts into noxious paleo-ism segment.

  53. Anthony Dlugos

    That sounds like an interesting paper.

    As I noted, the concern for me with regard to the Ron Paul movement was definitely NOT his political positions, a lot of them were great.

    My concern was that, the more dedicated his supporters were, the more likely they were to be conspiracy theory nuts, and the more likely they were to be the noxious paleos you are talking about (not necessarily the same group).

    I am serious that, in 2008, among his dedicated volunteers here in NE Ohio, almost all of them were Troofers. I can understand a few being Troofers, I can understand more than a few in a movement like the libertarian movement. But when its almost everyone, there is a problem with the message or the messenger.

    His newsletter fiasco finally made me realize that, despite his incredible knowledge of liberty, he is more harm than good.

  54. robert capozzi

    AD,

    The beautiful thing as the Opus Dei term is that they were known for self-flagellation as a form of personal purification. While NAPsters don’t literally whip themselves, they metaphorically do with the sorts of fringe stances they often take. The more sophisticated NAPsters know that their positions won’t be adopted any time soon, but they believe they can drag the Public Square in their direction by staking out the fringe and pulling from there.

    What they won’t consider is the possibility that they are committing political self-sabotage, alienating the sympathetic and persuadable communities.

  55. Anon-Tipper

    Anthony: “My concern was that, the more dedicated his supporters were, the more likely they were to be conspiracy theory nuts, and the more likely they were to be the noxious paleos you are talking about (not necessarily the same group).”

    Yeah, I’m glad I didn’t bother with him, probably would’ve turned me away from libertarianism if I did. I wish that some people could just get past him, I think some younger people can’t; Mises Caucus freaking out about Ron Paul. I think this might go away over the next decade (people grow up, leave, get over it.). Rothbard essentially trolled us from the grave, we the paleo-strategy for him.

  56. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “The more sophisticated NAPsters know that their positions won’t be adopted any time soon, but they believe they can drag the Public Square in their direction by staking out the fringe and pulling from there. What they won’t consider is the possibility that they are committing political self-sabotage, alienating the sympathetic and persuadable communities.”

    see my post, May 2, 2018 at 17:43, I made mention of the quote from Chairman Sarwark that points out we need the agitators AND the politicians. One group moving the Overton Window, and the second group inside the window proposing policies that they believe the voters will accept.

    I think we agree that we have nothing against the NAPster set. They are just in the wrong arena, that of electoral politics. They of all people would benefit most from a “Big Sort” that makes the LP a pragmatic, moderate, vote-maximizing entity, and makes them agitators from the outside via satellite organizations that don’t care about appealing to voters qua voters, that strictly limit their message, and strictly limit their message. Some of them would even make money doing it.

  57. Anthony Dlugos

    Anon,

    ” I think this might go away over the next decade (people grow up, leave, get over it.)”

    I think you are right.

  58. Chuck Moulton

    Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

    I am a very well known friend and supporter of Nick Sarwark, though I have made no, and will make no, endorsements of any chair or vice chair candidates and have made no decisions on who I will vote for except that I definitely will not vote for Vohra.

    I am a very well known friend and supporter of Nick Sarwark, and I enthusiastically endorse him for re-election as chair.

    I do have a bit of financial interest in this because I bet Adam Kokesh $100 that Sarwark would be re-elected as chair, but I would support him the same regardless of the wager and I consider it money in the bank.

  59. Chuck Moulton

    Reading this thread I see that not only does Andy not want to disassociate as a self-admitted Troofer from David Icke’s anti-semetism, but he also agrees with Icke’s anti-semetic statements and has posted videos in this thread promoting them.

    Apparently he is also unwilling to go out on a limb and declare he doesn’t think humans are ruled by shapeshifting reptile overlords.

  60. Chuck Moulton

    I’m a big Ron Paul fan and supporter. I don’t worship him as an infallible God though as some do — I praise him for the good and call him out in the bad. I was similarly (to Amthony Dlugos) frustrated with the huge number of Troofers among Paul’s volunteers.

  61. robert capozzi

    AD,

    I certainly don’t have a problem with NAPsters, as I was one and some of my best friends are Gnostics. (Icke, from what I’ve seen of him, has studied the historical Gnostics quite a bit, fwiw.) I don’t have a problem and I generally support efforts to open the Overton Window.

    What I reject is that some NAPsters posture themselves as the Only True Believers and are superior to non-NAPster Ls. I also note that I see virtually no evidence that they have opened the Overton Window, aside from possibly aiding in a small way to cannabis legalization advances and marriage equality, which was ultimately solved by the Supremes, anyway.

    Because the LP was founded by NAPsters and they installed depth charges in the foundation, they have served as a wet blanket for the LM, a millstone that all Ls have to drag around. Workarounds of the depth charges are incredibly time-consuming and energy draining.

    I just watched WW’s interview with Welch. I’m pretty amazed that he’s staying engaged as he is. Perhaps his big brain can figure out a way to lift the NAPster wet blanket off the LP.

    That interview was interesting in that he gave texture to many of his plumbline violations that he’s been pilloried for since the nominating convention. I’d anticipated the biggest one: He wasn’t planning to run and not thought through many issues. I find it especially interesting that he’s changing his tune on foreign policy.

    The one place I disagree with him somewhat is that moderates are hated, per Welch. This is unfounded. Most people — I suspect — ARE moderate. I think the better way to think of it is that moderates are boring! Trump and Sanders are entertaining, even interesting, even if we disagree with them on most things as I do. The media wants drama, and moderates don’t provide much drama.

  62. Chuck Moulton

    It’s great to see Weld evolving in the libertarian dorection on some issues like guns, drugs, and foreign policy. However, I still am very worried about the way he campaigned before, effusively praising Hillary Clinton.

  63. Andy

    Bill Weld’s “evolving” is called lying. Anyone who believes him is naive. The man is a proven liar.

  64. robert capozzi

    CM,

    Yes, I too found the HRC fawning a bit much. I certainly tracked with DJT being the far bigger risk, but the “vouching” just seemed like odd political positioning. My sense was that WW, not GJ, was driving that particular positioning, but it still makes little sense to me on any level.

    I’d like to hear an explanation from WW.

    If he simply had said, “I’ve known and liked HRC for decades. I still do. However, her policy ideas will this country in the wrong direction. Both she and Trump will be bad for America. Take a look at Honest Gary Johnson. We need a fresh start, and a significant course correction….”

  65. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Yep, WW’s a liar. He’s got the company of 7 billion other liars.

    Who has never lied? Have you never lied? I have on rare occasions, and I usually feel like shit when I do, unless they are white lies.

    My guess is WW has evolved, but he’s not a NAPster. My guess is he’s probably still more hawkish than I am, I’m a dove, although not a NAPster-level dove.

    My guess is he doesn’t run for the L nomination.

  66. Starchild

    Robert Capozzi (who I’ll do the courtesy of mentioning by name despite his refusal to do other people the courtesy of spelling out their names when referring to them in the comments) writes, “What they [libertarians who believe public policy should be based on the Non-Aggression Principle] won’t consider is the possibility that they are committing political self-sabotage, alienating the sympathetic and persuadable communities.”

    Considered and rejected. We’re more likely to achieve a libertarian society by going for what we believe, than for what we don’t believe.

    I think some moderates in the libertarian movement personally hold radical ideals, but sincerely believe that the strategy of watering down what we stand for in order to win votes is the best strategy for getting there. These folks sometimes do become more radical over time as they see “pragmatic” strategies failing to achieve the promised or hoped-for results.

    There are others who simply don’t believe that government (if it is to exist at all) should operate on the basis of non-aggression. These folks can make good single-issue (or multi-issue) allies for Libertarians, as long as they see themselves as allies and don’t try to bend the freedom movement itself in a non-libertarian direction.

    These two categories of non-radicals are basically honest in their politics, but unfortunately I think there are others who resemble them whose approaches are less honest (in some cases with themselves as much as with others).

    Some people, I suspect, reject radical libertarianism because they don’t find it personally comfortable to be so at odds with mainstream society*, but rather than acknowledge their own lack of courage, they cloak their rejection of it in pragmatic arguments.

    Finally, there is the category of folks who are truly dangerous to the libertarian movement and the LP – those who are after money and power. In the U.S., most of these people naturally gravitate toward the Democrat and Republican parties who currently control the bulk of those commodities in politics, but I suspect that some of them are playing the long game and seeing that libertarianism has a bright future, are betting that they can be more successful as “early adopters” or “big fish in a small pond” by affiliating with the Libertarian Party.

    To these folks, libertarian principles are an inconvenient obstacle to their pursuit of money and power, and so they naturally seek to make the party less ideological and more focused simply on “winning”. Some few of them perhaps pose as radicals, but I suspect most do not, since pretending to believe something you don’t on an ongoing basis is hard work, and it’s unnecessary as long as they can still be accepted in the party/movement while adopting a “pragmatic” approach of focusing on success in conventional terms and downplaying libertarian ideas. Money/Power-seekers thrive best in amoral environments where their raw competence is valued and they won’t be shunned for failing to consistently hold to and advance a principled set of beliefs.

    *“There is nothing more agreeable in life than to make peace with the Establishment – and nothing more corrupting.”
    –Historian A.J.P. Taylor

  67. robert capozzi

    Starchild,

    Thanks for the feedback. I’d not realized that abbreviations are dis-courteous…who knew? If I hear more such interpretation, I’ll amend my time-saving practice.

    Well, if you’ve considered that extremist positioning was counterproductive, but you reject the possibility, then I support your process even if I disagree with your conclusion. At least you’ve considered the possibility of self-sabotage. In my case, I don’t want to abolish all or even most government tomorrow, as I fear the result would lead to unacceptable dislocations. Hence, I let my membership lapse, given how out of step I was with 20-something Founders and their latter-day followers. It’s also my practice to avoid setting myself up for failure, and abolition is not likely to happen any time soon.

    I don’t think it’s a good idea to “make peace” with the Establishment, but I DO think that making peace is the best thing we can do. Peace and liberty are two sides of the same coin. Challenge fear-mongering, by all means! WW’s Reason interview was insightful in this regard. The Rs and Ds are hopelessly corrupt, and pointing that out should be a staple for any lessarchist, especially those running for office as a L.

  68. DJ

    Starchild: Some people, I suspect, reject radical libertarianism because they don’t find it personally comfortable to be so at odds with mainstream society*, but rather than acknowledge their own lack of courage, they cloak their rejection of it in pragmatic arguments.

    Me: Absolutely- they believe the strength of their argument is the “vast, vast majority”.

    Starchild: Finally, there is the category of folks who are truly dangerous to the libertarian movement and the LP

    Me: Yep. Labelers and pejorative users. Divide and conquer. I see that a lot here. The latest being; Gnostic. Though for the life of me I see no discernible difference between that and esoteric. Either portrays exclusion, just as the labels do- and lord knows how pejoratives are persuasive for coming together as well.

    LOL….. the chances of a libertarian society are slim and none- it’ll be as successful as the Libertarian Party. By definition a society agrees on basics, not esoteric knowledge of labeling- or the pejorative name calling of those you disagree with.

    I don’t know whether to LOL or SMH….

    Oh, I give permission to use my initials.

  69. DJ

    Conviction or malleable

    You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything

  70. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Chuck even before there were so many in the field I decided I would not publicly endorse a chair or VC candidate ahead of time, and if I do, it will be at convention.

  71. robert capozzi

    DJ: they believe the strength of their argument is the “vast, vast majority”.

    Me: If you can sell half a loaf, but not the whole loaf, wouldn’t you prefer to sell the half now?

    The vast, vast majority are unlikely to buy your “there’s a right to private nukes” view.

    Strong majorities might buy my take on how arms would be handled in this civil society.

    If the DJ approach were the official position of the LP and its candidates (as it implicitly once was), no bread is sold. In fact, Ls are relegated to the fringes. The prevalent narrative was something like “Those Ls are extreme gun nuts.”

    What purpose did such positioning serve? The only purpose I can see was the cadre was kept in line. Otherwise, the LP was of almost no consequence. Now, there’s nothing “wrong” with being of no consequence, but then why bother running for office?

  72. dL

    I think some moderates in the libertarian movement personally hold radical ideals, but sincerely believe that the strategy of watering down what we stand for in order to win votes is the best strategy for getting there. These folks sometimes do become more radical over time as they see “pragmatic” strategies failing to achieve the promised or hoped-for results.

    Yeah, this has been hashed over. If tomorrow’s moderate were today’s radical(i.e, what is radical today would be considered moderate tomorrow), then perhaps a case could be made that pragmatism incrementally advances the cause of liberty. However, in the real world, it goes in the opposite direction: today’s moderate is tomorrow’s radical(i.e, what is considered moderate today would be radical tomorrow. Put differently, what is moderate tomorrow is authoritarian today). So, pragmatism is merely trailing indicator for today’s authoritarianism.

    If one were to go back in time to, say, 1992, which was the advent of the internet age in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and gave a heads up to the future to come: guess what, you know this post cold war freedom, ain’t going to last long. Indeed, you remember that cheesy Arnold dystopian flick, the Running Man, yeah, it turns out it was pretty prescient. Well, 1000 out of 1000 libertarians, radical or moderate, would have have concurred: 2018 is a totalitarian future. Even more, if one would have added that a nontrivial segment of libertarianism in 2018 would be arguing for East German style border security, no one in 1992 would have believed you.

    Likewise, if a future traveler were to time travel to our present to give the low down on 2038(when it comes to the progress of government power, I tend to be more pessimistic than optimistic), I would not hesitate to wager that 1000 out of 1000 libertarians would concur, 2038 is a totalitarian shit hole. However, as sure as stink follows shit, I can virtually assure that 1/2 of libertarianism will be churning out the same “never been freer” shit they are churning out today(a separate bet would be if Reason Mag will be working on going 9 straight in pimping GOP retreads for the LP prez nomination).

    That old Milton Mayer book, “They thought they were free” is illustrative. History considers Nazi Germany the archetype of modern totalitarianism. But the majority of Germans didn’t think they were living under a totalitarian regime. Indeed, quite the contrary, the majority of them thought they were free. And 100% of the public intelligentsia concurred. So, the archetype is that polite society will only call a spade a spade through the lens of history.

    So, indeed, there is nothing more corruptible than make peace with the Status quo. However, there is also nothing more predictable than making peace with it.

  73. dL

    I’m finding myself increasingly not at home among people who would take David Icke seriously

    In a sense, the State often does behave as if were under an alien conspiracy. Conventional political science does not explain this. Hence the void is filled by outlandish conspiracy theories. That’s not unexpected.

    Now I often write “libertarianism is correct, but libertarians are no more wiser, moral or smarter than anyone else.” This goes against the libertarian grain that often treats libertarianism as some type of conversion event that elevates one to a higher plane of perception. That’s bullshit. And if it wasn’t bullshit, you would think this conference would advertise a better way to rationally explain the behavior of government than shape-shifting 5th dimensional reptiles.

  74. Anthony Dlugos

    Starchild writes,

    “We’re more likely to achieve a libertarian society by going for what we believe, than for what we don’t believe.”

    Don’t conflate society and state. That’s very statist of you. A political party does not have the ability to change society. If your goal is the grandeur of changing society (a laudable goal), write a song. No law is going to change society, and what ends up happening if a political party takes on a mission of changing society (i.e., “a world set free in our lifetimes”) is they end up trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. In other words, your policy ideas are not policy ideas at all, they are vacuous “I wish the world were like this” fantasies.

    Its a real irony for the most radical elements of the Libertarian Party…who should have the MOST skepticism about what the state can accomplish…propose the idea that a law or laws is/are going to change society. Then again, the radical mission taken to its logical end is a sack full of contradictions. Elections themselves are aggression on non-voters. How does a fully compliant NAPster intend to take a salary for a public office? Voters can sniff out those contradictions when your policy ideas, such as they are, turn out to be vague shibboleths.

    Tell me, how does the NAP deal with beginning to extricate the government from the health care industry in this country? Are you aware of how commingled the state is with all the different players in health care? I mean, I hate to bring this discussion back down to reality, but whats the bill that gets written using the NAP as a guide for moving health care policy in a libertarian direction? You don’t need to write the whole bill, just give me an outline.

    Besides, who’s this we you speak of? If you mean “we” as in the LP, then what we believe is whatever the party through its mechanisms says it believes. Radicalism is not the default position of the LP. There is no default position of the LP.

    “Some people, I suspect, reject radical libertarianism because they don’t find it personally comfortable to be so at odds with mainstream society*, but rather than acknowledge their own lack of courage, they cloak their rejection of it in pragmatic arguments.”

    I would hope that a political party and its candidates for office find it uncomfortable to be so at odds with mainstream society. Given that the LP is in the electoral arena, where appealing to voter concerns, however illogical you might think they are, is imperative, what you call courage is mere petulant pigheadedness.

    Now, pigheadedness can be a good thing in certain contexts. As G.B. Shaw wrote,

    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

    However, in the electoral political arena, where we must appeal to the voters, pigheadedness is a very bad trait to have, especially when your goals are WAY outside the Overton Window. The radical understands this, which is when neurosis creeps in and pigheadedness turns into petulant pigheadedness, and a humble foreign policy becomes “service members are accessories to murder.”

  75. Anon-Tipper

    The radical vs pragmatist debate is a distraction that the entryists are using to divide us, turn us against each other, and sew outrage to get people to vote out “problem” people (Vohra and Sarwark, however Vohra’s white-nationalist meme was fucked up because of the current entryism problem) and vote in their candidates. I think they also leveraged it during the Johnson/Weld campaign (see the ‘Physically Remove, so to speak’ talk: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/08/lsla-2017-physically-removed-so-to-speak-making-the-lp-inhospitable-to-the-alt-right-and-other-nazis/).

  76. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Shaw’s quote’s OK, but as a practical matter, it’s not 100% reasonable/unreasonable, I’d think. Pretty much everyone is reasonable in most things. Even the NAPster drives on the right, for ex.
    Some are reasonable (ie, adaptable) to everything. Most are mostly reasonable and unreasonable on a margin. The successful pick their margins well, and they SELL it well.

    Picking the right margin and selling it well is a nuanced thing — part analytical, part gut. RP1 achieved some minor success, but his inner conflicts and associations all but assured failure. RP2 could be viewed as a correction, although I wonder if he’s overcompensating for the “sins” of the father.

    This is why, for ex., the Weeks approach to politics is an obvious non-starter. Reveal too much “unreasonable,” and expect ridicule.

    Lessarchy is not easily achieved. It’s also I’d say depressing to watch the nation’s political entropy unfolding before our eyes. Holding high the black banner feels too “Weeks,” too unreasonable, though.

  77. DJ

    RC: If you can sell half a loaf, but not the whole loaf, wouldn’t you prefer to sell the half now?

    The vast, vast majority are unlikely to buy your “there’s a right to private nukes” view.

    Me: You’re trying to sell rye and pumpernickel to someone raised on cornbread, biscuits and white bread who will, on occasion, eat honey wheat- but I’m not trying to sell bread and neither are you. You’re selling ‘fear’ of what “might” happen and don’t have the courage of conviction so you sell it as being pragmatic, which is what Starchild said and I agree with, and it isn’t just private nukes for you- it’s what you feel the vast, vast majority believes and the vast, vast majority doesn’t think through, they feel through, just like you. You and politicians like you prey on fear and call yourselves being pragmatic and “force” your beliefs on others because it “might”- but, when the real does you run and hide and blame others and call for more of what you feel is the answer, when it’s clear, and documented, that what you feel isn’t the problem- i.e., AR15’s and guns that look scary.

    I’m a man of conviction, Robert. You’re malleable. You can be shaped with the hammer of opinion. I won’t. You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything- “might”.

  78. robert capozzi

    DJ: I’m a man of conviction, Robert. You’re malleable. You can be shaped with the hammer of opinion. I won’t. You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything- “might”.

    Me: This is a false either/or. I recommend the Tao if you’ve not read it. It’s highly influential for me, but, interestingly enough, Rothbard IDs Lao Tzu as the “first L.”

    If you want to influence the flow, you have to go with the flow. Lecturing the river from its bank about your private nukes “conviction” is unlikely to work.

  79. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “Some are reasonable (ie, adaptable) to everything. Most are mostly reasonable and unreasonable on a margin. The successful pick their margins well, and they SELL it well.

    Picking the right margin and selling it well is a nuanced thing — part analytical, part gut.”

    No doubt about it. Its a true skill, one that is absolutely necessary in the political arena.

    But, as you previously pointed out, sometimes working on that margin means you make missteps, for example Johnson on the burqa comments. The skill is in walking it back, not in repeating mantras from memory, Hare K???a style.

  80. DJ

    RC: This is a false either/or. I recommend the Tao if you’ve not read it. It’s highly influential for me, but, interestingly enough, Rothbard IDs Lao Tzu as the “first L.”

    If you want to influence the flow, you have to go with the flow. Lecturing the river from its bank about your private nukes “conviction” is unlikely to work.

    Me: You’re trying to sell rye and pumpernickel to someone raised on cornbread, biscuits and white bread who will, on occasion, eat honey wheat- but I’m not trying to sell bread and neither are you. You’re selling ‘fear’ of what “might” happen and don’t have the courage of conviction so you sell it as being pragmatic, which is what Starchild said and I agree with, and it isn’t just private nukes for you- it’s what you feel the vast, vast majority believes and the vast, vast majority doesn’t think through, they feel through, just like you. You and politicians like you prey on fear and call yourselves being pragmatic and “force” your beliefs on others because it “might”- but, when the real does you run and hide and blame others and call for more of what you feel is the answer, when it’s clear, and documented, that what you feel isn’t the problem- i.e., AR15’s and guns that look scary.

    I’m a man of conviction, Robert. You’re malleable. You can be shaped with the hammer of opinion. I won’t. You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything- “might”.

    You’re not trying to influence the flow- you’re trying to direct a flow using fear as the tool to force others through law, or rules for a Party.

    I don’t care what Rothbard did, or said, tho I have read excerpts from The Tao of Willie, I don’t need validation for my beliefs, though I will use it when warranted (like the above song). I don’t use fear to sell my beliefs either- except most people are afraid of freedom because they fear the unknown, which makes no sense because the unknown is what makes life interesting- the “might”. It’s not to be feared, or influenced, to ensure an outcome, but embraced as an opportunity to experience life and ALL it offers, not someone else’s preconceived notions.

  81. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Or:

    Hail Murray, full of Ayn
    The NAP is with thee
    Blessed art thou among aggressors
    and blessed is the fruit of thy NIOF
    Hail Murray, Father of Lew
    pray for all rent seekers
    now and when the market clears.
    Amen.

  82. Anthony Dlugos

    haha, excellent verse, RC!

    I won’t be as creative, however, I think Jonah Hill’s character Donnie Azoff in Wolf of Wall Street pretty much gave a good 10-second approximation of the NAPster approach to public policy reform…on any issue:

    https://youtu.be/hzCgcVlVB8I?t=1m11s

  83. robert capozzi

    DJ: You’re selling ‘fear’ of what “might” happen and don’t have the courage of conviction so you sell it as being pragmatic, which is what Starchild said and I agree with, and it isn’t just private nukes for you- it’s what you feel the vast, vast majority believes and the vast, vast majority doesn’t think through, they feel through, just like you.

    Me: Obviously my communication to you is poor, then, since I am all about fear abatement and proposing love instead.

    I don’t sell what might happen if you prevail and the right to private nukes is recognized universally. What I AM selling is there’s no fucking way that private nukes and machine guns and other military weapons are going to be legalized for general consumption. It is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Take it to the bank!

    I get that you don’t care about wisdom from others, but to me the saying “discretion is the better part of valor,” is very wise. To illustrate: If I happened to buy your “right” to private nukes argument, I would have the discretion to recognize that IF I advocated that ridiculous position, I would be met with highly predictable ridicule. Being the target of ridicule limits one’s options, so I would exercise discretion on my position.

    As you’ve shared your age here a few times, and as you use a pseudonym anyway, perhaps you feel liberated to share your most bat-shit crazy views with no chance for reputational damage. Say the most outrageous things with a free pass in your golden years, albeit on an obscure website’s comment thread.

    On one level, that’s kinda cool.

    On another, I hope you don’t prevail in pushing the LM way back into the fringes. It does seem to be slowly emerging from its dark past.

    Which reminds me: the other wacko position that surfaced in the LM in the 80s was that some Ls cozied up to NAMBLA. Curious: Do you take your absolute right to association to include adults having sex with children?

    Not surprisingly, I do not, for the record.

  84. Andy

    It is kind of funny how the least tolerant people in the LP are the hardcore left libertarians, like this Anon-Tipper person. Much like in the general world of politics, leftists talk about things like tolerance and diversity, but in reality they are some of the least tolerant people around, and they do not support any diversity that falls outside their leftist paradigm. Many leftists do not really support free speech, they only support speech for things of which they approve.

    The only people I have advocated kicking out of the LP are obvious fakes/establishment infiltrators who are not really any kind of libertarian, like Bill Weld.

  85. DJ

    RC: Curious: Do you take your absolute right to association to include adults having sex with children?

    Me: No. I take it as I’ve said- as long as harm is not caused to another. Your ignorant insults prove your intolerance. Your putting words in my mouth proves you don’t read what I reply with. Your pseudo-intellectual attitude will be your downfall- not surprisingly.

    RC: I get that you don’t care about wisdom from others, but to me the saying “discretion is the better part of valor,” is very wise. To illustrate: If I happened to buy your “right” to private nukes argument, I would have the discretion to recognize that IF I advocated that ridiculous position, I would be met with highly predictable ridicule. Being the target of ridicule limits one’s options, so I would exercise discretion on my position.

    Me: I didn’t say I didn’t care about the wisdom of others. Copy and paste: I don’t care what Rothbard did, or said, tho I have read excerpts from The Tao of Willie, I don’t need validation for my beliefs, though I will use it when warranted (like the above song)

    Learn to read, Robert- and my initials are not anything other than the initials I’ve gone by for longer than you are old.

    RC: I don’t sell what might happen if you prevail and the right to private nukes is recognized universally. What I AM selling is there’s no fucking way that private nukes and machine guns and other military weapons are going to be legalized for general consumption. It is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Take it to the bank!

    Me: I’ve never said my positions would be accepted, Robert. That’s YOU putting words in my mouth.
    You, and those like you, sell fear of what “might happen”- the result, Robert, is punish the many for the crimes of the few-

    “No one wants to take away your guns.”

    How many times have you been in an argument with a gun grabber and they uttered that very phrase? I’m not even talking about a variation of that phrase, I mean those exact words in that exact order. I’ve heard and seen it plenty. Then if you do consider the variations, the number of times I personally have been assured my guns are safe skyrockets.

    No one, they continue to claim, wants to take anyone’s guns. They just want to make it harder for bad people to get them, they argue.

    Then maybe one of those can explain this op-ed in USA Today from Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat in Congress. It seems his grand plan is to ban assault weapons, institute an Australian-style buyback, then “go after” those who don’t act like good little peasants and comply with the law.
    “No one wants to take away your guns.”

    How many times have you been in an argument with a gun grabber and they uttered that very phrase? I’m not even talking about a variation of that phrase, I mean those exact words in that exact order. I’ve heard and seen it plenty. Then if you do consider the variations, the number of times I personally have been assured my guns are safe skyrockets.

    For some reason the link won’t post, so, from the referenced article USA Today

    Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/03/ban-assault-weapons-buy-them-back-prosecute-offenders-column/570590002/

    RC: On another, I hope you don’t prevail in pushing the LM way back into the fringes. It does seem to be slowly emerging from its dark past.

    Me: LOL…. no, it isn’t, and never will- it is fringe itself, to the “vast, vast majority” who, like you, are educated beyond their intellect and can’t comprehend Individual rights, never mind the esoteric/gnostic ramblings and labeling that serve only to make the simple complicated, ensuring the fringe place in History.

  86. Thomas L. Knapp

    There’s one big difference between Opus Dei and NAPsters, and that is that Opus Dei actually exists outside of the imagination of Robert Capozzi.

  87. Thomas L. Knapp

    Weld is an understandable modifier of the general Republican style.

    Regular Republican pretend they’re libertarians until the election is over, and then govern as authoritarians.

    Weld, knowing that he’s not going to get to govern after the election, makes the switch from libertarian to authoritarian as soon as he gets nominated.

  88. robert capozzi

    DJ: …as long as harm is not caused to another.

    Me: Notice that I’m asking a question here, not putting words in your mouth…are you saying here that it’s OK for an adult to have sex with a child “as long as harm is not caused”?

    A bracing view among many, if so.

  89. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Jeez, haven’t we been over this? I coined the short-hand term NAPster, riffing off your Knappster column, as a way to ID Ls who refer all/virtually all political questions to the NAP. It’s short for “NAP adherents” or “NAP aficionado” or “NAP devotee.”

    It seems more accurate to me than “purist” or “radical,” which are both INaccurate. I strive to be as accurate as possible. I’m open to other terms, which I’ve repeatedly requested from you and other NAP adherents. None has been offered. I’m more than happy to use a different, accurate term.

    I seem to recall that at one point you stated you didn’t find NAPster offensive. Surely you don’t dispute that some Ls make consistent reference to the NAP to assess political questions.

  90. robert capozzi

    more…

    If anything, NAPster is a compliment to you, Tom. You are a leading NAPster thinker, as I see it.

  91. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    Yes, we’ve been over this before. You may have coined the term to mean something, but in practice it means someone who doesn’t exist to serve as an example of behavior you can’t point to in real life. It’s a Platonic ideal, not an existing group of real people.

  92. robert capozzi

    more…

    TK,

    Would the term “fundamentalist” work better you? It just hit me. Thought I’d run it up the flagpole. Seems accurate to me.

  93. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    The terminology is irrelevant. The question isn’t whether whether you call your non-existent Platonic ideal people “NAPsters” or “fundamentalists” or “faeries” or “reptilian shapeshifters from the 5th dimension.” The question is whether or not people answering to your “X would/does think/do/say this” descriptions actually exist. And since your descriptions’ acceleration rate from zero to absurd is about a second and a half, the answer to the question is no, they don’t.

  94. robert capozzi

    TK,

    OK. Do you not detect a rift in the LM? If so, how would you characterize that rift?

    For ex., what is the difference between PF and you vs AD and I?

    Weren’t you once (and possibly still) in the so-called “Radical Caucus”? Why is there a need for a “Radical” Caucus, would you say?

    Perhaps we can solve this terminology challenge together….

  95. Thomas L. Knapp

    “For ex., what is the difference between PF and you vs AD and I?”

    I don’t recognize the sets as especially meaningful. There are probably lots of differences and some similarities. If I had to pick one, it’s that Paulie and I are hard-nosed practical political workers (Paulie far more so than myself, especially for the last several years) while you and Anthony are utopian fantasists, but I doubt you had that particular difference in mind.

  96. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Let’s narrow the parameters. It seems that AD and I almost always have a similar take on politics and political analysis, and I’d say that’s also the case with you and PF.

    Do you see that? If so, how would you describe those takes?

  97. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’ve never gone down a checklist of how often I agree versus disagree with Paulie. I’d say we’re in the same general ballpark on most issues and that that’s because we both hold freedom as our central political value.

    Coincidence between you and AD seems to be because your central political value (“domestic tranquility” seems to be your most common phrasing) tends to overlap with his (appearing “mainstream”).

  98. Starchild

    Anthony Dlugos writes (May 4, 2018 at 07:44, in response to my comment that “We’re more likely to achieve a libertarian society by going for what we believe, than for what we don’t believe”):

    “Don’t conflate society and state. That’s very statist of you. A political party does not have the ability to change society. If your goal is the grandeur of changing society (a laudable goal), write a song. No law is going to change society, and what ends up happening if a political party takes on a mission of changing society (i.e., ‘a world set free in our lifetimes’) is they end up trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. In other words, your policy ideas are not policy ideas at all, they are vacuous ‘I wish the world were like this’ fantasies.”

    Everyone – individuals working alone, and organizations comprised of individuals working in concert – has the ability to change society, because we are all part of society. When we change, it changes, even if only to a small degree. Our actions can change society whether it is writing a song or writing a press release. Let a thousand flowers bloom!

    Please note that I am not defining a libertarian society (aka a free world) as one in which every single person refrains from aggression all the time. While that is desirable and a worthy (if far-off) goal, I am satisfied with calling “libertarian” a society in which there is still some level of murder, theft, and other crimes of aggression, but in which such crimes are not deemed legal or seen by most people as socially acceptable under certain circumstances (e.g. when committed by organizations calling themselves governments). Achieving such a society necessarily means eliminating aggression-based laws, and political parties can play an important role in that objective, among many other ways in which they can influence society.

    Anthony further writes, “Its a real irony for the most radical elements of the Libertarian Party…who should have the MOST skepticism about what the state can accomplish…propose the idea that a law or laws is/are going to change society. Then again, the radical mission taken to its logical end is a sack full of contradictions. Elections themselves are aggression on non-voters. How does a fully compliant NAPster intend to take a salary for a public office? Voters can sniff out those contradictions when your policy ideas, such as they are, turn out to be vague shibboleths.”

    I don’t see how it is supposedly un-libertarian to acknowledge that the State can have (and has had) a profound impact on society. Our case is based largely on understanding the terrible harms that it inflicts, so it seems obvious that removing or reforming the mechanisms by which that harm is inflicted will have a real impact. Elections are not inherently an aggression on non-voters; they are only aggression to the extent that they are coercively funded, people are forced to participate, or force is initiated by those who are elected or as a result of statist measures being voted in.

    I’m not such a purist that I reject any use of aggression-tainted means while seeking to minimize aggression (e.g. walking or driving on roads paid for with stolen taxpayer money, participating in elections paid for with stolen taxpayer money, etc.) Opposing politically-sanctioned aggression and seeking to minimize it seems more important to me than keeping one’s hands spotless by not engaging in any action indirectly related to aggression, something that would be incredibly difficult and highly impractical for most people in the society we live in to do without radically impacting their lifestyles. But those who sincerely attempt to follow that difficult path deserve our respect and admiration.

    Anthony: “Tell me, how does the NAP deal with beginning to extricate the government from the health care industry in this country? Are you aware of how commingled the state is with all the different players in health care? I mean, I hate to bring this discussion back down to reality, but whats the bill that gets written using the NAP as a guide for moving health care policy in a libertarian direction? You don’t need to write the whole bill, just give me an outline.”

    The myriad government interventions in health care are certainly a tangled mess, but one can largely sidestep that mess by first eliminating the most obvious and direct forms of aggression: Decriminalize the production, sale, and use of all drugs, abolish all health care related licensing requirements and regulations restricting or creating barriers to the peaceful provision of health care, and eliminate all taxes on health care. These changes would allow all kinds of positive, better alternatives to the poor excuse for a “safety net” currently being poorly provided via State aggression to emerge. When people are allowed to act in freedom, and markets allowed to evolve organically, creativity and progress are unleashed and innovation renders many old practices obsolete, so that people transition out of them naturally without “throwing granny in the street” to use the fear-based statist cliché, and it becomes unnecessary to unravel programs like Medicare one regulation at a time.

    Anthony: “Besides, who’s this we you speak of? If you mean ‘we’ as in the LP, then what we believe is whatever the party through its mechanisms says it believes. Radicalism is not the default position of the LP. There is no default position of the LP.”

    I meant “we” as in the freedom movement, which I define as everyone who is consciously seeking freedom in a libertarian sense at any given point in time. That’s the “we” I usually use when speaking politically (in preference over the common nationalist “we”).

    Anthony: “I would hope that a political party and its candidates for office find it uncomfortable to be so at odds with mainstream society.”

    You would prefer that people seeking radical change from the political status quo simply boycott electoral politics, or use violent means of effecting such change, instead of working via organizations such as political parties?

    Anthony: “Given that the LP is in the electoral arena, where appealing to voter concerns, however illogical you might think they are, is imperative, what you call courage is mere petulant pigheadedness.”

    At their root, most voter concerns are quite logical and reasonable. People want, broadly, to be free, safe, prosperous, and healthy. It’s the statist policies that are often embraced as means of achieving these goals which are immoral and impractical, and it is our job as libertarian activists to offer better alternatives to enable people to achieve their goals without the use of aggression.

    I think it’s generally best to talk about these alternatives in ways that avoid insulting or offending people, but it would be going too far to say that it’s always wrong or bad to point out uncomfortable truths (such as the murders being committed by some of the individuals working in government military organizations).

  99. Starchild

    P.S. – Anthony asked a question I forgot to address in my previous reply, “How does a fully compliant NAPster intend to take a salary for a public office?”

    The answer of course is that someone in full compliance with the Non-Aggression principle would not take such a salary, at least not while the money used to pay for it was obtained via aggression.

    But this example is a good illustration of why strict personal compliance with the Non-Aggression Principle may not always necessarily be the most expedient route to minimizing overall aggression. I would argue that taking the money and giving it back to taxpayers in some relatively equal-opportunity manner, or using it to otherwise advance the cause of freedom, is likely to produce better practical results in terms of how the funds themselves are used than simply leaving them in the hands of an aggression-prone State when doing so would not mean any reduction in taxes.

    The perhaps optimum practical results of that approach notwithstanding however, Libertarian officeholders refusing their government salaries or benefits, or taking only half the money, or what-not, is an excellent way to let people know they can trust Libertarians more than other politicians to act in the public interest, and I encourage LP candidates to take such pledges. The reason being, it is much simpler to communicate Libertarians’ good intentions this way than by taking the money and somehow giving it back to the people from whom it was stolen or using it to advance the cause of freedom, because the former is virtually impossible to do in a completely equitable manner, and neither approach is as readily understandable to the public (or as trustworthy, from their POV) as simply refusing to take the tainted money in the first place.

  100. Starchild

    Robert Capozzi writes, (May 3, 2018 at 19:06), “Starchild, Thanks for the feedback. I’d not realized that abbreviations are dis-courteous…who knew? If I hear more such interpretation, I’ll amend my time-saving practice.”

    To be fair to Robert, I’m not sure on reflection whether I’ve said anything about this to him previously, or that he read my remarks if I did, although it’s come to my mind on multiple occasions. Here are a few further thoughts on the netiquette of such usage:

    • In general I feel it’s polite to call people by their preferred names, and that is my usual practice. In online forums, I interpret this to mean assuming that at least the personal name they use if not the full name including surname is how they prefer to be addressed, unless a person states they are okay with abbreviations. I think exceptions may be made for the use of obviously fake names that seem aggressive or vulgar (on the SF Examiner site there is an obnoxious individual who posts as “Hilarykunt Clinton” or something like that), self-aggrandizing (e.g. “God-Emperor of Earth”), etc., but it can be a bit tricky; I’ve occasionally had people assume my name is obviously fake when in fact it is not.

    • Practical reasons for using people’s un-abbreviated names are to avoid confusion (I saw a recent thread in which Carol Moore was confused by a “CM” meant to refer to a comment of Chuck Moulton’s), to increase the likelihood that people will read comments which reference them (I will sometimes search for my name in a long thread to see whether I’ve been mentioned or responded to), and for the sake of newbies who aren’t as familiar with the acronyms being used, whether to refer to other users or otherwise (unexplained terms like “NAP” and “NAPster” are likewise best avoided for this reason).

  101. dL

    Anthony asked a question I forgot to address in my previous reply, “How does a fully compliant NAPster intend to take a salary for a public office?”

    The answer of course is that someone in full compliance with the Non-Aggression principle would not take such a salary, at least not while the money used to pay for it was obtained via aggression.

    Dlugos is cutting in line. We’ll get around to answering his challenge after we’ve answered all accumulating challenges stockpiled by the proggies and cons…you know, things like “how does a radical libertarian justify driving on roads,” or “how does a radical libertarian justify using the library or drinking from a public water fountain, ” or “how does a radical libertarian justify having a banking account or engaging in a commercial transaction regulated by the government.” etc, etc, blah, blah. I anticipate Dlugos’ number being called sometime around the year 2085. Patience!

  102. robert capozzi

    TK,

    [Starchild, I’m sticking with this signature initials treatment for the time being, but thanks. My intention is not disrespect, but actually familiarity.]

    Freedom is my and probably AD’s primary political value as well. That’s what seems the common ground for people who call themselves L. There are many camps, of course. Maybe there’s not one major differentiator, but let’s play with this a bit more.

    There used to be the anarchist/minarchist differentiator, but that proves inaccurate. I’m an asymptotic anarchist, for ex. Some minarchists are what I’ve been calling NAPsters. So that doesn’t work.

    Destinational vs directional is another differentiator. Problem with that is that “NAPsters” such as yourself will tolerate directional Ls SO LONG AS they don’t advocate for something that you deem to be in the WRONG direction, e.g., GJ’s Fair Tax.

    Thick and thin is another, there are thicks who are in the “radical” camp, I do believe. But this might be closer to a fundamental divide. AJ is thick but is also a NAPster, for ex.

    Perhaps it’s something like sensitive/insensitive. AD and I are sensitive to prevailing political views in the Public Square and we are prone to developing positions based on what will sell, while an INsensitive L are doing their best to take morally sound positions irrespective of the public zeitgeist. Paulie says it’s OK to tote machine guns in the subway, which feels insensitive to me.

    Somewhat similar would be moderate/moralist or moderate/educationist. Moderates would lead with “what will sell” and moralists or educationists do politics primarily to educate the masses on the blessings of liberty with little concern for the zeitgeist. Moderates believe education is done best by providing examples and enacting political change. Educationists want to convert people by offering them an alternative political theory.

    Any of this ring true for you?

  103. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    A lot of it rings true to me — except that all the parts of it that ring true illustrate that your “NAPster” construct as amplified by the other distinctions you make just doesn’t have a basis in reality.

    For example, you seem to consider me an archetypal “NAPster,” which seems to subsume a “moralist” or “educationist” position rather than my actual position, which you characterize as “moderate.”

  104. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Welcome! 😉

    I admit to having a hard time imagining a moderate anarchist, in truth. You might be one.

    Let’s try another tack. IIRC, you objected to the GJ/WW mostly because they contradicted the platform on several occasions. I think people like PF and CM also did. (You didn’t care for the optics of R retreads, too, IIRC.)

    I think you are technically correct. Since I’m an L voter but no longer a member, I’m free to vote for the best candidate, ATC, and from my lessarchist perch, voting J/W was easy. I can’t speak for AD, but I get the sense he’s in the LP but he’s less concerned about platform adherence and more concerned with fielding strong candidates who are advocating for an overall freer social order.

    Perhaps we could use a term like “literalist” for folks like yourself and “moderates” for the ADs of the world, who are less concerned with platform adherence and are more concerned with the overall thrust of either a candidate or a position. “Holistic” is another descriptor that might work for AD and me.

    I note that literalism is consistent with NAPsterism, since the foundational documents DO require allegiance to the NAP.

    I sense that there are ranges of literalism. PF, for ex., could be viewed as a literalist, but he’s among the more flexible literalists. CAH seems pronouncedly rigorous and unyielding in her desire for strict doctrinal adherence.

  105. DJ

    Starchild, you’re welcome and have my vote, which coupled with a buck fifty will get a cup of coffee somewhere. You should be the national spokes person for the Party.

  106. DJ

    RC: Notice that I’m asking a question here, not putting words in your mouth…are you saying here that it’s OK for an adult to have sex with a child “as long as harm is not caused”?

    A bracing view among many, if so.

    Me: Being Intentionally obstinate trying desperately to make a “gotcha” point is not flattering, Robert.

  107. Anthony Dlugos

    Starchild writes,

    “Everyone – individuals working alone, and organizations comprised of individuals working in concert – has the ability to change society, because we are all part of society. When we change, it changes, even if only to a small degree. Our actions can change society whether it is writing a song or writing a press release. Let a thousand flowers bloom!”

    This is a wonderful sentiment, and I must say that by all accounts you come across as ceaselessly genuine regarding your optimism for a freer future for everyone.

    Its also not nearly focused enough for a political party, an entity that has to be single-minded in its pursuit to win public office. That’s its sole reason to exist. Everything it does should be be in pursuit of that end and anything that does not needs to be discarded.

    I meant what I said about radical policy ideas not being concrete policy ideas at all, just vague wishful thinking about the future. Any political party with a mission statement as ill-defined as your quote above…sunny as it might be…is gonna get its ass kicked in the electoral arena by parties more unwavering in there desire to win. Their policy proposals are going to be concrete, achievable, and presented in a way that the public will get.

    I’m not surprised that the person who writes about “achieving a libertarian society” and oher overambitious goals also believes, as you wrote in your post of May 3, 2018 at 18:44, that the most dangerous people to the “libertarian movement” are “those who are after money and power” to whom “principles are an inconvenient obstacle” and “so they naturally seek to make the party less ideological and more focused simply on “winning”.

    The people you call “those who are after money and power” are people I call properly focused on the sole mission of a political party: winning elective office in order get what they want accomplished. What you disdainfully describe as “mak[ing] the party less ideological and more focused on winning” I describe as listening to voter concerns, and as RC articulately says is being “sensitive to prevailing political views in the Public Square” and being “prone to developing positions based on what will sell.”

    One of these approaches is proper and appropriately modest for a political party, and one of them is so grandiose in its mission, that it is clear to me that such a person has a real aversion to the nuts and bolts of electoral politics, and so redfinies the mission so quixotically that success becomes unachievable. As I have pointed out here before, such people are the Andy Stitzers of our party, he of the “40 Year Old Virgin.” He elevated sex to such an extent that the real thing was never gonna match up to the vision he had created in his mind.

    Of course, as the movie humorously suggested, that was just a defense mechanism. He had to admit that he was a virgin. Until then, he was never gonna have sex.

    So, my advice to you is come off the pedestal, and join me in admitting all we want to do is win. Its the first step to actually winning. I know that that means giving up on “achieving a libertarian society,” but what’s say me and you just try to get some simple stuff accomplished? I mean, I don’t think the people who merely want to smoke marijuana in order to alleviate the symptoms of some particular disease are that much concerned about achieving a libertarian society.

  108. Anthony Dlugos

    Starchild also writes,

    “You would prefer that people seeking radical change from the political status quo simply boycott electoral politics…instead of working via organizations such as political parties?”

    Yes, I would. For their own health more than anything. They are not cut out for electoral politics, where compromise is the name of the game.

  109. dL

    Yes, I would. For their own health more than anything. They are not cut out for electoral politics, where compromise is the name of the game.

    Dlugos, since you set yourself up as an authority on electoral politics and are barking recommendations about who should step up and who should step aside, maybe you should cite your own political experience/credentials to lend some substance to your claims. Offices held, campaigns conducted, position papers written, advertising purchased, etc. To paraphrase the immortal words of Clara Peller: you packin any beef from that armchair?

  110. Anthony Dlugos

    You don’t need to be an authority on electoral politics to know calling service members “accessories to murder” and gay people hypocrites for not favoring the abolishment of Age of Consent laws is no way to win friends and influence people.

    Similarly, I don’t need to have downloaded the history of Gallup polling into my noggin to tell you there is no support in the populace for the radical platiform. Typically, not even radicals dispute this.

  111. Anthony Dlugos

    One more quote from Starchild,

    “The myriad government interventions in health care are certainly a tangled mess, but one can largely sidestep that mess by first eliminating the most obvious and direct forms of aggression: Decriminalize the production, sale, and use of all drugs, abolish all healthcare related licensing requirements and regulations restricting or creating barriers to the peaceful provision of health care, and eliminate all taxes on health care.”

    Now I think we are getting somewhere!

    Alas, I unfortunately bring tidings of sausage-making and melancholy. For, what happens when such fine sentiments are mangled into a two-thousand page monstrosity of a bill in Congress?

    Worse, what happens when said fine sentiments are partially amputated in the congressional reconciliation process, by people who have no affinity at all for the NAP, who tell you as a Libertarian Congressperson that you’ll give him/her what he/she wants for their own purposes or they’ll kill your mangled bill, just for kicks?

    What happens when a bill to “abolish all healthcare related licensing” is disfigured into a bill to abbreviate certain selected health care licensing requirements, while adding some decidedly NAP-infracting riders? Do you as a Libertarian Congressperson continue to push the monstrosity of a bill your simple idea became? Do you pointlessly tell your fellow Demopublican Congresspersons the bill is an affront to the NAP? Will they care? Doubtful. Do you then just give up on proposing any incremental changes, knowing they are ALL going to be mangled eventually?

    Has legislating ever been any other way? Is it possible that folks like myself and RC see this reality and realize mere reference to the NAP is not just useless in the real world of electoral politics, but a downright hindrance?

    Signs point to yes.

    So, while I was reading Starchild’s posts yesterday, I was also reading the below-linked article about a declining-use airport for rich people right on Lake Erie in Cleveland, and what a waste it is compared to what could be put on 450 acres of prime real estate some have called the most valuable property between New York and Chicago.

    Unless you have a burning desire to read about land-use machinations in Cleveland, you don’t have to read the article. My point here is this: this article is about a waste of space airport for a small group of rich people that has been declining in use for several decades, and I counted seven attorneys and/or public office holders, two city planning professors, the need to get the EPA and FAA involved, the need for a study to prove the space is being wasted, and at least 10 years of political machinations before the city could even begin to plan for an alternate use.

    That’s one little airport in just one city affecting only a few people.

    Given that, would anyone care to consider with me the sort of institutional knowledge…both public and private…the legal horsepower, the level of involvement of MAJOR players in the industry, that something so simply sounding as “abolish government involvement in Medicare” might take? Is it possible that “All We Need is the NAP” is a wee bit…unrealistic?

    https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/lies-damn-lies-and-the-450-acres-of-prime-lakefront-real-estate-that-is-burke-lakefront-airport/Content?oid=16931820

  112. dL

    You don’t need to be an authority on electoral politics to know calling service members “accessories to murder” and gay people hypocrites for not favoring the abolishment of Age of Consent laws is no way to win friends and influence people.

    Similarly, I don’t need to have downloaded the history of Gallup polling into my noggin to tell you there is no support in the populace for the radical platiform. Typically, not even radicals dispute this.

    Ok, no experience…armchair general it is…

  113. robert capozzi

    DJ: Being Intentionally obstinate trying desperately to make a “gotcha” point is not flattering, Robert.

    Me: I notice you don’t answer the question. You’ve already taken the position there’s a “right” to private nukes, so I’d think you should be willing to answer this outer-bounds question as well.

    In for a penny, in for a pound!

    I’m not sure I’ve crossed into “obstinate” territory, but I will cop to this being a “gotcha.” Recall that there’s history here, where well-meaning-but-I-think confused Ls have publicly taken radioactive positions on nukes and adult/children sex.

    I bring it up in the hopes that some Ls will re-examine their philosophy in its untenable extremes. These sorts of issues should obviously be non-starters. You seem to see that molestation is toxic, so you evade by attacking me.

    Speaks volumes.

  114. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    I objected to Johnson/Weld for numerous reasons:

    1) Starting with them both being lying sacks of crap who had defrauded the LP in previous campaign cycles, moving on to

    2) their horrible branding (“two former Republican governors who can’t get the Republican Party to support us any more so we’re seeking less picky sponsorship”), going from there to

    3) their actual records as public officials (Weld got his start covering the Iran-Contra criminals’ asses and building the federal surveillance state with Rudy Giuliani, then supported gun control, etc. as governor of Massachusetts; Johnson grew government spending and government debt faster as governor of New Mexico than Obama did as POTUS, got held in contempt by the state Supreme Court for trying to rule by decree when the legislature wouldn’t give him his way, tried to fire state officials who didn’t give his construction company sweetheart contracts, etc.

    It was only on top off all the foregoing that I pointed out that the party stands for certain things and should nominate candidates who stand for those things rather than for other things and especially for things that are so blindingly incompatible with major platform/principle stands by the party that they are effectively massive public brand damage.

    Yes, it is true that I would rather have a platform compliant candidate who is deficient in other respects than a candidate with a great resume but who happens to oppose lots of what the party claims to stand for. But Johnson and Weld were resume/brand train wrecks on the items preceding platform compliance. Even considering them was basically saying “ignore the LP this year, we’re not even going to try.”

  115. Thomas L. Knapp

    “You don’t need to be an authority on electoral politics to know calling service members ‘accessories to murder’ and gay people hypocrites for not favoring the abolishment of Age of Consent laws is no way to win friends and influence people.”

    And yet you supported having the party’s national committee stand at a microphone and scream at the top of its lungs about such things.

  116. robert capozzi

    TK,

    So would you say that “compliantists” would be a more accurate label vs NAPsters?

  117. Starchild

    Robert Capozzi writes in part (May 5, 2018 at 07:28), “Perhaps it’s something like sensitive/insensitive. AD and I are sensitive to prevailing political views in the Public Square and we are prone to developing positions based on what will sell, while an INsensitive L are doing their best to take morally sound positions irrespective of the public zeitgeist. Paulie says it’s OK to tote machine guns in the subway, which feels insensitive to me.”

    I see it rather differently. Radical libertarians are more sensitive to the oppression being inflicted on the victims of government aggression and the suffering of those victims, while others who are less sensitive to the ill effects of this aggression and elevate various “pragmatic” considerations over the well-being and autonomy of the individuals who are harmed by it (or may be harmed by it in the future if it is allowed to run roughshod over individual rights to things like the right to keep and bear arms).

    My view is that sensitivity to victims who are actually being harmed takes precedence over sensitivity to the opinions of people who don’t want to take a strong stand against the system that is causing that harm.

    If you are bothered by people being able to carry machine guns on the subway, let’s focus on requiring government to set a good example in this respect by barring its employees from doing so. That’s acknowledging the practical reality that right now, government soldiers and law enforcement are more likely than ordinary individuals to engage in such behavior. When there is a strong ban in place with serious consequences being enforced against government agencies and personnel who violate it, then I’m willing to talk about extending that ban to everyone else. Not before.

  118. robert capozzi

    Starchild,

    I see your point. “Compliantists” are more sensitive — though I’d say more intolerant — of what they believe to be injustices than moderates are. Indeed, compliantists probably see little difference between small injustices and large ones.

    As a moderate, I might in theory agree with most of what a compliantist views as injustice, but I also recognize that many injustices that Ls see, most non-Ls do not. I’d rather see L politics focus on undoing the injustices where non-Ls agree with our assessment first, and work on other injustices later. Low hanging fruit is easier to pick.

    We could say that compliantist Ls have a high political time preference, to use an economics term, whereas moderates have a lower time preference in comparison.

    I do believe I’d support your call for banning government-held machine guns in the subway.

  119. dL

    “Compliantists” are more sensitive

    Bob, you should have been a myrmecologist.12,000 different specie types only scratches the surface to fully describe a population that is on the order of 1 quadrillion in number. Lots and lots of undiscovered species remain that are just waiting to be named by an ambitious fellow like yourself. Just think, you could have devoted your talents(of course, others might say fetish) to be the first to name the atta napsterilious, the Eciton compliantilli, the lessarchy smaragdina…and these names would refer to things that actually exist!

  120. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Ha!

    Thanks!

    I’m starting to favor the HIGH/LOW time preference “species.” That may capture the spirit of the rift.

    High or Low for short.

  121. DJ

    WS: Here’s something that may initiate an interesting conversation on IPR (and there’s a third party connection in fact):

    Me: I suspect most see the TMZ click bait crap as just more noise by the media and paid very little attention. The media will, like Capozzi on here, look for gotcha moments so they can proclaim their relevance and intellectual superiority.

  122. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Funny, but — gun to my head — I’d guess that TK, PF, and possibly dL are intellectually superior to me. Being relevant strikes me as a good thing, though, yes.

    Gotchas can be teachable moments, especially exposing ridiculous ideas. There was a time when you had much more company in your view that there’s a “right” to private nukes. One hears fewer and fewer taking that view, knowing that it opens them up to massive ridicule. As a fellow traveler, I throw the occasional gotcha as a kind of political lifesaver.

    I’d rather have a friend tell me I have dandruff than someone who is hostile. 😉

  123. Anthony Dlugos

    “Funny, but — gun to my head — I’d guess that TK, PF, and possibly dL are intellectually superior to me. Being relevant strikes me as a good thing, though, yes.“

    That is funny, because I’ve thought the exact same thing about those guys relative to myself too. I may have even mentioned before that I’m sure two of them, if not all 3, are intellectually superior to Gary Johnson, and all 3 DEFINITELY know libertarianism, the principles of the LP platform, and the history of the party better than GJ. While Weld may give them a run for their money in terms of i.q., it’s clear all 3 of them have a stronger grasp of libertarianism than Weld does. I think it’s pretty clear Weld patronizes the radical set when he does talk about them.

    How little any of that matters in the electoral arena, though, where GJ’s “meet the voters where they are” welcoming libertarianism, has it all over the intransigence of the uncompromising. It reminds me of what some are saying about Comey v. Trump: what really sets off Ivy League educated Comey is that this populist idiot was his boss.

    There’s this really dumb Sci-Fi movie called The Core where a team of scientists come together to save the world, because the core of the planet has suddenly stopped spinning.

    The military team decides they have to find the world’s best hacker to “hack the internet” to make sure no information about the impending crisis gets out.

    The hacker is an irritating mousy nerd that immediately sets off one of the scientists.

    “How many languages do you speak?” the nerd asks the scientist.

    The sceintist, taking the bait, says something like, “Five, how many do YOU speak?”

    So the nerd answers, “I speak one….one, zero, one, zero, one, one, zero. Because of that, I can know everything about you. I can steal your credit, and discover your innermost sexual desires.”

    The LP competes in a very particular field. An encyclopedic knowledge of libertarianism, the most fastidious adherence to principle…it can’t save you there. There, it’s a hindrance.

  124. DJ

    The 14 Most Common Arguments against Immigration and Why They’re Wrong

    1. “Immigrants will take American jobs, lower our wages, and especially hurt the poor.”
    2. “Immigrants abuse the welfare state.”
    3. “Immigrants increase the budget deficit and government debt.”
    4. “Immigrants increase economic inequality.”
    5. “Today’s immigrants don’t assimilate like immigrants from previous waves did.”
    6. “Immigrants are a major source of crime.”
    7. “Immigrants pose a unique risk today because of terrorism.”
    8. “It’s easy to immigrate to America and we’re the most open country in the world.”
    9. “Amnesty or a failure to enforce our immigration laws will destroy the Rule of Law in the United States.”
    10. “National sovereignty.”
    11. “Immigrants won’t vote for the Republican Party—look at what happened to California.”
    12. “Immigrants bring with them their bad cultures, ideas, or other factors that will undermine and destroy our economic and political institutions. The resultant weakening in economic growth means that immigrants will destroy more wealth than they will create over the long run.”
    13. “The brain drain of smart immigrants to the United State impoverished other countries.”
    14. “Immigrants will increase crowding, harm the environment, and [insert misanthropic statement here].”

    https://www.cato.org/blog/14-most-common-arguments-against-immigration-why-theyre-wrong

  125. dL

    I’m starting to favor the HIGH/LOW time preference “species.”

    ah, you discovered another one: the carpe libertatem flavus

  126. dL

    if not all 3, are intellectually superior to Gary Johnson

    I’m smarter than the Eciton compliantilli that I just squashed zipping across my monitor…After that, who knows…and who cares…

  127. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos continues to believe that winning at all cost is the most important priority. Clearly he hasn’t read David Nolan’s essay about the reason for founding the LP. Nor has he read the Party’s purpose statement in the bylaws. Winning elections is just one of many reasons for existing and running candidates… and not even the most important of them.

    I’m strongly in favor of winning elections. There are two differences between me and Dlugos though:

    1) I want to elect actual libertarians, not random people.

    2) I work to elect libertarians by identifying winnable races, recruiting candidates, helping them petition, and advising them on how to campaign effectively; Dlugos seems to just talk about driving out the radicals.

  128. Andy

    DJ, I have already posted data that proves that what you posted above about modern day mass immigration (which should be called welfare statist forced association migration) is globalist propaganda, but the fact that it comes from the globalist corrupted Cato Institute, speaks for itself.

  129. DJ

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Andy, but, this is a global community we live in. Immigrants didn’t make it that way- technology did. Adapt or die. Use it to your advantage or get taken advantage of. Sovereignty died before it was born. It’s a monkey see monkey do world. Links were posted for corroboration for the points made- all you need to do is post links to the contrary- attacking the messenger is so passe’. ANY data can be skewed- ANY source can be attacked.
    ALL facts have to be observed to reach an objective conclusion.

    Can you address just one of the points made?

  130. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Chuck Moulton wrote:

    ==Anthony Dlugos continues to believe that winning at all cost is the most important priority. Clearly he hasn’t read David Nolan’s essay about the reason for founding the LP. Nor has he read the Party’s purpose statement in the bylaws. Winning elections is just one of many reasons for existing and running candidates… and not even the most important of them.

    I’m strongly in favor of winning elections. There are two differences between me and Dlugos though:

    1) I want to elect actual libertarians, not random people.

    2) I work to elect libertarians by identifying winnable races, recruiting candidates, helping them petition, and advising them on how to campaign effectively; Dlugos seems to just talk about driving out the radicals.==

    #ME TOO

  131. Bondurant

    There are quite a number of folks that are not interested in the Libertarian Party being libertarian. Winning elections would be fantastic but what’s the point if we’re not pushing libertarians?

  132. robert capozzi

    Bond,,

    The LP has effectively defined “libertarian” as “the rigid and dogmatic application of the NAP by 88 20-somethings + Hospers in the 70s.” Some like me make the assessment that that foundation is a prescription for electoral failure then, now, and likely forever, as the thought system is unmoored from reality and completely unserviceable.

  133. Anthony Dlugos

    “Winning elections would be fantastic but what’s the point if we’re not pushing libertarians?”

    1) ask the cannabis business who’s legality is in question because of the current attorney general. ask the millions of drug users who fear prosecution now because of the hard-core drug warrior stance of said attorney general.

    2) ask the steel and aluminum producing business who’s financial viability is up in the air because of the idiotic trump tariffs. ask the soybean farmer who’s business is threatened because of retaliatory tariffs by our trading partners due to the aforementioned idiotic trump tariffs.

    3) ask the DACA DREAMers, who now live in fear of some court siding with the Trump administration and thus kicking them out of the only home they have ever known.

    These are just three real world effect that I came up with off the top of my head that one could plausibly argue IS the point of a less-than-dogmatic utopian radical libertarian being elected president.

    This shouldn’t be about us. This shouldn’t be about OUR vision of a utopian society. This should be about the real world differences between the practical application of Libertarianism vs the practical application of Progressivism (Democrats) and the practical application of Conservatism (Republicans).

    Do you want to impress upon the people of this country the benefits of individual liberty and smaller government? Good. Then for chrissake, meet the voters where they are at, not where we want them to be. Get elected based on what their concerns are, show a positive difference in those areas, and watch them buy into the libertarian philosophy.

    In other words, marijuana legalization is now favored by 64% of the American public. Hence, the Johnson-Weld position in the 2016 campaign of “legalizing” marijuana, but no other illicit drugs, and that leading to a “quantum leap” in the understanding of how we treat drug addiction is an example of meeting the voters where they are at, something they could buy into.

    On the other hand, using the 64% figure on marijuana as an opportunity to instruct voters as to why they should properly be in favor of the legalization of all drugs is an example of how to turn them off. They ain’t asking for the legalization of all drugs. Not yet, anyway. They MIGHT…MIGHT, take a chance on us if we promise to them we are not about to upend their world, that we are listening to them.

    Voters are smart, not stupid. We exist at their pleasure, not the other way around. If you take the opportunity that “64% of Americans are in favor of marijuana legalization,” to tell them that not only should all drugs be legalized, but the IRS should be abolished, the government should get completely out of healthcare and schools, the age of consent laws should probably be abolished, and social security should be privatized, you are not educating them. You are telling them you are not listening to them. Full stop. When did they ask for any of that?

  134. robert capozzi

    AD: Voters are smart, not stupid.

    Me: I wonder if an honest, forthcoming NAPster would agree with this statement. My guess is they would (probably silently) say that voters are stupid, because they reject the NAP and all its glory. Or, worse from the NAPster’s perspective, they vaguely agree with the NAP in the abstract, but they are unwilling or are too “stupid” to apply the NAP with the unyielding rigor that the NAPster does.

    My only quibble with your comment is that I do believe there IS a role for leadership. It’s not simply about giving people what they want. It’s more about synthesizing, assembling, and marketing a set of ideas that appeal to people both explicitly and innately. This is done by using pithy rhetoric that gets people nodding Yes, that makes sense. And to be sensitive enough to offer positions that some will disagree with and yet respect.

  135. paulie Post author

    “Winning elections would be fantastic but what’s the point if we’re not pushing libertarians?”

    1) ask the cannabis business who’s legality is in question because of the current attorney general. ask the millions of drug users who fear prosecution now because of the hard-core drug warrior stance of said attorney general.

    2) ask the steel and aluminum producing business who’s financial viability is up in the air because of the idiotic trump tariffs. ask the soybean farmer who’s business is threatened because of retaliatory tariffs by our trading partners due to the aforementioned idiotic trump tariffs.

    3) ask the DACA DREAMers, who now live in fear of some court siding with the Trump administration and thus kicking them out of the only home they have ever known.

    So we should support the Democrats. They’re marginally better than Republicans on these issues (with the possible exception of trade, which they used to be worse on but now maybe not anymore), are not afraid to compromise, and have a proven track record of winning a lot of elections at all levels in many parts of the country. Got it.

  136. paulie Post author

    These are just three real world effect that I came up with off the top of my head that one could plausibly argue IS the point of a less-than-dogmatic utopian radical libertarian being elected president.

    No libertarian, radical or otherwise, is on the verge of being elected president. The party has elected only a handful of small and medium sized city mayors and state legislators and not a single big city mayor, governor or member of congress (at least under the LP ballot label) in 46 years. To the extent that a LP ticket needs to present a practical short term platform it should do so in local down ballot races where winning could actually be a realistic option.

    However, it’s certainly possible for a LP presidential ticket – or the LP platform itself – to present both a long term and a short term vision. It should be understood by anyone with a lick of sense, whether they are a LP radical anarchist with decades of party and movement involvement at all levels or a member of the general public hearing the “L word” for the first time and everyone in between, that no one is about to elect the LP to have undivided control of all levels and branches of government in all parts of the country all in one big fell swoop. Even if that somehow happened it would still take years to replaces judges and bureaucrats throughout the government.

    Thus, the reality is that no matter how extreme or less than extreme our ultimate goals, the practical reality is that our role in government to whatever extent we get one should be to push to make it as small and devoid of power as possible as quickly as possible. Rest assured that there will be plenty of pushback from the other parties, the judiciary, the bureaucracy, and all sorts of political pressure groups.

    It’s OK for LP candidates to have priorities of which parts of big government to attack first and it’s OK for those priorities to differ based on where they live and who they are as individuals. What we don’t need is LP candidates seeking from the outset to preserve or expand parts of government. That’s the other parties’ job and they don’t need any help from us in doing it.

    Thus the purpose of the party platform should be to make that clear to any candidates who may contemplate seeking our nomination for anything; rest assured that as we have seen in the real world, even with a fairly radical libertarian platform we have no shortage of candidates who go against in all sorts of ways, including on some of the issues you mentioned.

    How much worse will it be if we don’t have a fairly consistent libertarian platform, no non-initiation of force pledge and no barriers at all against opportunists who are not even remotely libertarian from seeking and getting our nomination for offices at all levels? We need only to look to the Reform Party, which quickly surpassed us in vote totals, media attention, government funding and level of office they elected member(s) to and then collapsed into a total shit show within a low single digit number of years.

    The biggest problem with the LP is not that we are too radical or too moderate, but that we have a lot of members whose idea of activism is arguing with each other online about what the grand strategy of the party and movement should be and playing fantasy sim games about ultimate outcomes in a utopia where we control all levels and branches of government, and not enough people to – for example – pick up a couple of clipboards and go out on the weekends to get a few signatures from their neighbors, whether as volunteers or even for pay, in a state like Ohio.

    Real world politics is above all else work. A lot of that work is drudgery, and not a lot of fun for most people. But if you don’t do it you get absolutely nowhere. Get a few signatures, donate some money, make some fundraising calls, run for local office yourself. Do something. Then and only then opine about grand strategy because we have more than enough of that already.

  137. paulie Post author

    Sorry for the overly long comment. I usually don’t read comments that long myself. Got a bit carried away there.

  138. Anthony Dlugos

    paulie,

    In truth, RC’s 2nd paragraph in his post today of 9:07 eloquently nails how I feel as well.

    There is an organizational behavior aspect to our party’s situation that has to be dealt with.

    In other words, we are so far off of the sweet sport RC describes with so many party members who have no intention of ever deigning to listen to the voters at all, that I would argue for a course over-correction, based on the theory that it will more swiftly draw out the problem children, and I don’t think an over-correction is gonna hurt us long term.

    I’d be afraid that any concession to, “but principles matter,” will just allow the problem children to burrow further in, only to pop out at the worst possible moment.

  139. Anthony Dlugos

    paulie,

    not to worry, I appreciate your more though-out comment there.

    a) “No libertarian, radical or otherwise, is on the verge of being elected president. The party has elected only a handful of small and medium sized city mayors and state legislators and not a single big city mayor, governor or member of congress (at least under the LP ballot label) in 46 years.”

    Indeed. The question is…why? Why such a bare record of success? I think what myself and RC are arguing is that is our own damn fault. There must be something very wrong with our product and how we present it. Forget the “industry” we are in for the time being: our competitors have been bleeding support for decades, their products are detested and their public-facing employees are distrusted. Why haven’t we capitalized on that?

    Is it maybe ballot access obstacles? I guess one could argue that. On the other hand, I tend to think, based on the number of people in this country who express some level of libertarian ideals, that we should have blown by ballot access thresholds a long time ago.

    b) “for example – pick up a couple of clipboards and go out on the weekends to get a few signatures from their neighbors, whether as volunteers or even for pay, in a state like Ohio.

    Real world politics is above all else work. A lot of that work is drudgery, and not a lot of fun for most people. But if you don’t do it you get absolutely nowhere. Get a few signatures, donate some money, make some fundraising calls, run for local office yourself. Do something. Then and only then opine about grand strategy because we have more than enough of that already.”

    I don’t disagree with your sentiment here.

    However, there is another way to look at this. Sometimes people and organizations are resistant to change. In other words: they’d actually prefer to keep working hard fruitlessly because it takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to sit down and say, “what we are doing is not working, and if we keep doing it, we’ll be still be struggling for ballot access in 30 years, begging for the $2/signature we need to get on the ballot in state such-and-such.”

    So, you are right: i could go out and collect some signatures, or make some fundraising calls. And maybe in 20 years I am doing the same thing.

    I have an alternate idea I propose:

    Its undeniable that the voters of this country are looking for an alternative to the demopublicans. Millions of them.

    Its undeniable that there are millions of voters with libertarian sympathies. Multiple surveys show this.

    Take a look at the list of speakers at FreedomFest, the libertarian/conservative conference in July in Vegas. I see John Mackey (Whole Foods), Patrick Byrne (Overstock.com), and Steve Forbes on the speaker list. Thats two people worth over $100 million and a billionaire. One check…one check…from any of those people and trudging out and collecting signatures day in, day out will be a permanent memory for the LP. Those people don’t appear at an event like FreedomFest lest they are interested in politics. But what kind of tolerance do you think they have for a party that sits as far outside the Overton Window as we do? That has someone in a position of leadership that calls service members accessories to murder?

    These people can help us. There are others. Many others. Only a fool or someone unwilling to change can’t see the promise that our party has. But its clear that there is something seriously wrong with our product, and the Mackeys/Forbes/Byrnes of the world don’t invest in enterprises that have clearly been failing (something we both agree on) who call people with experience in their particular industry “shiny badges,” and that has a significant faction that announces to the world that they aren’t changing our product for anyone.

  140. robert capozzi

    AD: There must be something very wrong with our product and how we present it.

    Me: Exactly. CM, CAH, and Bond. are, in a sense, correct that a candidate running as an L who gets elected but is NOT “libertarian” is not much of a victory. But actual libertarian L candidates almost never get elected, either. More importantly, IF these latter candidates were running in non-partisan races, they would ALSO not win.

    Why?

    Because L as defined by the LP is a non-starter politically. That IS the LP’s fault. It purposely self-marginalizes.

    I believe it was Walter Grinder, a leader with IHS, used to say that a LP is “premature.” That was in the 80s. It’s still premature if we mean by L NAPsterism.

    What sucks about that is what some might call a “classical liberal” could be prime time now if done right. AJ and others suggest that I go do so, but I’m simply in no position to test the hypothesis. And, anyway, by many measures, J/W could have broken through in a Perot sort of fashion. With all their warts, that “classical liberal” campaign was a promising prototype.

    A L (NAPster) party is still very premature.

  141. Anthony Dlugos

    “What sucks about that is what some might call a “classical liberal” could be prime time now if done right.”

    No question about that. And they could get big money behind them too.

  142. Anthony Dlugos

    CAH at May 6, 2018 at 23:00

    1) I want to elect actual libertarians, not random people.

    2) I work to elect libertarians by identifying winnable races, recruiting candidates, helping them petition, and advising them on how to campaign effectively; Dlugos seems to just talk about driving out the radicals.==

    Number 1 really doesn’t say much. Obviously, anyone I support through money or votes is an “actual” libertarian. If a candidate has the (L) next to his name. he or she is, in fact, a Libertarian.

    Number 2 is not correct. The only people I want to drive out are those who don’t make winning elective office our primary goal. I welcome any radical that shares that goal, and says it explicitly.

    Or, maybe more precisely, vote maximization. This is a political party, after all, and absent that goal, there is no other way to effectively measure our progress. Any other method is mere opinion.

    Get a Radical elected, and I am happy to dump my money and time at them.

  143. Anon-Tipper

    Does anyone have a straight account of the Libertarian Socialist caucus? I’ve looked at their platform and one of them has a site with some youtube videos. It looks like it’s mutualism or left-market anarchism. Except Keuhnel seems to be “trolling” or is he serious? I’ve seen pretty extreme freaking out about them online (and almost nothing about Florida, alt-right, etc.)

  144. dL

    Does anyone have a straight account of the Libertarian Socialist caucus? I’ve looked at their platform and one of them has a site with some youtube videos. It looks like it’s mutualism or left-market anarchism.

    From what I’ve seen, it’s the old school 19th century Hodgskin meets Benjamin Tucker version…i.e. some variant of free market socialism. This is where Karl Hess more or less ended up, and Hess certainly was a prominent figure in the 70s and 80s libertarian movement(and in the LP). The LP could use more Karl Hess…

  145. dL

    Tucker wants all movement libertarians to join the LP:

    Good or bad?

    Tucker’s argument is that all libertarians should join the LP as a strength in numbers demonstration. I might offer the history of the various factions of Marxism rallying around the communist party in old Russia–and how well that turned out, particularly for the losing side–as a caveat.

    And I disagree that the pledge should be thrown aside as a relic.

  146. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    As for a personal descriptor of ME, I don’t have a problem with “compliantist,” but it’s not very all-encompassing. It’s just a basic strategic issue.

    Just like Coke hires salesmen to go sell Coke rather than Pepsi or bourbon or vacuum cleaners, a political party should nominate candidates who promote its product rather than some other product. Agree or disagree with the party’s product (its statement of principles, and by extension its platform), its product IS its product.

    You’ve argued in the past that that product is deficient. And you’ve noted that getting it to change its product hasn’t been a very successful project. But trying to end-run around that difficulty by getting it to send out salesmen to sell some other product isn’t just dishonest, it’s stupid. If you tell people you’re selling them a Coke and they open the can and smell that it’s actually gasoline, you are not going to get return customers.

    I happen to like the product. For the most part, at any rate, and well enough to be comfortable selling it rather than something else. I prefer candidates who sell the product’s most appealing (at the moment) and likely accessible/provable features (in the now), e.g. tax cuts rather than the dissolution of the United States. But I don’t want candidates who say the product is made with real cane sugar if it’s actually made with aspartame.

    And while there are some people who resemble me in particular respects vis a vis the above, I’m unaware of any cohesive group in the party built around those values.

    I know some macho flash types both of the kind who somewhat, but not entirely, answer to your NAPster construct.

    I know some other macho flash types who would campaign on raising spending, going to war with everyone, and requiring women to take monthly pregnancy tests to monitor against the possibility of abortion if they thought it would get the LP from low single-digits to mid single-digits in a poll (and they’re the ones who also tend to brag that they’re going to raise $100 million and win the election, then demand that they be treated as having been right when their guy pulls 2%).

    In terms of values, I’m closer to the former group than the latter group — but neither group as a collective is really a bunch of steely-eyed political missile men, even if the latter likes to think of themselves as such. I do prefer radicals, but I prefer radicals who aren’t afraid to walk a precinct or too good to sit through a boring meeting (Marc Montoni, Caryn Ann Harlos, Chuck Moulton), who are willing to make the necessary scene when the party is fucking up (James Weeks), etc., and who are realistic about likely results.

    In that last respect, Anthony Dlugos and Adam Kokesh have more in common with each other than I have with either of them. One of them is an instinctive moderate and the other one is a flaming radical. Both of them are utopian fantasists when it comes to figuring out what will or will not work.

  147. Anon-Tipper

    dL: “From what I’ve seen, it’s the old school 19th century Hodgskin meets Benjamin Tucker version…i.e. some variant of free market socialism. This is where Karl Hess more or less ended up, and Hess certainly was a prominent figure in the 70s and 80s libertarian movement(and in the LP). The LP could use more Karl Hess…”

    Then why so much hostility? Hess-like people should definitely be welcomed. Is it the name?

  148. Anthony Dlugos

    “In that last respect, Anthony Dlugos and Adam Kokesh have more in common with each other than I have with either of them. One of them is an instinctive moderate and the other one is a flaming radical. Both of them are utopian fantasists when it comes to figuring out what will or will not work.”

    Utopian fantasist? The guy I supported for the presidential nomination at the 2016 Convention tripled the high water mark for Libertarian presidential candidates, the tripled candidate ALSO being the guy I supported at the 2012 Convention.

    Given that the rule for electoral politics is “most votes win,” I’d say I’m the opposite of a Utopian fantasist.

    As I noted in my post yesterday at 15:54, I got nothing against Radicals or their platform. Prove to me that it can maximize vote totals, and you got my support. Done and done.

    On the other hand, you’ll get no sympathy from me if you repair to the notion that your candidate, or your platform, or your messaging, is “more libertarian” than the other guy. That’s not a sign of strength of a candidate, that’s a sign of weakness. Voters don’t appear to care how libertarian a candidate is, so I don’t either.

  149. Anon-Tipper

    dL: “Tucker’s argument is that all libertarians should join the LP as a strength in numbers demonstration. I might offer the history of the various factions of Marxism rallying around the communist party in old Russia–and how well that turned out, particularly for the losing side–as a caveat.

    And I disagree that the pledge should be aside as a relic.”

    If the pew survey is correct (from 2014), then about 12% of the R’s, 6% of the D’s and 14% of independents are self-identified libertarians which ends up being well over 10 million people. But, I think libertarianism is too mainstream, I don’t see even 50% of libertarians joining, or doing anything related to “the movement.” I think the old parties definitely care enough to try to prevent the LP from replacing them, but I don’t know how many people view libertarianism as an existential threat, at least not on par as they viewed communism.

    I’m fine with the pledge, I think Tucker admitted that it probably keeps some alt-righters away.

  150. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Given that the rule for electoral politics is ‘most votes win,’ I’d say I’m the opposite of a Utopian fantasist.”

    Yes, the rule for electoral politics is “most votes win.” And your candidate didn’t come anywhere close to getting the most votes. In fact, he came in with less than a tenth the votes that the candidate who got the most votes got.

    Fucking around in single digits and pretending that getting more votes within that losing area is “winning” is actually just masturbating — at least if “most votes win” is, as you claim, your criterion. What makes you a utopian fantasist is that you don’t realize that.

  151. Anthony Dlugos

    “In fact, he came in with less than a tenth the votes that the candidate who got the most votes got. Fucking around in single digits and pretending that getting more votes within that losing area is “winning” is actually just masturbating — at least if “most votes win” is, as you claim, your criterion.”

    Still tripled the party’s previous best vote total.

    In any event, I’m not sure what your argument is here:

    a) that a different candidate/ticket in 2012 or 2016 would have resulted in more votes?

    b) or that, given how far away from winning Johnson was, vote totals don’r matter.

    If it’s a), then just provide evidence backing up the assertion. If its b), then your criterion is purely subjective, and not only can’t I respond, the party has no way to judge performance.

    If the candidate of a Libertarian who takes position b) secures a presidential nomination via vote a convention, and/or later ends up with an impressive vote total, its proof that said candidate was the right choice. On the other hand, if such a candidate gets beat at a nominating convention, or winds up with a desultory vote total as the presidential nominee, well, that’s okay by the supporter of position b), because, we are so far away from winning, that vote totals don’t matter. Its a “tails I win, heads you lose” argument.

    Radicals think I have a problem with their platform per se. I don’t. I have a problem with anyone, radical or otherwise, who suggests there is a standard to judge performance by other than vote totals, and that is regardless of how far away from winning we are. There is no other way for a political party to judge performance. It just so happens that Radicals most frequently repair to some argument that minimizes the only objective standard a political party has.

    But Radicals aren’t the only ones. Look at hard right paleo Andy: he trots out every excuse in the book as to why J-W ended up with 4.5 million votes. I’m not really interested in Andy’s counterfactuals regarding what WOULD have happened had Harry Browne run as the LP candidate in 2016. All I know is what did happen.

    Maybe the 2020 nominating Convention will come down to Governor Weld vs the chosen Radical candidate. That is fine by me. Just keep in mind, the only argument that carries any weight with me is an argument for why a particular candidate will maximize vote totals. That’s the only thing that matters, because its the only true metric a political party has. This isn’t a potential post hoc justification of a Weld nomination, its the actual rules of the game.

  152. robert capozzi

    tk: And while there are some people who resemble me in particular respects vis a vis the above, I’m unaware of any cohesive group in the party built around those values.

    me: Right, there probably isn’t. I use NAPster as a more accurate term than “radical,” since I don’t find most “radical” Ls to be at all “radical,” meaning something like “getting to the root of the matter.” I consider myself to be highly radical in this sense.

    I don’t want to put quotes around “radical,” since it seems pejorative when used that way.

    There could be two ways of looking at “macho flash”…stylistically, we’ve got Weeks and Kokesh. There are substantive macho flashers, folks like you, CM, and CAH who openly advocate for anarchism, for example. You tend to put that idea out there in a sober manner, but it’s IMO a fringe concept. Again, there’s nothing wrong with being on the fringe, but my feedback is that it’s not a winning approach for electoral politics, certainly.

    I’ve never really understood the claim that there are no “NAPsters.” Sure seems to me that some Ls base their politics on the NAP, and they tend to employ the NAP explicitly or implicitly in most of/all their political thinking.

    I’m stipulating that that is what the 88 2–something + Hospers intended.

    I’m suggesting that a true radical would question the foundational docs.

    All that to say, I’m open to a better term. You are a compliantist NAPster, but MM might be a different flavor of NAPster. Until a better term comes along, with all due respect, I’ll stick with NAPster.

  153. DJ

    dl: The LP could use more Karl Hess…

    Me: The world could use more people like him.

  154. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I’m not sure what your argument is here”

    My argument is that vote totals are only significant in and of themselves if the candidate is in a race that he has a genuine chance of winning.

    If it looks like a race where two candidates are going to get 33% and one is going to get 34%, then yes, the vote totals matter a great deal.

    If it looks like a race where one of two candidates is going to win and the third candidate is going to get somewhere between 0.3% and 3%, my top priority is not whether the candidate gets 1.3% versus getting 1.7%, it’s whether or not the candidate represents the brand well, differentiating it attractively from the Big Two.

    “We’re Republicans, but our party decided we’re brokedick losers so vote for us as Libertarians instead” did not pass that test.

  155. Anthony Dlugos

    “My argument is that vote totals are only significant in and of themselves if the candidate is in a race that he has a genuine chance of winning.”

    OK. My argument is that they are always significant, no matter how far away from winning we are, and that arguing otherwise is merely ad hoc reasoning to not change. Even at percentages that cannot win, a higher vote total provides more leverage in the electoral political arena than a lower total does.

    My problem with using “whether or not the candidate represents the brand well, differentiating it attractively from the Big Two,” is the same problem I have with “at least Candidate X is a real libertarian, while Governor Johnson/Governor Weld” is not. There is no way to measure that performance other than votes counted.

    In other words, the candidate that represents the brand well is the candidate that maximizes vote totals. There is no other way for a political party to operate.

  156. dL

    Then why so much hostility? Hess-like people should definitely be welcomed. Is it the name?

    Pretty much…Hess never rarely used the term “socialism;” indeed, Hess is the one who coined the term “anarcho-capitalism.”

  157. dL

    Fucking around in single digits and pretending that getting more votes within that losing area is “winning” is actually just masturbating

    losertarianism

  158. Anthony Dlugos

    Fucking around in single digits and pretending that getting more votes within that losing area is “winning” is actually just masturbating.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation#Health_effects

    The following might be of particular note to the Radical Caucus:

    “Sexual climax, from masturbation or otherwise, leaves one in a relaxed and contented state.”

    and, for the party as a whole:

    “Sex therapists will sometimes recommend that female patients take time to masturbate to orgasm, for example to help improve sexual health and relationships, to help determine what is erotically pleasing to them, and because mutual masturbation can lead to more satisfying sexual relationships and added intimacy.”

    So, you see, masturbating actually has some health benefits, creates more satisfying sexual relationships, and helps determine what is erotically pleasing….err…what maximizes vote totals.

    My only regret is that I will never experience the kind of…ahem…release that a Radical will feel when they publicly admit they want to win. Its like orgasm denial 101.

    Curses!!!!

  159. dL

    If the pew survey is correct (from 2014), then about 12% of the R’s, 6% of the D’s and 14% of independents are self-identified libertarians which ends up being well over 10 million people.

    Don’t kid yourself, ideological libertarians make up ~1% of the population, the David Boaz chicanery notwithstanding. But the bright side of that is that you don’t need 50+% to do something. People aren’t stupid, but they are sheep, and by that I mean a population could just as well as elect a full blown drug legalizer as it would a full blown drug authoritarian(execute all the dealers and users) and upon election would seemingly move(in a statistically significant sense) to support whatever policy is being spoken from the moving lips…

  160. dL

    The following might be of particular note to the Radical Caucus:

    My note to the moderate caucus: “libertarian leaning” is just an euphemism for bend over. And for that sexual act, there is a supply and demand mismatch between the ones who would like to be the giving end and the ones who get off being on the receiving end.

  161. Anthony Dlugos

    “My note to the moderate caucus: “libertarian leaning” is just an euphemism for bend over. ”

    Come on, nowt. This here is electoral politics and we are a political party. Its a little late in the game for moral rectitude.

    Libertarian platform? That’s just our backpage listing for services available.

  162. robert capozzi

    AD: the candidate that represents the brand well is the candidate that maximizes vote totals. There is no other way for a political party to operate.

    ME: Motive and intent, in my view, ARE more important. I’m convinced that GJ is a lessarchist who was offering positions that illustrated the means forward to begin the process of minimizing government and maximizing freedom. He even cited the NAP as a kind of vague north star, offering an overarching direction without getting specific on whether he favored worldwide Zomia, Nozick-land in 50 years, or something else. If his pitch was “worldwide Zomia,” he wouldn’t have gotten on MORNING JOE for his most unfortunate Aleppo moment. He would be discounted as a wacko unworthy of airtime.

    Intent and practicality should work together in offering voters a better way forward, but intent is always the engine. If you don’t get your intention right, you might be able to fake your way into office, as Trump has, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory, which his looks like on a daily basis. Practicality is the steering wheel.

    In a sense, RP1 showed how right intent can overcome sub-optimal execution. He’s not a very good speaker, but his allegiance to the Constitution got him somewhat far. (Of course, I would submit that his constitutionalism has some very large weaknesses that probably makes it an untenable theory of governing.)

    NAPsterism is even more untenable, which is why Bergland (the purest NAPster L nominee) did SO poorly. He regularly trotted out NAPster bromides to the few who’d listen, and they sound just ridiculous to all but the most committed NAPster.

    Charlatans like WAR and AP are also a cautionary tale. Using politics as a career booster lacks integrity, and their insincerity leaves an oily film on onlookers.

  163. robert capozzi

    dL: ideological libertarians make up ~1% of the population

    Me: Sounds about right if you mean NAPsters and by “ideological” you mean “dogmatic.” They are indeed a rare breed.

  164. Thomas L. Knapp

    “NAPsterism is even more untenable, which is why Bergland (the purest NAPster L nominee) did SO poorly.”

    Non sequitur. Bergland was the compromise candidate coming out of a convention that resulted in a big party bust when a large bloc (representing even more of the party’s bigger money) walked out, in a year when an incredibly popular incumbent was set to blow the doors off any and all opponents. Is there any evidence at all that any of Bergland’s issues positions or public statements had even the slightest impact on his vote totals?

  165. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    My argument is that they are always significant, no matter how far away from winning we are, and that arguing otherwise is merely ad hoc reasoning to not change. Even at percentages that cannot win, a higher vote total provides more leverage in the electoral political arena than a lower total does.
    —–

    That depends. A vote total high enough to change the outcome or to threaten to change it may provide some leverage. In a blowout race where one candidate is going to win by 10 points, he doesn’t give a rat’s ass whether the LP candidate got 1% or 2%. Neither total offers leverage of any kind.

    Here’s a low vote total with some leverage:

    In 2000, Al Gore won New Mexico by 366 votes and Harry Brown got 2,058 votes. 1/3 of 1%, but if Bush had won New Mexico, we wouldn’t have had to spent weeks watching people count hanging chads in because he would have broken the 270 electoral vote barrier regardless of which way Florida went.

    In 2004, when Michael Badnarik’s campaign produced some polling that had him at 5% in New Mexico and announced a tour of the state, both Bush and Kerry changed their campaign schedules to be in the state at the same time as Badnarik was, and Bush used his visit to announce that he planned to withdraw US troops from South Korea (someday).

    0.3% is leverage if it threatens to change the outcome. 10% isn’t leverage if it doesn’t.

    —–
    My problem with using “whether or not the candidate represents the brand well, differentiating it attractively from the Big Two,” is the same problem I have with “at least Candidate X is a real libertarian, while Governor Johnson/Governor Weld” is not. There is no way to measure that performance other than votes counted.
    —–

    Actually, there are a number of ways — inquiries, web site visits, new memberships, media coverage.

    We’ve had LP congressional candidates get into respectable double digits — in two-way races when one of the major parties didn’t bother to run anyone. That doesn’t establish that those Libertarian candidates were better candidates than LP candidates who pulled 2% or 5% in a three-way race in which the major party candidates ran neck-and-neck and spent a hundred times as much as the Libertarian. It just establishes that different candidates face different obstacles.

    Vote totals can reveal a certain amount of information. Ceteris paribus, a candidate who has a lower cost per marginal vote about his or her party’s usual “base” is probably doing something right and it’s worth looking at what that might have been.

    But vote totals completely to the side, there’s no point in running a candidate who runs against what your party stands for and confuses its brand. Three times in a row now the LP has run candidates whose main message is “the Libertarian Party runs brokedick Republican losers who hit the wall and couldn’t get any support from their own party.” That’s a bad brand reputation to establish, and 20% of the vote wouldn’t have made it any better.

  166. robert capozzi

    TK,

    “Proof” of such a proposition is mere conjecture, but I was standing nearby at the 83 convention when he told a national TV reporter that, “Yes, some of us are anarchists and some of us are minarchists.”

    While a true enough statement, in the art of politics, that’s among the dumbest things I’ve ever heard said by a politician. He got almost no coverage, almost no financial support, almost no promotion, 4 short years after Clark.

    I don’t recall him being the “compromise” choice. It was a pretty crowded field of maybe 6 candidates, but he was the choice of the NAPster/Rothbardian crew. James “Piggy” Norwood was the Weeks figure that cycle, and he got 1 vote. Ruwart was #3, and she threw her support to DB.

    The more thing change and all that…

  167. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I don’t recall him being the ‘compromise’ choice. ”

    Well, I wasn’t there. But from what I heard, he wasn’t a candidate and didn’t even plan to attend the convention, then grabbed a red-eye flight at some members’ request after one of the big candidates dropped out upon learning he wouldn’t get any Crane/Koch money if nominated.

    It should hardly be surprising that a last-minute candidate with no pre-nomination campaign, nominated by a busted convention ending in a walkout of the big money, wouldn’t be able to put on much of a campaign. I doubt any other candidate nominated in those same circumstances during that time period would have accomplished a great deal.

  168. robert capozzi

    TK,

    None of that rings true, but my memory’s a bit spotty. I think you may be referring to Gene Burns, a radio talker. He dropped out some months pre-convention. Crane got Earl Ravenal, a Georgetown prof to run. David Koch pledged support, but he offended many by making it sound if he was trying to buy the nomination for Earl the Pearl.

    Rothbard had split with Crane since 1980, writing increasingly hysterical tirades against the Kochtopus and the Crane Machine. I think Bergland was the Rothbardian’s guy for some time pre-convention, but I can’t be sure.

    The first Radical Caucus actually split with Rothbard and Evers at that convention, reasoning that Ravenal was an actual f.p. expert, and Rothbard had taught them the “primacy of foreign policy.” The dog bit the master there. Evers broke out in tears, although no one believed he was actually crying.

  169. dL

    Me: Sounds about right if you mean NAPsters and by “ideological” you mean “dogmatic.” They are indeed a rare breed.

    By ideological, I mean ideological.

    1% is not common, but 1 out of 100 is not rare. Ideological X, where X is anything–be it progressive, liberal, conservative, socialist, communist or fascist–isn’t going to be that much higher in terms of population percentage.

  170. dL

    Come on, nowt. This here is electoral politics and we are a political party.

    You are noticeably absent from the party mechanics dialogue in the other thread. You keep talking about being a big boy, but you are still hanging around the children’s table…

  171. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Sure, ideologues of any stripe are fairly rare. Probably most who have any political engagement DO tend to line up with an ideology, although sometimes some are probably hybrids.

    This is one of the reasons why marketing is so important in politics. What to emphasize, what to downplay, are vital to any form of success.

    The NAPster tradition of building up a moral construct (based on dubious assumptions) and holding high that banner has not moved the needle. Liberty is slipping away. Spending time tweaking the LP’s bylaws seems unlikely to lead to reversing statism.

  172. Anthony Dlugos

    “Spending time tweaking the LP’s bylaws seems unlikely to lead to reversing statism.”

    precisely why I’m not involved in the party mechanics dialogue, by the way.

    On the other hand, I do like is the one about electing the Electing the President and Vice President as a slate.

  173. dL

    Sure, ideologues of any stripe are fairly rare.

    The one thing I agree w/ Keynes on:

    “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

    This is one of the reasons why marketing is so important in politics

    When people start applying the term “marketing” to politics, then I start agreeing with Chomsky that business marketing==propaganda. Politics is not consumer exchange. The only sense that it is an “exchange business” is in the zero-sum or negative sum sense.

  174. Anon-Tipper

    dL: “Pretty much…Hess never rarely used the term “socialism;” indeed, Hess is the one who coined the term “anarcho-capitalism.””

    Already seeing people claiming that the party is getting taken over by authoritarian leftists trying to co-opt the label. Pretty funny, but I’m pretty sure alt-righters are going to use it to create outrage which could then help Joshua Smith et al.

  175. Anon-Tipper

    Anthony: “I do like is the one about electing the Electing the President and Vice President as a slate.”

    I saw a couple people upset with that change in the other thread. Why do you like this?

  176. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Hayek, iirc, made a similar point about the intellectual class being the ultimate influencer of social thought. BUT…here’s the kicker: My observation is that most synthesize their social thought from a variety of thinkers. Christians supported Trump overwhelmingly not because Trump was advocating for Christian ethics on a consistent basis, but because they have OTHER influences other than the purported words of Jesus. He was just “Christian” enough for them to hold their noses and vote Trump.

    My influences are Lao Tzu, Hayek, and a smidge of Foldvary. Lao Tzu is often too abstract for modern application, Hayek is sometimes too theoretical, and Foldvary’s ideas on based on an alternative construct that I like, but can only be applied in small, isolated doses.

    Rothbard broke with von Mises on many counts. He had other influences that he synthesized into the unique (and I’d say wacky) school of thought known as Rothbardianism.

    You may recoil from marketing, but that doesn’t mean that marketing doesn’t work. As I’ve indicated earlier:

    “Intent and practicality should work together in offering voters a better way forward, but intent is always the engine. If you don’t get your intention right, you might be able to fake your way into office, as Trump has, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory, which his looks like on a daily basis. Practicality is the steering wheel.”

  177. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:
    My problem with using “whether or not the candidate represents the brand well, differentiating it attractively from the Big Two,” is the same problem I have with “at least Candidate X is a real libertarian, while Governor Johnson/Governor Weld” is not. There is no way to measure that performance other than votes counted.

    In other words, the candidate that represents the brand well is the candidate that maximizes vote totals. There is no other way for a political party to operate.

    Tom Knapp and others are correct that vote total is a largely irrelevant metric when the difference is between 0.5% and 3% and is nowhere close to the 34% it could take to win.

    He’s also correct that there are alternative metrics such as LP membership and donations.

    Your position reminds me of a story that one of my professors related in a grad school class:

    A policeman found a man in a parking lot at night below a street lamp crawling around the pavement on all fours. So he asked the man “What are you doing?” “I’m looking for my car keys,” the man quipped in an frustrated voice, “I’ve been searching for a half hour now.” So the policeman got down on all fours himself and crawled around helping the man look for his keys. After about 10 minutes the policeman stood up, annoyed at having no luck with the search. He scratched his head and queried “Maybe we can narrow it down a bit. Where do you think you were when you dropped them.” The exasperated man stood up as well and pointed across the parking lot to the other side a great distance away. “I was over there,” he admitted. At this point the policeman became visibly angry… “If you dropped your keys over there, why the hell are we looking for them over here?!!” “Well,” said the stranger, “the street lamp over there is out, so the light is better here under this working lamp.”

    That is exactly what you, Anthony Dlugos, are doing. You favor focusing on things easy to measure (like vote totals in the low single digits for un-winnable offices) even though they have fuck all to do with whether a candidate is achieving the purposes of the Party as spelled out more than 4 decades ago in our bylaws.

    If we want to move the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement forward, it is going to take a lot of hard work running libertarian candidates and spreading the libertarian message, not chasing the next silver bullet idea or fetishizing irrelevant metrics.

  178. Chuck Moulton

    Oops, forgot the blockquote (or messed it up) I guess. Sorry.

    The first 2 paragraphs are Dlugos:

    My problem with using “whether or not the candidate represents the brand well, differentiating it attractively from the Big Two,” is the same problem I have with “at least Candidate X is a real libertarian, while Governor Johnson/Governor Weld” is not. There is no way to measure that performance other than votes counted.

    In other words, the candidate that represents the brand well is the candidate that maximizes vote totals. There is no other way for a political party to operate.

  179. Anthony Dlugos

    Anon-Tipper,

    After a nomination, after the campaign for which we nominated candidates for, there is an actual job awaiting the victorious candidate(s), in this case, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency.

    The Utopian aspirations of the “World Set Free In Our Lifetime” Caucus notwithstanding, the day-to-day pressures of a job that oversees 2.8 million employees (not including service members), a trillion-dollar budget, and the nearly infinite demands of all the stakeholders under the purview of the federal government have to be of a level of intensity that are off-the-charts. These pressures would have to be even further intensified under a Libertarian administration that, as I noted before, would essentially be arguing for the largest managed bankruptcy in the history of humanity.

    Can you imagine saddling a person in charge of that gargantuan task with a “Second In Command” that he or she didn’t personally approve of, might not like, might have very few common philosophical beliefs with, to say nothing of management style? That’s a disastrous proposition.

    This is more than something that can just be waived away with a “the LP is nowhere close to winning right now anyway.” It would be a wretched, dispiriting task to give our presidential candidate the difficult task of trying to sell libertarian solutions to the nation, and then tell them, “and here is who you are going to do it with, like it or not.” Try to imagine, as it was during the 2016 campaign, when our presidential candidate got a few chances to appear on nationally televised Town Halls, telling that person to go out there with someone they didn’t feel comfortable with. That would never work.

    This is the thought process when you get your head out of the Utopian clouds and back down here on planet earth when we are sending a candidate out into the crucible of a campaign for the most powerful office on the planet.

    As an aside, I’m not going to be crushed if this change in the platform doesn’t happen. The reality is, this is another issue that would eventually resolve itself if and when the LP becomes more professional in its outlook. There is a reason the Democrats and Republicans give their presidential candidate whomever they want as their V.P. choice. While those parties have terrible, archaic products for sale, they make up for it with professional, polished management that doesn’t have the predilection to shoot itself in the foot.

    In other words, the sort of ornery agitators (that I sometimes find endearing in an Archie Bunker sort of way) who WOULD saddle our Prez candidate with someone they didn’t like as a VP, are already in the party or would never join a party in the first place. Once we get bigger, this issue almost certainly becomes a moot point, and if we don’t get bigger, its DEFINITELY a moot point.

    On the other hand, the short-term benefit of such a change in the platform would be to signal to any current officeholder who might be considering taking a plunge that could sink their career and run as a Libertarian, that we would not saddle them with someone they don’t want. There is no question anyone considering such an attempt would never do it without absolute assurance that they could do it with who they want at V.P.

    And I say that without knowing who our 2020 Prez nominee will be. It might end up being an anti-choice guy like Amash who wants to select an even more virulent anti-choice guy like Napolitano. I still wouldn’t screw Amash by forcing him to take some pro-choice V.P. candidate he doesn’t want.

  180. Anthony Dlugos

    Chuck writes,

    “Tom Knapp and others are correct that vote total is a largely irrelevant metric when the difference is between 0.5% and 3% and is nowhere close to the 34% it could take to win.”

    I appreciate your organized and thought out comment, Chuck. However, I see this sort of argument as pure chicanery that merely hides a reticence to change. No offense intended.

    Whatever we need to do to go from 5% to 34% is what we need to do to go from 0.5% to 5%. There is no reason to think that the strategies need to be different. There is a reason to think an argument to the contrary is an argument for stasis.

    Whatever changes we need to make to get to 34% we need to make now. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year, right now. We don’t demonstrate competency for office by being inflammatory curmudgeons until we get to 3.1%, and then tell the voters…”okay, now we’re serious and here are our serious candidates.”

    As an aside, I don’t think the “Vote Totals Don’t Matter When We Are Under 3%” Caucus think that either. Why would they? Why would anyone think such a group would get the party to 3%, and then turn it over to the moderates?

    Come on now, lets all be honest about it, Chuck. Everyone who supports who they support now, and the messaging they support now, will be supporting such candidates and messaging at EVERY vote total percentage, up to and including 100%. You don’t intend to start looking for the keys over where I am in ModerateLand, and you especially wouldn’t do it in under the scenario where a radical message gets you to 3%. You would properly argue that’s all the more reason to keep doing what we are doing.

  181. Andy

    The fact that Gary Johnson wanted Bill Weld as his running mate was a good reason to not nominate Gary Johnson (in addition to all of the other good reasons to not nominate Johnson).

  182. Anthony Dlugos

    “The fact that Gary Johnson wanted Bill Weld as his running mate was a good reason to not nominate Gary Johnson (in addition to all of the other good reasons to not nominate Johnson).”

    well, I can actually appreciate that sentiment, as deluded as it is, to one that says we saddle the winner of the nomination with a running mate he/she does not want.

    As long as such a person, if their preferred prez candidate does not win, doesn’t stand in the way of giving the actual nomination winner their preferred v.p. choice.

  183. Andy

    I see having the delegates select the presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate separately as a good thing. If the presidential candidate has a true mandate, the delegates are likely to overwhelmingly chose that candidate’s vice presidential choice anyway. If the presidential candidate does not have an overwhelming mandate, the delegates selecting a different vice presidential nominee gives other factions of the party a chance to have their voices heard on the presidential ticket.

    I found Gary Johnson’s “If you don’t give me Bill Weld, I am going to take my ball and go home,” crybaby speech to be nauseating.

  184. dL

    Whatever we need to do to go from 5% to 34% is what we need to do to go from 0.5% to 5%. There is no reason to think that the strategies need to be different. There is a reason to think an argument to the contrary is an argument for stasis.

    That’s not correct. In the prob and stats world, <=5.0% is just a confidence interval or a margin of error sampling noise. So a move from 2% to 4% is NOT the same thing as a move from 20% to 40%.

  185. Anthony Dlugos

    I didn’t say it was the same thing. I said WE (the LP) need to do the same thing.

    It may be some unknown outside factor gets us from 3% to 34%. That changes nothing with regard to tactics and/or strategy. The objective is to get to 34%. The objective is ALWAYS to get to 34%, and it doesn’t matter whether we are at 33%, 3%, or .3%.

    Makes no sense to utilize one message to get to 5%, then dump that message and utilize a different one to get to 34%.

    “We were radicals, but now that we are at 5% in polling, forget everything we said about abolishing the IRS, releasing all non-violent drug offenders, and abolishing the age of consent laws, that was just to get our name out there. Henceforth, we are now proposing a more moderate platform.”

    I don’t think so.

    As I have noted, however, I also don’t think that the Radicals intend such duplicity. The message they have now is the message they will always have, and I commend them for their intransigence. If they hold such a message now, they surely will not change it if they manage to provide proof that radicalism got us to 5% in the polls.

  186. robert capozzi

    Let’s not forget that GJ pushed into the double digits in the polls. Aleppo and Kasie Hunt don’t happen, and who knows?

    J/W got a serious look. After embarrassing stumbles, there was probably a decision by many to vote for the least dangerous among DJT and HRC.

    Barring the Frankel Singularity occurring, does any NAPster really believe that a “pure” NAPster L would poll in double digits?

    No, the LP as structured remains a cadre-building exercise. Only by downplaying NAPsterism’s extremes can the LP be a serious political vehicle. it took a tremendous amount of person-hours to strike the “private nukes” clause from the platform. This tells me the INSTITUTION needs a severe re-think.

  187. Anthony Dlugos

    TK writes,

    “But vote totals completely to the side, there’s no point in running a candidate who runs against what your party stands for and confuses its brand. Three times in a row now the LP has run candidates whose main message is “the Libertarian Party runs brokedick Republican losers who hit the wall and couldn’t get any support from their own party.” That’s a bad brand reputation to establish, and 20% of the vote wouldn’t have made it any better.”

    Not sure if I agree with how our message was perceived, but, I’ll readily admit a couple things:

    1) I fully expect…and I am okay with…the reality that any significant electoral success the LP ends up having will be mostly defectors from the dinosaur parties. This will almost certainly be the case at the federal level.

    No one in charge of the party right now would be in charge of an LP that gets above the statistical noise that dL rightly points out. We’re all gonna get handed our hat by people with more institutional knowledge than us. This is the way its gonna be. Hopefully by then, we’ve demonstrated the power of a classically liberal message.

    2) I have no problem with the Libertarian Party…not libertarianism’s…message getting constrained by voter preference. I don’t see any data whatsoever that voters want to abolish social security.

    Call me a sucker for shiny badges without a principled bone in my body.

    I think I am meeting voters where they are.

  188. Anthony Dlugos

    “…it took a tremendous amount of person-hours to strike the “private nukes” clause from the platform. This tells me the INSTITUTION needs a severe re-think.”

    oof! Was there really a private nukes clause that took hours to get removed from the platform?

    Yikes.

  189. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Notice the quotes around the “private nukes” clause.

    The platform used to say:

    “We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe.”

    I called that the “private nukes” clause, since the absolutist term “all” is in there. As I read this sentence, it suggests that any and all weapons are aOK.

    No one that I recall at the time argued otherwise. I heard a LOT of deflections, and a few took the DJ view that, yes, there IS a “right” to private nukes.

  190. DJ

    RC: No one that I recall at the time argued otherwise. I heard a LOT of deflections, and a few took the DJ view that, yes, there IS a “right” to private nukes.

    Me: And I stand by my assertion. Property is property, no caveats, and without property there is no reason to exist except to serve the state. You’re basing your opinion(s) on something you don’t believe in- rights. That makes your opinion invalid, IMNSHO. That the vast, vast majority thinks the way you do is irrelevant since they don’t know a damn thing about rights and believe the state controls their destiny, their life and their property, which it does because the state doesn’t believe in rights either though it does throw out sovereignty into its musings occasionally and insists forcing (with nukes if necessary) is a moral high ground- it believes itself entitled, which may be true since it has worked hard to brain wash the vast, vast majority for decades- but, none of that means rights don’t exist. It simply means they are ignored in favor of corruption and force as long as it’s state sanctioned- with nukes if desired, or deemed necessary to prove its moral high ground is effectual, which it is since force by the state is approved by the vast, vast majority who have been trained by the same state that soesn’t believe in anything except force.

    The state thanks you, Robert.

  191. robert capozzi

    DJ: Property is property

    Me: Clear your mind. Now, is this a true statement? What makes a “possession” property? Locke said: “Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.”

    That’s an opinion, not a fact. But we have very little to go by to determine whether the “mixing” was legitimate, and not simply self-reporting. You could tomorrow claim that you built the Brooklyn Bridge, that’s it’s your property, and start collecting tolls based on your claim.

    Who’s to say you have that right, or whether you are seriously deluded?

  192. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    Call me a sucker for shiny badges without a principled bone in my body.

    You are a sucker for shiny badges without a principled bone in your body.

  193. Bondurant

    C’mon, Andy. Just drink the Flavor-Aid and acknowledge that Bill “She’s a Good Kid” Weld is the original libertarian.

  194. DJ

    RC: Who’s to say you have that right, or whether you are seriously deluded?

    Me: My mind is clear, Robert. Property is property. No caveats. You can and do throw pseudo intellectual bullshit around but that changes nothing. Who’s to say you’re not delusional?
    The state thanks you.

  195. robert capozzi

    deflect Liberally: Actual audible chuckle

    me: dL, we don’t call you “deflect Liberally” for nothing! GJ was more qualified than DJT, more qualified than Perot. Could have easily been in the mix.

  196. Andy

    DJ says that he believes in property rights, yet he previously said that he believes that 1 million Italians or 1 million Russians have the “right” to move to Iceland, an island nation of about 350,000 people, against the objection of the Icelandic people. How did 1 million Italians or 1 million Russians get the “right” to move to Iceland? Do these 1 million Italians or 1 million Russians have property rights in Iceland, and if so, how did they obtain property rights there? Do the Icelandic people not have property rights in Iceland?

  197. Anthony Dlugos

    Chuck writes,

    “You are a sucker for shiny badges without a principled bone in your body.”

    You left out what I wrote after that.

    lol. I don’t mind someone taking your position saying that, because your position is that listening to voter concerns,and trying to meet them where they are is a sign of weakness, and actual experience in public office is something to avoid.

    You don’t want to be a part of a political party, you want to be part the NAPster Gnostic Cult.

  198. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    OK, you win. The power of your “property is property” argument is SO sound that you’ve converted me to your perspective.

    It turns out, btw, that I own the Brooklyn Bridge. I bought it from a Nigerian prince three years ago. I can attest that it’s a cash machine. Unfortunately, I need to raise capital to pay for my daughter’s emergency medical procedure, so I’m willing to let it go for $1 million. Because I like you, I will throw in a case of Stinger missiles and one suitcase dirty bomb. But that offer is only good for one week.

    All you need to do is send a cashier’s check made out to “cash” to my account at the First Zomia National Bank, Cayman’s branch. We’ll be able to effect the title transfer in 4-6 weeks. Michael Cohen will be handling the closing.

  199. Andy

    Anthony, if the “voter concerns” in question are anti-liberty, and the Libertarian Party candidates meets those concerns with anti-liberty proposals, then this defeats the purpose of having a party called the Libertarian Party.

    This is not to say that all LP candidates have to run on the most extreme libertarian positions, but if the candidates are not calling for large, across the board cuts in government, or, they are actually blatantly running against the LP’s platform on multiple issues )like Johnson/Weld 2016 did), they are wasting the time and resources of the LP, and they are actually counterproductive to the purpose of the Libertarian Party.

  200. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Running against the platform had the mitigating circumstance that the platform is a constipated kludge that few actually support.

    J/W did in fact run calling for large cuts in government.

  201. Andy

    The LP”s platform is the LP’s platform, and if a majority of delegates had wanted to make radical changes to it, They had an opportunity to do so, yet they did not.

    Your comments reminds me of people who say the US Constitution is outdated, and who use that as an excuse for government action s that are outside the bounds set for in tube US Constitution.

    I disagree that Johnson/Weld called for large cuts in government. Both of them actually called to expand government in several areas, and looking at their records as governors, both of them left the state governments where they were go ernors larger than they were when they became governors.

  202. robert capozzi

    Yes, AJ, your rigid and hyper-literal interpretation is one of the reasons I let my LP membership lapse.

    You are correct that the convention COULD have come up with a lessarchist platform that most would have agreed with. But there seems to be a recognition that the process for updating the platform is SO cumbersome and litigious, it proves to be too difficult to craft a strong statement of the body’s collective intent in politics.

    I find it absurd to equilibrate the platform and the Constitution, actually, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.

    There have been liberty enhancements that didn’t line up with the literalistic read of the Constitution. Given the choice between more liberty and a rigid reading of the Constitution, I choose the former.

    btw, do you read 2A to cover the individual’s “right” to possess WMD, nukes, chemical weapons, etc.?

  203. Anon-Tipper

    Anthony,
    (sorry for getting back to you late on the slate ballot topic)

    A problem I can see happening is no good president/vice president combo being present to vote on. Would the potential presidential candidates announce who their vice presidential pick before people vote on them or after? If after, we could have a situation where they pick someone really insane. If before, it could prevent people that would otherwise vote for the presidential candidate from voting for that person.

    I understand the point though about allowing the presidential candidate to choose someone they want to work with. Maybe if they’re voted on as a slate, with just the presidential candidates chosen then allow whoever wins to choose their VP. Then, allow the delegates to approve the VP choice. If they disapprove, then they vote on a candidate or let the presidential candidate choose someone else and do an approval vote again. Just an idea. Not totally opposed to the slate voting at the moment.

    And I say that without knowing who our 2020 Prez nominee will be. It might end up being an anti-choice guy like Amash who wants to select an even more virulent anti-choice guy like Napolitano.

    Yeah, I think this is a potential situation that we want to try to avoid. I worry that because the LP is small, that people will come in just to get the nomination, then just pick someone for their VP that goes against the LP (and not against “purist” standards, I mean like a situation where they choose a Trump or Sanders character).

  204. Andy

    The LP has already had candidates who are not really libertarian on its presidential tickets. Just look at the last three presidential elections.

  205. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    lol. I don’t mind someone taking your position saying that, because your position is that listening to voter concerns,and trying to meet them where they are is a sign of weakness, and actual experience in public office is something to avoid.

    You don’t want to be a part of a political party, you want to be part the NAPster Gnostic Cult.

    No.

    I am a part of the Libertarian Party, where we are trying to elect libertarians, not random people who don’t subscribe to libertarianism and run against the platform. We have a statement of principles and a purpose statement in our bylaws… read them.

    Being libertarian is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a LP candidate.

    Having a shiny badge is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being a LP candidate. Having a former governor run is fine, but it’s less than worthless of he doesn’t meet the bare minimum qualification of being libertarian and not running against the platform.

    I am participating in this party by recruiting and supporting candidates as well as being an elected official myself. In contrast you are whining on the internet because you’re mad at libertarians for not flushing our principles down the toilet and running authoritarians to get some wins.

    It is exactly like if a christian went to a synagogue and whined constantly at the other jews not embracing Jesus — meaning you are missing the whole fucking point.

  206. dL

    dL, we don’t call you “deflect Liberally” for nothing! GJ was more qualified than DJT, more qualified than Perot. Could have easily been in the mix.

    we? I hear thorazine might be able to help you out with that…

  207. dL

    oof! Was there really a private nukes clause that took hours to get removed from the platform?

    Yikes.

    yep, ordinarily it would taken longer, but the platform committee was already exhausted over the days it took to remove the right to own little green martians as chattel property from the platform

  208. dL

    the NAPster Gnostic Cult

    nah, those guys only come around when Bob goes off his thorazine meds….

  209. robert capozzi

    dL: thorazine might be able to help you out with that…

    Me: Possibly. I suspect, though, that most would agree with my assessment. Now, it’s possible that little ole’ dL has a monopoly on truth in a world of deluded people. Or…..

  210. George Phillies

    The site is now almost completely overrun — with a small number of exceptions, notably Seebeck,Moulton, and Knapp — with trolls and the like, and has become essentially worthless for its intended purpose.

    Weed your garden, or the weeds take over.

  211. DJ

    RC: Yes, AJ, your rigid and hyper-literal interpretation is one of the reasons I let my LP membership lapse.

    Me: And? Somebody besides you cares?

    The state thanks you, Robert.

  212. Anthony Dlugos

    “The site is now almost completely overrun — with a small number of exceptions, notably Seebeck,Moulton, and Knapp — with trolls and the like, and has become essentially worthless for its intended purpose.

    Weed your garden, or the weeds take over.”

    Gary Johnson Message: Be Libertarian With Me.

    George Phillies Message: Be Like Me or Be Gone.

    Gee, I wonder which is the better outreach message for a political party?

    If your intention was a Galt’s Gulch commune, strictly limited to people who think like you, might I suggest Guyana? I hear they are welcoming of those predisposed to witch hunts.

  213. Andy

    The problem with Gary Johnson saying, “Be Libertarian with me,” is that Gary Johnson is not really libertarian. He should become libertarian himself before he asks people to be libertarian with him.

  214. dL

    Possibly. I suspect, though, that most would agree with my assessment.

    Suspect? Damn, how many personalities you got rollin around in that head of yours?

  215. DJ

    From the Future of Freedom Foundation by Jacob Hornberger

    The Tyranny of Immigration Controls

    https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/tyranny-immigration-controls/

    Excerpt:

    Why embrace a system that doesn’t work and cannot work and that inevitably brings crisis, chaos, poverty, suffering, and even death to people? Why not embrace a system that does work, that brings peace, harmony, happiness, and prosperity to people, and that is consistent with how one should treat his fellow man?

  216. dL

    Why embrace a system that doesn’t work and cannot work and that inevitably brings crisis, chaos, poverty, suffering, and even death to people?

    I don’t think it is “embraced” by the public, any more than the Berlin wall was supposedly embraced by the East Germans. It is just the momentum of the bureaucracy(the state is its own agency). I don’t pretend that “libertarian open borders(i.e, the only qualification to be here is that you are here)” is the majority position but neither is the closed border position of conservatives. Interestingly enough, the majority do think immigration is a good thing, which is change from, say, 25 years ago. Of course, the security bureaucracy doesn’t reflect that.

    I also disagree with Hornberger’s “natural assumption.” I’m not sure America was an immigration magnate purely for economic reasons(“to make money”). People migrated to America because in large part it was not burdened by a static class caste system of the old world. People could reinvent themselves. Start over. It wasn’t so much that you were going to be rich but that your children were going to have greater opportunity. Today, that is no longer true..any of it. Now it may be just because of the labor arbitrage offered by the country with the world’s global reserve currency.

  217. robert capozzi

    DJ: The state thanks you, Robert.

    Me: I heard this the first time. I’m guessing you think this is some kind of knock-out blow, but it’s very possible that the state (to the extent there is some kind of unitary “state”) is more concerned with moderate Ls than it is with NAPster Ls.

    NAPsters are caught in a simplistic worldview, where its LP platform is revered as the immutable law. Some NAPsters view the Constitution in a similar, rigid way…a way that the authors of the Constitution didn’t even mean at the time, e.g., religions were established by states well after ratification. Or that they really had not thought through what the Supreme Court’s function is, although they did continue the English common law tradition, which allowed for evolution in the law as the stare decisis approach was continued and built upon.

    The “state” recognizes this approach is no threat to it. It’s more like listening in to a junior high debate club.

    In 2016, the best example of a moderate L approach to date was the J/W campaign. Apparently, the opposition turned its efforts against them in a significant way.

    If you want ideological safety, stick with NAPsterism. If you want relevance and ultimately effectiveness, a moderate L approach seems far more likely to make actual strides forward, BUT it will also be attacked more by the Rs and Ds. NAPsterism is neat and tidy. Moderate L-ism is rough and tumble.

  218. DJ

    dl: Of course, the security bureaucracy doesn’t reflect that.

    Me: Follow the money.

    dl: I also disagree with Hornberger’s “natural assumption.” I’m not sure America was an immigration magnate purely for economic reasons(“to make money”). People migrated to America because in large part it was not burdened by a static class caste system of the old world. People could reinvent themselves. Start over. It wasn’t so much that you were going to be rich but that your children were going to have greater opportunity. Today, that is no longer true..any of it. Now it may be just because of the labor arbitrage offered by the country with the world’s global reserve currency.

    Me: It takes money to start over. Greater opportunity is usually defined by more money. Reserve currency is money. It’s always about money even if it’s not thought of that way it eventually leads there.

    I too doubt it was purely economic reasons for immigration when the country was young. It was more about freedom, I think, to do as you stated. But, economics plays a significant role- eventually. Of course early on just eating was what was important, just to stay alive, and then sheltering and then clothing. I doubt the immigrants who wandered away from the areas of commerce were looking for anything more than the afore mentioned unencumbered by money as a requirement- the migration to Texas from the US states was about “free” land as much as anything = economics.

    However, I also doubt the early migrants/immigrants thought much about freedom as we define it/believe it to be. The news about what a man could do/have unencumbered by an authority had to play a role as well.

    I often find myself thinking to myself while watching an older movie and someone says “this is a free country”- where did that come from? Where was that learned? Or is it just the writers thought process? Did that really come into play? There’s also movies like “Open Range” where the land owner said; “I didn’t come all the way here from Scotland to have my land pissed on by free grazers”- when he first came here, what was his thinking?

  219. DJ

    dl: I also disagree with Hornberger’s “natural assumption.” I’m not sure America was an immigration magnate purely for economic reasons(“to make money”).

    Me: This is interesting to me. It seems to me the founders and those before them were looking for an economic advantage, or, at least equality.

    Hornberger: America is a place where people can make money. They can sustain the lives of their families back home. They can improve their economic well-being. They can even get rich.

    dl: People could reinvent themselves. Start over. It wasn’t so much that you were going to be rich but that your children were going to have greater opportunity. Today, that is no longer true..any of it.

    Me: It’s not the rule, nor the exception, but all of the above happens.

    I think a lot of the immigration/migration we see now has to do with the drug situation making people flee their current status, which involves economics, though it usually comes down to just living.

    Like I’ve said to Andy, and others: “people have been migrating since they discovered walking took them to where they believed the grass was greener”. Greener grass = economic opportunity.

  220. Chuck Moulton

    Is there a forum where people are discussing the platform committee meeting somewhere? I was surprised to see no new thread or comments about it.

  221. Matt Cholko

    We’ve done close to nothing of value. In 8 hours, we’ve dealt with one truly substantive plank amendment, and it was postponed indefinitely. We dealt with 2 planks to which mostly non-substantive changes were discuss for 3+ hours. We’re currently on our 4th plank – immigration. This one is substantive, at least.

    I’ll note that this is the least productive meeting I’ve ever been involved in.

  222. dL

    Good news. Tom Knapp reports that the anti-immigrant entryist poison pill clause to the 3.4 Free Trade and Migration platform position will up for removal at the 2018 Libertarian National Convention.

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2018/05/very-quick-platform-committee-meeting.html

    For a good summary why the poison clause makes the LP platform a conflicted statement vis a vis free trade(and how authoritarians use it to claim xenophobic collectivism is consistent with the LP platform), refer to this blog post comment:
    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/01/lnc-vice-chair-arvin-vohra-once-again-stirs-controversy-calls-for-removal-with-age-of-consent-comments/#comment-1732709

  223. Andy

    The clause in question is not anti-immigration, nor is it a poison pill. Nobody ever said no immigration, including myself. The current platform plank indicates that while the state is in control of the land, that it should keep out people who pose a threat to life, liberty, and property, just as a private property owner would. Only an idiot or a liar would interpret that as meaning no immigration.

    Just because I have criticized “immigrants” who are Marxists, theocrats, welfare seekers, and criminal thugs, it does not mean that I have ever held the position that there should be no immigration, nor have I ever held the position that there should be no foreign tourists or workers or students.

    If anyone can waltz across a border with no questions asked, this means a division of tanks can cross the border, or that people infected with Ebola or some other deadly virus can cross the border, or that unlimited numbers of welfare seekers and/or Marxist revolutionaries or Islamic Jihadis can cross the borders, and that all of these people should have easy access to the voting system in this country.

    It is also a lie to say that it is a big government position to say that while the state exists, it should keep out, as much as possible, people who pose a threat to life, liberty, or property, and/or at the very least, not invite them to come here, and/or not entice them with welfare programs/government services and American citizenship. Force integrating people with hostile ideologies is the initiation of force against the domestic population., as it leads to an increase in the level of aggression in society, as clearly evidenced by the increases in welfare usage and crime that some “immigrants” bring, as well as the fact that the statistics clearly indicate that such policy of inviting people like this into the country and granting them citizenship has led to a larger block of people who vote to increase the welfare state and to further restrict gun rights. So the current mass welfare statist immigration actually increase the size of government.

    I find the level of intellectual dishonesty being displayed by the leftist element in the LP to be appalling.

    Once again, nobody has suggested no immigration. Also, the purist libertarian position is that all land should be privatized and the state should be abolished, which would mean that land owners would control migration/immigration and they could set whatever policy they want, so these policies could be very LAX or very restrictive.

    Saying that while the state exists, that anyone can waltz in and start using all of the taxpayer funded programs/infrastructure, and gain easy access to the voting system, is not a libertarian proposal.

  224. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Your use of the term “poison pill” strikes me as very odd. PP is defined as “… a defensive strategy used against corporate takeovers.” I’ve never heard another use for the term, nor can I find one on the Web.

    ‘splain, please.

  225. Andy

    dL and Tom Knapp think that it is a “poison pill” for the LP’s platform to say that while the state exists, it should reject foreign nationals who pose a threat to life, liberty, or property, even though this is exactly what a private property owner would do.

  226. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    They may “think” that, but it’s a non-standard use of the term, as far as I can tell. Given that both those gents are hyper-literalists, I’m surprised, but there may be an explanation.

    dL is especially prone to deflection or perhaps some other snipe, but I’m just interested in truth. When I’m incorrect, I simply admit it and move on.

    Perhaps my standards are too high! 😉

  227. robert capozzi

    more…

    Perhaps they mean “bitter pill,” which would be an understandable mistake.

  228. Seebeck

    The problem has been that per Robert’s, there is no exhaustion of speaking privileges or calling questions in committees, and that allows certain known persons to fili-bluster away, and that has been the biggest problem. It’s not a problem of who is chairing the meeting; it is a problem with the constraints of Robert’s not being able to be sorted out in an effective manner in order to move things forward.

    I’m drafting a Bylaws proposal for the convention floor to address that.

  229. Caryn Ann Harlos

    re: Platform Committee

    I have come to realize that we Libertarians just like to complain. Simple as that. This meeting went as meetings go under our rules. Everyone was heard (perhaps some people didn’t want to hear from a few people quite so much, but those are the rules for committees under RONR). I have said this before, and it isn’t popular, but not everyone is suited for committees, and if long discussions and the give and take are annoying, committee work might not be their thing.

    Therefore I disagree completely with Cholko. I believe we came out of this meeting with few but GOOD changes that are likely to pass and that everyone felt heard. It is a twenty person committee now (not 15 as it used to be)- we had a last minute location change, we had a lot of other folks working really hard to make things happen, but no, all Libertarians wish to do is just say well that shit.

    That is why people burn out and don’t care.

    I for one, in additional to obviously welcoming our reptilian overlords, am not unhappy with the committee work, and certainly am not disappointed in anything I did. The comment about who “chaired this gem” was uncalled for as I am not going to gavel someone down who has the right to speak despite the fact that others may find them annoying. There were several times when I was about to as repetition can be stopped as dilatory, but Mr. Starr (there is no reason to speak in euphemisms here) fell short of that. This is quite simply how committees work, and having been on a lot of committees, I am more tired of hearing people complain about wasting their time when all the rules were followed, everyone knows there is always the possibility of an over-talker, and that is what they signed up for. If it isn’t, I suggest in the future that they don’t sign up.

    And Mimi did a fantastic job as secretary – kudos to her.

    Our Party would be more productive and more pleasant if we didn’t love complaining so much without being balanced. I read through Mr. Knapp’s blog entry and he had the perfect balance of nothing the good, the bad, and the inevitable.

    I am very happy with my performance and I believe that even Ms. Mattson and Mr. Starr (though of course they disagreed on a few points of order) would state that I chaired the meeting very competently and certainly kept control (taskmaster came up more than once).

    I urge all LPers, please try to just not be Debbie Downer and find a few good things to say as well for the sake of your friends, peers, and fellow workers.

    Jeff Wood filmed most of it, and did the interesting thing of filming it like a reporter by walking around and focusing on speeches. While I think that made some anti-transparency folks (or folks that just hate seeing themselves on film) uncomfortable, I thought it was great and will make for interesting viewing. I believe he is uploading it and then I will also make available.

    I think for several people this meeting was a test at my competency that includes some areas needed to be Party Secretary. I more than passed that test.

  230. Chuck Moulton

    Seebeck wrote:

    The problem has been that per Robert’s, there is no exhaustion of speaking privileges or calling questions in committees, and that allows certain known persons to fili-bluster away, and that has been the biggest problem. It’s not a problem of who is chairing the meeting; it is a problem with the constraints of Robert’s not being able to be sorted out in an effective manner in order to move things forward.

    Some past committees we have solved thta problem by simply putting times in the initial agenda for each agenda item. When that time is expired it takes a motion to extend time to keep talking… or that main motion goes immediately to a vote.

  231. Anthony Dlugos

    “Good news. Tom Knapp reports that the anti-immigrant entryist poison pill clause to the 3.4 Free Trade and Migration platform position will up for removal at the 2018 Libertarian National Convention.”

    That is good news. Moreover, the fact that raging xenophobe and soft-core racist Andy (as well as the rest of the hard right incursion, most likely) has a problem with the change tells us its a change that should be passed.

  232. robert capozzi

    Say the clause is deleted. Say the 2020 ticket of, say, Amash/Thiel, uses the equivalent of the deleted clause in the campaign.

    I wonder if complaintists (aka plumbliners) like TK would flip out over a such a perceived heresy.

  233. Anthony Dlugos

    “dL and Tom Knapp think that it is a “poison pill” for the LP’s platform to say that while the state exists, it should reject foreign nationals who pose a threat to life, liberty, or property, even though this is exactly what a private property owner would do.”

    Andy is the “Name That Tune” of false analogies with regard to immigration policy.

    I am rich with anticipation at his follow up attempt…”I can display ignorant xenophobia this time in….7 words!”

    “Some people..not me, though, else why would I watch ‘That Guy T’ videos…irrationally hate other people, so the state can too. What’s the worse that can happen?”

  234. Anon-Tipper

    I think the immigration topic is so hot right now (and the biggest issue entryist push on) that people who are normally okay with deviations from the platform would be upset about a deviation on this issue.

  235. Anon-Tipper

    That Guy T

    I think he’s a full on fascist now. I checked his twitter, he now says “when I was a ‘lolbert’…” and shit about how we shouldn’t have equality before the law.

  236. Anthony Dlugos

    Is he?

    Can’t say I’m surprised.

    Generally, I don’t see the need to delve into the philosophical underpinnings of a person who calls himself “That Guy T” to understand he is a self-aggrandizing lunatic.

  237. Anon-Tipper

    I believe he writes for Chase Rachels (or whatever his name is) website “Radical Capitalist.” I saw an article by him on FEE the say after Charlottesville where he stated that he attended and that he thought the alt-righters were “nice people.” They took that article down before I could screenshot it and removed him from their writers’ list lol.

  238. Caryn Ann Harlos

    That is true but does defeat the intent of Robert’s which I think is right for committees. As I result we heard likely every argument which can be heard from the floor or minority report and came out with very well vetted proposals.

    At any time the committee could have moved to amend agenda to add time limits.

    Everyone was heard and we have strong proposals. At upcoming e-meetings I likely will put time limits on agenda and will select items likely to pass. I don’t care if we have ten e-meetings now. And I expect the prior opposition to email ballots will be ill received received.

  239. Andy

    Some people, such as Anthony Dlugos, have asserted that if you say that while the state exists, that the migration/immigration policy in place should not be one that attracts and rewards people who pose a threat to life, liberty, or property, which means excluding/not inviting people with Marxist or theocrats ideologies, as well as criminal thugs (some people are criminals, and criminals do not follow laws, but this does not mean you have to reward these people), welfare seekers, and people with communicable diseases, that this somehow automatically means that you support a big government program to keep people out. This is rather ironic coming from Dlugos, who is a Bill Weld Supporter, as Weld is not exactly a small government guy. Regardless of the irony, my response is that it does not take a big government program to ward off destructive foreigners. Switzerland, Lechtenstein, and Luxembourg are not being overrun by destructive foreign migrants, unlike other European countries like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, etc…, and it is not because they have big government programs to keep people out. They simply do not invite them, and they do not reward them with welfare and easy access to citizenship. The current mass immigration into the USA is in fact a big government welfare program, and it has resulted in an ever expanding state as it has created large blocks of people who use government welfare programs in disproportionate numbers, and who vote in super-majority numbers to expand the welfare state and to enact more gun control laws. It would not take a big government program to ward off destructive foreigners, and doing what I am suggesting would actually lead to a net reduction in the size government.

    Once again, the purist libertarian position is not “open borders” into a state, but rather to abolish the state and cede all land and infrastructure over to private property owners, which means that private property owners would regulate migration/immigration onto their private property.

    Calling for “open borders” into a democratic welfare state is not a libertarian position.

    What I am suggesting in the post above is how the state should handle the issue while the state exists, as in the state’s policy should not be one that threatens or overwhelms the existing domestic populations. The end goal for libertarians should be the private property anarcho-capitalist society.

  240. dL

    I think the immigration topic is so hot right now (and the biggest issue entryist push on) that people who are normally okay with deviations from the platform would be upset about a deviation on this issue.

    It should be a litmus test, and in today’s context, THE litmus test. Immigration is the one issue that has the potential to trigger a major shift political realignment. Open borders(i.e, the liberty of movement, freedom of association) is not only the correct, principled position to take if you are pro-liberty, it is also good third party politics.

  241. dL

    Say the 2020 ticket of, say, Amash/Thiel, uses the equivalent of the deleted clause in the campaign.

    For a variety of reasons, Peter Thiel will not be sniffing around the LP.

  242. Andy

    I spoke to That Guy T at the recent Anarchapulco event in Acapulco, Mexico. I even interviewed him, and the interview is posted here at IPR (it is in an Open Comment Thread for either February, March, or April), plus I spoke to him for awhile. His views were very libertarian when I spoke to him. I think what he means is that he has moved further from the left side of libertarianism to the right side of libertarianism. He’s a right leaning anarcho-capitalist. He seemed like a good guy and i enjoyed talking to him and I hope to get the chance to communicate with him in the future.

  243. Anthony Dlugos

    “It should be litmus test, and in today’s context, THE litmus test. Immigration is the one issue that has the potential to trigger a major shift political realignment.”

    I agree that, in a tactical sense, the Deompublicans are more blocked in and constrained in their possible moves than any other issue I can think of.

  244. robert capozzi

    AD and dL,

    Guess I’m just not seeing what you are. I’d be very surprised if more than 1% of voters are for completely open borders.

    I definitely see that the Rs are using it as a dog whistle for stoking ID politics. I certainly agree they are overplaying their hands.

    Personally, I see the current language as being in a sweet spot in the sensible middle. Going back to a complete open borders view as a mistake.

    What next? Will the “private nukes” clause be added back, too?

  245. Anthony Dlugos

    well, hold on…I thought the improvement was removing that last sentence, correct?

  246. robert capozzi

    AD,

    I don’t think that’s an improvement. Both in theory and in practice, I don’t think completely open borders is a good idea, and I don’t see any way that could happen in the next 5 years, barring the Frankel Singularity happening.

    We may disagree here, despite the fact that we very often agree.

    For a third party committed to short- to intermediate-term lessarchism to become politically viable, it’s important to not sound crazy. COMPLETELY open borders sounds crazy to me, and my guess is 99% of the population does not want completely open borders.

    Rs are increasingly xenophobic and anti-immigrant. I think it’s important that Ls distance themselves from Rs. Ds are increasingly engaged in identity politics, and seem interested in “importing” people who are likely D voters in the future. Again, Ls should differentiate themselves from that, too.

    The current plank allows a lessarchist pol some flexibility to call for more openness but with sensible checks. Striking the last sentence does not allow for any flexibility.

    Amash/Thiel or Cuban or Mackey in 2020 could built significantly on the success of J/W, as well as learn from the mistakes of 16. I love the optics of a Congressman who is first-generation Arab-American born to a Palestinian Christian father and a Syrian Greek Orthodox mother challenging a deranged Trump and a “progressive” Harris or Gillibrand.

    But if the NAPsters of the world bite at his ankles if he ever trips the plumbline on immigration, such a candidate will be hamstrung and forced to either alienate the True Believers or most voters. Complete open borders is a non-starter politically.

  247. Andy

    People who call for “open borders,” particularly into Democratic welfare states, are not really taking a NAPster position. The NAPster position is (once again) shut down the state and privatize everything, which then leaves the issue of migration/immigration across private property borders up to private property owners. Some private property owners may set very relaxed entry policies, while others may set policies that are highly restrictive.

  248. robert capozzi

    AJ: People who call for “open borders,” particularly into Democratic welfare states, are not really taking a NAPster position.

    Me: Yes. That’s my point. When “open borders” are being advocated by progressives and Ds, it’s pitched as a humanitarian matter to let more immigrants into the country. The “importing new voters” angle may or may not be their hidden agenda. But it’s not actually full-blown “open borders,” for the most part. NAPsters REALLY MEAN open borders…no checks whatsoever.

    The NAPster position is way out on the fringe, assuring irrelevance to the vast majority of voters.

  249. Anon-Tipper

    It should be a litmus test, and in today’s context, THE litmus test. Immigration is the one issue that has the potential to trigger a major shift political realignment. Open borders(i.e, the liberty of movement, freedom of association) is not only the correct, principled position to take if you are pro-liberty, it is also good third party politics.

    Agreed, we’re definently at the beginning of a realignment; closed vs. open. R’s have turned xenophobic, I think the D’s will turn soon if the progressive branch gets more influential, so there’s a segment of the pop that will be unrepresented on this issue.

  250. Anon-Tipper

    The polls closed in Nebraska. I posted a link to a site with poll results in the recent Ebke story. They’ll also be listed on Ballotpedia. I lost power so I’ll only be able to check periodically, but the results should be in soon.

  251. robert capozzi

    Anon and dL,

    Can you identify a constituency for completely open borders, other than NAPsters?

  252. dL

    Me: Yes. That’s my point.

    That’s the David Duke position, which makes my point that the authoritarian clause add on to the immigration plank was a xenophobic entryist poison pill.

  253. dL

    Can you identify a constituency for completely open borders, other than NAPsters my imaginary straw man?

    The one currently holed up in the ICE detention centers…

  254. Andy

    I just did several weeks of petitioning in California. I spoke to thousands of people. I encountered many Californians who asked me if I had the petition to repeal the Sanctuary State status of which Governor Jerry Brown affixed his signature. I did not have this petition, as it had only recently been released for circulation, and there was no money behind it, but lots of people were asking about it, and all of them wanted to sign it. Lots of Californians are angry at Jerry Brown, and if not for the fact that he is term limited out this year, I think that there would be a recall petition launched against him, as lots of people also asked me if I had a petition to recall Jerry Brown.

  255. Andy

    The constituency that dL mentioned above has no property rights here. They are the equivalent of people who got caught sneaking into Disney World by Disney World security.

    If an American sneaks into Mexico or any other country in the world the same thing will happen to them.

  256. dL

    Agreed, we’re definently at the beginning of a realignment; closed vs. open. R’s have turned xenophobic, I think the D’s will turn soon if the progressive branch gets more influential, so there’s a segment of the pop that will be unrepresented on this issue.

    The Dems are a closed borders party**. They only differ from the Repubs in terms of limited protection for certain classes of people already here from forced deportation(DACA). That being said, there is a subset of progressivism beginning to make noise(even reaching mainstream proggie publications like The Nation and Mother Jones) about abolishing ICE.

    Obviously, open borders is not a majority position, but neither is it a “fringe position.” According to this NPR roundup of polling
    https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-immigration-polls-do-and-dont-say

    open borders vs “secure borders” polls at 21% vs 79%. 70% oppose expanding the Mexican wall. 87% support DACA. For a third party politics of open borders, these are numbers you absolutely can work with. In fact, these numbers are a lot better than they were in the 90s, and if one looks at the Gallop historical data on immigration polling***

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

    the momentum is on the side of public sentiment trending sympathetic to open or more liberalized borders which contrasts with statist enforcement trending toward the East German model.

    ** The Department of Homeland Security bullshit originated with the Dems(e.g, Joe Biden) in the 1990s as a response to Oklahoma City. It was originally staunchly opposed by the Repubs b/c it was viewed as a federal gun control police force operating under the auspices of targeting patriot milia group terrorism.

    ***For example, according to Gallop, in 1993, only 6% of the sampled population supported increased immigration

  257. Andy

    dL displays a typical leftist smear tactic above by making reference to David Duke, who he uses as a boogeyman in an attempt at discrediting something, without presenting an actual argument. So if one says that since we live under a state that has control over the land and infrastucture of the country, just as everyone else on the planet does, that the state policy in regard to migration/immigration ought to be one that wards off/does not invite, people who are destructive to the life, liberty, and property of the existing population, is a “David Duke” policy (according to dL), and since David Duke is a really bad guy, there should be no policy in place that wards off/does not invite people who are a threat to the life, liberty, and property of the existing population. The exact same policy exists in every other country in the world, from Mexico, to Isreal, to Japan to etc…, so David Duke must be a pretty influential guy to have all of these countries around the world adopting his policy proposals.

    So if a bunch of people show up atbthecUS border who are infected with the Ebola virus, they should just walk in with no questions asked, because shutting them out would be a dirty rotten David Duke policy. If a division of Chinese tanks want to cross the border, better let them in or else you will Bevin league with that dirty rotten scoundrel David Duke. MS-13 gang members or radical Islamic Jihadis want to come here, better let them in too, because if you don’t, dL will equate you to being like that cretin David Duke.

  258. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    In corporate takeovers, the purpose of a “poison pill” is something to make the game not worth the candle.

    I used the term for that last line in the immigration plank because, although I am not convinced it was by design, it makes the rest of the plank not worth taking seriously.

    Clarification of “not by design” —

    The fairly obvious intent of that line was to approve the notion that if a known al Qaeda member who has announced he intends to bomb Andy Jacobs’s house comes up to the border carrying a suitcase full of explosives, he can be turned away.

    In the last two years, however, I have run into anti-immigration party members who claim it justifies en masse immigration bans on people from particular countries (e.g. Syrian refugees), of particular religions (e.g. Islam), and in one case (IIRC not a party member thank God, although there are some), even by race because “America is a ‘white’ country and ‘diluting’ that is a threat to the security of ‘white’ people.”

    The plank minus that sentence says that freedom to move across borders must not be “unreasonably” restricted, which leaves the LP’s CANDIDATES free to propose what they consider “reasonable” restrictions. That covers any legitimate function of the final sentence, without leaving that sentence there to tie the PARTY ITSELF to arguably unreasonable ones.

    While I am an open borders libertarian myself, I’m fine with a plank that is neutral on the subject, as this plank without the final sentence is.

    As to the committee’s process:

    My preference was for a clean and simple deletion of the final sentence that left the ability for bordertarians to propose restrictions without preemptively tying the party to the most unreasonable of those potential restrictions.

    However, I would not have been terribly upset with Aaron Starr’s proposed language which would have just inserted a new word into that final sentence: “However, we support control over the entry into our country of INDIVIDUAL foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property” (emphasis mine). That would have solved the abuse of the final sentence by people to caricature the LP as being in favor of e.g. en masse national, religious and racial immigration bans.

    Why did I stick hard to my own proposal instead of supporting Mr. Starr’s substitution move? Two reasons, one major, one minor:

    The major reason, as mentioned above, is that I prefer to deliver the cleanest and simplest possible proposals to the delegates.

    The “individual” language was one in a series of attempted amendments, while my original proposal is a simple single change: Delete a sentence.

    It gets rid of language instead of adding language (Andy Craig had a BEAUTIFUL proposal that added quite a bit of language on e.g. due process and such; I would not have had heartburn if it had been adopted).

    It did one thing instead of several things. The fewer items there are in a single proposal, the less work the delegates have to do perfecting that proposal if they generally like it, which means the delegates are more likely to get something done with it instead of it dying.

    The minor reason is that I don’t like language that implicitly justifies the existence of the state itself. That language at least skirts the intent of the Dallas Accord. As an anarchist, I’m happy to abide by that accord and not try to get the LP’s platform to call for abolition of the state. And I think that minarchists should likewise abide by that accord and not try to get the LP’s platform to call for perpetuation of the state.

    “[C]ontrol” and “our country” implies acceptance of the state’s fiat claim of itself as the mechanism for administration of an alleged collective ownership. It doesn’t smash the Dallas Accord, but it at least dents the Dallas Accord, so I’d rather it wasn’t in there. The alternative would have been putting in something like “As long as the state exists …” which would have raised similar objections from the other side of the accord.

  259. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom has it exactly correct – it seems that our Platform has drifted away from the Accord with it trying to make it a one-way street – that it will not call for the abolition of the state and forgets that it should not either claim the state is necessary. There was a change passed last convention that I think violated this – and had I been a bit more aware of this history I would have sought a JC appeal.

  260. Anthony Dlugos

    RCapozzi,

    Yea, I think my position on immigration is probably a little more open than yours, based on posts you’ve previously made (and the fact that I am okay with simply deleting the last sentence of this plank). Of course, I’ll note that that likely difference has never made me think about going after you vituperatively, or to accuse you of not being a libertarian. Who would have figured? It gets much easier to hash out differences when you drop the dogma.

    Now, I’m gonna go back on my word and for once take a dogmatic stance regardless of any political considerations: That last sentence is absolutely terrible. Sounds very much like it was written by alt-righters. I’m willing to go with the idea that it was written and approved in the post-9/11 haze, but now that cooler heads can prevail, we got to get rid of it.

    Furthermore, I agree 100% with TK: The “unreasonably” modifier allows particular candidates to propose what they consider to be reasonable restriction. From my point of view, its analogous to the plank on reproductive rights: I understand that not every Libertarian candidate is going to be 100% pro-choice, but at the very least the anti-choicers will be running against the explicit position of the party.

    On the other hand, I could make a solid argument from a purely pragmatic stance: getting rid of that sentence might do a good bit of work in getting rid of the alt-right incursion into the party, or at the very least demonstrating to those lowlifes that the party is not going to entertain their claptrap. As I noted early, the fact that the Xenophobe Andy is upset about it is probably a good indicator that dumping the sentence will do a lot of good without causing much trouble.

    Although I will also say that I do like Mr Starr’s idea that TK pointed out: just add the word “individual” to the current phrasing. However, that goes against my general disposition with regard to organizational change: if you are going to do something, do it ONCE and do it RIGHT so there is no equivocation. I wouldn’t want to just add that word and then find out the alt-righters think they still have wiggle room. I.E., I’d rather go a little overboard than not go far enough. (Keeping in mind, again, that “unreasonably” allows our candidates to reject the idea that we stand for just flinging the doors open and walking away.

  261. Anthony Dlugos

    “…it seems that our Platform has drifted away from the Accord with it trying to make it a one-way street… forgets that it should not either claim the state is necessary.”

    Seriously, though…so what? Not only can no one credibly argue that such a drift hurts our chances at electoral success, its probably very likely that it helps.

    Don’t attack the messenger. For an organization in the electoral arena, is there any other way to look at it?

  262. robert capozzi

    dL: That’s the David Duke position, which makes my point that the authoritarian clause add on to the immigration plank was a xenophobic entryist poison pill.

    ME: I’ve not looked into DD’s position, but that sentence in the current plank is widely, and probably overwhelmingly, supported by the pop. This may in your mind make 99% of Americans “authoritarians” and “xenophobes.” And perhaps we are on some level! But if that’s where you are coming from, you might want to at least CONSIDER bridging language to get the masses from here to where YOU are, i.e., in the clouds above Mt. Olympus! 😉

    Perhaps explain your use of the term “poison pill,” which traditionally deals with corporate takeover defenses.

    dL: The one currently holed up in the ICE detention centers…

    me: OK, non-voters. That’s your constituency? Non-starter.

    Now if you and some NAPsters believe that the ability to travel unchecked globally is something like ending chattel slavery, i.e., a pure morality play, I respect that. I do. But you’d have to actually make that case, and it would have to be as compelling as the case is against slavery.

    I’ve never heard the case.

  263. Anthony Dlugos

    “dL: The one currently holed up in the ICE detention centers…

    me: OK, non-voters. That’s your constituency? Non-starter.

    Now if you and some NAPsters believe that the ability to travel unchecked globally is something like ending chattel slavery, i.e., a pure morality play, I respect that. I do.”

    Indeed. The NAPster set regularly demonstrates not that they are wrong, but they are in the wrong arena, as I have repeatedly noted. Such a mindset as you noted above…ignoring something simple like who actually votes…is a self-inflicted impediment. Even if you’re right, you’re never going to implement your preferred policy positions if you can’t even focus on who you need to appeal to.

  264. robert capozzi

    dL: open borders vs “secure borders” polls at 21% vs 79%.

    me: It depends on how the question is asked. If it said, “Do you believe that anyone from anywhere has the right to come into the US unchecked to visit or to live and work,” I’d be very interested to see if that gets 21% support. It doesn’t even get unanimous support among NAPsters!

    My guess is that statement gets single-digit support. If it gets 21%, I will re-consider my view.

  265. DJ

    Andy: So if a bunch of people show up atbthecUS border who are infected with the Ebola virus, they should just walk in with no questions asked, because shutting them out would be a dirty rotten David Duke policy.

    Me: LOL. You might just want to look at what you claim about people coming here. Jesus Andy. Can you say double standard? SMH-

  266. robert capozzi

    AD,

    I certainly agree that keeping alt-righters away from the LP makes sense. The truth is I really don’t have a position on migration beyond the idea that I just don’t buy that anyone can go anywhere any time unchecked. I am for maximizing freedom of movement from where we are now, mindful of maintaining a semblance of domestic tranquility in the process.

    This: “…unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders…” is why the sentence was added. I was there at the time. My impulse was to oppose adding it, but I was persuaded that otherwise, we have Zomia. 😉 The operative term is “unrestricted movement.” Most who read that would likely conclude that means WIDE open borders with no checks. That is, to use the TK/dL term in the way they do, a “poison pill.” It’s political hare kari.

    Could the qualifying sentence be better? Sure, that’s always true.

    Politics is a near-term game. Perhaps the NAPsters are right on some Platonic level, but I’m not sure even a NAPster would envision an end to any and all border security in the next 5 years. My view is if it’s not actionable in the near term, it’s not politics, it’s philosophizing. Inappropriate philosophizing is political malpractice.

  267. Andy

    Robert, the view put forth by dL is pure fantasyland that would not even exist in a libertarian society, and in fact has nothing to do with libertarianism. No private property owner would open up their private property for everyone to enter as they see fit.

    The world is presently arranged into governments which have control over land and infrastructure. The function of regulating usage of land and infrastructure has been ceded over to governments, which means that governments regulate the access of foreign people to the land and resources of a country. I acknowledge that coercive states are not an ideal way for societies to be arranged, and that the world would be a better place If societies rearranged themselves based on the concepts of voluntaryism, private property, and the Non-Aggression Principle, but a) we are far from living in a world that is arranged in that manner, and b) even if we did live in a world that was arranged in this manner, it still would not mean that anyone could go anywhere, as migration/immigration would be regulated by private property owners.

  268. Andy

    How about keeping the Alt-Lefters away from the Libertarian Party? How about keeping cosmotarians away from the LP? How about keeping establishmentarians who support people like Bill Weld away from the LP (note that Weld is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group that is tied in with the central bankers, and who want to get rid of national borders so a one world government can be established, a one world government which would be far from being anything resembling libertarianism)?

    Now before anyone jumps down my throat, the only people I really want to drive out are the establishmentarians, as in the people who think that the LP should run establishment type candidates who have little or no actual libertarian principles, like Bill Weld.

  269. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    From a pragmatic political point of view, I’m not that interested in the exact numbers.

    What matters is that the two major parties are immigration restrictionists. They both want more, not less, government control over immigration. That leaves the constituency for less restrictive immigration laws almost completely unrepresented (“almost” because some Republicans or Democrats might buck their own party establishments).

    A third political party that wants to grow tries to appeal to constituencies that AREN’T already getting what they want from the establishment parties. And it’s a happy coincidence when the desires of those unrepresented constituencies happen to coincide with the third party’s principles.

    Is the “open borders” constituency 21%? I don’t know. But the “less restrictive” constituency is probably bigger than that. And neither major party speaks for them.

  270. robert capozzi

    TK,

    100%! Yes, less restrictive migration policies are quite sellable and laudable.

    No restrictions whatsoever? Not sellable. Might be laudable, might not, too speculative to say.

  271. robert capozzi

    AJ: How about keeping cosmotarians away from the LP?

    Me: That’s been accomplished already. Twice in my case.

  272. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    You write:

    —–
    100%! Yes, less restrictive migration policies are quite sellable and laudable.

    No restrictions whatsoever? Not sellable. Might be laudable, might not, too speculative to say.
    —–

    Let me once again call your attention to the fact that removing that last sentence from the plank does not make the plank call for “no restrictions whatsoever.” It calls for not “unreasonably” restricting the movement of people across the border.

    This strikes me as an excellent counter to your perception of me as a “NAPster.”

    I ran for platform committee on the pledge to pursue this exact change. In fact, it was the single change that I specifically cited when asking for Libertarians to support me for a spot on the committee.

    I consider the change PRAGMATIC both internally to the party and externally to it.

    Externally, it gives our candidates maximum flexibility to decide what’s “reasonable” on the issue of immigration and campaign to that standard. I’m content to let Libertarian primary voters, convention delegates, etc. evaluate a candidate’s immigration position and support or not support that candidate. If I personally find that candidate unacceptably bad on the issue, I’ll say so and not donate to, vote for, etc. that candidate.

    Internally, I did not propose to make the plank an unambiguously “open borders” plank, nor to insert anarchist/abolitionist language in the plank. I simply sought to unbind the party itself (as opposed to its candidates) to language that has in fact been used by immigration restrictionists to attempt to place the party in support of bigger, not smaller, and worse, not better, government.

  273. Andy

    Robert, you are giving these people way too much credit when you refer to them as NAPsters. Their position of rip the borders open into s democratic weflare state with forced association laws and lots of taxpayer owned property and infrastructure is not a NAPster position. Their position has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism. The position for which they advocate would not exist in a libertarian society because it violates private property rights. Their position is more inline with Marxism. They are advocating for global communism.

    If they were legitimate NAPsters, they would advocate in favor of privatization of land and infrastucture and legalized discrimination, along with physical removal of those who trespass on private property, or who violate property use contracts. If we lived in a libertarian society, private property owners would be free to discriminate for any reason, including because the private property owner is a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe, or any other nasty buzzword leftists like to throw around. Real libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with being a “political correct” leftist. This is not to say that leftists could not set up private property enclaves in a libertarian society, because they would be free to do this. It just means that if we lived in a libertarian society people would be free to pursue different lifestyle preferences via private property and freedom of association, and people would not have a coercive state to impose their lifestyle preferences onto others. We do not live in such a libertarian society, so we have to operate in the world as it currently is, and make the best of the situation.

  274. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Take out “unrestricted” as well and I can buy what you’re selling.

  275. Anthony Dlugos

    I can agree with that, RC. Although I wouldn’t die on that hill.

  276. Seebeck

    Let’s try that again…admins, please delete the previous. I hate typos!

    Chuck wrote:

    Some past committees we have solved that problem by simply putting times in the initial agenda for each agenda item. When that time is expired it takes a motion to extend time to keep talking… or that main motion goes immediately to a vote.

    Chuck, the problem with that approach is that it still allows filiblusters. I can easily see one person occupying all of the time then having a motion to extend, later, rinse, repeat, and then the committee is back where it started.

  277. Andy

    DJ, the only double standards I see are the ones coming from the leftist side of the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart.

  278. Andy

    DJ, my demand to government is that it shut down and cede everything over to private property owners, which would mean dividing up government assets among people currently referred to as American citizens. Do you see the US government following through on this demand from me?

    Given that this demand that the US government shut down and divide up its assets among the population of American citizens is not happening, and is not likely to happen any time soon, I am forced to operate in a suboptimal reality. So given these facts, I demand that the US government have a migration/immigration policy that does not invite people who pose a threat to life, liberty, and property into the country, and if any of these people sneak in anyway, I demand that they, and any offspring they may have while here, be denied taxpayer funded services, and that they not be granted American citizenship.

    You keep acting like I am making some kind of big government proposal, when the exact opposite is true.

    Once again, Lechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Switzerland are not being overrun by destructive foreign migrants, and it is not because any of these countries have erected a police state/big government programs to keep people out. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and some other countries in Europe are being overrun with destructive foreign migrants because of traitors within the government’s of these countries facilitating it to happen, which is the same thing that is going on in thus country.

    This is a completely manufactured crisis that is meant to destroy countries and eventually bring about a global totalitarian government.

    There was no big immigration problem in this country prior to the mass welfare statist migration that had its seeds planted here in the 1960’s.

  279. Seebeck

    While I understand Tom’s POV on the immigration plank and generally agree with him, I supported the Starr proposal to add the word “individual” instead of deleting the sentence.

    (I know, but Hell has not frozen over! Bear with me a moment!)

    Adding that word does close the loophole that Tom describes about the alt-right going anti-group bonkers and places the focus back on case-by-case bases, which IMO is a far more equitable position to take–it treats the refugee on his merits and the terrorist on his demerits, and so on.

    Andy Craig’s proposal was simply just too verbose, and Tom is correct: the convention would have axle-wrapped itself on it. KISS principle at work.

    I did not favor deleting the last sentence, however, because the problem with the earlier part is the word “unreasonable,” which is very subjective and leaves much to be interpreted. The alt-righter, for example, would consider “reasonable” that which someone else would consider “unreasonable” and vice versa. Leaving that word in there doesn’t really solve the problem Tom alludes to; it only shifts it to candidates who represent the party. And to be fair, the Starr proposal didn’t either, but I supported it because I felt that moving it towards the case-by-case approach takes a lot of wind out of those sails. But I don’t really see a good solution, because of the highly subjective and variable nature of people’s opinions on what would be a “reasonable” vs. “unreasonable” restriction.

    I expect this one to get argument on the floor at convention, even with this change. I also expect a Starr minority report on this, and I don’t know if I would join it or not–have to see it first, but Mr. Starr did himself no favors with his antics in the meeting on this plank.

  280. Anon-Tipper

    Robert Capozzi,

    Can you identify a constituency for completely open borders, other than NAPsters?

    I’m a little behind on the thread, but I think removing the last line of the plank would be a step in the right direction, the rest of the plank doesn’t scream “NAPster,” and as others have mentioned we could at the least build off of the “less restriction, more immigration” contingency. We have a candidate right now campaigning on that (http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/05/libertarian-us-congress-candidate-jeff-matemu/), he’s not coming out “open borders,” but just trying to engage the immigrant community, supporting DACA, etc.

    And I agree with Thomas Knapp above on that last sentence of the plank:

    I simply sought to unbind the party itself (as opposed to its candidates) to language that has in fact been used by immigration restrictionists to attempt to place the party in support of bigger, not smaller, and worse, not better, government.

  281. Andy

    This is quite hypocritical that Tom has these fears about Alt-Right boogeymen, yet he has no fears about Alt-Left boogeymen.

    I find the hypocrisy, double standards, and intellectual dishonesty displayed by my debate opponents here to be disgusting.

  282. dL

    I’ve not looked into DD’s position,

    I actually did look into his position and given that he is open borders for the State of Israel, you are actually to the right of Duke on border control.

    but that sentence in the current plank is widely, and probably overwhelmingly, supported by the pop. This may in your mind make 99% of Americans “authoritarians” and “xenophobes.”

    No, the authoritarian and xenophobe would be you. Let us recall some of your past comments on immigration.

    Yes, when capital crosses a national border, I can’t think of any attendant risks to the citizenry of the invested country. I can think of attendant risks to the citizenry from excessive or unchecked immigration. I don’t see them as equivalent, at least not in the context of nations and the rule of law.

    I maintain it can be appropriate for a nation to check who is coming into the nation, and to ensure that taxpayers are not unduly burdened by such entry

    Say that immigration was fairly easy, but each immigrant was bonded, signed off they could not receive welfare benefits, and had to pay tuition for their children to go to public school? Violate any of those and the funds held in escrow were used to deport those who broke the terms of their green-card status?

    Absent a relevant example of a well-functioning borderless society that protects private property and the rule of law, I’m going to go with the vast majority on this one.

    But crossing a border involves a meta-association with all the citizens of the nation. in the borders of a nation, there are a set of laws that should, at least, be designed to maintain domestic tranquility. While I disagree with most of the laws in the US, they are in place.

    Of course, there’s no such thing as “the libertarian position,” since many Ls have many views on borders. Unless it’s changed recently, the LP’s position is basically mine, and it’s not 100% open borders.

    I think you claimed that immigrants were net taxpayers according to some studies, but I noted that that didn’t include the public schools and public health resources they consume. It’s possible they are indeed net taxpayers, but I believe more data is necessary to reach that conclusion.

    Although, even there, it still could be prudent to shift immigration policies to encourage/require a check in and perhaps other terms and conditions as a means to maximize the productivity and contribution of immigrants AND to screen out more effectively the less desireable would-be immigrants.

    Are you telling us you think free migration in Europe is working out well? Hmm, if so.

    I can tell the difference, but I refer to something called risk and exposure.In the current setup, new immigrants do represent a financial risk to taxpayers. The rewards of allowing more people into our collective condo complex could be greater than the risks, but there’s no doubt that many immigrants use public health and education services.

    Today there were no doubt immigrants — legal and illegal — sending their kids to government schools and using emergency rooms for primary medical care. So, no, it’s not a fear of what might happen, it actually happens every day. I could ask you why you tolerate that freedom restriction for other taxpayers?

    If the US unemployment rate was 40%, would you still advocate open borders?

    I’m sorry you feel that way. I read the preamble and Article 1, Section 8 differently than you do, apparently.

    No, the overwhelming majority of the population does not support your blatant, uninformed xenophobia, Bob. And what you are doing is exactly what Knapp noted above:

    I have run into anti-immigration party members who claim it justifies en masse immigration bans on people from particular countries (e.g. Syrian refugees), of particular religions (e.g. Islam), and in one case (IIRC not a party member thank God, although there are some), even by race because “America is a ‘white’ country and ‘diluting’ that is a threat to the security of ‘white’ people.”

    i.e, trying to use that clause to legitimize views that have no business in a libertarian party.

  283. dL

    Me: That’s been accomplished already. Twice in my case.

    Cosmos do not subscribe to Stephen Molyneux’s Youtube channel…

  284. dL

    me: OK, non-voters. That’s your constituency? Non-starter.

    The question wasn’t “name a constituency that matters to Bob Capozzi.”

    Btw, some of them can vote, and quite a few people support the proposition that they all should be able to vote.

  285. Andy

    There is currently a guy in the Libertarian Party who is popping up at State Conventions, acting like he might run for the presidential nomination in 2020, who was the LP’s candidate for Vice President in 2016, who is a member of a group called the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization whose membership ranks include other high ranking current and former government officials, as well as influential people in the mainstream news media, academia, banking, and other big corporate business interests. One of the goals of the Council on Foreign Relations is to erase national borders and to create a world government, and the policy positions advocated by these people are far from being libertarian. Bill Weld headed up a CFR Task Force along with Heidi Cruz (who worked for globalist banksters, Goldman Sachs), to study the creation of a North American Union, integrating the USA with Canada and Mexico. Part of the globalist agenda pushed by the CFR (which was founded by a grant from the Rockefellers, who are the Federal Reserve System and the globalist banksters) is to tear down countries by flooding them with large numbers of immigrants whom they use as pawns to implement their agenda. These globalist cockroaches want to get rid of the US Constitution, not because they are anarchist libertarians, but because they want to replace it with something along the lines of the United Nations Charter. This mass immigration agenda is totally planned, and is in fact being orchestrated to usher in the New World Order, and this is why it is being facilitated and cheered on by Marxist groups and their globalist puppetmasters in places like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group.

    So if you think that this “open borders” scam is good, or has anything to do with actual libertarianism, which it does not, since the people pushing this are not doing it in the context of a private property anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist society, which in fact would have private property borders and not “open borders,” you are either naive to the point of being destructive, or you are actively working with the enemies of liberty.

  286. Andy

    Should read, “the Rockefellers, who are tied in with the Federal Reserve System/globalist banksters, and also the United Nations,” above.

  287. dL

    Is the “open borders” constituency 21%? I don’t know. But the “less restrictive” constituency is probably bigger than that. And neither major party speaks for them.

    It was taken from a recent Harris Poll that the Trump administration championed as proof that the public supported “closed borders.” The skepticism over the Trump claim didn’t center around the “open borders” support but rather whether the “secure borders” support reflected what Donald Trump thinks “secure borders” means.

    My guess is that “open borders” and “closed borders” positions have roughly the same support among the population(~20% each), with the majority supporting the ambiguous position of “secure borders.’ But if Trump is the face of what “secure borders” now means, then that represents an opportunity for open borders agitprop.

  288. Anthony Dlugos

    Andy,

    please update your vaguely anti-semitic, John Birch Society conspiracy theories. they were stale in 1987.

  289. dL

    While I understand Tom’s POV on the immigration plank and generally agree with him, I supported the Starr proposal to add the word “individual” instead of deleting the sentence.

    Given you espouse a “uniform compliance style authority” with regard to the platform language, do I take then you support adding a “reasonable standard qualification” to all the planks. For example, the self-defense plank should thusly read:

    1.9 Self-Defense
    The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights—life, liberty, and justly acquired property—against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition. However, we support control over the possession of weapons by those who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

    If not, then what is the rationale for exempting 1.9 from the same language qualification standard as 3.4? And would further qualifying the reasonable standard qualification with the word individual, e.g

    However, we support control over the possession of weapons by those Individuals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property

    really make anyone feel any better about the language?

  290. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Your persistent childish mendacity makes it necessary for me to ignore you henceforth, until you start actually using what appears to be a reasonably intelligent mind. I do wish you all the best in your travels.

  291. robert capozzi

    aj: Robert, you are giving these people way too much credit when you refer to them as NAPsters.

    me: NAPsters are like Christian fundamentalists. Even though “fundies” are highly literalistic about the words in the Bible, they don’t always agree. For example, some speak in tongues, some don’t, iirc. You and the Mises crowd are NAPsters, as are folks like TK.

    My perception is that all NAPsters are informed by the NAP as their Bible, the Way, Truth and the Life that informs virtually all of their politics. IOW, the start with their construct and work back toward reality. Non-NAPsters tend to start with reality and point in a lessarchist direction that may or may not end with a world of non-aggression.

    It’s nothing personal when I ID a NAPster. I have friends who are NAPsters. It’s a perfectly fine philosophy, and I more or less share the sentiment. I myself once was a NAPster. I just don’t find it an effective approach to electoral politics.

  292. Seebeck

    dL said:

    Given you espouse a “uniform compliance style authority” with regard to the platform language, do I take then you support adding a “reasonable standard qualification” to all the planks. For example, the self-defense plank should thusly read:

    Do not begin to put words in my mouth. You are very incorrect.

    I favor the platform having a consistent style and form so that it looks like a professional document instead of a mishmashed mess of rhetoric.

    1.9 is irrelevant to the immigration plank, and such an argument is simply a red-herring.

    But since you want to go down that rabbit hole, here’s what I have proposed for 1.9, it includes language suggested by other members of the committee, and it also combines the non-substantive and substantive changes I have proposed:

    1.9 Self-Defense

    TheLibertarians believe that the only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights—life, liberty, and justlyacquired property—against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. PrivateWe support the right of private property owners to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms, or; ammunition or reloading components; firearms-related parts, accessories, or equipment; or other tools of self-defense.

  293. Seebeck

    Note that the words “should be free” would be deleted from between “owners” and “to establish” in the fourth sentence. Apologies for that omission above.

  294. Andy

    I recently asked a hypothetical question as to whether or not 1 million Italians or 1 million Russians had the right to move to Iceland. DJ responded that he believes that they have the right to move to Iceland, even if them moving there would be against the will of most, or all, of the Icelandic people.

    DJ’s response has me questioning his sanity, but I will post a follow up question for DJ, or anyone else to answer.

    Do members of the Italian or Russian mafia/mob (the Russian mob is actually only partially Russian in the ethic sense of the term, as it also heavily Jewish) have the right to move to Iceland? Say that Italian and/or Russian and Russian-Jewish mobsters decided to move to Iceland, and while there, they started committing crimes. Would the Icelandic people have the right to “physically remove” them from Iceland? Would they have the right to ban them from the country?

    Note that I am not asserting that all Italians or Russians or Russian-Jews are mobsters.

    I am asking because DJ has asserted that 1 million Italians and/or Russians should havevtge right to move to the small island nation Iceland, a country with a population of around 335,000, even if most, or all, of the Icelandic people do not want them there, so I want to see if he thinks that criminals from these countries have the right to move to Iceland, and whether or not he thinks that the people of Iceland have the right to kick them out.

  295. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    You write:

    —–
    Take out “unrestricted” as well and I can buy what you’re selling.
    —–

    I’ll address your objection to that in three parts:

    First part:

    The “unrestricted” part is clearly addressed to the economic part of the question: “ECONOMIC freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial CAPITAL across national borders” (emphases mine). It is not talking about unrestricted movement of al Qaeda suicide bombers, it is talking about unrestricted movement of trade goods, including labor (which necessarily includes the people offering the labor).

    Second part:

    There was in fact a proposal on the committee to try to separate immigration per se from free trade and split the plank into two planks (the current plank is titled “Free Trade and Migration”).

    I don’t remember who offered it — it may have been Mr. Starr again, as he was particularly energetic in pointing out problems and suggesting solutions.*

    I opposed that proposal for the same reason I opposed other offerings that weren’t necessarily bad in and of themselves. I’ve been through enough platform sessions at national conventions to understand that things get complicated very quickly, and my view is that the committee should offer up proposals in the smallest, simplest chunks possible so as to minimize how complex the thing is when it starts and therefore hopefully reduce how complicated it gets.

    I’d rather offer a simple, incremental proposal every two years that has a chance of getting adopted, then two years later offer another simple, incremental proposal for continued improvement, than offer something that’s going to get argued about for four hours and then either not get passed or get passed in unrecognizable form barely related to the original proposal.

    Third part:

    Elsewhere, Andy pretends that I am overly concerned about alt-righters and not at all concerned about alt-lefters. In fact, I like having the trade and migration plank in one PRECISELY because it opposes a state-leftist tendency.

    On the statist left, there is actually significant opposition from organized labor and its allies (apart from the IWW, anyway — speaking of which, there are two Wobblies on the platform committee, myself and Jim Fulner) to immigration freedom precisely on anti-free-trade grounds. As with any other product or service, supply versus demand affects price. Typical union doctrine is that unrestricted immigration lowers wages. Or, to put it a different way, they are anti-immigration because they are anti-free-market (just as their “right to work” counterparts are).

    I like the fact that our platform treats labor just like it treats other goods and services. I consider that a feature, not a bug.

  296. dL

    Your persistent childish mendacity makes it necessary for me to ignore you henceforth

    Bob, if direct quotation is a petulant, mendacious activity, a heads up by the Bobs would be appreciated regarding which Bob Capozzi wrote which comment…

  297. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dammit, I forgot to address the asterisk I put at the end of the following statement in my previous comment:

    “it may have been Mr. Starr again, as he was particularly energetic in pointing out problems and suggesting solutions”

    And I do want to address that.

    Coming into the platform committee’s meeting, there was a strong expectation on the part of several members, myself included, that Mr. Starr, Ms. Mattson, and Mr. Carling would act in an obstructionist manner aimed solely at making sure nothing got done.

    During the meeting, that perception persisted with respect to Mr. Starr (Mr. Carling was not there, and Ms. Mattson may have been the single most productively engaged member of the committee both with respect to opining on proposals — she spoke briefly and effectively when she spoke — and with respect to quickly and efficiently helping the chair and others dispose of parliamentary questions).

    I came away from the meeting with a much different opinion than I went into it.

    Yes, Mr. Starr was by far the single biggest consumer of time when it came to speaking to motions, offering amendments and substitutions, and raising parliamentary objections.

    On the other hand, in aggregate, the rest of us spent a LOT of time quibbling with him too. He’d spend ten minutes on something, and five of us would spend two minutes each disputing the matter — same outcome on both sides. As the meeting unfolded, I can’t say that any of Mr. Starr’s offerings were without merit, even when I disagreed. He took up a lot of time, but he took it up trying to get the things he wanted done done, as opposed to other things getting done. Which is exactly what the rest of us were doing, except we weren’t slamming ourselves for doing it. I detected no intent on Mr. Starr’s part to obstruct getting business done as such, and I think I owe him an apology both for expecting that and, at times, mistakenly thinking that’s what I was seeing.

    The only thing I think I would slam Mr. Starr for is that at times it was difficult to tell who the chair was because he sometimes seemed to think that he, rather than Ms. Harlos, was running the meeting. But I don’t think that was a moral failing, either. It was, in my view, just a matter of impatience based in his having spent a lot of time over a lot of years in parliamentary situations, believing he knew how things should be handled, and aggressively trying to have them handled that way when he didn’t think they were being handled that way. That WAS a problem, but again, it was an honest problem, not an intent to obstruct business getting done.

    So, Mr. Starr, I apologize for pre-judging what I expected your motives to be.

  298. dL

    Do not begin to put words in my mouth. You are very incorrect.

    Technically, I would be putting words in Tom Knapp’s mouth who in turn apparently put words in your mouth. Knapp’s characterization of your position vis a vis style compliance:


    Proper spelling, grammar, and sentence construction;

    Uniform compliance with the Libertarian National Committee’s style authority (The Chicago Manual of Style); and

    Format uniformity in which each plank in the platform incorporates policy proposals (“Libertarians support/oppose” in the first instance in a plank, “we support/oppose” in subsequent instances within a plank) and the underlying philosophical reasons (“Libertarians believe/we believe”).

    So, yes, I think it is fair question to ask how restriction qualifications factor into a format uniformity style.

    1.9 is irrelevant to the immigration plank, and such an argument is simply a red-herring.

    I disagree that is beside the point to ask why a Free Trade plank is qualified by a reasonable restriction clause whereas no such qualification shows up in the self-defense clause. The last LP Presidential ticket made it quite clear they favored their own version of reasonable restrictions for the right of self-defense and took a lot heat for that within the LP. However, they would have easily been able to quash much of the dissent if they could simply have pointed to the platform and say: “see, it’s right there.”

  299. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I disagree that is beside the point to ask why a Free Trade plank is qualified by a reasonable restriction clause whereas no such qualification shows up in the self-defense clause.”

    Fair point.

    But there is no “reasonable restrictions” clause. There’s just a “no UNreasonable restrictions” clause.

  300. DJ

    Andy: DJ, my demand to government is that it shut down and cede everything over to private property owners, which would mean dividing up government assets among people currently referred to as American citizens. Do you see the US government following through on this demand from me?

    Me: Not necessarily you- but anyone about any issue. BTW, did you read the articles or look at the maps of the non-constitutional areas of the US? You want something done- it has. It has decided the constitution doesn’t apply in the most heavily populated parts of the country. That’s what happens when demands are made. You get what you don’t want and are told it is what you want.

    Putting out straw man arguments doesn’t change the fact you are against immigration because- insert whatever phobia you want here- it listened. It decided you, a citizen of the US, must give up your freedom to fight all the phobia’s, hence the constitution free zones.

  301. DJ

    Andy: Do members of the Italian or Russian mafia/mob (the Russian mob is actually only partially Russian in the ethic sense of the term, as it also heavily Jewish) have the right to move to Iceland? Say that Italian and/or Russian and Russian-Jewish mobsters decided to move to Iceland, and while there, they started committing crimes. Would the Icelandic people have the right to “physically remove” them from Iceland? Would they have the right to ban them from the country?

    Note that I am not asserting that all Italians or Russians or Russian-Jews are mobsters.

    I am asking because DJ has asserted that 1 million Italians and/or Russians should havevtge right to move to the small island nation Iceland, a country with a population of around 335,000, even if most, or all, of the Icelandic people do not want them there, so I want to see if he thinks that criminals from these countries have the right to move to Iceland, and whether or not he thinks that the people of Iceland have the right to kick them out.

    Me: Does Iceland not have established laws about criminal behavior?

  302. Thomas L. Knapp

    “DJ has asserted that 1 million Italians and/or Russians should havevtge right to move to the small island nation Iceland, a country with a population of around 335,000, even if most, or all, of the Icelandic people do not want them there”

    What do you mean by “there?”

    If those 1 million Italians and/or Russians arrive and move onto previously unhomesteaded land and mix their labor with it, or buy or rent from willing sellers or landlords, why would it be any business of “the Icelandic people” as such?

    If those Italians and/or Russians committed crimes, what difference would it make that they crossed a “border” before doing so? Would their crimes be somehow magically worse than the same crimes committed by native Icelandians?

    When the subject is immigration, you appear to be some kind of communist.

  303. robert capozzi

    dL,

    OK, for your benefit (with any luck), to say that I’m not a cosmotarian because I subscribe to Molyneux’s youtube channel is SO preposterous, mendacious, and childish, I really cannot imagine what has gone wrong with your brain. My fellow cosmotarians may not subscribe to Rachel Maddow, either. It should be self-evident that you’re completely off base here.

    You seem to have done quite a bit of reading, and you seem to know the “rules” and methods of philosophical inquiry in some ways better than me.

    I’ve explained this before, but MAYBE whatever psychological block that you seem to be afflicted with may get unblocked by being challenged. You also seem to have a problem differentiating a question from a position, too. I subscribe to Molyneux because he’s sometimes interesting and sometimes he has interesting guests. Same for Maddow. Both also are excellent communicators, stylistically speaking. I don’t agree with either of them most of the time.

    Cato has had David Brooks and George Soros speak. I saw them there. Is it THAT difficult for you to grok that Cato’s staff are not fans of either Brooks or Soros? I simply can’t imagine how an otherwise intelligent person can’t see that, other than there must be a psychological condition involved, one that I am unfamiliar with.

    Exposing yourself to those you disagree with can be a personal growth opportunity, if viewed aright.

    Apologize, explain yourself, or leave me alone. Again, I do hope you can get a grip on yourself, and I do mean that quite sincerely. Everyone has issues, myself included, but yours are so pronounced that you may need to get professional help.

  304. robert capozzi

    tk: “ECONOMIC freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial CAPITAL across national borders” (emphases mine). It is not talking about unrestricted movement of al Qaeda suicide bombers, it is talking about unrestricted movement of trade goods, including labor (which necessarily includes the people offering the labor).

    me: Thanks for the fair-minded and thorough response. I’d say that “economic freedom” cannot be viewed in isolation. For me to buy that clause, it’d have to say:

    In an ideal world, economic freedom demands….

    (I’m not a fan of the word “demands,” either, as it comes across as hostile.)

    The truth is, it’s NOT an ideal world. Labor is currently heavily restricted in terms of cross-border movement, far too restricted, near as I can tell.

    If Amash/Thiel 2020 called for raising quotas and didn’t specify that it SHOULD eventually be UNrestricted, I can foresee some NAPsters sniping at them for this heresy. “Unrestricted” is an absolutist word. Absolutism in politics is a giant kick-me sign. Terms like “free flow” allow for flexibility in crafting positions that resonate but don’t box the pol into an untenable extremist position.

    Again, let’s keep in mind the very real costs attendant with immigrants. We’ve discussed previously that the net analysis seems to exclude some large public expenditures like education. A big oversight.

    I definitely don’t have a position on where we should go from here on immigration. I’m not expert in the matter. I’m not an expert in politics, either, but I do have concerns about absolutist constructs that hamstring Ls from being politically relevant.

    Thanks for listening!

  305. robert capozzi

    TK,

    I’ve watched him on rare occasions. I’ve watched Alex Jones, too, and that is pure masochism! 😉

  306. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    May 16, 2018 at 18:55
    dL,

    OK, for your benefit (with any luck), to say that I’m not a cosmotarian because I subscribe to Molyneux’s youtube channel is SO preposterous, mendacious, and childish, I really cannot imagine what has gone wrong with your brain. My fellow cosmotarians may not subscribe to Rachel Maddow, either. It should be self-evident that you’re completely off base here.

    You seem to have done quite a bit of reading, and you seem to know the “rules” and methods of philosophical inquiry in some ways better than me.

    I’ve explained this before, but MAYBE whatever psychological block that you seem to be afflicted with may get unblocked by being challenged. You also seem to have a problem differentiating a question from a position, too. I subscribe to Molyneux because he’s sometimes interesting and sometimes he has interesting guests. Same for Maddow. Both also are excellent communicators, stylistically speaking. I don’t agree with either of them most of the time.

    Cato has had David Brooks and George Soros speak. I saw them there. Is it THAT difficult for you to grok that Cato’s staff are not fans of either Brooks or Soros? I simply can’t imagine how an otherwise intelligent person can’t see that, other than there must be a psychological condition involved, one that I am unfamiliar with.”

    Robert, dL is engaging in typical leftist smear tactics. This is a guilt by association smear. You have watched some Stephan Molyneux videos, and dL perceives Molyneux to be a bad guy, in large part because Molyneux argues against the mass immigration into democratic welfare states agenda, so by watching any of his videos, or worse, enjoying any content that he has ever put out about anything, you are also a bad guy in dL’s deluded mind, never mind the fact that you have said that you have some disagreements with Molyneux.

    My views are probably closer to Molyneux’s than yours are, but I also have a few disagreements with him (most notably when he decided to back Trump (although he’s Canadian, he pumped his campaign), but even he admitted that it was a lesser of two evils decision, as he thought Hillary Clinton was much worse, and he has since been highly critical of some of the things Trump has done while in office). Regardless of my few disagreements with him (and I agree with him more often than not), I still think that he’s an excellent content producer, and that he’s done a lot of good work over the years.

    I have also watched Rachel Maddow, and even though I generally disagree with her, and I do not even like her, on rare occasions even she says something where I agree with her.

    Unlike dL, I can watch or read or listen to something without necessarily agreeing with all of it, or any of it, and I don’t throw a tantrum and automatically devalue everyone with whom I have a disagreement. I can find things to disagree with everyone about, so if I threw a tantrum every time I had a disagreement with somebody, I would not have anyone to support or with whom I could even associate.

    Adam Kokesh and Larken Rose are still among my favorite libertarians even though I disagree with both of them for advocating the “open borders” even though we live in a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and lots of public property position (although Adam’s presidential campaign platform bypasses this issue since he is advocating that the federal government be shut down and all issues would then go back to the states, and Larken does not even support engaging in electoral politics at all).

  307. Andy

    Robert Cappozi said: “Again, let’s keep in mind the very real costs attendant with immigrants. We’ve discussed previously that the net analysis seems to exclude some large public expenditures like education. A big oversight.”

    Bingo! Excellent point.

    There are other costs involved, not to metnion the culture and political impact, as well as the social preferences of the existing population.

  308. Andy

    In the Free Market, May a Businessman Hire Any Immigrant He Chooses?
    By Hans-Hermann Hoppe

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/in-the-free-market-may-a-businessman-hire-any-immigrant-he-chooses/

    From the article: “Thanks to Brian Doherty for his link to my work in his recent essay on immigration. But let me clarify one point with the following, drawn from footnote 23 of my Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem.

    It is incorrect to infer from the fact that an immigrant has found someone willing to employ him that his presence on a given territory must henceforth be considered “invited.” Strictly speaking, this conclusion is true only if the employer also assumes the full costs associated with the importation of his immigrant-employee. This is the case under the much-maligned arrangement of a “factory town” owned and operated by a proprietor. Here, the full cost of employment, the cost of housing, healthcare, and all other amenities associated with the immigrant’s presence, is paid for by the proprietor. No one else’s property is involved in the immigrant-worker settlement. Less perfectly (and increasingly less so), this full-cost-principle of immigration is realized in Swiss immigration policy. In Switzerland immigration matters are decided on the local rather than federal government level, by the local owner-resident community in which the immigrant wants to reside. These owners are interested that the immigrant’s presence in their community increase rather than decrease their property values. In places as attractive as Switzerland, this typically means that the immigrant (or his employer) is expected to buy his way into a community, which often requires multimillion-dollar donations.

    Unfortunately, welfare states are not operated like factory towns or even Swiss communities. Under welfare-statist condition the immigrant employer must pay only a small fraction of the full costs associated with the immigrant’s presence. He is permitted to socialize (externalize) a substantial part of such costs onto other property owners. Equipped with a work permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility: roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private association is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, employment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only partially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invitation), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the invitation whatsoever. This is not an “invitation,” as commonly understood. This is an imposition. It is like inviting immigrant workers to renovate one’s own house while feeding them from other people’s refrigerators. Consequently, because the cost of importing immigrant workers is lowered, more employer-sponsored immigrants will arrive than otherwise. Moreover, the character of the immigrant changes, too. While Swiss communities choose well-heeled, highly value-productive immigrants, whose presence enhances communal property values all-around, employers under democratic welfare State conditions are permitted by state law to externalize their employment costs on others and tend to import increasingly cheap, low-skilled and low value-productive immigrants, regardless of their effect on all-around communal property values.”

  309. Andy

    Speaking of Stefan Molyneux, here is an excellent video he put out recently on demographic studies on support for free speech.

    What happens to freedom of speech when large numbers of people enter the country where you live who don’t believe in freedom of speech?

    The Truth About Freedom of Speech: Trends and Demographics

  310. robert capozzi

    aj: Unlike dL, I can watch or read or listen to something without necessarily agreeing with all of it, or any of it, and I don’t throw a tantrum and automatically devalue everyone with whom I have a disagreement.

    me: That’s among the wisest sentences I’ve ever read of yours. The thing with dL is that his attacks on me are SO absurd and yet he seems to lack the self-awareness to adjust his behavior. I’m worried for him, actually. Something has gone very wrong in his head, by all indications.

    My most benign interpretation is he doesn’t know how to cover his smears with some form of credibility. Or, maybe he’s a 17-year-old boy genius who completely lacks people skills.

    Thankfully, he’s cloaked in a pseudonym, making it easier to view him as a kind of aberrant abstraction.

  311. DJ

    Y’all can argue all the wherefore’s and why withs you want. Bottom line: Adapt or die- in some cases it’s not either or, but both- Indians can attest to that. Migration will never cease no matter how long you hold your breath or stomp your feet or which phobia or straw man you present. Add to that it’s immoral to tell another where he can pursue life- most who come here are running from the totalitarian at home. They come here to get away from it- not perpetuate it. And don’t give me that private property shit. They’re just passing thru in most cases. They come looking for work- that they’re given any handouts is the gov’t at work- punishing the migrant is pissing up a rope, and, Robert’s favorite: punish the many for the actions of a few. There is a much greater and more dangerous to freedom enemy- it ain’t me, those like me, or other commoners- and no it’s not the globalists. This is a global economy we live in- another adapt or die. There are nefarious operators no doubt, but, they aren’t the problem either as far as migration goes. From the south most are trying to get away from the drug problem- created because of the demand here, though it’s spreading, let’s stick to here since this is where we live- the drug problem has gotten to be too lucrative for everyone involved, not to mention extremely dangerous to buck- but, the migrants didn’t cause it.

    The article I posted by Jacob Hornberger says it’s economics- and it is, one way or another. Look at how many have been killed in Mexico. Look at where ms13 originated. Andy mentioned the Russian mafia, I suspect they have an economic tie to the drugs as well- so, what are we to do? Punish the migrants? Separate families? Cause more havoc?

    My point? There is not a one size fits all answer- and, denying people an opportunity is immoral.

    Oh, Andy, does Iceland not have established laws for criminal activity?

  312. Andy

    Here is Lauren Southern speaking about the importance of free speech at a recent event in London, UK. Lauren had to appear via video screen because she is currently banned from entering the United Kingdom for the “crime” of conducting a social experiment, which was inspired by an article someone had written titled, “Jesus Is Gay,” so she decided to see what would happen if she went out in public with a sign and leaflets that said “Allah Is Gay”. She did this and a bunch of Muslims very quickly threw a hissy fit, which led to Lauren being banned from the United Kingdom, even though she has no criminal record, and even though she is a citizen of Canada, which is still a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

    The next time Lauren tried to enter the UK, she was held under some kind of Terrorism Act, and then banned from the country.

    What is really ironic here, is that same government that banned Lauren, who is actually a peaceful and freedom loving person, has allowed the entry of violent, radical Muslim extremists.

    This shows the level of corruption and screwed up priorities of the government in the United Kingdom.

    Lauren is an example of the type of person you want in your society if you value liberty.

    I had the pleasure of meeting Miss Southern in person at the recent Anarchapulco event in Mexico. I am still bummed out that the interview with her that I was going to do did not end up coming together. I last saw her on late Friday afternoon, as she was going to be interviewed by fellow Canadian Josh Sigurson, of World Alternative Media. There was a Ron Paul banquet that night that I heard that all of the speakers who were there were going to attend, so I assume that she went to it, but I did not go to the banquet because I did not want to spend the $140 for it (note that Ron Paul was the last speaker that Friday afternoon in the main conference hall, so I did see Ron Paul there, but unfortunately, I did not get to talk to him, although I did meet him in person in Pennsylvania back in 2008). I had assumed that Lauren was going to be hanging around for two or three more days, but after I interviewed Jeff Berwick on Saturday evening, I asked Berwick if he knew where Lauren Southern was, because she had agreed to do an interview with me, and he informed me that she had flown out on Saturday morning. Oh well, maybe some other time.

    Lauren Southern’s Speech At Day For Freedom

  313. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “me: That’s among the wisest sentences I’ve ever read of yours. The thing with dL is that his attacks on me are SO absurd and yet he seems to lack the self-awareness to adjust his behavior. I’m worried for him, actually. Something has gone very wrong in his head, by all indications.”

    Yes, equating you with David Duke, and saying that you are to the right of David Duke, because David Duke has advocated for “Open Borders for Israel” (which has turned into somewhat of a movement to point out the hypocrisy over the fact that a large percentage of Jewish people (not all of course, but a large percentage) advocate in favor of “open borders” and mass immigration into European based countries, while at the same time supporting a very restrictive “Jews only” immigration policy for Israel), is an absurd, and I’d even say mentally ill sounding, statement.

  314. Andy

    Here is Lauren explaining what led to her getting banned from the UK.

    Lauren Southern: Allah Is Gay’ – Here’s What Happened in Luton

  315. Andy

    Lauren addresses the people who are accusing her of being a hypocrite. I agree with Lauren.

    Lauren Southern: My Hypocrisy on Borders and Immigrants?

  316. Andy

    DJ said: “Migration will never cease no matter how long you hold your breath or stomp your feet or which phobia or straw man you present.”

    Destructive welfare statist migration, as is happening in the USA, Canada, and several countries in Europe,
    like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Sweden, to name a few, is not inevitable.

    Like I have pointed out, Lechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, all of which are in Europe, rate high on the world freedom and prosperity indexes, and none of them are being overrun with destructive foreign migrants. Poland and Hungry are not being overrun by destructive foreign migrants. Japan is not being overrun by foreign migrants. Israel is surrounded by hostile Muslims, yet they are not being overrun by migrants (and when they are, they throw them out).

    There was no big immigration problem in the USA for a long time, not until the seeds were planted for it in the 1960’s. Like I said above, it would not take a big police state to fix it, and my proposals would actually lead to a net decrease in the size of the state.

    ” punishing the migrant is pissing up a rope,”

    That’s a cop out. Just because a politician is offering a welfare handout, it does not mean that people have to take it.

    Also, like I have pointed out before, the statistics clearly indicate that super-majorities of modern day immigrants are in fact using government welfare programs, and voting in favor of bigger government, at a rate that is higher than the existing domestic population, and some immigrant groups do in fact have higher crime rates than a lot of the existing population.

    “There are nefarious operators no doubt, but, they aren’t the problem either as far as migration goes. ”

    The nefarious operators are the source of the problems, but this still does not excuse the destructive foreign migrants.

    ” Look at how many have been killed in Mexico. Look at where ms13 originated. Andy mentioned the Russian mafia, I suspect they have an economic tie to the drugs as well- so, what are we to do?”

    I have been advocating for the War on Drugs to be called off for more than two decades.

    “My point? There is not a one size fits all answer- and, denying people an opportunity is immoral.”

    Nobody is “owed” an opportunity to come to land that is already occupied by other people. That is like saying that you owe it to me for me to have the opportunity to move into your backyard.

    “Oh, Andy, does Iceland not have established laws for criminal activity?”

    The reason that I brought up Iceland, and brought up a hypothetical of lots of Italians, or lots of Russians, moving into Iceland, is because Iceland is a small country that would be easy for a larger country to overwhelm, and Italians and Russians are both European people’s, so people can’t bring up the “racist” argument if I had used say Nigerians and Chinese in this example.

    It is my position that the Icelandic people own Iceland, and it is up to them to decide which foreigners enter their country, and under what conditions.

  317. Andy

    I have posted this here before, and now I am posting it again due to the reference to “Open Borders for Israel” above. A large percentage of Jewish people advocate for “open borders” and mass immigration into European based countries, while at the same time supporting the exact opposite policy for Israel.

    Stefan Molyneux does a great job nailing this hypocrite.

    Stefan Molyneux asks Jewish caller why the hypocrisy on immigration

  318. Andy

    Murray Rothbard was of course an exception to the above post. Kudos to Rothbard for being a man of integrity.

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

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

    Open Borders, or the Camp of-the Saints Problem

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

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

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

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

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

  319. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Andy, quoting Hoppe:

    —–
    It is incorrect to infer from the fact that an immigrant has found someone willing to employ him that his presence on a given territory must henceforth be considered “invited.” Strictly speaking, this conclusion is true only if the employer also assumes the full costs associated with the importation of his immigrant-employee.
    —–

    So, if a campaign in California wants to hire Andy and bring him there to petition, they should have to certify to the state of California that they will cover any and all costs Andy’s presence might conceivably impose on anyone, correct?

    Should that campaign have to post some kind of bond, just in case Andy takes a shit on the sidewalk or throws his fast food bag out the car window, imposing cleanup costs on the local taxpayers?

    Or is this invitation criterion only applicable to other people crossing other gang turf lines, but not to Andy and not to California?

  320. DJ

    Andy: It is my position that the Icelandic people own Iceland, and it is up to them to decide which foreigners enter their country, and under what conditions.

    Me: Does Iceland not have established laws about criminal activity?

    Andy: That’s a cop out. Just because a politician is offering a welfare handout, it does not mean that people have to take it.

    Also, like I have pointed out before, the statistics clearly indicate that super-majorities of modern day immigrants are in fact using government welfare programs, and voting in favor of bigger government, at a rate that is higher than the existing domestic population, and some immigrant groups do in fact have higher crime rates than a lot of the existing population.

    Me: You forgot to react to Capozzi’s favorite: “punish the many for the actions of a few.”
    I also pointed out, in an article I posted weeks ago, that your statistics were inaccurate.

    Andy: The nefarious operators are the source of the problems, but this still does not excuse the destructive foreign migrants.

    Me: Punish the many for the actions of the few. That’s a statist/populist position. Nobody I know said anything about excusing foreign immigrants for what they didn’t do- but, the migrants didn’t make the nefarious nefarious- economic circumstances made both do what they do. The nefarious acting as pure capitalist, the migrants not willing to sell their soul for any reason. They choose instead to take flight where the nefarious are at least held to some written standards, believing it’s easier (and better) to take their chances here than where they are- and yes, migration in inevitable. We’ve been doing it since time began, Andy, to wherever the grass appeared greener. Your straw man arguments aren’t going to change the facts. The people in those country’s didn’t just suddenly appear there. They got there from somewhere.

  321. Seebeck

    >So, yes, I think it is fair question to ask how restriction qualifications factor into a format uniformity style.

    Context =/= format. Simple common sense.

    NEXT!

  322. robert capozzi

    DJ: Capozzi’s favorite: “punish the many for the actions of a few.”

    Me: Have I said that? Have I said that’s my “favorite”?

    I seem to recall you are a fan of truth….

  323. dL

    Or is this invitation criterion only applicable to other people crossing other gang turf lines, but not to Andy and not to California?

    Correct. In that instance it would be a gross violation of free speech imposed by the antifa left.

  324. Seebeck

    No, dL. You do not “got it.”

    Try again, and read closely the difference between the format and the context within that format.

    A restrictions clause is a context. Not a format. That is where you fail.

    Shakespeare wrote a lot of sonnets in iambic pentameter (format), but they told different things (context).

    And no, I am not claiming to be Shakespeare. I have better hair. 😛

  325. Anon-Tipper

    https://www.libertarian.ca/canada_s_immigration_policy_must_aim_to_fulfill_our_economic_needs

    Here’s the Libertarian Party of Canada’s immigration platform, if we don’t safeguard ours, we could end up with this bullshit.

    Our immigration policy should not aim to forcibly change the cultural character and social fabric of Canada, as radical proponents of multiculturalism want. The vast majority of Canadians rightly expect immigrants to learn about our history and culture, master one of our official languages, and adopt widely shared Canadian values such as equality of men and woman, tolerance for diversity and respect for Canadian law.

  326. robert capozzi

    That IS terrible. Culture and politics should not mix. That’s identity politics at its worst.

  327. dL

    Try again, and read closely the difference between the format and the context within that format.

    I might suggest you try again…and come up with a better analogy than 16th century Shakespearean poetry. Submitting, say, a resume in iambic pentameter format as commentary on the distinction between form and substance might be a clever tactic if you were applying for a position in an English Lit department but as debating counterpunch in a discussion about political platform document style, it would be quite lame. Between your comments here and Knapp’s post at his blog, there seems to be marked confusion RE: Chicago Manual Style. I might make a suggestion to consider the more modern wikipedia manual style, a document format style that shouldn’t be confusing to anyone.

  328. Seebeck

    Well, you see dL, that’s why you don’t get it.

    The LP’s documents are bound to CMOS per LP policy, and frankly, “modernness” is your own opinion, and we could care less. CMOS is not confusing at all to those who can read and write proper American English. It is, in fact, a national and international standard for the constructs of the language. Wikipedia? Not even close. You might as well use Strunk with all of its inconsistencies and anachronisms. Formal published documents use CMOS. That’s the reality of the world, and the rality of the world is not Wikipedia.

    Since you don’t seem to understand the difference between WHAT is written (context) and HOW it is written (format)–even though this very WordPress format is an obvious example of HOW it is written and what the comments are is an obvious example of WHAT is written, all right in front of your face–there is really no further sense in engaging you in conversation.

    The bottom line is that I’m correct and you aren’t. Good day.

  329. Seebeck

    >the rality of the world is not Wikipedia.

    *reality.

    This is a perfect example of how the format of writing (in this case, being unable to edit posts) can get in the way of proper context (the typo), but also a perfect example of how they differ.

  330. dL

    CMOS is not confusing at all to those who can read and write proper American English

    lol…Are this much a patronizing, pompous asshole in person?

    Formal published documents use CMOS. That’s the reality of the world, and the rality of the world is not Wikipedia.

    Admittedly, the minutiae of formal style guides isn’t my thing. As a coder, I mostly encounter the wiki style guide in practice. However, it is trivial to verify that while the Chicago Manual of Style is one of the older and more exhaustive guides, it is hardly the only in use for formal publication. The reality here is that you are factually wrong.

    Since you don’t seem to understand the difference between WHAT is written (context) and HOW it is written (format)–even though this very WordPress format is an obvious example of HOW it is written and what the comments are is an obvious example of WHAT is written, all right in front of your face–there is really no further sense in engaging you in conversation.

    Given that I read and write in 10 different programming languages, php/Wordpress included, I can more more definitively ascertain the bullshit in this instance. And given that I have little olfactory tolerance for keyboard shit talkers, further engagement in conversation indeed is not recommended.

  331. Thomas L. Knapp

    CMOS is the party’s style authority, just like RONR is its parliamentary authority. If we edit the platform for style, CMOS is the standard we should edit it to.

    I don’t have to like it (personally I’m used to AP style in journalism, MLA for the academic stuff that I fortunately don’t write much of any more, and Strunk/White in general). It’s CMOS whether I like it or not.

    I’m just glad that we have someone on the committee who’s diligent — nay, obsessive — in getting that end of the work done.

  332. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Care to expand on why this obsessiveness makes you “glad”?

    Say the party’s documents were 100% Knappster (meaning in line with your thinking) in terms of substance but was a linguistic mish-mosh of Strunk, AP, and CMOS, style-wise, would that be better or worse than 70% Knappster/100% CMOS?

  333. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    I’m not sure it’s possible to extricate content from clarity.

    CONTENT:

    When it comes to my job on the platform committee, that job is not to craft a platform that reflects MY values, it’s to craft a platform that reflects THE PARTY’S values (as codified in the Statement of Principles).

    There happens to be substantial overlap between the two sets of values. If there wasn’t, I wouldn’t want to be in the party, let alone on the platform committee. But in a hypothetical conflict between the two sets of values, my justifiable course of action would be to attempt to change the party’s values by campaigning for the national convention to modify the Statement of Principles, not to attempt to just willy-nilly substitute my values for its values in the platform.

    CLARITY:

    Independent of the particular values expressed and advanced, they should be expressed and advanced simply and clearly. People who are not necessarily steeped in long treatises on libertarian theory should be able to consult the platform and come away from it with a solid understanding of what the party stands for and why on any given issue or issues without having to consult a dictionary or spend four hours on a plank. A uniform style is a big part of that simplicity and clarity.

  334. Anthony Dlugos

    unf*cking believable.

    Well, don’t blame Vohra. See, we’re supposed to blame the people who bring up his offensive comments. Its our fault for getting them out into the public sphere.

    Can’t the LNC just run another dismissal vote?

  335. Anon-Tipper

    This meme is getting spread everywhere on social media, at least it seems. I don’t think people realize that Vohra is not white himself, so it’s also being shown as a “white, racist, libertarian meme.” He made this meme awhile ago, right around the last vote, so who knows.

    Outside of the Vohra stuff, there just seems to be an increase in attacks on libertarians, blaming us for nearly everything bad that’s been going on. What’s the coming years going to look for us? A big exodus of people leaving the movement? Or are we going to shed this and move on to better things?

  336. Anon-Tipper

    I had posted this earlier in the month, but there was an old video of Konkin and in part of it he warned that government agents might try to pass themselves off as libertarians to later sabotage us. I’m not conspiratorial, I think the vast majority of our problems are caused by us being idiots, but it makes me paranoid.

  337. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Thanks for the clarification. For me, S&W, CMOS, or AP are a third matter, something like “technical consistency.” All three seem more-or-less equally clear. The differences are well past the point of diminishing returns when choosing one or the other. Choosing one over the other seems reasonable to me, though.

    With the depth charges put in place by the 88 20-somethings plus Hospers, they made modification all but impossible, it seems. I suspect there will be more willy-nilly attempts to bring the LP back from the fringe. This alt-right incursion we’re hearing of may see attempts to substitute a different kind of fringy thinking to the platform and general public stance vis-a-vis hater candidates. And it appears Vohra has done “great” work in assuring a reinvigorated push to further fringify the LP.

    Color me disappointed.

  338. Anthony Dlugos

    1) its definitely not some kind of government conspiracy. Its just idiots acting like idiots.

    2) I wouldn’t get too worked up about social media. Most people spend very little time on it, so stuff like this is practically unknown in the country at large, and therefore the permanent damage is minimal. Vohra will be gone soon enough.

    3) Sunshine is the best disinfectant. For now, the more that stuff like this gets out, the better. It demonstrates to party members in living color how damaging bad p.r. is. It hurts now, but the party will learn who not to trust, and how to create internal structures/processes to ensure folks like this don’t rise to leadership positions.

  339. Anthony Dlugos

    Its probably is lame attempt to drive business to his “school.”

  340. robert capozzi

    Just curious: Does Vohra actually believe he’s persuading anyone with that nonsense? Is this some sort of sick cadre-building exercise, a kind of dogmatic hazing ritual? Anyone have insight into the dude’s motives?

  341. Anon-Tipper

    Its just idiots acting like idiots.

    Don’t worry, I’m not going full Andy lol.

    I wouldn’t get too worked up about social media.

    You’re right, I didn’t use social media until very recently, so I’m not used to the barrage of nonsense. I posted a few more of his memes, maybe he’s giving the party a PR lesson and we’ll thank him in the end.

  342. Anon-Tipper

    Anyone have insight into the dude’s motives?

    A lot of the comments are asking if he’s having a breakdown lol.

  343. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    As I mentioned before, this is only what I would call an educated guess on my part:

    Sometime around the 2016 convention, he posted a well written argument from a pragmatic perspective about why Gary Johnson was the best choice for the nomination, since he was the best man for the actual job on the other side of the presidential election.

    In January of 2017, he suddenly announced…I forgot where…that it was time for the Libertarian Party to be unrepentant “bold” and stop “pussyfooting around” with a moderate message.

    Since then its been non-stop self-aggrandizing, attention-grabbing idiocy. Some people have suggested that he saw the pragmatic/moderate messaging of the J-W campaign, and was convinced bold radicalism is our only option. However, even from a radical perspective, his messaging in these last 15 months is poor and counterproductive.

    On the other hand, it does make some sense from the perspective of simply drawing attention to yourself, no matter good or bad.

    There is one guy in the “liberty movement” leadership who operated with that attitude: Austin Petersen.

    So, my educated guess is that either Vohra saw what Petersen was able to accomplish with such an attitude (look how much he raised in his US Senate primary campaign), or Petersen himself explained to Vohra that the only way he was going to extract value from the position he is in was to go into full-on bombthrowing mode. the more offensive the better. The only thing that counts in that world is social media attention, even if its 1,000 dislikes for every like.

    That’s my guess.

  344. Anthony Dlugos

    I don’t know what his “school” is. I think it a tutoring service or something.

  345. Anon-Tipper

    Some people have suggested that he saw the pragmatic/moderate messaging of the J-W campaign, and was convinced bold radicalism is our only option. However, even from a radical perspective, his messaging in these last 15 months is poor and counterproductive.

    Yeah, the problem is that it’s just so fucking dumb. He could make posts about ICE, police shootings, border patrol, wars, etc. all those are radical messages. He could make his public school memes less idiotic, he could make it about the public school system’s history of racism, instead of comparing school teachers to nazis.

  346. dL

    And now Vohra’s meme is getting pinned on the LP as a whole:

    Btw, my tweet got a bunch of likes, too

    Bottom line: the reason there isn’t greater ethnic diversity in the LP is because of libertarian-conservative fusionism, something that Cato has had quite a bit to do with.

  347. Anthony Dlugos

    And if you think Boaz’s comment is anywhere close to as damaging as any of Vohra’s lunacy, then…well, I’d once again suggest that electoral politics ain’t for you.

    Frankly, Boaz’s comment is just the sort of statement that might draw small government types into looking at the LP, regardless of what Reagan’s record in office was.

    I think Vohra’s comments may repulse anyone who isn’t an ornery macho-flasher or a sociopath.

  348. dL

    Outside of the Vohra stuff, there just seems to be an increase in attacks on libertarians, blaming us for nearly everything bad that’s been going on. What’s the coming years going to look for us? A big exodus of people leaving the movement? Or are we going to shed this and move on to better things?

    Because Donald Trump is shredding the rhetorical veneer off what the State–particularly the American state–is:

    state of exception necro-politics(Giorgio Agamben, Achille Mbembe, Anthony de Jasay)

    The civil religion(American Exceptionalism) is exposed as rotten to the core. The world needs scapegoats. I mean, what do you expect them to do? Nod their heads, “yep, the state is the organization of plunder and mass murder” and go home?

  349. Anon-Tipper

    Bottom line: the reason there isn’t greater ethnic diversity in the LP is because of libertarian-conservative fusionism, something that Cato has had quite a bit to do with.

    Yup, this was inevitable teaming up with them. The trick is getting them to leave. At least to me, it seems a number of them now prefer “classical liberal.”

    https://www.facebook.com/592589870775439/photos/a.592592887441804.1073741828.592589870775439/1596051873762562/?type=3&theater

    https://www.facebook.com/592589870775439/photos/a.592592887441804.1073741828.592589870775439/1662266270474455/?type=3

  350. robert capozzi

    AD: …if you think…

    Me: You may come to the same realization as I have that that assumption is incorrect with the deflecting pseudonym. All malice and no good will does not make for a person to be communicated with. An energy drain if there ever was one.

  351. Anthony Dlugos

    there is some kind of serious disconnect/organic brain disease in his head if he honestly thinks there is any level of equivalence between the Boaz quote on Reagan and any of Vohra’s inflammatory comments.

  352. dL

    And if you think Boaz’s comment is anywhere close to as damaging as any of Vohra’s lunacy, then…well, I’d once again suggest that electoral politics ain’t for you.

    All due respect Dlugos, you ain’t the go to source for what the african amertican community thinks of Reagan. Donald Trump did better with the black voter in 2016 than Reagan in 1984.

    Frankly, Boaz’s comment is just the sort of statement that might draw small government types into looking at the LP, regardless of what Reagan’s record in office was.

    And I would suggest a “strategy” of trying to peel off the long tail of the limited government white voter is the worst thing one could do.

  353. Anthony Dlugos

    “All due respect Dlugos, you ain’t the go to source for what the african amertican community thinks of Reagan. Donald Trump did better with the black voter in 2016 than Reagan in 1984.”

    All due respect, if you think a political party calling racism okay is a way to attract African Americans, you might have that organic brain disease I referred to.

  354. dL

    All due respect, if you think a political party calling racism okay is a way to attract African Americans, you might have that organic brain disease I referred to.

    Not what I said. What I did say is that quoting Ronald Reagan makes your party look racist to African Americans.

  355. Anthony Dlugos

    who cares what you said? You ain’t the vice chair.

    This is a comparison of what Vohra said and what Boaz said.

    Your comparison of what Boaz said to what Vohra said is the worst case of “Whataboutism” I have ever heard.

  356. Anon-Tipper

    Anthony,

    Frankly, Boaz’s comment is just the sort of statement that might draw small government types into looking at the LP

    I know a number of people that left conservatism because the views repulsed them and that’s not the group that’s a problem, it’s the people that have come under the false delusion that conservatism and libertarianism are synonymous and then trying to pass off border control and “reactionary” social views (anti-trans, anti-gay, not caring about police brutality, etc.) as libertarian. ”

    Cato has a number of articles critical of Reagan and fusionism. I think a number of people at Cato are pretty aware of the problems with conservative fusionism, and will (hopefully) shift their messaging and outreach attempts (the tweet I posted was from someone at Cato). On the other hand, we should be critical of people in the movement and point out where “strategical” errors were made (like the Reagan article above). Cato, overall, doesn’t really worry me on this front, they seem to be hated by the alt-right for being “SJWs.”

    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ronald-reagan-was-no-libertarian

    Here’s a debate they had:

    https://www.cato-unbound.org/print-issue/1588

    And this quote is pretty good advice for us:

    David Boaz of the Cato Institute made a very insightful comment at the 2013 International SFL Conference that explains why young libertarians are so concerned about social issues and as such are moving away from conservative fusionism:

    The Republican party reacted very negatively when black people started demanding their civil rights. And now republicans wonder why black people do not want to vote for them. The Republican Party reacted very negatively when women started demanding the right to have careers and be involved in politics and economic life. And now republicans are reacting really really negatively to gay people demanding simple legal equality. Equality under the law. So my advice if there are any republicans watching is: don’t do the things today that will cause you 20 years from now to say “how come gay people won’t vote for us?

    This is a fundamental problem for the conservative movement, and why libertarians would do well to put distance between our two camps. Libertarians should not remain silent on social issues or allow ourselves to be placed “on the right,” for that is a losing brand saddled with intolerance and hypocrisy.

  357. dL

    you might have that organic brain disease I referred to.

    lol…all these internet keyboard shit talkers, god luv ya.

  358. Anthony Dlugos

    Anon,

    Boaz’s comment was specifically about Reagan, not the republican party. Reagan was not that bad on immigration, witness his 1986 “amnesty.”

    I don’t think Boaz’s comment is any sort of entryism into another attempt at libertarian-conservative fusionism. Its a relatively innocuous comment and if anything trite.

    Vohra’s stuff is kamikaze idiocy. If we actually DID have someone in a federal public office, any one of Vohra’s comments would have sunk their re-elections chances. Boaz’s wouldn’t.

  359. Anthony Dlugos

    “lol…all these internet keyboard shit talkers, god luv ya.”

    Fine, no problem. Your brain is in fine working order and you legitimately tried to make an equivalency between the Boaz quote about Reagan and the Vohra quote that Blank tweeted.

    Frankly, that’s worse.

  360. Anon-Tipper

    Anthony,

    I think I worded my comment wrong. I agree that Boaz isn’t even comparable to Vohra or has any malintent (unlike the LvMI’s brand of “fusionism”). And you can see in that quote that he’s been very critical of fusionism.

    My concern has been the conservatives leveraging libertarian praise of some of their policies/people/etc. and then trying to pass themselves off as libertarian. (“the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”).

  361. Anthony Dlugos

    fair enough, Anon.

    I’ll say this also: Boaz is with the Cato Institute, not the Libertarian Party.

    I would object to anyone running as a Libertarian or in Libertarian leadership saying the same thing.

  362. Anon-Tipper

    I would object to anyone running as a Libertarian or in Libertarian leadership saying the same thing.

    Saying the same thing as Vohra?

  363. Andy

    Protecting property rights, ie-border patrol, ie-repealing/kicking out/not rewarding with taxpayer benefits and citizenship, foreign nationals who pose a threat to life, liberty, and property, should not be regarded as a “right”/conservative or “left”/liberal issue. It is a property rights issue, and this would remain valid even in a private property anarcho-capitalist society.

    People on the left generally take stands for equal rights for gays and women. How are rights for gays and women protected in Muslim societies? How do you expect civil liberties for gays and women to be upheld if a large Muslim population comes into a country?

    I am a big proponent filling informing jurors about the right of jury nullification. What do you think would happen if a violent crime against somebody who is gay, or a women, were committed, and a person was on trial for it, and the jury pool was selected out of a heavily Muailm area, where it is widely believed that it is OK to committee violent acts against gays and women?

    If you want to live in a free society, you need to live around a super-majority of people who want the same thing, and you won’t have freedom, or even what passes for it now in the present day USA, if you are surrounded by people with Marxist or theocratic or other totalitarian ideologies, So while the state exists, its immigration and Naturalization policy ought to reflect this.

  364. Anthony Dlugos

    Saying the same thing as Boaz, and DEFINITELY saying the same thing as Vohra.

  365. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Trite? Yes. Boaz said Reagan was “eloquent” and a “spokesman” for “limited government.” That’s pretty friggin’ hard to deny, except for those with broken brains.

    The mendacity continues, as the same Boaz essay said:

    “His actions in office did not always fulfill those promises. Government spending continued to grow, there was little devolution of power to the states, and the cost of federal regulation continued to increase. Instead of abolishing two Cabinet departments, as he had promised (Education and Energy), he created one (Veterans Affairs). We owe to him the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, neither of whom shared his commitment to liberty and limited government.”

    Personally, I would not use the term “commitment to liberty,” but rather I’d suggest something like “frequent praise for freedom and liberty,” as “commitment” seems overstated.

    Taking things out of context on a regular basis and then deflecting when one is caught doing so is, again, not worth my time. Maybe it is for you. To each his own.

  366. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “Trite? Yes. Boaz said Reagan was “eloquent” and a “spokesman” for “limited government.” That’s pretty friggin’ hard to deny, except for those with broken brains.”

    Agreed, 100.

    “Taking things out of context on a regular basis and then deflecting when one is caught doing so is, again, not worth my time. Maybe it is for you. To each his own.”

    I’ve noticed that predilection, too. Maybe the only difference is that I find it worth just a little time.

  367. Anon-Tipper

    Saying the same thing as Boaz, and DEFINITELY saying the same thing as Vohra.

    Oh okay, yeah I agree!

  368. dL

    who cares what you said? You ain’t the vice chair.

    So, deflect before pivoting to accuse me of deflecting. That’s so Trumpist of you.

    Your comparison of what Boaz said to what Vohra said is the worst case of “Whataboutism” I have ever heard.

    Given that you apparently don’t know the definition of ““Whataboutism,” that’s hardly an indictment.

    Whataboutism: logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument

    I’ve been a long critic of conservative fusionism, I’ve criticized Vohra’s social conservatism, and I was the first on this board(weeks ago) to point out Vohra’s inflammatory statement in question when he first made it. The fact that I pointed out the hypocrisy of Cato’s “the pot calling the kettle black” does not convict me of whataboutism. The fact that you think it does perhaps suggest this condition of “organic brain disease” you are throwing around is merely the happenstance of having an IQ > 85.

    The fact is that arguing with you often time is comparable to arguing with a 5th grader whose sole cognitive capability is repeating what his dad told him. You have no knowledge of political philosophy, political science, math or stats, and yet you keep chirping authoritatively about ‘electoral politics” when you have neither the knowledge nor the experience to back it up.

    No one knows who Vohra is. But people do know who Cato is, and the overwhelming perception of that group is a right-leaning organization aligned with the republican party that’s in the business of influencing the direction of GOP policy. It is more or less the same perception as the Koch brothers.

  369. Anthony Dlugos

    “Whataboutism: logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.”

    That’s what you did.

    i’m beginning to think you are just not as smart as you think you are, or I thought you were.

  370. robert capozzi

    AD: …just not as smart as you think you are…

    Me: Nor as fun as Vermin Supreme. Him I’d have time for! He doesn’t hide his insanity. He has fun with it!

  371. Anon-Tipper

    The civil religion(American Exceptionalism) is exposed as rotten to the core. The world needs scapegoats. I mean, what do you expect them to do? Nod their heads, “yep, the state is the organization of plunder and mass murder” and go home?

    Yeah, there has been a huge amount of blame shifting since the election. I’m not confident that anyone will come out on the other end of the 2016 election and honestly look at their idiotic nonsense.

  372. dL

    That’s what you did.

    No, that is not what I did. Let us recall the original tweet by Blanks.

    I’ve written thousands of words on why there aren’t more black libertarians.
    This facebook post from the vice-chair of the Libertarian Party reminds me I only needed one: libertarians.

    My response:


    “Ronald Reagan was the most eloquent spokesman for limited government of our time.”

    David Boaz
    executive vice president of the Cato Institute

    FYI: That doesn’t help much either

    Meaning: Conservative fusionism is the reason for the lack of ethnic diversity in libertarianism. And the fault with that lies much more with the likes of Cato than the LP. Cato, under now disgraced leadership of Ed Crane, was a primary proponent of “libertarianism for the serious people,” i.e, attaining status and influence by aligning with the GOP.

    For the record: I agree that lack of ethnic diversity within libertarianism((in the United States, at least) is a problem. That’s why I place a primary emphasis on criminal justice reform and immigration over things like FCC deregulation. That’s why you never catch me saying stupid shit like Trump’s FCC chairman is a move in a libertarian direction. That’s partly why I insist that continuing to nominate GOP has-beens is not the way forward. That’s partly why I warn that Cato, Blanks’ tweet notwithstanding, will be pushing the next round of GOP has-beens(either Weld or Jeff Flake) for the next LP presidential nomination.

  373. robert capozzi

    Anon,

    MNR’s Leninist strategy memo has been available for some years online. There are at least two versions: With and without the Lenin part.

    I embarrassingly admit that I once found it highly persuasive. I guess I wanted to be an inner-circle cadre. 🙁

  374. Anon-Tipper

    I didn’t know that (Ganz is claiming that he’s revealing something libertarians tried to hide lol), there’s a reference to it on mises.org, and it looks he had used parts of it in Ethics of Liberty.

    There’s also parts about the nazis and how marxist analysis failed to capture how the nazi movement even happened, or what segments of society it appealed to. And that libertarians should focus on people oppressed through government action (good vs. bad guys dichotomy).

    I might give it a read over just to see what the hype is about (Wilkinson had also referenced this as proof that his former employer admired the nazis)

  375. Anon-Tipper

    Towards the end Rothbard states that libertarianism will win in the end because it’s the only thing that works. Okay….

    It certainly makes us look way more organized and secretive than we really are.

  376. robert capozzi

    Anon,

    For me, this all reads like the work of a sick, delusional mind. This is the sick mind that was instrumental, iirc, in crafting the so-called “Dallas Accord.” I’m shocked that this “Accord” holds sway over a potentially positive force for good, and yet it does.

    Sad.

  377. Anon-Tipper

    For me, this all reads like the work of a sick, delusional mind.

    Yeah, the memo feels all over the place. I don’t think anyone really takes it serious as a guide to change society in a libertarian direction. Which is probably the funniest party because it’s being touted that this memo is what we’re following.

  378. Anon-Tipper

    https://www.npr.org/2018/05/17/611798012/breaking-with-trumps-gop-koch-brothers-praise-democrats-on-immigration

    This might be a good thing. Issues we should shift to focus on.

    In recent years the Koch network has pursued issues such as criminal justice reform, letting terminally ill patients try experimental medical interventions, and protecting DREAMers — immigrants in the U.S. who were brought to the country as children — which draws interest from both sides of the aisle.

  379. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’m not sure how a Cato staffer noticing Vohra on his Twitter feed really amounts to public exposure. A movement guy at a movement org noticing movement stuff. Whodathunkit?

    Or that said Cato staffer would have noticed it absent the “OH MY GOD WHAT IF SOMEONE NOTICES THIS — HEY, EVERYONE, NOTICE THIS!” crowd who fell for the scheme to use Vohra as a vector of attack on the party after Sarwark proved to be made of Teflon.

    As it happens, I completely disagree with Vohra on the notion that that particular statement was likely to be helpful, but at this point I can’t begrudge him going ahead and pouring gasoline on the flames lit by others. They wanted to create some smoke using him. One way to discourage that is to be willing to say “OK, you wanted to play with fire, I’ll burn the fucking house down — how do you feel about it now?”

  380. DJ

    TK: “OK, you wanted to play with fire, I’ll burn the fucking house down — how do you feel about it now?”

    Me: LOL. Man after my own heart.

  381. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If you want to live in a free society, you need to live around a super-majority of people who want the same thing”

    Agreed. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any legal procedure for deporting you to North Korea.

  382. dL

    Agreed.

    The “freedom” to live in a society where everyone wants the same thing is totalitarianism. So, yeah, North Korea would be a fine choice.

  383. dL

    I’m not sure how a Cato staffer noticing Vohra on his Twitter feed really amounts to public exposure. A movement guy at a movement org noticing movement stuff. Whodathunkit?

    It’s a “chattering class” exposure, which for them is the same thing as public exposure. Now I do follow Blanks on twitter, and to be fair to him, increasing minority participation within libertarianism is a long running theme for him. Unlike someone like, say, a Will Wilkinson, I don’t think he wasn’t trying to opportunistically trigger a “gotcha” outcry.

    As it happens, I completely disagree with Vohra on the notion that that particular statement was likely to be helpful, but at this point I can’t begrudge him going ahead and pouring gasoline on the flames lit by others. They wanted to create some smoke using him. One way to discourage that is to be willing to say “OK, you wanted to play with fire, I’ll burn the fucking house down — how do you feel about it now?”

    I agree, that’s the context. And contrary to our esteemed CMOS resident guru, the context of what is said is not always encapsulated by what is written on the piece of paper in front of you. Given that very few are aware of the context(or would give a rat’s ass about becoming aware of it), Arvin’s “macho flash” statements are not helpful…

  384. dL

    Someone has posted Rothbard’s internal memo “Toward a Strategy for Libertarian Social Change.”

    Enough of it has been floating about in disparate places for some time to already know what that document contains without even having to read it. That is, if you were a curious fellow. For example, I wrote an old post back in 2010 criticizing the “cadre movement” nonsense.

    [Paleo Authoritarianism]
    https://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/paleo-authoritarianism/

    The Stalinist/Leninist tactics, the cult of personality/cadre dear movement leader stuff…blah/blah. It’s not for nothing that one might call, say, Justin Raimondo, a Stalinist, or take note that the paleo vs neocon beef often seems to resemble a lenin v trostsky retread. But now you know why Rothbard eulogized che guevara or why when the paleos find their man, be it Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul or Trump, they stick to him like stink on shit.

  385. Andy

    Tom, your statement is completely idiotic. There is not anyone who posts here who is more pro-freedom than I am.

    I will be at the LP National Convention in New Orleans. I put out an open challenge for anyone reading this to debate me in person, and I will have a video camera with me, and I will post the result online.

  386. Andy

    Notice how Tom skipped over my comments where I asked how you could have fully informed jury trials with a large population of Muslims, a large percentage of whom believe that violence against gays and women is OK. Tom conveniently skipped this because it shatters his leftist fantasyland.

    Say your daughter got raped, or your gay friend got beaten up just for being gay. Would you want to have the jury pool chosen out of a large Muslim population?

    Also, what I said above about how if you want freedom, you need to live around people who also want it, is the entire point of the Free State Project, Liberland, and the Free Society organization started by Roger Ver.

  387. Andy

    Idiotic statement from dL.

    I meant wants the same thing as in a society of people who agree to live by the Non-Aggression Principle. I did not mean that they would all have the same tastes or interests or all do the same things. My words were pretty clear.

    How are you going to achieve a free society if you are surrounded by people with Marxist or theocratIc or other totalitarian ideologies?

  388. Anon-Tipper

    The Stalinist/Leninist tactics, the cult of personality/cadre dear movement leader stuff…blah/blah. It’s not for nothing that one might call, say, Justin Raimondo, a Stalinist, or take note that the paleo vs neocon beef often seems to resemble a lenin v trostsky retread. But now you why Rothbard eulogized che guevara or why when the paleos find their man, be it Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul or Trump, they stick to him like stink on shit.

    Thanks, just read through the post. Basically what I noticed with that group over the years (just look at the Mises Caucus lol). They’re still trying to ride the Ron Paul “revolution” nonsense a decade out. I’m not sure if we’ll see it, but my hope is now that they’ve stuck to Trump, a couple of the bigger names (Molymeme, etc.) denounced libertarianism we’ll see this group get smaller. It’s basically the defection problem Rothbard talked about. They’re such creeps.

  389. Anon-Tipper

    As it happens, I completely disagree with Vohra on the notion that that particular statement was likely to be helpful, but at this point I can’t begrudge him going ahead and pouring gasoline on the flames lit by others. They wanted to create some smoke using him. One way to discourage that is to be willing to say “OK, you wanted to play with fire, I’ll burn the fucking house down — how do you feel about it now?”

    No one cares that Vohra is doing some performance art. It likely wouldn’t have been passed around on twitter, etc. if it wasn’t about racism and white-nationalism because that’s the issue everyone wants to pin on libertarians. His other nonsense didn’t really make it outside of libertarian movement circles.

    Besides the fact that he is most likely purposefully doing this, it’s just not even good, it’s not like Vermin Supreme or Weeks stripping, or just making “radical” statements to piss people off, he stating that nazis are better than public school teachers.

  390. Anon-Tipper

    Now I do follow Blanks on twitter, and to be fair to him, increasing minority participation within libertarianism is a long running theme for him. Unlike someone like, say, a Will Wilkinson

    This is an important part of this. He wasn’t aiming to create an outrage, but to criticize.

  391. Andy

    Saying that everyone wants to pin racism or white nationalism on libertarians is such a gross exaggeration that it illustrates that whoever this Anon-Tipper character is, they do not live in the real world.

    I have been involved with the Libertarian Party and movement since 1996, and I have heard lots of accusations thrown at libertarians. Yes, racism is one (which is fueled in part by libertarians opposition to Affirmative Action), but it is not the most common accusation, and it is not a new accusation either. Some people do not like libertarians because they say we are a bunch of hedonists who only care about sex and drugs. Some people do not like libertarians because they say we are out for the rich and do not care about the poor. Some people do not like libertarians because they think libertarians are crazy people who do not want to live by any rules. Some people do not like libertarians because they favor the status quo with the major parties, and they think that libertarians just get in the way and muck up the political process.

    I have talked about the Libertarian Party, or libertarianism, with more people than just about anyone, or maybe anyone (if I am not number #1 on this list, I would still have to be pretty high on it), and the “libertarians are racist” accusation only comes up once in awhile, and like I said, it is not a new accusation, as there were people who made this accusation years ago.

    The word libertarian has become much better known than it was say 15 or 20 years ago, but there are still people out there who have heard the word libertarian, but who have misconceptions about what it means (I still encounter people who think that Bernie Sanders and/or Ralph Nader are libertarians), and I also still encounter people who are not familiar with the word libertarian at all.

    Reality is that libertariansism is about property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle, so it can accommodate people with a wide variety of views, including people who are racist, provided that they do not engage in coercive acts against the person or property of others. People can hold a wide variety of views and be libertarians so long as they adhere to the concepts of property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle.

  392. Anon-Tipper

    Andy, I’m referring to social media and political circles, this accusation comes up a lot. We also have a “real-world” issue with a segment of the libertarian movement attaching to Trump and entryism like what happened in the Florida affiliate.

    You can see right on this site this problem: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/09/paul-frankel-why-libertarians-need-to-denounce-the-alt-right-and-white-nationalists-and-dont-need-to-worry-about-libertarian-socialists-and-antifa/

    I’ve heard the above accusations (we’re hedonists, crazy, etc) a million times too, it doesn’t detract from the pressing problem that we’re getting associated with racism and the alt-right.

  393. Anon-Tipper

    (forgot to add) I don’t necessarily disagree with you in that I think a lot of this is just amplified on social media. I don’t see these accusations nearly as much from normal/not super engaged political people. And that part is a good thing, everything isn’t lost and there’s still a lot of activism and engagement we can do.

  394. DJ

    A-T: We also have a “real-world” issue with a segment of the libertarian movement attaching to Trump

    Me: As opposed to the Pelosi’s or Clinton’s or Schumer’s or Graham’s or McCain’s or that dumb ass that thought an island would tip over or the Maxine Waters or Sheila Jackson Lee’s- or Ted Kennedy’s to name a few off the top of my head.

  395. Anon-Tipper

    lol. I know our problems are definitely not as great as the shit that comes out of the D’s and R’s. We’re scrutinized more because we’re outsiders. I think it’s healthy for us though to be aware of how we come off (conservative fusionism) and to be more willing to dissociate from terrible people (alt-right entryism).

    I don’t think I’m far from the only libertarian pointing out problems within our movement, and maybe we’re doing something right in that we’re pointing out these things way before they escalate into someone horrible gaining power under our banner. I want us to grow, expand, and bring in more and different people.

    I think we definitely should shift our focus, as dL stated above:

    I agree that lack of ethnic diversity within libertarianism((in the United States, at least) is a problem. That’s why I place a primary emphasis on criminal justice reform and immigration over things like FCC deregulation.

  396. Andy

    Anon-Tipper, like I said above, you need to get out in the real world more often. I gathered thousands of signatures for LP ballot access last year in Ohio and Arkansas, and keep in mind that not everyone signs, so the number who I spoke to is many times larger than the thousands of signatures I collected. I rarely heard any “libertarians are racist” accusations. Also, keep in mind that I have been involved with this stuff for a long time. The “libertarians are racist” accusation does not come up any more often now than it did 15 or 20 plus years ago.

    You going on some social media site is hardly a reflective sampling of the general public.

  397. Anon-Tipper

    Andy, I didn’t say just social media. I also pointed out that we have a non-social media generated problem with getting associated with racism and the alt-right. And we still have a problem with ethnic diversity in the movement. I agreed that it’s less wide spread than it can seem, but it’s still present and holds back the movement.

    These talks/articles weren’t posted because they’re delusional: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/08/lsla-2017-physically-removed-so-to-speak-making-the-lp-inhospitable-to-the-alt-right-and-other-nazis/

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/chuck-moulton-lp-conventions-avoid-alt-right-white-supremacist-event-speakers/

  398. Thomas L. Knapp

    “There is not anyone who posts here who is more pro-freedom than I am.”

    Then feel free to start acting like it any time. Immigration authoritarians are not pro-freedom any more than any other kind of authoritarian is.

  399. DJ

    A-T: lol. I know our problems are definitely not as great as the shit that comes out of the D’s and R’s.

    Me: But you brought up Trump as though he’s worse than anyone I mentioned- when clearly he isn’t. And no I don’t support Trump, but I get real tired of the leftist (that would be the opposite of the rightist) acting like their shit don’t stink, when clearly it does, regardless of their political label, Libertarian included.

    The Libertarian “problems” are no different than the the R or D problems. Everyone wants to argue about who is purest or whatever doctrine/belief is the real deal- same argument, just different words. That’s what happens when a collective mentality gets involved- for or against. If for today you can’t be tomorrow. If against today you are for tomorrow. Its bullshit. Everyone is concerned about public opinion except a few and they are crucified. FYI, diversity means accepting everybody. Excluding means everybody except- in y’all’s case anyone not on the left of the political spectrum. I ain’t. I won’t be. But, I am a libertarian, not a Libertarian. I’m also a republican not a Republican. The left is what’s brought this country to its knees from BOTH sides of the aisle which exists only to divide (as in exclude) the citizens. The left has controlled the agenda of politics since at least 1913. The left has always controlled education(?). The left has always controlled the media. The hypocrisy of the leftist is disgusting.

    Political party’s are like a religion. No better no worse. But, some pratitioners believe they are holier than thou and denounce anyone they perceive as not pure enough. SMH- forest, trees. Mirrors, don’t go around them- they crack and create one sided conversations with narrow minded walls….. SMH

  400. Anon-Tipper

    DJ, I’m unsure where I claimed that anyone that’s not a leftist wasn’t welcome. I’m pretty sure a lot of leftists wouldn’t consider me one. The main problems I think are with conservative fusionism where conservatives trying to make their views “libertarian” views (ex. Border control) and with alt-right entryism. That’s obviously not everyone right of leftists. I don’t know how pointing out problems with a movement I identify with (libertarianism) is me pretending to have the moral high ground since I’m pointing out that we’re not perfect.

  401. Anon-Tipper

    (To add to after “main problems…”) and us getting associated with conservatism’s problems (this was mentioned in a quote I posted from Boaz, so I guess he also wants everyone right of “leftism” out of libertarianism?)

  402. Anon-Tipper

    The democrats are brutally betraying their constituencies…

    Yeah, Democratic #resistance has always been a joke.

  403. DJ

    A-T: I don’t know how pointing out problems with a movement I identify with (libertarianism) is me pretending to have the moral high ground since I’m pointing out that we’re not perfect.

    A-T: but my hope is now that they’ve stuck to Trump

    Me: It’s not just you but you gave me an opportunity. You brought up a name of a person- not an involvement, though you did post 2 links. I could supply an entire dissertation of leftist assertions here- but, I know most people have the attention of a gnat so I’ll try to keep it succinct.

    Fusion(ism) is the major Party apparatus adopting the 60’s neo-liberal policiy beilefs = Neocon of today.
    It is an Imperialist (holier than thou) moral high ground belief and BOTH Party leaders subscribe to it.

    Voters lean left or right- very little “fusion”. The media assigns labels. Voters accept them because they’re ignorant of the Truth. You want to fight the fusion- fight major Party leaders on BOTH sides by pointing out actions vs rhetoric. There is no discernible difference, except rhetoric. Party leaders do what they’re told to by their controllers- the MIC and the fed reserve who finances it. The Think Tanks are supported by donations- by definition that would create a “fusion” since they have a variety of opinions that can be ‘sold’ as something other than what it is.

    The “problem” in the Libertarian Party is the Libertarian Party- not outsiders.

  404. Anon-Tipper

    DJ,
    The Libertarian Party has issues outside of conservative fusionism. This doesn’t make conservative fusionism not a problem (for both the movement and the party). I posted a quote above on why conservative fusionism is bad just by association for libertarianism (see the cato unbound link above). There is also the problem of fusionism changing libertarianism. See this talk Roderick Long gave (I believe I posted this before in this thread):

    https://mises.org/library/rothbards-left-and-right-forty-years-later

    But for Rothbard, “Spencer’s tired shift ‘rightward’ in strategy soon became a shift rightward in theory as well.” And many of Spencer’s libertarian contemporaries agreed

    The quote above about the paleos and “Libertarians for Trump” is more about the Rothbard “cadre-movement” stuff and hero worship (similar to them with Ron Paul).

  405. Anthony Dlugos

    “The “problem” in the Libertarian Party is the Libertarian Party- not outsiders.“

    Well, that’s true.

  406. Anon-Tipper

    “The “problem” in the Libertarian Party is the Libertarian Party- not outsiders.“
    Well, that’s true.

    It’s undeniably true, just look at us lol. It’s just separate from the fusionism/philosophical discussion.

  407. Anthony Dlugos

    “The Libertarian Party has issues outside of conservative fusionism. This doesn’t make conservative fusionism not a problem (for both the movement and the party). ”

    That is 100% correct as well. Its the libertarian version of missing the forest for the trees.

    A political party that draws up its platform so as not to upset the Dallas Accord has much bigger problems than fusionism. Anarchism…even just not disavowing it…has a downstream effect on our messaging that permanently rules us out for 99% of the American public, rules out qualified candidates from defecting to the LP, rules out the major funding we need to build the infrastructure necessary for a major political party.

    This reality has no bearing on whether or not anarchism is right or theoretically possible eons down the line. Just that actually suggesting that COULD be the end result of our baby steps in the direction of libertarianism puts us about three standard deviations outside the Overton Window of voters/potential voters.

  408. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Just that actually suggesting that COULD be the end result of our baby steps in the direction of libertarianism puts us about three standard deviations outside the Overton Window of voters/potential voters.”

    Referencing statistical terms to disguise the fact that one is peddling a knee-jerk fantasy without a shred of evidence for it in fact or reality is an oldie but a goodie.

  409. Anthony Dlugos

    Look at the percentages Johnson got in 2012 and 2016, and what Perry got in 2016. In a room full of the most dedicated libertarians in the country. I’d say Perry’s 6% in Orlando probably indicates 3 standard deviations in the general public is an underestimate.

    Leave that aside for the moment. I’ve never seen any poll in my life, likely voters or otherwise, that even asks not just how many Americans are theoretical anarchists, but how many of them want anarchism instituted now. I’ll bet there are more polls dedicated to discovering how many Americans believe in unicorns. Every poll I’ve ever seen presupposes the state. And that doesn’t even account for the fact that said polls demonstrate no support for the implications of anarchists thought, such as the abolishment of social security or some such thing.

    How many Americans believe defense should be handled by private defense services? I’ve not seen such a poll. I’ve seen countless polls that ask various questions about what sort of tasks the publicly funded military should take on. The fact that the state should provide such a service is taken for granted.

    In any case, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there is a sizable anarchist bloc in this country, just waiting for someone to champion anarchism. Luckily, as I see it, the bylaws of the LP, not to mention how elections are conducted in this country, make it quite easy to prove such a thing.

  410. Andy

    LOL at the assertion that the 2016 LP National Convention in Orlando contained a room full of the most dedicated libertarians in the country. Sure, there were some dedicated libertarians there, but out of the little over 50% of delegates who voted for Johnson/Weld, a large percentage of them were not even libertarians at all. Sure, they joined the LP so they could vote at the convention, so by this definition you could loosely call them Libertarians (I would say that they committed fraud by signing a membership oath in which they did not really believe), but this does not mean they were really libertarians. It was quite obvious that the Johnson/Weld campaign stacked the convention with people who were not really libertarians, and who were only there to vote for Johnson/Weld.

    Darryl Perry polled at 23% at the unofficial debate that was held on Thursday evening. This was before a lot of the Johnson/Weld infiltrators showed up.

  411. dL

    Referencing statistical terms to disguise the fact that one is peddling a knee-jerk fantasy without a shred of evidence for it in fact or reality is an oldie but a goodie.

    Well, getting the math wrong is a golden oddie. Mathematically, the so-called Overton window is a 1 standard deviation range from the mean. The radical libertarian program would be one standard deviation outside the Overton window, not 3. However, if one broke down the the radical libertarian program into separate policy proposals, many separately would fall within the “overton window.”

    For example, abolishing the government as whole granted would fall 1 STD outside the overton window, but abolishing individual departments(e.g, Education, Commerce, Agriculture, DHS…) all fall within the range of the “window of discourse.”

    To the extent one thinks the “overton window” is a useful abstraction to work with, the question becomes is one working to push the following:

    Radical –> Acceptable–> Sensible –> Popular –> Policy

    Or is one merely working to retain the status quo: anything outside it must remain unacceptable.

    However, I have a news flash for our anti-anarchist friends. If 1930s ethno-nationalist fascism makes a comeback(which to some extent, it has begun to do), then so too will anarchism begin to enjoy a pre WW II renaissance resurgence, moving from Unthinkable –> Radical –> Acceptable. They are tied at the hip.

Leave a Reply

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