August 2018 Open Thread

Here it is, our usual monthly open thread for all matters that don’t fit into another thread. In theory, it should involve discussion of third parties and/or independents, but as long as you avoid plagiarizing or libeling someone, you should be fine.

191 thoughts on “August 2018 Open Thread

  1. Anthony Dlugos

    Hmmm….methinks the LP/libertarian movement could use some of that $400 million dollars:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/29/charles-koch-republicans-shouldnt-take-financial-support-granted/858986002/

    “Charles Koch and top officials in the powerful network aligned with him warned Sunday that Republicans should no longer take their financial support for granted – as Koch-aligned groups work to dramatically expand their free-market message to more parts of American society.“

    “The network launched by the Kansas billionaire 15 years ago is poised to spend as much as $400 million on policy and politics in the current two-year election cycle. “

    What’s just as good is the tact the putative leader of the Trump Party is taking in going after the Koch network, which can further sort/separate the LP from the hard right-paleo-Ron Paul nastiness:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/03/trump-republican-national-committee-stop-donating-koch-brothers/896654002/

    “On Twitter, Trump denounced “the globalist Koch Brothers” for criticizing his trade and immigration policies.”

  2. Stewart Flood

    Here’s one you should be following. I’m surprised that IPR didn’t post it yet.

    As most of you are aware, a half-dozen or so states allow fusion candidates. Late Thursday afternoon, the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office of Governor of South Carolina filed with the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Working Families Party.

    Needless to say, this was somewhat of a surprise to the Libertarian Party, as well as the Green Party. The Working Families Party — which almost always nominates ANYONE running as a Democrat — was aware he was going to file with them.

    Late Friday afternoon, the candidate realized the enormity of his mistake and attempted to withdraw his filing with the Libertarian Party. Later that night (long after the election commission closed), he decided to withdraw all three of them.

    By a vote of 16-0 (the chair not voting since it was not a tie), NOTA defeated the candidate. By State Law, he must now be removed from the ballot as the candidate of the Democratic Party. This will be a huge battle, most likely ending up in court, since the Election Commission seems to be under the impression that they can break the law and allow him to legally file one day, illegally withdraw the next, and not suffer the consequences of his actions.

    Lots of stuff on this in papers throughout SC. Have fun reading!

  3. Stewart Flood

    Yup. Even more fun living through it. We’re selling t-shirts with my quote from the paper on them. Not sure if they’ll let me post the link here.

  4. Stewart Flood

    The risk is that under state election law you must win the nomination of ALL of the parties you file with. The Green Party (note that the quote is from Mike Stewart not me, Stewart Flood) filed suit eight years ago over the removal of a candidate who failed to get a nomination. There have been several fusion candidates since, including one of our’s this year, who were removed for failing to win all the party nominations they filed for.

    The word “potential” was used because he could not say for certain whether our party — or his — would nominate Mr Smith this weekend. The Working Families Party representative actually stated they would grant a nomination, which you really shouldn’t do before you let your committee vote on it.

    State committees had to act, rather than recalled conventions, because the recalling of a convention takes at least two weeks to arrange and the reporting deadline is the 15th of this month. State election law allows for this contingency.

  5. Anthony Dlugos

    “The Green Party (note that the quote is from Mike Stewart not me, Stewart Flood) filed suit eight years ago over the removal of a candidate who failed to get a nomination.”

    ahh, I thought that was you.

  6. Andy

    I have 4 news articles that have been stucking in “pending” status for a long time, some for a good 2-3 weeks or so, that have yet to post here, and this is really pissing me off.

    My news posting status was downgraded last year, for a completely bogus reason that does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. It had to do with me posting a video of Austin Petersen, who is a well known fugure from Libertarian Party circles, as he was the first runner up for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2016, where he was being interviewed about hus run for US Senate in the Missouri Republican primaries. I was chastised for posting this, as I was accused of posting something off topic, even though 1 minute and 43 seconds into the video Austin talked about his time in the LP and why he switched. I pointed this out, yet I was told that i had to post a note about why it was on topic for IPR, which I ended up doing a few days later, even though this should not have been necessary as it was clearly apparent why it was on topic for IPR. It took me a few days to get around to posting the note, because i was busy working at the time, as i explained. So for this “offense,” my article posting stauts was downgraded, even though I am the only person here to do any original journalism over the last 10 months, and even though I have been a member of the IPR community since the beginning, plus I was a community member of the three websites that preceded IPR, plus I know, or have at least met or seen, several other IPR community members in person. This is disgracel and an insult, and my previous status should be restored immediately.

  7. George Phillies

    Readers may recall that for some time Swedish Newspapers refused to sell ad space to the Sweden Democrats party, and in part as a result the Sweden Democrats are now one of the largest political parties in the country. Now with Mr Jones and his crank ideas we are seeing the same thing here.

    Bad deal.

  8. Paul

    “Proud American Nationalist” Petersen is a Republican who couldn’t even win his own state’s libertarian primary and barely got 21%. There is a lot of crossbreeding between the two parties though, so I can understand the confusion.

    That being said, I might be completely off base here, but maybe people don’t appreciate the racist videos you post in the comments? Or maybe you’re just making unreasonable demands about someone else’s property under the guise of “fairness”?

  9. Anthony Dlugos

    Andy racism doesn’t help buy him any sympathy, but there is zero reason to post an interview with a Republican on a website called “Independent Political Report.”

    A lot of people in the political world are “well known fugure [sic] from Libertarian Party circles…”

    Basically, that means everyone in any party, including the Democrats and Republicans. Why should we care about someone running in a Republican primary, especially someone who is called a MAGA Republican?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/austin-petersen-missouri-senate-claire-mccaskill-trump-ar-15-2017-10

    But let’s be real here, Andy thinks an interview with dingbat Petersen is worthwhile specifically because of Petersen’s hard right sympathies (or, at least his public pronouncements thereof. My guess is Petersen will say whatever it takes to get press coverage.)

  10. Libertydave

    So Andy is refusing to take responsibility for his actions again and blaming everybody but himself for all the bad things that keep happening to him.

    Andy posts a video about the Republican primaries without anything explaining why a video of republicans is on a third party news website. When asked to add some text to the video explaining why he posted a republican video he instead tries to explain why he shouldn’t have to in the comments. After repeated attempt to get him to do what he was suppose to do in the first place he finally got around to more than a week later.

    While Andy was to busy working to fix his post he managed to comment and post to this website quite often and now he wonders why he was downgraded.

  11. Bondurant

    @ George Phillies

    The obvious collusion between the companies banning Jones from their platforms is startling. This is only the beginning. It does, however, provide other companies to step up to the plate and provide an alternative. I’ve seen a lot of anger over this due to the slippery slope but many won’t break away from Facebook or YouTube.

  12. Anthony Dlugos

    “When asked to add some text to the video explaining why he posted a republican video he instead tries to explain why he shouldn’t have to in the comments.”

    Boy, talk about his personality in a nutshell.

    Andy has no real affinity for the benefits to the individual that reducing the size and scope of government entails. Libertarianism is just coincidental to his actual predisposition, which was landing on a political philosophy that nurtures in him his constant antagonism to everyone.

    The whole world is in conspiracy against Andy. In essence, he tries to post an interview with a republican on an independent political news website in part because he knows the response it will get from the site administration, which allows him another data point confirming the mechanisms of the universe are arrayed against him.

  13. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy, I’ve told you several times why I rarely come here anymore, yet you refuse to work with me or follow the many other requests from others to stop your constant rants about immigration. I realize that picking up social cues isn’t your strong suit, but you have a BRAIN. Get it into your BRAIN that you might be more effective here if you’ll accept that the thousands of rants you’ve already posted here is enough, and maybe people will start working with you again.

  14. William Saturn

    Andy’s personal views should have no bearing on whether his articles are posted. This has nothing to do with the amount of times he posts because I rarely post comments and yet my status was degraded as well. This was a political purge.

  15. Libertydave

    William Saturn,

    I don’t know why you were downgraded but Andy caused his own troubles. This is obvious just reading Andy’s comment complaining about being downgraded. It had nothing to do with a political purge.

  16. Richard Winger

    Getting around to the South Carolina story, the State Election Commission spokesperson said the Democrat is in no danger because the Libertarian Party doesn’t have its own nominee for Governor. That is a strained interpretation of the law, but entirely predictable. The state is not going to remove the Democratic nominee for Governor from the November ballot, especially after he won a 3-way Democratic primary with 62% of the vote.

    Another excuse is that the Libertarian Party meeting that rejected Smith was not a convention, just a meeting of the state committee.

  17. Andy

    “Libertydave
    August 7, 2018 at 19:33
    William Saturn,

    I don’t know why you were downgraded but Andy caused his own troubles. This is obvious just reading Andy’s comment complaining about being downgraded. It had nothing to do with a political purge.”

    I have not caused any troubles. This is a political discussion forum, focusing on minor party and independent candidates, and this is exactly what I have done here since the inception of IPR in May of 2008, and it was exactly what I did on the three websites that preceded IPR (as in where some of the people who came to IPR, or used to come to IPR, used to “hang out” and discuss these issues), in Third Party Watch, Last Free Voice, and the old Hammer of Truth.

    Scroll back through the archives of the news article threads I posted. There is nothing off topic or inappropriate. Also, I went to a lot of effort to post original interviews here, something nobody else has done in a long time.

  18. Andy

    Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern: The New Zealand TV Interview They Wouldn’t Show You!

  19. Cody Quirk

    Well its official; Austin Petersen got his ass handed to him in the GOP primary tonight; he’s coming in at a distant 3rd place with little over 90% of the votes counted right now.

    This further proves the idea for libertarians to stick with the GOP and change it from within is a lost cause. (l)ibertarians need to stop drinking the kool-aid and join the LP; the GOP is beyond saving, as is the twin-party system.

  20. Andy

    “William Saturn
    August 7, 2018 at 18:47
    Andy’s personal views should have no bearing on whether his articles are posted. This has nothing to do with the amount of times he posts because I rarely post comments and yet my status was degraded as well. This was a political purge.”

    Yep, this is much like the censorship with Alex Jones being kicked off of several internet platforms, and Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern getting banned from speaking in New Zealand. There is a real attack against free speech, and sadly, it has infected IPR.

  21. Andy

    “Cody Quirk
    August 7, 2018 at 22:28
    Well its official; Austin Petersen got his ass handed to him in the GOP primary tonight; he’s coming in at a distant 3rd place with little over 90% of the votes counted right now.

    This further proves the idea for libertarians to stick with the GOP and change it from within is a lost cause. (l)ibertarians need to stop drinking the kool-aid and join the LP; the GOP is beyond saving, as is the twin-party system.”

    This was a predictable result. The cost of running and winning a US Senate race in Missouri, even just a primary, is far more money than Austin Petersen can raise.

    I agree that the Republican Party is a corrupt organization, and the prospects of libertarians taking it over is slim to none, but having said this, I do think that it is possible for libertarian, or libertarian leaning, people to get elected as Republicans, if they target a race that they are actually capable of winning, and run a smart campaign. Austin Petersen would have had a better chance running for US House, or even better, running for a seat in the Missouri State Legislature, or for a county or city office, than had running for US Senate.

  22. Andy

    First They Came For Infowars and Alex Jones… | Infowars Banned from YouTube, Facebook and Apple

  23. Cody Quirk

    Andy Jacobs, despite you and me not seeing eye-to-eye on certain political matters; the invitation to join ATPR is still on the table; you may post anything political on our site and you’ll never have to ask for our approval to post it 😉
    The only 2 rules we have for posting on ATPR is that it must be relevant to third parties or independents, AND the posts have to be ‘R-rated’ at a maximum in terms of language & content.
    Besides that -you can say whatever you want on ATPR.

    William Saturn, you’re still welcome to rejoin ATPR as well.

  24. Cody Quirk

    “Austin Petersen would have had a better chance running for US House, or even better, running for a seat in the Missouri State Legislature, or for a county or city office, than had running for US Senate.”

    Hmmm, you might have been right. However once he moved up into the big leagues (running for a statewide or federal office) -he still likely would lose if he had to face off against an establishment GOP candidate with better funding and more backing.

  25. Andy

    “Cody Quirk
    August 7, 2018 at 22:44
    Andy Jacobs, despite you and me not seeing eye-to-eye on certain political matters; the invitation to join ATPR is still on the table; you may post anything political on our site and you’ll never have to ask for our approval to post it ?
    The only 2 rules we have for posting on ATPR is that it must be relevant to third parties or independents, AND the posts have to be ‘R-rated’ at a maximum in terms of language & content.
    Besides that -you can say whatever you want on ATPR.

    William Saturn, you’re still welcome to rejoin ATPR as well.”

    I appreciate the offer, but how many people actually read American Third Party Report? I will certainly consider your offer, but I’d like to post at a site that actually has an audience, and I think that IPR probably has a lot more readers that ATPR. Perhaps ATPR’s readership would grow if more people post articles there.

  26. Andy

    This video was posted by Alex Jones before his channel was taken down. Fortunately, somebody has re-uploaded it.

    Alex Jones Statement On Alex Jones Youtube Channel Shut Down – Infowars Youtube Channel Shut Down

  27. Andy

    “When asked to add some text to the video explaining why he posted a republican video he instead tries to explain why he shouldn’t have to in the comments.”

    Idiotic comment. Austin Petersen was mentioned in multiple IPR articles, so it is not as though he was unknown to IPR readers. He worked at the Libertarian Party National office while IPR was in existence, and he was the first runner up for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination in 2016. Also, like I pointed out multiple times, 1 minute and 43 seconds into the video, Austin’s time in the Libertarian Party was discussed. So given these facts, why the video was posted here should have been self explanatory.

    Also, even though it was completely unnecessary, I did in fact come back a few days later and post a note as to why the video was relevant to IPR. So even after posting the (unnecessary) note, I was still “demoted” here at IPR.

  28. Andy

    I just did a search through IPR archives and I found that Austin Petersen was mentioned in the title of 60 articles, going as far back as 2008. He was also mentioned in other articles and in numerous discussion threads. So acting as though he was some unknown figure on IPR or in minor party circles, or just some Republican with no connection to minor parties, is not intellectually honest.

  29. Cody Quirk

    “I appreciate the offer, but how many people actually read American Third Party Report? I will certainly consider your offer, but I’d like to post at a site that actually has an audience, and I think that IPR probably has a lot more readers that ATPR. Perhaps ATPR’s readership would grow if more people post articles there.”

    Fortunately we’re starting to gain an audience thanks to several people that have come on board, including one that posts his own articles and does interviews with candidates on ATPR’s behalf often. We’ve had a few articles that have gained 70 to over 100 viewings in a single day. Still, at least we’re quite lenient on the rules for posting articles, regardless of how controversial they may be.
    However I think you alone could help put ATPR further on the map with your articles.

    BTW, rest assured, any articles bashing Gary Johnson or Bill Weld are welcome on ATPR.

  30. Anthony Dlugos

    “Well its official; Austin Petersen got his ass handed to him in the GOP primary tonight; he’s coming in at a distant 3rd place with little over 90% of the votes counted right now.

    This further proves the idea for libertarians to stick with the GOP and change it from within is a lost cause. (l)ibertarians need to stop drinking the kool-aid and join the LP; the GOP is beyond saving, as is the twin-party system.”

    I heard he spent half a million. Half a million dollars to finish a very underwhelming 3rd. He’s essentially 0 for his life in terms of winning electoral contests, including losing his home state primary in the 2016 presidential race.

    Not the stuff political success is made of. Not to mention the questionable wisdom of making your first two runs for office the Presidency, then the U.S. Senate (in that order).

    On the other hand, he has demonstrated that he might have a dimwitted following willing to donate to his lost cause races. If such followers are impervious to reality, he might make a nice living running over and over again for high-profile offices he has no chance of winning.

    While I agree that libertarians trying to change the GOP is useless, I wouldn’t necessarily deem Petersen’s result from last night a data point backing up that theory. He always fit better in the GOP anyway.

  31. robert capozzi

    AP’s approach of just showing up as an R seemed to me doomed from the get-go.

    OTOH, I note that the only real headway Ls make electorally at the federal level involves the GOP — RP1, RP2, BB, GJ, WW, and I’d add Amash and Massie to the mix. Given the depth charges in the Great Tablets that formed the LP, the only way I can see a scenario where the Ls break through politically would involve renegade Rs.

    Say, for ex., that DJT is proven to be in bed with Russia, and that leads to the GOP getting pounded. It might lead to a severe crisis for the more sane elements in the GOP. The LP might be the only safe harbor available to them.

    Generally, Ls who run as Rs like AP are successful if they run in a sober manner. The court jester approach seems unlikely to work.

  32. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “I note that the only real headway Ls make electorally at the federal level involves the GOP — RP1, RP2, BB, GJ, WW, and I’d add Amash and Massie to the mix. Given the depth charges in the Great Tablets that formed the LP, the only way I can see a scenario where the Ls break through politically would involve renegade Rs.”

    As you might agree, this might be a symptom of the problem (dogmatic adherence to the theoretical construct of the NAP has the real world effect of just making us extreme versions of Republicans), rather than something to be view as the “natural course of things.”

    Just like welfare reform had to come from a Democrat (Bill Clinton), its possible the breakthrough for an L will come from a renegade Democrat. Which also could demonstrate why “liberal republicans” have better crossover appeal/higher ceiling than Rand, or Amash or Massie.

    “Generally, Ls who run as Rs like AP are successful if they run in a sober manner. The court jester approach seems unlikely to work.”

    If success is determined by legislative success, by a desire to put together a solid public office career.

    A strong case can be made that AP is a court jester by design. Some have argued that has been his objective from Day One. IMHO, that’s the most plausible explanation for a 35-year old theater major making his first run for office the Presidency, and his 2nd run for office the U.S. Senate. Winning might be nice, but besides the point. He’s either angling for a “talking head” job, perhaps on Faux News, or a Ron Paul style newsletter that he uses as a pretext to solicit money for his D list celebrity lifestyle.

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    As an aside, of the three libertarian-leaning conservatives, Amash is by far the best, in my opinion. Only his stance on abortion is problematic for me. On the other hand, I don’t think he is a Napolitano style zealot on the issue.

  34. ATBAFT

    Because most LP candidates have departed from NAP in their campaigns (some more than others; Bergland was pretty faithful and his low vote results may have shown it) one may conclude that only a handful of LP members actually expect adherence to it. I doubt the voters do; thus a Jeffersonian “principled pragmatism” may be more useful and NAP be left to languish in obscurity since it would be difficult to amend or remove it.

  35. Andy

    David Bergland’s low vote total had more to do with a) lack of money, b) him not qualifying for the ballot in several states, c) no internet back in 1984, which made it harder for non-establishment candidates to get their message out, and d) the word libertarian having less recognition among the public back in 1984 than it does today.

    Yes, I know that Ed Clark got a lot more votes in 1980, but he had a wealthy running mate in David Koch who put several million dollars of his own money in the race, and he qualified for the ballot in all 50 states plus DC.

    Ed Clark had also run for Governor of California in 1978, so had at least some name recognition from that, and was therefore more known than David Bergland.

    There are lots of factors involved in vote outcomes that go beyond how close one adheres to the NAP.

  36. Andy

    Cody, I am thinking about taking you up on your offer. It would not hurt to be on another platform. If I do, it does not mean i abandon IPR. I would do both.

    I recall Cody being at the now defunct Third Party Watch. Third Party Watch went downhill because of censorship. The site got taken over by a Bob Barr supporter who was taking down articles that were critical of Barr, or contained other topics the Barr supporters did not want to be discussed. IPR formed as a result of the censorship at Third Party Watch, which makes the censorship issues going on here now pretty ironic and sad.

  37. ATBAFT

    Andy, in the tv ads paid for by David Koch, Ed Clark came off as a professional, educated, responsible, thoughtful, non-radical Libertarian who had reasonable solutions. Had he insisted on coming off as a NAPster, I don’t believe the ads would have been effective and there would have been no “goodwill” toward the Libertarian name. Immediately after the campaign, the criticism of Clark’s “lite libertarian” views eventually drove Ed Crane and the CATO crowd out of the LP. It would be another 42 years before an LP candidate for president materially exceeded the Clark vote, and he, too, has been roundly criticized for his departures from NAP and the Platform. The LP needs to decide if electoral success is more important than NAPster purity. Maybe the time is approaching when the LP will split into several parties – as have the various socialist ones – or just live with NAP while most candidates pay mere lip service to it.

  38. Andy

    Gary Johnson’s vote totals had more to do with the circumstances surrounding the elections than anything else, and given the favorable circumstances under which he ran, Johnson underperformed in getting votes.

    I believe that your analysis is flawed because you are not taking all of the data into considerations.

    What if Harry Browne had been alive in 2016, and had been the LP’s presidential nominee? When Browne ran in 1996 and in 2000, he ran in races where there were two higher profile minor party candidates in each race, and the word libertarian was not as well known as it was in 2012 and 2016, plus there were less people online back then as compared to 2012 and 2016.

  39. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, liberal Rs are in many ways a better fit for the development of an effective LP. I suspect GJ and WW are the last of that breed, however. L has enough heft in the marketplace that more Rs ID as libertarian R.

    There may be a lessarchist D that I’m unaware of, but — while I’d like to see one emerge — I’m skeptical that one will any time soon.

  40. Jim

    Andy “Gary Johnson’s vote totals had more to do with the circumstances surrounding the elections than anything else, and given the favorable circumstances under which he ran, Johnson underperformed in getting votes.”

    In 2016 the Constitution Party bested their previous vote record by a mere 3,300 votes and actually under performed both their 2008 and 1996 percentages.

    The Green Party finished far below their 2000 candidate in both total votes and percentage.

    Only the Libertarian Party posted exceptional results in 2016. Even looking at the change from 2012, Stein’s 1.06% in 2016 was 194% better than her 0.36% in 2012 while Johnson’s 3.27% in 2016 was 230% better than his 0.99% in 2012. Darrell Castle’s 0.15% was only 67% better than Virgil Goode’s 0.09%.

    And it isn’t like leftists votes weren’t up for Stein to grab – Hillary got fewer votes than Obama both in 2008 and 2012, while Trump set the Republican party vote total record.

    Andy “I believe that your analysis is flawed because you are not taking all of the data into considerations.”

    You have no data. You only have your feelings that someone else could have done better.

  41. Cody Quirk

    “Cody, I am thinking about taking you up on your offer. It would not hurt to be on another platform. If I do, it does not mean i abandon IPR. I would do both.”

    Sure. If you simply want to republish your IPR articles on ATPR, I wouldn’t mind one bit.

    “I recall Cody being at the now defunct Third Party Watch. Third Party Watch went downhill because of censorship. The site got taken over by a Bob Barr supporter who was taking down articles that were critical of Barr, or contained other topics the Barr supporters did not want to be discussed. IPR formed as a result of the censorship at Third Party Watch, which makes the censorship issues going on here now pretty ironic and sad.”

    Yup. It was such a sad shame what happened with TPW -the exact person that pulled the plug on that website can go sodomize himself with a steel cactus.

    I might be opinionated and an asshole at times about it, but I oppose censorship, even on those I may spar with online. The only exceptions I might make to that are posts/comments that are outright spam or porn. Plus I’m not as hyper-partisan as I used to be. Today, if people like Don Grundmann, Riley Hood or someone from the Workers World Party wanted to be a contributor on there -then I would offer it to them.

    However, Nathan Norman & Chris Lesiak are permanently banned after what they did to the old website and the older posts; I can’t forgive that, though me and Chris have settled a few things.

  42. Andy

    Comparing Jill Stein to Ralph Nader is not a vaild comparison. Stein had nowhere near the name recognition as Nader. Even so, Jill Stein got over 1.4 million votes in 2016, which was the best non-Ralph Nader as their presidential candidate ever vote showing. Also, keep in mind that Jill Stein did not qualify for the 2016 ballot in North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Nevada.

    Evan McMullin only made the ballot in 10 states and he got over 716,000 votes.

    Darrel Castle only made the ballot in 24 states, which was less that past Constitution Party candidates, and he got over 203,000 votes, which was a raw vote record for CP candidates for President.

    The fact that votes were up in general for “third party” candidates in 2016 further proves my point. The LP could have put just about anyone on its 2016 presidential ticket and that ticket would have received more votes than usual for the LP.

    When it comes to growing the LP, and spreading an actual libertarian message, Johnson/Weld failed miserably.

    Johnson/Weld got a lot (relatively speaking) of protest votes in an election where voter discontent with the major party candidates was unusually high, which resulted in votes increases for most third party candidates.

  43. Anthony Dlugos

    “Johnson/Weld got a lot (relatively speaking) of protest votes…”

    Unless you are some kind of mind reader, you have no clue why anyone voted/votes the way they do.

    “The LP could have put just about anyone on its 2016 presidential ticket and that ticket would have received more votes than usual for the LP.”

    Unless you have a brain able to view alternate realities, you have no idea what any other Libertarian candidate would have done. On the other hand, we have strong circumstantial evidence, given the results of the Libertarian convention, that any other candidate would have done much worse. Unless you are going to make the idiotic argument that the general population is more radically “libertarian” than a libertarian convention is.

    All we know are the facts, and the facts are what Jim reports. You have feelings backed up with no evidence.

  44. Jim

    Johnson beat Stein in every state where they were both on the ballot. There’s no reason to believe that anything else would have happened had Stein been on the ballot in the last few. And why didn’t Stein have the name recognition of Nader (or Johnson)? It wasn’t her first Presidential election and the Green Party is hardly unknown – Nader ran with it. Her lack of name recognition, relative to Johnson and Nader, is a failing of her candidacy.

    If there was such demand for the Constitution Party, why didn’t they get on the ballot in more states? Why didn’t Stein have 50+1 ballot access? Why did Johnson and the LNC raise so much more money than the other two (not counting Stein’s post-election sketchiness.)

    You put a Mormon on the ballot in Utah and watch him get a lot of votes. Wow. That’s where 1/3rd of McMullin’s votes came from. What’s the state with the next highest population of Mormons? That would be Idaho – McMullin’s 2nd best state. What a shock.

    And those are the only 2 states where McMullin picked up more votes than Johnson. Johnson beat McMullin in the other 9 states where they were both on the ballot: New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia, and South Carolina. And, of course, the 22 states where McMullin only had write-in status.

    Throw out New Mexico and Utah and that leaves 9 states where Johnson and McMullin went head to head. Johnson won 8 of them.

    Even Jill Stein beat McMullin in New Mexico, Colorado, and Louisiana.

    McMullin was basically a one state candidate and that wouldn’t have changed had he been on in more.

  45. Andy

    “Jim
    August 10, 2018 at 17:07
    Johnson beat Stein in every state where they were both on the ballot. There’s no reason to believe that anything else would have happened had Stein been on the ballot in the last few. And why didn’t Stein have the name recognition of Nader (or Johnson)? It wasn’t her first Presidential election and the Green Party is hardly unknown – Nader ran with it. Her lack of name recognition, relative to Johnson and Nader, is a failing of her candidacy.”

    Jill Stein is not a well known person, nor did she have a large campaign budget. Given her lack of money, lack of name recognition, and the fact that she was not on the ballot in 6 states, including 3 high population states (North Carolina, Georgia, and Indiana), her 1.4 million plus votes is just a impressive, and perhaps even more impressive, than Johnson’s vote total.

    “If there was such demand for the Constitution Party, why didn’t they get on the ballot in more states?”

    The same reasons that the LP has not gotten on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC in every election. It is difficult. Johnson did not get on the ballot in all 50 states in 2012.

    Also, the Constitution Party has been sabotaged. Their ballot access was basically hijacked in California by a rogue faction.

    “Why didn’t Stein have 50+1 ballot access?”

    Once again, the LP has had a lot of elections where the party did not get on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC.

    Also, the Libertarian Party came close to not getting all 50 states plus DC in 2016. There were several states where ballot access drives came close to failing, and the LP was aided in part by ballot access lawsuits that went our way. If the courts had ruled differently in some states, the LP would not have had ballot access in all 50 states plus DC in 2016.

    “Why did Johnson and the LNC raise so much more money than the other two (not counting Stein’s post-election sketchiness.)”

    A good number of people who donated to Johnson/Weld were not even Libertarians. I know two people who did fundraising off of the Johnson/Weld donor list, and they both said that a lot of names that they called told them that they had no interest in the Libertarian Party, or in libertarianism, and that they only donated because they wanted to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

    One donor to both Johnson/Weld and the LNC in 2016 was Christy Walton, or the Walton Walmart family fortune. She is far from being a libertarian.

    “You put a Mormon on the ballot in Utah and watch him get a lot of votes. Wow. That’s where 1/3rd of McMullin’s votes came from. What’s the state with the next highest population of Mormons? That would be Idaho – McMullin’s 2nd best state. What a shock.

    And those are the only 2 states where McMullin picked up more votes than Johnson. Johnson beat McMullin in the other 9 states where they were both on the ballot: New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia, and South Carolina. And, of course, the 22 states where McMullin only had write-in status.

    Throw out New Mexico and Utah and that leaves 9 states where Johnson and McMullin went head to head. Johnson won 8 of them.

    Even Jill Stein beat McMullin in New Mexico, Colorado, and Louisiana.

    McMullin was basically a one state candidate and that wouldn’t have changed had he been on in more.”

    McMullin was also a no name guy who jumped into the race very late. The fact that he got over 716,000 votes further proves my point that in 2016, voter discontent with the major party candidates for President was very high, and this had more to do with Johnson’s vote total than anything else. The fact of the matter is that Johnson/Weld did little to nothing to grow the LP, and they were lousy messengers for the party.

  46. robert capozzi

    AJ: The fact that he got over 716,000 votes further proves my point that in 2016, voter discontent with the major party candidates for President was very high, and this had more to do with Johnson’s vote total than anything else.

    Me: Yes on the first assertion, no on the second. Actually, “proof” requires a VERY high bar…surely you know that, AJ?

  47. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 10, 2018 at 19:18
    AJ: ‘The fact that he got over 716,000 votes further proves my point that in 2016, voter discontent with the major party candidates for President was very high, and this had more to do with Johnson’s vote total than anything else.’

    Me: Yes on the first assertion, no on the second. Actually, “proof” requires a VERY high bar…surely you know that, AJ?”

    Robert, as I mentioned before, I have been on the ground gathering petition signatures in multiple states both prior to Johnson/Weld winning the nomination, during their campaign, and since their campaign ended. This has put me in touch with tens of thousands of people in multiple states. The general feedback that I have gotten from the public is that the Libertarian Party screwed up by nominating Johnson/Weld, due to their lack of principles, and/or due to them coming off as goofy and unprepared, and that most of the people who voted for them only did so as a protest vote because they really did not like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I have gotten the same feedback from several other petition circulators.

  48. Just Some Random Guy

    So, question. I asked about this before, but I might as well ask again, see if things have changed. Are there any Libertarians (or third party people in general) who are running for election in 2018 that seem like they have a real shot at winning, or at least doing reasonably well? I’d like to try go give some support to such candidates, but there’s so many I can’t really tell who might have a shot at either winning or at least doing well enough to get noticed.

  49. Andy

    “Just Some Random Guy
    August 11, 2018 at 00:03
    So, question. I asked about this before, but I might as well ask again, see if things have changed. Are there any Libertarians (or third party people in general) who are running for election in 2018 that seem like they have a real shot at winning, or at least doing reasonably well? I’d like to try go give some support to such candidates, but there’s so many I can’t really tell who might have a shot at either winning or at least doing well enough to get noticed.”

    There are the 4 state legislators, one in Nebraska, who is a former Republican, and 3 in New Hampshire, one who was a Democrat, and two who were Republicans, who switched to Libertarian while in office, who are all running for reelection this year.

    Libertarian Lou Jasikoff is in a two way race for a seat in the state legislature in Pennsylvania. I’m not sure if he is running against a Republican or a Democrat, but one of the major parties is not fielding a candidate.

    I’m sure that there are others, but I’d have to do more research to find out who they are.

  50. Andy

    This is Mark Passio’s speech from Anarchapulco 2018.

    Mark Passio – Anarchy & The Occult

  51. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    I suggest you read up on basic statistics. And the concept of “confirmation bias.”

  52. Jim

    Andy “McMullin was also a no name guy who jumped into the race very late. The fact that he got over 716,000 votes further proves my point that in 2016, voter discontent with the major party candidates for President was very high, and this had more to do with Johnson’s vote total than anything else. The fact of the matter is that Johnson/Weld did little to nothing to grow the LP, and they were lousy messengers for the party.”

    You can’t simultaneously claim that the 3rd party candidates had no name recognition while also touting the high vote total as evidence that they were just a protest vote. Because if that were the case, and people really didn’t recognize their names and were they were just voting for anyone not named Clinton or Trump, then the votes would have been randomly distributed.

    But the votes clearly weren’t randomly distributed. Johnson beat McMullin in 9 of the 11 states where they were both on the ballot. Johnson beat Stein in every state where they were both on the ballot. Stein beat Castle in every state where they were both on the ballot.

    And you still aren’t answering why Johnson had better name recognition than Stein.

    You can’t just say Stein had lower name recognition and that caused lower fund raising and she had lower fund raising which caused less name recognition. Johnson broke that loop to a degree that Stein did not.

    More people signed the Libertarian Pledge in 2016 than in 2012 and 2008 combined. 100,000 people registered to vote as Libertarians in 2016 – more than any previous year, by a lot. Even if you think the donations and votes were one time events, signing the pledge and changing party voter registration is a sign of a longer term commitment.

  53. Anthony Dlugos

    ‘I suggest you read up on basic statistics. And the concept of “confirmation bias.”’

    hold on there, RC! I’m not sure I want Andy becoming self-aware about his confirmation bias. His lack thereof is probably what permits his drive to continue gathering signatures for the LP. haha

  54. Jim

    I just threw this together fast –

    Gary Johnson was the first Libertarian candidate to pick up more than 50% of the Non-Republican / Non-Democratic vote. He did that in both 2012 and 2016, getting about 54% of the non-major party vote both times. Ron Paul was the next highest with 48%. All others were less than 40%.

    https://i.imgur.com/2sJeyNE.png

    The LP in 2012 – 2016 became the first minor party to pick up more than 50% of the non-major party vote for more than one election since the American Independent Party in 1968 – 1972, depending on whether or not you want to count Ross Perot’s 1992 run with the Reform Party.

  55. Andy

    Well, well, well. look what just happened in Charlottesville, and also in Washington DC. Antifa did a demonstration in Charlottesville, because it was the one year anniversary of the Charlottesville Riot, and nobody from Unite the Right was even there this time, yet Antifa rioted anyway, as they engaged in multiple acts of violence and destruction.

    Unite the Right did have an event in Washington DC, but only 25 people from Unite the Right showed up, and they ended up leaving early, There was zero violence or property destruction from Unite the Right, yet once again, Antifa engaged in acts of violence and property destruction.

    It should be blatantly apparent to all that Antifa are violent Marxist goons who receive funding from globalists like George Soros. They are modern day Bolsheviks.

    Remember that I pointed this out last year right here on IPR, and I was attacked for saying it, and once again, I have been proven right.

    Once again, I am in no way endorsing everyone who makes up the Unite the Right coalition. There were people involved in Unite the Right with whom I have strong disagreements. This issue is about the right to engage in free speech activities without having these activities being shut down by violent goons who create disturbances in order to shut down speech that they don’t like. This is a Heckler’s Veto practice.

    I do not support Nazis, but I do not support communists either. These Antifa Marxist scumbags need to be called out for this bullshit.

    CNN and Media Silent as Antifa Attacks Police and Journalists?

  56. Andy

    Walter Williams hits the nail on the head here.

    Prof. Walter E. Williams on the Left destroying American values on college campuses

  57. Tylor Reinhardt

    Hi,

    I listen to a lot of podcasts, but I was wondering if someone had any recommendations on a Constitutionalist/Independent American podcast. I have some ideas, but wanted to run it by someone to see if there was anything I might be missing.

    Andy, I started listening to The LAVAFlow on your recommendation. 🙂 Thanks.

  58. Tylor Reinhardt

    On the video by Prof. Walter E. Williams, the WSWS (Socialist Equility Party), which is about as leftist that you can get, don’t seem to fit that description. Just listen to their July, 4th 2018 podcast. So among other groups on the left, I don’t think It’s the whole left that is taking these positions he is pointing out.

    Also, that Military guy that has “Communism will win,” on his hat, has started a podcast called, “eyes left” so I think if you want to really know what he thinks or whatnot, that might be the way to go. I learned of it on Media Roots Radio podcast that has dual co-hosts including Abby Martin from “Breaking the Set” that used to air on RT.

    I listen to A LOT of podcasts. 🙂

  59. Andy

    “Tylor Reinhardt
    August 14, 2018 at 12:55
    Hi,

    I listen to a lot of podcasts, but I was wondering if someone had any recommendations on a Constitutionalist/Independent American podcast. I have some ideas, but wanted to run it by someone to see if there was anything I might be missing.”

    Check out Darrell Castle’s The Castle Report. Darrell Castle was the Constitution Party’s 2008 candidate for Vice President, and their 2016 candidate for President.

    https://www.castlereport.us/

    “Andy, I started listening to The LAVAFlow on your recommendation. ? Thanks.”

    You are welcome. I’m sure that Rodger Paxton, the guy who does The LAVA Flow podcast, is happy to get another listener.

  60. Andy

    This whole movement to tear down statues/monuments/memorials/historic sites from the Confederate States of America, and from the Founding Fathers of this country, is a Marxist tactic to erase American history so they can get more people to accept ditching the US Constitution in favor of Marxism and global government.

    I am posting this as a tribute to those who do not want to tear down history and flush it down the Memory Hole.

    “The Last Rebel” by Lynyrd Skynyrd Confederate Memories

  61. Paul

    I guess there’s nothing more Libertarian than government owned and maintained statues venerating politicians who supported a slave empire.

    Seems legit.

  62. Tylor Reinhardt

    Thanks Andy! I didn’t realize he had started a podcast again. I followed it on podbean.

    I wish Austin Petersen wasn’t running for office. He had one of the best podcasts ever!

  63. Anthony Dlugos

    What office is the insufferable prick Petersen running for? Last I heard, he got obliterated in the Missouri GOP primary.

  64. Tylor Reinhardt

    Ok, maybe he isn’t running for office, that is news to me. I only know him from what he used to talk about on his podcast. Made me think a lot.

  65. Tylor Reinhardt

    Yeah, I hadn’t read the whole thread yet when I wrote that. I listen to Jason Stapleton everyday and figured he would have said something but that is an assumption that was wrong. Except I probably should have known since he laid on the Missouri jokes slightly more than he’s been doing lately. 😛

  66. Andy

    “Peaceful people crossing borders, dude!”

    Sweden Is Burning: Migrant Gangs Unleash Coordinated Fire-Bomb Rampage Across Multiple Cities

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/tyler-durden/sweden-is-burning-migrant-gangs-unleash-coordinated-fire-bomb-rampage-across-multiple-cities/

    From the article: “Many Swedes were horrified in early 2017 when U.S. President Donald Trump linked immigration to rising crime in Sweden, but an increasing number now agree with him.

    Amid soaring crime rates, gang violence, complaints about education, and pregnant mothers even being turned away from maternity wards due to a lack of capacity, resentment in Sweden has built over the influx of more than 600,000 immigrants over the past five years.

    And tonight is one of the worst night for violence in recent history as police report multiple gangs of masked youths rampaging across three major Swedish cities, setting cars on fire in what seems like a coordinated action.”

  67. DJ

    Today’s crimes, lunacies, and decays are too many, profitable, and intractable. We are racing out of control toward some as yet dimly limned catastrophe. Hang on and take the ride.
    ……………

    Congressmen are commodities and Washington a Coke machine: insert your coins, choose your law, and pull the lever. Voila.
    …………….

    We know the foregoing, many of us. The takeaway is that none of it is preventable. We careen toward whatever epochal demise awaits us. Slow motion or all at once, it will be a doozy.

    https://fredoneverything.org/decline-in-the-fall-or-late-summer-anyway-by-fred-gibbon/

  68. Andy

    Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern: “Do you have any questions which aren’t race-baiting?”

  69. Andy

    Anyone who thinks that this migrant situation in Sweden has anything to do with libertarianism, or is in any way a desirable thing to happen in the country where you live, is not a true libertarian.

    Sweden Under Assault: Waves of Middle Eastern Migrants Cause Surge in Crime

  70. Andy

    “Paul
    August 14, 2018 at 15:42
    I guess there’s nothing more Libertarian than government owned and maintained statues venerating politicians who supported a slave empire.

    Seems legit.”

    We don’t live in a private property anarcho-capitalist society. It has become a tradition, not just in this country, but in every other country in the world, to have statues, monuments, historic markers, and historic sites, on public (ie-government owned and managed) property.

    The people who want to tear down statues/monuments/historic sites connected to the Confederate States of America and the Founding Fathers of this country are not going after all statues/monuments/historic sites, as if something like this fits in with their leftist agenda, like say the Vladimir Lenin (who was not even an American citizen, and who I don’t think ever set foot in this country) statues in Seattle and New York City, or the statue of a gun with the barrel twisted, which is supposed to promote gun control, in front of the United Nations building in New York City. They are not trying to tear anything down connected to say Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson or Bill Clinton. They are not trying to tear down anything connected to Martin Luther King Jr, who was connected to Marxist groups, and who plagiarized his doctoral thesis, and who had numerous affairs, all while claiming to be a Reverend (and note that he also made comments about gays that would be considered to be homophobic today).

    It is pretty clear that these people are not targeting all statues, and this is not really about enforcing some kind of pristine moral code, nor is it about privatizing public property. This is about tearing down American history, and destroying people’s connection early American history, so they can get more people on board with completely ditching the US Constitution in favor of Marxism and globalism.

  71. Cody Quirk

    Andy, when you’re ready to jump ship to ATPR- just send me your email address via facebook and we’ll sign you right up to start posting.

    While I can be an opinated @sshole in the blogs and comment threads -I only believe in censorship under the most extreme of circumstances (Nathan Norman), yet I vehemently oppose censoring my enemies and opposing viewpoints. If even Don Grundmann or Riley Hood ever wanted to become ATPR contributors and use it as their own soapbox -I’d bring them on board.

    I’m not as hyper-partisan as I used to be.

  72. Andy

    Jim, that is up to the people in that country. Should the Aztec statues in Mexico be torn down since the Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice and they oppressed other tribes? Should the Julius Ceasar statue be torn down in Rome, Italy? Should statues of British Monarchs be torn down in London? How about the pyramids of Egypt, which apparently were built using slave labor?

    The attacks against things from the Confederate States of America and the Founding Fathers of this country have nothing to do with maintaining pristine ethics, it is about radical Marxists and globalists trying to destroy this country.

  73. Jim

    Why is it up to the Kurds whether or not to tear down statues of Saddam Hussein, but not up to black Americans to tear down statues of Confederate defenders of slavery?

  74. Anthony Dlugos

    “The attacks against things from the Confederate States of America….is about radical Marxists and globalists trying to destroy this country.”

    lol. Drug-induced delusion.

  75. Andy

    “Jim
    August 16, 2018 at 16:44
    Why is it up to the Kurds whether or not to tear down statues of Saddam Hussein, but not up to black Americans to tear down statues of Confederate defenders of slavery?”

    It is not just up to black Americans. it is also up to white Americans. Surveys indicate that the majority of white Americans want to keep the statues up. There are also black Americans who favor keeping the statues up, or who don’t really care about the issue.

    You have an overly simplified view of history that says, “White people evil and are responsible for all that is bad in the world.” How about the fact that blacks in Africa captured and sold other blacks into slavery? How about the fact that Jews and Muslims were heavily involved in the slave trade? How about the fact that there were blacks in the USA who had been set free, who went on to become slave owners themselves?

    This issue is not really about slavery, and I’ve already debunked the claim that this is about ethical purity for statues/monuments/memorials/historic sites, because one could find plenty of things wrong with other statues/monuments/memorials/historic sites that are up that are not being attacked by these leftist lunatics, and some of them are even honored by these leftist lunatics.

    If these leftists are really so concerned about ethical purity, why don’t they go after Bill Clinton, who is still alive today, and can be held accountable for his crimes, and why don’t they tear down his presidential library in Little Rock, and the street that is named after him in Little Rock, and anything else with his name or likeness on it?

    These leftists don’t really give a shit about ethics, or slavery for that matter, because the economic system they support, is a slave system. Once again, this is about tearing down American history, and getting more people on board with completely scrapping the US Constitution in favor of Marxism and globalism.

  76. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “lol. Drug-induced delusion.”

    It is not a delusion at all. This is a Marxist tactic. Why in the hell do you think that Antifa, a radical Marxist group, is leading the charge on this? Some of these people even wave freaking communist flags at their rallies/protests/counter-demonstrations.

  77. Jim

    Andy “You have an overly simplified view of history that says, ‘White people evil and are responsible for all that is bad in the world.’”

    Nope. I do think defenders of slavery were evil. And I don’t think it is a coincidence that the vast majority of the statues glorifying the Confederacy were erected between the 1890s and the 1950s with the majority of those coming in the 1910s and 1920s – the peak years of the KKK.

    No one is trying to erase history. They are trying to end the glorification of certain parts of it.

    Your polls are junk. How people answer those surveys strongly depends on how the question is worded.

    A Marist/PBS survey asked “Do you think statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy should: Remain as a historical symbol / Be removed because they are offensive to some people?

    The response: 62% keep monuments, 27% remove them.

    A PPP survey asked “Would you support or oppose relocating monuments honoring the Confederacy from government property and moving them to museums or other historical sites where they can be viewed in proper historical context?”

    The response: 26% keep monuments where they are, 58% move them to museums, cemeteries, etc.

    Which shows that people don’t want them destroyed (they don’t want to erase history), but they also don’t want them in a place where they can be seen as a tribute to a justified defense of slavery – which is the only way they can be viewed where they currently are.

    But all of those polls are irrelevant and you know it. We’re libertarians. We take unpopular positions all the time because it’s the right thing to do.

    I do find this to be a weird position coming from you, though. I can sort of see your justification for not wanting immigration until after the government is dismantled to a certain point. I don’t agree with it, but I understand where it’s coming from. But there is no excuse for this. There is no hang-up for the immediate removal of government statues glorifying the Confederate defense of slavery except… you don’t want them moved.

  78. Anthony Dlugos

    “I do find this to be a weird position coming from you, though. I can sort of see your justification for not wanting immigration until after the government is dismantled to a certain point. I don’t agree with it, but I understand where it’s coming from. But there is no excuse for this. There is no hang-up for the immediate removal of government statues glorifying the Confederate defense of slavery except… you don’t want them moved.”

    Adam Bates, who used to be at the Cato Institute and is now with a refugee/asylum project of some kind, had a Facebook post within the last couple days about the paleos and their immigration position where he succinctly drew a distinction between the paleos and the libertarians: its the difference between “Don’t Tread on Me,” and “Don’t Tread on Anyone.” Or, as he alternatively put it, “Some people are libertarian because they don’t care about anyone else,” and “some people are libertarian because they care about everyone else.”

    Or as I suggested, the paleo philosophy is “Free Speech For Me, Not For Thee,” writ large

    Andy and his loathsome paleo associates don’t want them moved because the blessing of liberty (such as free speech in the case of the confederate monuments) extend in a very limited range, and its not territorial, its racial. This is why he is okay with some level of a police state to enforce his xenophobic immigration restrictions. The depredations of liberty will be visited upon people not as worthy of liberty in the first place, according to the retrogrades of the Woods disposition.

    Now, Andy may hyperventilate about his anarcho-capitalist utopia, where anyone is allowed to keep anyone off their personal property, but the key point here is that he wants the state to implement such exclusionary tactics RIGHT NOW, not when AnCap land is officially opened for business.

    There is a relationship and sex advice columnist I sometimes read named Dan Savage who writes the column appropriately called Savage Love. Periodically, he gets a letter with some form of the question, “Is my child gay?” because the writer of the letter found some gay pornography in the kid’s bedroom. (Dan is gay). Dan has emphatically made the point that, if someone is privately viewing gay pornography, they’re gay. End of story. No one, no one at all, ahem…privately “uses” pornography opposite to their true sexual orientation. No matter what that kid says about eventually marrying a woman, what they are doing right now is what matters.

    The point is, the “in an anarcho-capitalist world, you can keep whomever you wan’t off your own property” is a smokescreen. What matters is what they are advocating for right here, right now.

    TL;DR: Andy is a xenophobic racist. I’d say most paleos are, to some extent or another.

  79. robert capozzi

    AD: he succinctly drew a distinction between the paleos and the libertarians: its the difference between “Don’t Tread on Me,” and “Don’t Tread on Anyone.”

    Me: That seems like a fairly accurate distinction. I’m certainly not paleo, but I submit that my view that checking and perhaps bonding immigrants IS consistent with not treading on anyone. Given a rule of law in a territory/nation, the taxpayers are well within their rights to support laws and enforcement of those laws that protect the citizenry.

    Bates — and many/most open-border Ls — seem to assume that anyone has the right to go anywhere, and that “right” supersedes other considerations. I reject that “right” and I do maintain that other considerations are well within the bounds of civil discourse.

    If an unauthorized (I like the term better than illegal or undocumented, as I find it more accurate and non-pejorative) immigrant uses an emergency room at no cost, who’s treading on whom? I suggest that the unauthorized immigrant is treading on the hospital owner and possibly the taxpayers.

  80. robert capozzi

    Dan Klein, PhD, offers an alternative term to my “NAPist” term: Niche Libertarian.

    His works well.

  81. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    Bates is pretty uncompromising on immigration, no doubt. Then again, he is working for a refugee advocacy organization, and he’s not running for office. As you know, the latter makes a big difference.

    By the same token, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson was on Fox News Sunday a couple weeks back, and was pretty uncompromising in his defense of 2nd Amendment rights and his right to publish a how-to on 3-d printed guns.

    But again, he’s an advocate for a particular issue; he can afford to be uncompromising.

    Also, drawing a distinction between yourself as a libertarian suggesting particular public policy prescriptions on immigration and the typical paleo attitude: Bates also talked about the difference between himself associating with various socialists and other far leftists…but never suggesting that such friends of his ARE libertarian, and the paleo predilection for suggesting that their leaders are the true libertarians and their hard-line stance is the true libertarian position.

    In other words, even if your ideas on immigration might be more “conservative” than, say, Bates (or mine), you’re not starting with the sanctimonious, oblivious idea that only your position is the legitimate scion of our NAPists forefathers, as interpreted by St, Paul.

  82. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, single-issue-advocacy extremism is less damaging to liberty than across-the-board-NAPist-extremism, agreed. But, even there, I’d prefer to see ANY advocate to be measured and to not be SO far from the mainstream that his/her position is easily dismissed as fringe wacko-ism.

    “Uncompromising” assumes that single issues can be neatly boiled down to simplistic right/wrong decisions. Of course, that’s just not true, at least in most things. (I’m uncompromisingly against the death penalty, for ex., mostly because one mistake is irreparable. That’s all I need to know to oppose it.

    Klein’s vid addresses a lot of this, so enjoy it when you have time.

  83. robert capozzi

    more…

    NAPists often point to slavery abolitionism as their model. But they miss my point. Large numbers were waking up to the fact that slavery was and is unacceptable, just as I find the death penalty to be unacceptable. Enough people have for decades agreed that the death penalty is unacceptable. So it’s easy for me to advocate for its abolition and not sound like a kook. If I were the only person on Earth who opposed the death penalty, I’d probably take a different approach to the issue.

    Klein’s vid touches on political feasibility being an important consideration in how one frames and advocates for social change.

  84. DJ

    RC: Enough people have for decades agreed that the death penalty is unacceptable. So it’s easy for me to advocate for its abolition and not sound like a kook. If I were the only person on Earth who opposed the death penalty, I’d probably take a different approach to the issue.

    Me: Define different approach. It appears you’re letting others decide for you what is right or wrong after having stated ” (I’m uncompromisingly against the death penalty, for ex., mostly because one mistake is irreparable. That’s all I need to know to oppose it.”

  85. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I might keep my view private. I might share my view with people who seemed open-minded to me. It would depend on the situation.

    I don’t know how you conclude that I’d let others decide for me what’s true FOR ME. I do — instead — pick and choose what I advocate publicly depending on a number of factors.

  86. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    re: NAPists and the slavery abolitionism model.

    I found that model faulty as well.

    I am reminded of the argument in atheistic cosmology that responds to the “Who caused all this?” question by saying that we know cause-and-effect happens IN the universe, but we have no indication it happened TO the universe.

    Point is, I find any NAPist argument pointing to previous successes at increasing liberty WITHIN a state as inapplicable for someone who wants to abolish the state altogether. The NAPist is arguing the mechanisms of the state are inherently immoral. How can they then use them for any purpose?

    They certainly can withdraw from politics ENTIRELY, and make the argument that they have no moral culpability in the matter anymore.

    This isn’t even suggesting the anarchist/NAPist is wrong in desiring a no-state eventuality, just that they are in the wrong arena.

    Like the theistic cosmologist, what they are hoping for might be possible, but it’ll not come through the state. In a political sense, it’ll be effectively supernatural.

    Some kind of singularity, as you previously alluded to, I think.

  87. dL

    atheistic cosmology

    There is no such field. There is a field called cosmology that attempts to use the scientific method to explain the origins of the universe. However, the use of the scientific method does not equate to atheism. If you are going to attempt to construct far flung analogies of libertarianism(a positive political theory) to esoteric(i.e, highly theoretical & mathematical) scientific disciplines, at least get the parts right.

  88. robert capozzi

    AD: The NAPist is arguing the mechanisms of the state are inherently immoral. How can they then use them for any purpose?

    Me: They don’t. They accept what MNR called “transitions,” which means they would accept any rollback of the State as progress. What the NAPist won’t consider are trade-offs. For ex., the NAPist opposes a flat tax, since it eliminates tax preferences.

    Politics — whether they recognize it or not — is not something the NAPist is engaged in. They fancy themselves as latter-day William Lloyd Garrisons, and that seemingly high-minded positioning is more than psychologically satisfying for them.

  89. DJ

    RC: They don’t. They accept what MNR called “transitions,” which means they would accept any rollback of the State as progress.

    Me: What are you basing that on?

    RC: What the NAPist won’t consider are trade-offs. For ex., the NAPist opposes a flat tax, since it eliminates tax preferences.

    Me: I consider myself a non-aggression-principle(d) person and the only ‘problem’ I have with a flat tax is the amount- most presentations I’ve seen want it to be enough to sustain current (at the time) levels of revenue.

    My ‘proposal’ is 10% (or less) never to be increased unless/until there is a declared military war on the US- and no, a terrorist attack by civilians (foreign or domestic) doesn’t count- then work back from that- as far as preferences goes I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    But, regardless of the proposal it ain’t gonna happen in our life time- the fed reserve won’t allow it, (for a number of reasons), and politicians will never seriously debate it publicly.

  90. George Phillies

    An opportunity exists for third parties to condemn the national insecurity establishment. Trump revoked Brennan’s security clearance. Twelve of Brennan’s cronies came to his defense.

    Fortunately, Lambert Strether of Corrente researched Brennan and the 12 persons who defended him. If you want all the footnotes and sources, go to Naked Capitalism.com
    https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/08/rough-guide-12-intelligence-officialscondemned-trump-revolking.html#comment-3015088

    “As those of us who still follow the news know, President Trump revoked former CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance. (For those who came in late, Brennan organized torture and “extraordinary rendition”[1], and was a “vocal advocate” of giving the telcos immunity for Bush’s enormous program of warrrantless surveillance[2], under President George W Bush. Under President Barack Obama, Brennan organized the “kill list,” later rebranded as a “disposition matrix,” which Obama used in at least one case to kill a U.S. citizen with a drone strike, while avoiding any form of due process.)

    In response to Trump’s action, twelve “top” intelligence officials wrote and published a statement denouncing it (here). This is the key paragraph:

    We know John to be an enormously talented, capable, and patriotic individual who devoted his adult life to the service of this nation. Insinuations and allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Brennan while in office are baseless.

    William H. Webster – Abortion clinic bombings not domestic terrorism (1984)
    Porter J. Goss – Approves torture (2002)
    General Michael V. Hayden, ?USAF Ret. – Lying on “extraordinary rendition” (2004); destruction of the Fourth Amendment via warrantless wiretapping (2005); defends torture (2014)
    Stephen R. Kappes – Defends torture (2009)
    Leon E. Panetta – Advocates impunity for torturers (2009)
    Michael J. Morell – Defends torture (2015)
    James R. Clapper – Iraq WMDs fantasy (2003); Lies to Congress about mass NSA domestic surveillance (2013)
    General David H. Petraeus,? USA Ret. – Gave classified information to his mistress and biographer (the same person) (2012)
    Avril Haines – Takes no action against CIA staffers who hacked into Senate computers (2015)

    David S. Cohen — No faults identified
    John E. McLaughlin – No faults identified”

  91. Jim

    Trump, of course, strongly supported torture and warrantless surveillance during the campaign. As far as I can tell, he still supports the use of them against anyone not named Trump.

  92. Andy

    “Jim
    August 19, 2018 at 18:40
    Trump, of course, strongly supported torture and warrantless surveillance during the campaign. As far as I can tell, he still supports the use of them against anyone not named Trump.”

    This was a good reason to not vote for Donald Trump (of course Hillary Clinton supports those same policies).

  93. Andy

    This video further proves my point about radical leftists (who are being funded and supported by globalists like George Soros) tearing down historic statues/monuments/memorials/sites as a means of erasing culture, and ushering in Marxism and globalism.

    Faith Goldy is a Canadian journalist who is currently running for Mayor of Toronto. The video below shows Faith talking about how if elected Mayor of Toronto, she will stop radical leftists from tearing down historic statues/monuments/memorials/sites in that city.

    The fact that this is happening in Canada further debunks the claim that the reason for radical leftists wanting to tear down things pertaining to the Confederate States of America, and the Founding Fathers of the USA, is because of slavery. That is just a smokescreen for the real agenda.

    Faith Goldy: Save Our Statues

  94. DJ

    George Phillies article: We know John to be an enormously talented, capable, and patriotic individual who devoted his adult life to the service of this nation. Insinuations and allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Brennan while in office are baseless.

    Me: Depends on if is is.

    I’ve wondered why those no longer in the employ of the gov’t have security clearances anyway.

  95. Anthony Dlugos

    “I’ve wondered why those no longer in the employ of the gov’t have security clearances anyway.”

    Probably because those in the defense industry are look at more as clerics than as employees.

  96. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    Just finished watching the Prof. Klein video. Good distillation.

    Maybe he should write a “Mere Libertarianism” book? Could be a welcome antidote to the dogma.

  97. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Cool. I’d love if a NAPist could offer a coherent rebuttal. I’m open minded. Where is Danny wrong?

    I note that he, too, is a NAPist in recovery….

  98. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    So am I. (NAPist in recovery).

    I don’t know if a rebuttal would be useful.

    I think a “Big Sort” would be, whereupon libertarians best suited for electoral politics wind up in control of the LP, and those with a predilection for the “destination” thinking that Prof Klein refers to sort out of the party and into satellite organizations better suited for moralistic thinking, unencumbered by any short-term concerns like meeting the voters where they are at. The NAPists, of all people, would benefit the most from such a process.

    And frankly, I take the NAPistrs at their word: the sort of Libertarian Party that would be electable and trusted by the voters would be unrecognizable and unacceptable to them. They’d see no difference between it and the Reform Party. They can hardly handle Weld. What happens when there are a few hundred more like him? You and I know that might be an electable party and might thus be the difference between a federal government that separates refugee children from their parents and one that does not (however muddled the resulting immigration policy would be), but to them, its giving up on the dream of “a world set free in our lifetimes.” They won’t give up on that.

    I think LP Chair Sarwark said it best on this very site when we were having the same discussion last year: these are Non-Overlapping Magisteria. They always will be, so I say let’s get on with the sorting.

  99. Andy

    I just posted another news article here last night which has not shown up. This makes 7 news articles that are stuck in “pending” status, some of which have been stuck there for around a month or longer. Two of these stories are Green Party related, the rest are LP. There are several more news stories I wanted to post, including one about somebody who I only recently found out passed away a few months ago, who is a person who should have been recognized here with an article, but who (sadly) was not.

    Is this censorship, laziness, or a combination thereof?

  100. Cody Quirk

    Andy,

    When you decide to hop on board with ATPR, message me on my Facebook profile and give me your email address and we’ll add you on as an author- whom will be allowed to post articles at any time of the day -without needing admin approval.

    In fact if you want, send me your articles and we’ll post them on ATPR on your behalf.

  101. Andy

    “Cody Quirk
    August 20, 2018 at 15:43
    Andy,

    When you decide to hop on board with ATPR, message me on my Facebook profile and give me your email address and we’ll add you on as an author- whom will be allowed to post articles at any time of the day -without needing admin approval.

    In fact if you want, send me your articles and we’ll post them on ATPR on your behalf.”

    Cody, I appreciate your invitation, and I have decided to accept. I actually have never signed up for Facebook. Is there some other way we can communicate? Thanks.

    If I start posting at American Third Party Report, it does not mean that I am leaving Independent Political Report. I intend to remain at Independent Political Report. I am merely branching out to another site.

  102. Andy

    The Truth About Anarchy – Panel Discussion with Walter Block at Anarchaportugal

    Video description from YouTube: “Jeff Berwick takes part in a panel discussion with Walter Block, Susanne Tarkowski Tempelhof and Raphael Lima. Topics include: becoming Anarchist, the origin of statism, Anarchism and Somalia, where does Anarchy exist today? Somalia vs Somaliland, the perverse rewards of state government, stateless nations, but what about pollution? where do rights come from, privatization, but what about the poor?”

  103. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos: “And frankly, I take the NAPistrs at their word: the sort of Libertarian Party that would be electable and trusted by the voters would be unrecognizable and unacceptable to them.”

    Ron Paul was elected to the US House of Representatives multiple times, and he is widely respected by hardcore libertarians.

    There have been other strong libertarians who have been elected to political office. 2000 LP VP nominee, Art Olivier, had been elected to the city council, and as Mayor, of Bellflower, California, prior to his running for Vice President on the LP ticket.

    “They’d see no difference between it and the Reform Party. They can hardly handle Weld. What happens when there are a few hundred more like him?”

    If this happens, the Libertarian Party will no longer be a libertarian party. If Bill Weld types ever become the norm in the LP, the LP ought to change its name to the LINO Party, as in the Libertarian In Name Only Party.

  104. Anastasia Beaverhausen

    “New Mexico Senate Heinrich-D-39, Johnson-L-21, Rich-R-11”

    Draw a line on the wall as this is Gary Johnson’s highest numbers in the Senate race. I predict he’ll finish with 7%.

  105. robert capozzi

    AD: They always will be, so I say let’s get on with the sorting.

    Me: The Reform Caucus from a decade or so back may have taken the wrong approach. We proposed co-existence with the NAPists. They countered: “Sure, we can co-exist with you. Simply accept the NAP as the Truth, the Way, and the Life, and we’re all good.” Short of that, we’ll take your money, but if you EVER violate the NAP in word and deed, we will mercilessly pummel you with literalistic interpretations of the bylaws, SoP, and platform. We will threaten you with the Judicial Committee.

    We will, in short, use the depth charges put there by our Founding Saints.

    You are likely correct that any NAPist counters to Klein’s vid would not be useful. It is very much like speaking with Marxists. There is no actual conversation. It’s a deflect-athon, in my experience.

    AJ does make a point about RP1. However, I’m pretty sure he didn’t run as a NAPist. He positioned himself as a “constitutional conservative” in his House races. This, coupled with his aw-shucks-country-doctor persona, worked for him in that district.

    We’ve seen what an L running as a “constitutional conservative” looks like: Badnarik.

    My sense is that an R can take RP1’s approach and win in some places. Peppering your language with “the Constitution” is a decent shield against sounding fringe. I don’t think it works for an L, although it may well be a decent-enough shield for some things.

    I think GJ’s fc/sl approach is probably more viable for an L candidate to break through. I just wish GJ was a better communicator. I wonder if he’s ever been coached by a speech pro/media trainer.

  106. Anthony Dlugos

    RC: “The Reform Caucus from a decade or so back may have taken the wrong approach. We proposed co-existence with the NAPists.”

    Yea, I think that’s the wrong approach, but its totally understandable. After all, who wants to fight with friends? But, if its a choice between the dogmatic NAPists, party members who would chose to protect a bylaw or the SoP over the poor souls who are affected at the margins of public policy….well, I know who I am siding with.

    Entertaining war story, though!

    I do think Andy makes a good point about St. Paul. And you give the proper response: Ron Paul never did run as a NAPist, which is exactly why he garnered more than .5% of the vote. (He may have said nice things about it).

    I disagree with Ron Paul’s apostasies from the NAP. They make him far too conservative, as you suggest. But I’ve never argued the my disagreement with RP and the paleos was because of their far too dogmatic application of the NAP.

    Then again, the NAPists in the party wouldn’t associate with Andy either. He isn’t a NAPist, even if he thinks he is. He regularly makes excuses for why the US can’t fully implement the NAP right now, most notably vis a vi immigration. As do paleos in general.

    In some sense, at least they implicitly understand the NAP can’t be fully applied in the real world. Too bad its because they are to some extent xenophobic and racist, and probably want to implement a white ethnostate if they had their druthers.

  107. Jim

    Anthony Dlugos “I’ll take the over on that one.”

    Yeah, no kidding. He got 9.3% for President when everyone knew he was going to lose big nationally.

  108. Andy

    Another one of those “peace people” who crossed borders to seek a better life.

    Germany: Doctor Stabbed to Death in His Own Surgery by Somali Asylum Seeker

    https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/18/germany-somali-stabs-doctor-death/

    From the article: “The mayor of Offenburg has cautioned against anti-migrant sentiment after a doctor was reportedly stabbed to death in his own surgery by an asylum seeker, with his 10-year-old daughter forced to watch.
    In what was a seemingly unprovoked attack, a 26-year-old Somali man is reported to have stormed a family doctor’s surgery at 8:45 a.m. without an appointment and stabbed the doctor, named by local media only as Joachim T., who died in one of the practice rooms shortly after.

    The migrant also attacked and wounded a medical assistant named as Elke D. before fleeing the scene, where a knife was found by police.

    “A manhunt involving 20 law enforcement vehicles, a helicopter, and a dog squad was launched shortly afterwards, and officers located and arrested the suspect about one and a half kilometres from the surgery. He was identified as an asylum seeker who arrived in Germany in 2015 and was granted a residence permit to live in Offenberg.

    Johanna Skopp, who lives directly above the practice, told German tabloid Bild she heard ‘pitiful screams’ ringing out from a room below before hearing ‘the doctor’s daughter call out, ‘Dad, Dad!’ several times’.”

  109. Andy

    And here’s another one.

    Germany: Migrant Arrested for Rape and Murder of 63-year-old Woman

    https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/10/germany-migrant-arrested-for-rape-and-murder-of-63-year-old-woman/

    From the article: “A 44-year-old Sudanese migrant was arrested this week in the German town of Helmstedt in connection with the rape and murder of a 63-year-old homeless woman whose body was found last week.

    The body of 63-year-old Susanne M. was found by police last week at a playground in the Lower Saxony capital of Hanover, with investigators also suspecting she had been raped as well, Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung reports.

    Both the victim and the alleged attacker are said to have been part of the homeless scene in Hanover and also allegedly knew each other for some time prior to the murder.

    Senior prosecutor Thomas Klinge claimed that the Sudanese asylum seeker, who had lived under five different identities in Germany and was allegedly looking to purchase another one before the murder, admitted to killing the woman but claimed that he had no intention to kill her at the time.

    Police were able to track down the Sudanese asylum seeker with DNA evidence found on the scene which matched in their database, as the man had been recently convicted of a sex crime and given a three-month suspended sentence.

    The attack is not the first by a migrant on a poor, older woman in Germany. Last August, a group of migrants from Eritrea allegedly lured a 56-year-old woman who was out gathering bottles to a local school in Dessau where they then proceeded to take turns raping her in such a brutal fashion that the woman spent several days in the hospital following the attack.”

  110. Andy

    One has got to wonder how many Libertarian Party campaigns, as well as campaigns for other minor party and independent candidates, on which they have embedded people.

    Reality Check with Ben Swann: FBI Spy Embedded in the Trump Campaign?

    Video description from YouTube: “The FBI planted a spy in the Trump campaign? Turns out that claim is true.

    But the story is so much deeper than that. Who that spy has turned out to be, is a man with CIA connections who has inserted himself into presidential campaigns before.

    This is a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.”

  111. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “Then again, the NAPists in the party wouldn’t associate with Andy either. He isn’t a NAPist, even if he thinks he is. He regularly makes excuses for why the US can’t fully implement the NAP right now, most notably vis a vi immigration. As do paleos in general.”

    This is a bunch of crap on multiple levels. I associate with lots of people, some of whom are self described NAPists. Second of all, I do in fact believe in and advocate for the NAP, and I have in fact done so right here on IPR many, many times.

    Also, your statement about immigration is completely idiotic and shows your lack of understanding of issues, philosophy, and political strategy, or your intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps both. A libertarian anarcho-capitalist society would be a society where all property is privately owned, and would have no taxes, no government welfare, no democratic elections (unless they were held by voluntary organizations, and only applied to those who consented to the election), and therefore, no coercive government. Such a society would have borders and migration across borders controlled by private property owners, who’d be free to discriminate based on their own criteria. There is a very big difference between this, and calling for “open borders” and mass indiscriminate immigration under our present conditions, which are a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and lots of public property. Calling for “open borders” and mass indiscriminate immigration under our present conditions is not a libertarian position, as it violates the NAP, because it leads to forced association and more people using state managed resources, which are scarce. Competition for scarce resources leads to conflict. Forced association of people from radically different cultures leads to conflict. Libertarianism is about property rights. Foreign nationals have no property rights in the USA. They enter as guests, just as a guest enters a condominium association. The rightful owners of the public property and infrastructure are the American citizen taxpayers. Advocating that everyone on the planet should be able to have unlimited access to the property and infrastructure of the USA not only violates property norms, it violates the rights of the existing population. This is a position that is held by Marxists and globalists, and has nothing to do with libertarianism. There is absolutely nothing unlibertarian at all about saying that while the state exists, it should act as a good steward of the public property and infrastructure, and part of being a good steward is to not allow access to foreigners who hold destructing political ideologies, and/or who are criminal thugs, and/or who carry communicable diseases, and to also not allow such a large influx of people that it causes wild shifts in demographics. No sane private property owner would open their property up to destructive people, or to unlimited numbers of people, and this would not be desirable even if we lived in an anarcho-capitalist society, as private property owners would regulate migration in such a society with private walls, private fences, private security guards, and by being armed themselves. Just because the state performs a function, in this case, regulating borders and migration, it does not invalidate the function, as there would still be a demand for this even if the state ceased to exist. So the real issue here if one is actually a libertarian, is not to rip the borders open under our present context, but rather to create a world where the conditions are such that an anarcho-capitalist society is created and the function of regulating borders and migration can be turned over to private property owners.

    Once again, there is nothing that is inconsistent about my position, nor does my position violate the NAP. Most NAPists, unless they are completely irrational, do in fact accept the concept of incrementalism. Nobody’s going to wave a magic wand and make government disappear. There are lots of issues that would have to be solved if you want to get rid of the state, such as how to divide up all of the public property and infrastructure, what to do with the people who are currently in prison for legitimate crimes, what to do about Social Security and government employee pensions, what do do with the government’s weapons stockpile, etc… Even Adam Kokesh, who is running on a platform to shut down the federal government, is working on a plan as to how to go about doing this in as fair a manner as possible,, and doing so in a way that does not cause a catastrophe. My immigration position is based on how should the situation be handled now, under our present conditions, not some far off fantasy about how borders and immigration would work in an anarcho-capitalist society. I believe that the long term goal should be the anarcho-capitalist society, which would have a private property, free market immigration system (which would of course include the right of property owners to disassociate), but this is not the world that we live in right now, nor are we anywhere close to achieving a society like this.

  112. Andy

    ” foreigners who hold destructing political ideologies,”

    Should read, “foreigners who hold destructive political ideologies..”

  113. Andy

    Faith Goldy’s meet and greet for her campaign for Mayor of Toronto was prevented from happening by Antifa thugs calling making threats to restaurants where she was planning to have these events.

    This Antifa crap is really getting out of hand. They are shutting down free speech and creating mayhem in multiple countries. They are modern day Bolsheviks. These people must be stopped.

    Faith Goldy: Urgent Action Required

  114. Paul

    Just a friendly reminder that Andy, an apologist for the alt-right (and self-described ancap, lol), is once again making the same statist argument against immigrants that Marx did.

  115. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “In some sense, at least they implicitly understand the NAP can’t be fully applied in the real world.”

    How can you have a NAP based border and migration policy when you live in a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and lots of public property?

    Answer: You can’t.

    Advocating in favor of “open borders” and unlimited indiscriminate mass immigration under these conditions is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, and it is not coincidence that this policy is pushed by Marxists and people who want global government.

  116. Paul

    As you well know, Marx was very opposed to Irish immigrants, stating that the Irish not only drove down wages, but more perhaps importantly, they had the wrong political beliefs for the government he wanted! His solution? Use the state to deport and restrict a huge group of people. In other words, he wanted to use government force for political and economic goals.

    Way to go following Marx, Andy.

  117. Paul

    Oh, and it wasn’t just Marx, Engels was also very anti-immigrant as well. Most of them were. East Germany wasn’t known for it’s lax immigration policies. That’s how Marxists are, rationalizing their racist policies of domination and statism off as “political and economic.” It’s kinda hilarious how far-right types use “Marxist” as a snarl word while advocating for Marxist policies in the same breath.

  118. robert capozzi

    AJ: Most NAPists, unless they are completely irrational, do in fact accept the concept of incrementalism.

    Me: Yes, and no. NAPists “accept” incrementalism’s inevitability, but they do not accept trade-offs. The purest NAPist, at least, oppose the flat tax since a few might pay more tax in the short term due to the abolition of tax preferences. There is no flexibility at the core of NAPism.

  119. Anthony Dlugos

    “Way to go following Marx, Andy.”

    “t’s kinda hilarious how far-right types use “Marxist” as a snarl word while advocating for Marxist policies in the same breath.”

    Right you are. This is par for the course for Andy, and the paleos in general.

    if you have a surfeit of free time, go through a solid sample of Andy’s various rants and screeds posted at this site. Overwhelmingly, his quotes, links, and posts originate from NON-libertarian sources.

    It would be bad enough if it was just warmed-over Marx and credibility-free far right websites like Gateway Pundit (which he recently posted a link from). Its actually far worse than that, as he also posts links from outright racists and white nationalists, seemingly without shame.

    This is a predilection paleoconservatives by and large share; quoting or referencing decidedly non-libertarian sources as libertarian gospel. Further, many paleos that are politically active will regularly excoriate the LP for not hewing to their bastardized hard-right libertarianism…except they’ll do it from the sidelines. Chairman Sarwark noted this during his bruhaha with Woods last year over the Mises-racism connections: the loudest complainers weren’t even in the party, indeed, it didn’t seem that they were ever in the party. Yet they insist they speak for libertarianism.

    All this must have scored points, because I note that Woods apparently recently joined the party, this in addition to the creation of the white nationalist Mises Caucus, and their attempt to win the Chair position. In all likelihood, however, their conceited inflexibility will be their undoing. Once they realize the party is not going to genuflect to their racist dog whistle crap, they’ll scatter back to their demented corners of the Dark Enlightenment.

  120. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 22, 2018 at 07:30
    AJ: ‘Most NAPists, unless they are completely irrational, do in fact accept the concept of incrementalism.’

    Me: Yes, and no. NAPists “accept” incrementalism’s inevitability, but they do not accept trade-offs. The purest NAPist, at least, oppose the flat tax since a few might pay more tax in the short term due to the abolition of tax preferences. There is no flexibility at the core of NAPism.”

    My position on immigration is not so much a trade off, as it is recognizing the reality that advocating in favor of unlimited, no questions asked mass indiscriminate immigration into a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and lots of public property is not a libertarian position, it is forced association, including the forced association of lots of people who are hostile to liberty, and such policy increases the level of conflict in society. So anyone who advocates said policy under this context is not advocating in accordance to the NAP.

  121. Paul

    “My position on immigration is not so much a trade off, as it is recognizing the reality that advocating in favor of unlimited, no questions asked mass indiscriminate immigration…”
    –quote by Marx, Engels or Andy?

    Seriously Andy, when are you going to stop pretending that violent government policies don’t magically violate the NAP because you like them? And when are you going to stop hypocritically accusing others of being Marxist for opposing your advocacy of violent statist policies that Marx supported?

  122. Anthony Dlugos

    Really, man.

    Andy’s rendition of the NAP and its application to immigration is the most tortured version of the source material I’ve heard since Britney Spears butchered “I Love Rock & Roll.” And I’m not even a NAPist.

    RC is right: the NAPists don’t do trade-offs. They do the OPPOSITE of trade-offs. They even have a name for it: No Particular Orderism.

    Andy not only does Orderism, he specifically makes it a point to put immigration LAST in the order. Only once his AnCap utopia is enacted will the police state immigration policies he advocates for be eliminated.

    Which, of course, means never.

    Like I said, by objective definition he is not a NAPist, nor would the NAPists have him as one of their own.

  123. Anthony Dlugos

    More like Jim Acosta calmly handled the hyperventilating idiot from infowars who can’t make the separation between government censorship and the private right to freedom of association.

    In any case…the final nail in the coffin for Andy! Enjoy your fellow xenophobes and theocrats in the Constitution Party, and don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out!

    https://www.lp.org/immigrants-benefit-the-united-states/

  124. Libertydave

    Andy,

    Libertarianism is about Freedom not just property right and Non-Aggression, and even going by your definition your stance violates the Non-Aggression principle when it comes to immigration. You are out-right lying when you claim that immigrant traveling on public roads is trespassing. And just because you believe it to be true doesn’t make it any less of a lie.

  125. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    August 23, 2018 at 09:34
    More like Jim Acosta calmly handled the hyperventilating idiot from infowars who can’t make the separation between government censorship and the private right to freedom of association.”

    If you’d bother to listen to what was being said, that point was covered. However, it should be pointed out that these internet platforms are given special protection from the state from lawsuits from the state, and that they have all received taxpayer funding, so they really are not as private as you are making them out to be.

    “In any case…the final nail in the coffin for Andy! Enjoy your fellow xenophobes and theocrats in the Constitution Party, and don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out!

    https://www.lp.org/immigrants-benefit-the-united-states/

    This is not the first time that the Libertarian national office has put out an idiotic press release, nor is it the first time that anyone representing the Libertarian Party has made an idiotic statement.

    I don’t agree with everyone on every detail of everything in any political party, be it the Libertarian Party, or the Constitution Party, or any other party.

    Now as this relates to immigrants, in spite of your repeated lies about me, I have never held the position that there should be no immigrants. There are some good immigrants out there who actually believe in liberty, and who are actually productive people. I have no problem with these people.

    My problem is that that a large percentage of modern day immigrants.

    If I was just a “xenophobe” as you claim, I’d be opposed to all immigrants, and I would be hostile to all foreigners in general, neither of which are true.

    You claimed that I wanted to join up with theocrats in the Constitution Party (while there is a theocratic wing in the Constitution Party, not everyone in the Constitution Party is a theocrat). I am highly opposed to theocracy, which is one of the reason why I oppose mass immigration, or more specifically, mass Muslim immigration (since a high percentage of these people are theocrats).

    What is really ironic here is that Anthony has admitted that he’s not an “open borders” guy himself, and that this issue position is losing issue with the public (a recent survey indicated that 81% of Americans want to see immigration reduced).

    The truth of the matter is that Anthony does not like the fact that I oppose candidates like Bob Barr, Gary Johnson, and Bill Weld, being nominated as candidates for the Libertarian Party, so if I were to leave the party, that would just be one less person in the LP who was an obstacle to his goal of turning the LP into something that’s just another flavor of the current mainstream political establishment.

    I put out an open challenge to anyone in the Libertarian Party to debate me on video as to the merits of the press release above, and as to what the proper application of libertarian philosophy is in regard to immigration. If possible, I would like for this debate to take place at a Libertarian Party meeting or convention somewhere, but I will also do it online. The debate must be posted to YouTube, and it would be good to post it to other video platforms (Bitchute, DTube, Minds.com, etc…).

    I put out this challenge weeks before the Libertarian National Convention in New Orleans, and I had a video camera on me during the entire convention, yet the only person who bothered to respond to my challenge was Starchild, and during the course of conversation, he said that he was confused about what my position was on immigration after I started to explain it to him (he seemed to think that I was opposed to all immigration, which is not true). Outside of this, Starchild was somebody that I was interested in conducting an interview with anyway just because he’s an interesting person in the libertarian movement, but unfortunately it ended up not coming together.

    Anyway, nobody else stepped up, but my challenge is still open.

    Here are a few things to keep in mind about in relation to the press release above:

    1) 91% of Muslim migrants in the USA today are on welfare.

    2) Surveys on issues indicate that the political views of most Muslim migrants are hostile to liberty, and they are particularly bad on civil liberties for women and gays.

    3) Muslim migrants have caused the crime rates to go up in the USA, and especially in Europe (where there is a higher percentage of them).

    So I strongly disagree with the notion that this is desirable, or within the principles of libertarianism, to act as though the present situation with mass immigration has anything to do with libertarianism, as it is not consistent with property rights or the Non-Aggression Principle.

  126. Andy

    More Than 90 Percent of Middle Eastern Refugees on Food Stamps

    https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/10/more-than-90-percent-of-middle-eastern-refugees-on-food-stamps/

    From the article: “More than 90 percent of recent refugees from Middle Eastern nations are on food stamps and nearly 70 percent receive cash assistance, according to government data.
    According to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) data highlighted by the immigration subcommittee staff of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) — chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest — in FY 2013, 91.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees (accepted to the U.S. between 2008-2013) received food stamps, 73.1 percent were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and 68.3 percent were on cash welfare.

    Middle Eastern refugees used a number of other assistance programs at slightly lower rates. For example, 36.7 percent received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 32.1 percent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 19.7 percent lived in public housing, 17.3 percent were on General Assistance (GA), and 10.9 percent received Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA).

    The high welfare rates among Middle Eastern refugees comes as the Obama administration considers increasing the number of refugees — who are immediately eligible for public benefits — to the U.S., particularly Syrian refugees.”

    My comment: Do Libertarians go by emotions, or by evidence and reason? How is having a large number of theocrtic welfare recipients who have a higher than average propensity for committing crimes immigrating to the country where you live in the best interests of liberty? Look at how these people vote after they become citizens. The statistics indicate that they vote in large blocks for bigger and bigger government.

  127. Andy

    ” these internet platforms are given special protection from the state from lawsuits from the state,”

    Should read, “these internet platforms are given special protection from the state from lawsuits..”

  128. Andy

    The late Murray Rothbard is one of the most influential libertarians ever, and he’d be at odds with LP national over the recent press release regarding the proper application of immigration policy from a libertarian perspective.

    “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

  129. Libertydave

    There goes Andy, trying to scare people into giving up their freedoms for the illusion of safety.

  130. Andy

    “Libertydave
    August 23, 2018 at 17:23
    There goes Andy, trying to scare people into giving up their freedoms for the illusion of safety.”

    There goes Libertydave again, making the same stupid comment which I have already debunked in other threads.

  131. Libertydave

    Andy,

    You haven’t debunked anything. You just ignore anyone who provides proof that your position on immigration is authoritarian and repeat your lies and fear mongering.

  132. Andy

    Note that the black Marxist dominated government in South Africa recently passed a law saying that they are going to confiscate all of the farms held by white farmers with little to no compensation. There have been over 70,000 farmers murdered in South Africa over the last 10 years or so by roving gangs of thugs.

    Also, note that when the Dutch arrived in what is today South Africa in 1652, most of it was unoccupied, with the exception of one nomadic tribe called the Khoisan. The other African tribes who are in South Africa today came in as immigrants after this. Many of these Dutch Afrikaner farmers have families that has been farming this land for generations.

    Keep in mind that gun control leads to tyranny.

    Also, keep in mind that radical leftists in this country are pushing for similar policies.

    South Africa Calls for 300,000 Gun Owners to Turn Over Their Weapons

    https://gunpowdermagazine.com/south-africa-calls-for-300-000-gun-owners-to-turn-over-their-weapons/

    From the article: “South Africa is opening the door for tyranny.

    The Constitutional Court of South Africa recently ruled that 300,000 gun owners must turn in their firearms.

    This judgement came in response to the North Gauteng High Court’s ruling in 2017 which said Section 24 and Section 28 of the Firearm’s Control Act were unconstitutional.

    A report from The Citizen explains what Section 24 and Section 28 entail:

    ‘Section 24 of the Act requires that any person who seeks to renew a licence must do so 90 days before its expiry date Section 28 stipulates that if a firearm licence has been cancelled‚ the firearm must be disposed of or forfeited to the state. A 60-day time frame was placed on its disposal, which was to be done through a dealer.’

    Now that the High Court’s initial ruling has been overturned, gun owners who failed to renew their firearms licenses must hand in their firearms to the nearest police station, where authorities will then proceed to destroy them.

    Many naïve political observers will paint this event as a casual gun control scheme, but any astute student of politics will recognize that the floodgates are now open for further encroachments – not only on the gun rights of South Africans, but also on others facets of theirs lives.”

  133. Andy

    “Libertydave
    August 24, 2018 at 01:38
    Andy,

    You haven’t debunked anything.”

    ” You just ignore anyone who provides proof that your position on immigration is authoritarian and repeat your lies and fear mongering.”

    Your position on immigration is authoritarian because you want to force associate Americans with people whom they do not wish to associate. News flash: most Americans are fed up with immigrants. Multiple surveys indicate that a super-majority of Americans want to see immigration reduced. The most recent survey that I read said that 81% of Americans want less immigration. There is no right to move onto land that is already occupied by other people. All of the infrastructure and commons in this country is paid for by the American taxpayers. Foreign nationals have no right to any of this stuff, they can use it as guests under specified conditions, and some of them can even immigrate here under specified conditions. It is not in the best interests of the American population, or in the best interests of liberty, for the government to import large numbers of people who get on welfare, and who hold Marxist and/or theocratic views (theocratic views are very common in Muslim countries), and who, statistically speaking, commit crimes at a higher rate than most of the rest of the existing population (which the statistics indicate that Muslim migrants do). I posted a link above which clearly shows at a super-majority of Muslim migrants are on welfare in this country. When these people become American citizens, and vote in elections, the statistics indicate that they vote in super-majority numbers to increase the size of government.

    Forced associating large numbers of people who are hostile to American culture, and who disproportionately suck up welfare money and commit crimes, into our current democratic welfare state, is not a legitimate libertarian position.

  134. Anthony Dlugos

    “Forced associating large numbers of people who are hostile to American culture, and who disproportionately suck up welfare money and commit crimes, into our current democratic welfare state, is not a legitimate libertarian position.”

    Well, at least Andy’s xenophobic is logical and rational. lol

  135. Paul

    Oh wow, Andy is repeating outright white supremacist lies from South Africa now. That’s special.

    Does anyone think Andy might be a leftist infiltrator trying to discredit real conservatives?

  136. Jim

    No. If Andy were trying to discredit conservatives or libertarians he would pick a less popular topic. Lots of people agree with Andy’s position.

    Actions designed to discredit a group look more like… getting on stage at a national convention and taking off your clothes on television.

  137. dL

    No. If Andy were trying to discredit conservatives or libertarians he would pick a less popular topic. Lots of people agree with Andy’s position.

    Actions designed to discredit a group look more like… getting on stage at a national convention and taking off your clothes on television.

    maybe the LP should just pass out white sheets at the convention

  138. Jim

    Well, aren’t you just all #edgy and stuff?

    Andy holds some un-libertarian views, but I’m pretty sure he isn’t in the Klan. In most respects, his behavior profile doesn’t fit that of a disruptive agent.

    One tactic used by disruptive agents is to adopt the most pure position they can – as seen by the group, not themselves – and then try to expel those who aren’t perfectly in line with the purist (majority) position. It’s easy to drum up support for expelling factions that hold minority positions in a group. It’s a lot harder to, as Andy is doing with immigration, attempt to convince the majority to adopt his minority views.

    There are some things Andy does that superficially do fit the profile of a disruptive agent. His constant attacks on Johnson and Weld, for example. But a disruptive agent would attempt to perfectly match the LP Platform while he was launching those attacks and Andy does not. And the result is exactly what a disruptive agent would have been able to avoid – Andy’s attacks against Johnson and Weld for not being pure enough have been pointed right back at him because of his views on immigration.

    Another behavior is seen when the disruptive agent is criticized for attacks against other members. Another agent, working in concert, will gas light the person doing the criticism by accusing them of dividing the movement.

    Another tactic is to waste resources. Put a lot of time and money into something, and then fail. Andy has a solid reputation with his petitioning, not a reputation for coming up just short after much money is spent.

    Another tactic is to, in various ways, discredit the group in the eyes of the public. And maybe you could point to Andy’s conspiracy theories for that. Gary Johnson’s Aleppo comment also did that. So did James Weeks, by orders of magnitude. So did Arvin Vohra.

    I could go on.

    There is a group operating within the LP that closely fits the profile of disruptive agents. But Andy isn’t part of it.

  139. robert capozzi

    J,

    The Aleppo moment wasn’t a “tactic.” It was obviously a mistake and a misunderstanding, near as I can tell.

    It did very much hurt GJ’s momentum. Whether it hurt L-ism or the LP, I dunno, maybe a bit.

  140. DJ

    Paul: Some people can’t take jokes…

    Me: Some people can’t address the message

    Paul: Jim must be a crisis actor.

    Me: They can attack the messenger though a perfected “leftist” tactic.

    5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html

    And we all know the US left is pure as the driven snow.

  141. Anthony Dlugos

    “Does anyone think Andy might be a leftist infiltrator trying to discredit real conservatives?”

    No. He’s a utopian drawn to a party with a utopian vision. He’s a dogmatic drawn to a party steeped in dogmatism.

    Forget the fact that his utopia, his reading of the dogma is wildly different than what could be called the dominate utopia & dominate dogma of the party. The important thing is that incantations of “Taxation is Theft” is a siren song for utopians of all stripes; assertions that ALL public policy problems can be solved via a single axiom (the NAP) , is just the sort of short-circuited thinking anyone with a predilection towards dogma wants to hear.

    Andy’s (or any utopian’s) process of making his utopia THE utopia, of making his immigration control compliant with the NAP is a comparably easy process.

    Who can be surprised that the LibSoc Caucus’ rallying cry is “Rent is Theft?” Seriously, its wonderful satire to me.

    Thought-terminating cliché;

    Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism popularized the term “thought-terminating cliché”. This refers to a cliché that is a commonly used phrase, or folk wisdom, sometimes used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the clichéd phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.

    “The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

  142. Paul

    Didn’t “Rent is Theft” (much like “Property is Theft”) predate “Taxation is Theft”?

  143. dL

    Didn’t “Rent is Theft” (much like “Property is Theft”) predate “Taxation is Theft”?

    Yes…

Leave a Reply

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