December 2018 Open Thread

Our monthly open thread. Post news tips about alt parties and independent candidates, discuss any story that should be posted here but has not yet been posted, or even delve into completely off-topic stuff…just avoid quarantined thread subject matter and things that could get us and/or you into legal trouble such as threats, libel, and copyright infringement.

News tips can also be sent to the IPR writers who have chosen to make their contact info available at http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/about/.

82 thoughts on “December 2018 Open Thread

  1. William Saturn

    As previously reported, The Saturnalian was censored last month by Automattic at the behest of the nation of Pakistan. As a protest, I have republished the censored, offensive material at Saturn’s Repository. This conveys to a censor or potential censor that an act of censorship will be met with multiple reproductions of the censored material, nullifying the censorship and reversing the censor’s intent. Without the right to offend there is no right to free expression.  In a web of censorship, Saturn’s Repository stands as a free space for free speech.

    https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/pakistan-censors-the-saturnalian/

  2. Jim

    Voter registration chart

    https://i.imgur.com/W0ltqGs.png

    For most states I used numbers closer to the election than those that are in the November BAN. The numbers that I used for the Constitution Party, Working Families Party, and Reform Party are within a few hundred of the number in BAN. But, the more updated numbers that I used I used added 2,300 to the Green Party and 18,800 to the Libertarian Party. Almost half of the difference for the LP came from California. Richard Winger used the 60 day pre-election report while I used the 15 day report.

  3. William T. Forrest

    Very nice! Do you have the other stuff you assembled like this indexed anywhere?

  4. paulie Post author

    Tens of millions each, but falling over time, unlike the LP which keeps growing by leaps and bounds. The only other one that’s growing is non-partisan, not as fast in percentage terms as LP but faster in raw numbers; now bigger than Republican and in some states bigger than both Republican and Democrat combined.

  5. robert capozzi

    pf,

    It’d be great if the LP could be de-fringed to accelerate this trend. Unlikely, but a boy can dream.

  6. paulie Post author

    It’s already been quite a bit defringified and I would not bet against more of that happening. I’m not sure whether it will accelerate the trend or not. It may have more to do with external events. For example, the growth of the 1990s didn’t seem to correspond much with intra-party defringification as I don’t remember much of that happening in the LP at the time, while the relative stasis of the 2000s decade was at a time when the party was actively being defringified. It’s not an inverse correlation either though; see the 1980s.

  7. robert capozzi

    Today I finished a stint on jury duty. The case involved a person who’s a member of the “sovereign citizen” movement. Dude was pulled over for not having license plates. He also had no drivers license. He would not cooperate with the cop, including refusing to give his name and birth date. The defendant claimed he had the “right to travel.” He made obscure legalistic references, not unlike the sort I hear from NAPists.

    It took the 11 Normals and me about 10 minutes to find the dude guilty. There was some sympathy for this fringe figure, but there was no sympathy for his esoteric and time-wasting stunt. Oh, yes, he “defended” himself.

    A cautionary tale for all fringe players, I submit.

  8. paulie Post author

    Yeah, the sovereign citizen thing rarely works. Not exactly news. Is there a larger extrapolation you are trying to draw, if so what and why?

  9. robert capozzi

    Yes, being perceived as a “principled” wacko in public is not a good idea. It doesn’t sell.

  10. paulie Post author

    As far as I know, neither being principled nor being a wacko are by themselves illegal. Offering wacky theories about government laws in a government court has a low likelihood of success, if your measure of success is having the charges dismissed. But that’s about all I get out of that one, and I already knew that.

  11. robert capozzi

    I also note that when the dude claimed that he has the “right to travel,” I was reminded that many NAPists here hold a similar opinion.

  12. paulie Post author

    There are lots of rights I think we should have, but I’m not under any illusion that a government court is likely to recognize them if I make such arguments in court.

  13. robert capozzi

    PF,

    Excellent. Myself, whenever I take a position that’s the same as a wacko, I re-examine that position.

  14. paulie Post author

    Really? Well there are people who believe that various drugs are sacraments in their religion. Lots of other people think those people are wackos. And they are if they think that this is likely to hold up as a legal argument. But they’re not when they say they should have a right to ingest these substances, and I have no idea whether their theological view is wacko or not. I’m not tempted to change my view that they should have a right to ingest any substance they want just because a court is highly likely to rule against them if they make such an argument in court.

    Likewise, I am no less convinced that people should be free to travel without license plates and government travel permission papers just because some wackos think they will get out of jail and/or fines by claiming such rights in court.

  15. Jim

    The fall in the 1980s is due almost entirely to a steep decline in California’s numbers. A few other states, like Arizona and Nevada, increased during the decade. But California amounted to 87% – 98% of all registrations in the 1980s. It probably had a lot to do with Reagan being Governor there. And Justin Raimondo was publishing letters in LP News asking people to quit the LP and join the Republican Party. Also contributing to about 2,000 of the decline: 11 states reported LP stats in 1980, but only 7 did so by 1990.

    The 90s was a reverse of all of those things. By 2000 California had added 44,000, rebounding back above its 1980 level. The number of states reporting increased from 7 to 21. And there were also some states besides California with rapid growth. Pennsylvania added 30,000, which moved it up to 2nd place behind California, where it remains today. No states finished 2000 with fewer registrations than 1990.

    California lost about 7,000 between 2000 and 2008, but those came back by 2010, leaving it flat for the decade. The dip in 2002 is entirely explained by the fact that Pennsylvania did not report the LP registration stat that year (it would have been around 32,000.) The dip in 2006 was caused by North Carolina and Nebraska going to zero, wiping out around 18,000. And Massachusetts peaked in 2004 at 24,000 and began a slide that didn’t stop until 9,000 in 2016. The number of states reporting only rose from 21 in 2000 to 25 in 2010, and the 4 added states didn’t contribute much. 6 state parties had a net loss during the 2000s.

    The number of states reporting in 2018 was 31. Combined those 6 additional states contributed 24,000 to the 567,000 total. The rest has been pretty widespread growth. Since 2010, California is up 58,000, Colorado 29,000, North Carolina 28,000, Florida 15,000, Nebraska 14,000, Maryland 13,000… Only two states have a net loss since 2010: Alaska and Massachusetts. And those two combined are only down 1,600.

  16. Jim

    robert capozzi “I also note that when the dude claimed that he has the “right to travel,” I was reminded that many NAPists here hold a similar opinion.”

    A lot of non-napists do, also. Even the government basically only says it can limit travel for human trafficking, immigration, and safety.

  17. dL

    Bob, do you still subscribe to Stefan Molyneaux’s youtube channel?

  18. William T. Forrest

    Who is this crazy woman and how is she related to the equally crazy and contemptible Molyneux? BTW thanks for the reminder to unsubscribe from his crazy bigoted channel.

  19. robert capozzi

    PF, Jim, and WTF,

    There’s a difference, I submit, between PRIVATE and PUBLIC wacko-ism. If someone believes that, for example, someone has esoteric religious views but they keep it private, most are willing to respect that. Romney was the first LDS candidate for prez by a major party, and he nearly won. My sense is his religion didn’t hurt him too much, even though many find his religious doctrine to be strange. He didn’t proselytize Mormonism, and he didn’t describe his views of Planet Kolob.

    Nor does Weld proselytize Episcopalianism, which I sense is NOT considered wacko. (It’s not my cup of tea.)

    I suspect that Romney and Weld also hold some odd view on something. And, yet, we don’t know what they might be.

    Why is that?

    Because these politicians recognize the difference between PRIVATE and PUBLIC. This is not to say that their private views are unimportant to them. To the contrary, they are probably integral in some cases to their overall thought systems.

    It’s charming on some level that NAPists want to discern between objective wacko-ism and rationality. (I’m skeptical.) For the NAPist, it’s wacko that anyone believe that anyone has the “right” to go anywhere, and then to not see that TO THE PUBLIC the “right to travel” is NOT absolute as it is for the NAPists.

    Similarly, one only need to read the LPUS’s SoP and platform to see that the NAPists are more than willing to share their (what should be) private views publicly. Yes, the language lacks hysteria, but when one reads between the lines, anyone can see that the LP is committed to extreme change. One might also assume, given the heavy moralism in these documents, that the LPUS wants very rapid as well as extreme change.

    And, yet, almost no one wants or will even CONSIDER the change that the NAPists advocate. This is why I say that the LP is inappropriately offering their private thoughts in public. Reread MM’s essay if there’s any question about that.

    Like Cantwell, I see Molyneux as a cautionary tale for NAPists. (Both were doctrinaire NAPists a few short years ago.) Several years ago, I’d sometimes watched his Youtubes as part of my research on the dysfunction of NAPism. I also found him somewhat interesting, given his acting training. (Cantwell was not interesting, aside from the fact that he grew up near where I did, and I recognize his accent as a Long Islander’s.) He sometimes had interesting guests; I first saw Jordan Peterson on Molyneux’s show, for example. (Peterson is also not someone I find influential, but he is interesting.)

    I subscribed to Alex Jones as well, mostly to gain insights on why Trump was (somehow) gaining traction in 16. I generally don’t care for Jones’s message.

    In short, just because a person WATCHES a Youtube does not mean that a person AGREES with the content. I watch Maddow and Scott Adams, too. I don’t agree with them on most things.

    I trust I won’t need to explain this obvious point again.

  20. William T. Forrest

    I also watch/subscribe to plenty of things I disagree with, and I’ll probably continue to take an occasional look at Molyneux. However, he has gone beyond the pale in his “race realist” bullshit and I don’t want to give even him even the tacit support/validation of being part of his subscriber count anymore.

  21. robert capozzi

    wtf,

    Yes, i agree. recent NAPist SM’s and CC’s descent into haterism is most odious.

  22. Anthony Dlugos

    “Similarly, one only need to read the LPUS’s SoP and platform to see that the NAPists are more than willing to share their (what should be) private views publicly. Yes, the language lacks hysteria, but when one reads between the lines, anyone can see that the LP is committed to extreme change. One might also assume, given the heavy moralism in these documents, that the LPUS wants very rapid as well as extreme change.”

    Good post, RC, @ 8:10.

    Its not just that many in the LP recite “Taxation is theft” like the Rosary and refer to the NAP the way Evangelicals refer to John 3:16.

    Its that those people mean those things literally. They advocate basing public policy on them in a very concrete manner, invariantly, without exception, without prioritizing, without temporizing.

    When we say “Taxation is theft” we really mean it. See the platform. We would apparently be in favor of a hypothetical bill to eliminate all taxation on people who make over and above $1,000,00, and only those people.

    This is how you turn a general belief among the populace that taxation is too high and indecipherable and government too big, into a fringe, cult-like organization.

  23. Anthony Dlugos

    “One might also assume, given the heavy moralism in these documents, that the LPUS wants very rapid as well as extreme change.”

    The most self-aware of the NAPists will dodge the Rapidity Problem via vagueness regarding the time frame, allowing the voters to infer for themselves how rapidly we’d intend to usher in libertopia.

    What they certainly will NOT due is affirm a government component to a public policy issue. Which is an odd stance to take for a party purportedly in the business of proving we can govern.

    I had a job interview for an assistant brewmaster position at my favorite craft brewery here in Northeast Ohio. I didn’t actually tell them I am an atavistic prohibitionist, but I was so resolute in my description of alcohol as the devil’s handiwork, that they came right out and asked me if I actually had any interest in making good beer.

    I dodged that question by telling them not to worry about it, because, for the time being, I want the same thing as they do: fewer deaths and less personal destruction as a result of alcohol consumption.

    The owner pointed out that’s not EXACTLY the sole goal of the brewery, although those things are good goals.

    I responded by telling them there are plenty of people out there who do not drink alcohol either as a matter of principle, or because they think have better things to do with their money, or they periodically complain about hangovers so why not reach out to them?

    I did not get the job.

  24. robert capozzi

    AD,

    For the NAPist, “they” are “evil.” I — the NAPist — am righteous. “They” are “idiots.” I –the NAPist — am brilliant. I — the NAPist — must do what I can to educate these morons.

    Overstated, but only somewhat. That’s the attitude. It doesn’t sell.

  25. dL

    In short, just because a person WATCHES a Youtube does not mean that a person AGREES with the content. I watch Maddow and Scott Adams, too. I don’t agree with them on most things.

    So, the answer is, yes, you still subscribe to Stefan Molyneaux.

  26. dL

    We would apparently be in favor of a hypothetical bill to eliminate all taxation on people who make over and above $1,000,00, and only those people.

    No, “we” would not. Neither in principle nor practice. You, however, are on record for supporting higher taxes on the poor.

  27. dL

    will dodge the Rapidity Problem

    Easy to dodge something that you just made up out of thin air. Outside of particle physics, I have never heard of the “rapidity problem.”

  28. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    As I mentioned before, I think the least political in the NAP universe keep their public policy pronouncements nebulous, either in whole or in part. Position and momentum of a particular proposal are fuzzy possibilities for them, and as such it keeps the ideas inoffensive and keeps such NAPists sane, generally pleasant people.

    Unfortunately, it makes such proposals totally unworkable in a policy sense.

    On the other hand, any of the NAPists who actually try and collapse the NAP into concrete policy proposals end up sounding batsh*t crazy, angry, apologists for the worst elements of society, and various levels of mentally unhinged.

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    No, “we” would not. Neither in principle nor practice.

    Bullsh*t, that’s how the platform reads, and I can assure you I could find many, many NAPists would be in favor of just such a thing.

  30. dL

    On the other hand, any of the NAPists who actually try and collapse the NAP into concrete policy proposals end up sounding batsh*t crazy, angry, apologists for the worst elements of society, and various levels of mentally unhinged.

    I’m not the one who subscribes to white supremacist youtube channels nor watches white victimhood peddlers on Fox. Neither do I think the incels’ favorite philosopher is any way remotely interesting. lol

  31. Anthony Dlugos

    “Easy to dodge something that you just made up out of thin air.”

    Didn’t make it out of thin air.

    One of the long-term NAPist ” angels dancing on the head of a pin” questions is whether or not they would push a button to end government immediately or not.

    The idea that it should be eventually abolished is not questioned.

  32. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, the politically active NAPisrs hurt the cause of liberty more than the theorists. My sense is their lack of self awareness is pronounced.

  33. dL

    Bullsh*t, that’s how the platform reads, and I can assure you I could find many, many NAPists would be in favor of just such a thing.

    It doesn’t read like that. What part of “All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor” do you not understand? Perhaps you can track down some crackpot who claims to be a libertarian who supports taxing the poor but not the rich, but the bottom line is that you–in this thread–unequivocally supported higher taxes on the poor.

  34. dL

    Didn’t make it out of thin air.

    One of the long-term NAPist ” angels dancing on the head of a pin” questions is whether or not they would push a button to end government immediately or not.

    And everyone else in the world refers to that as “Rothbard’s Button,” not the “Rapidity problem.”

  35. Anthony Dlugos

    oh, come on, dL, read the whole plank:

    All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax, and oppose any increase on any taxes for any reason. To the extent possible, we advocate that all public services be funded in a voluntary manner.

    “ANY initiative to reduce or abolish ANY tax”

    What part of that don’t you understand?

    “Perhaps you can track down some crackpot who claims to be a libertarian who supports taxing the poor but not the rich,..”

    I could find a lot more than one crackpot.

    I could propose to delete the phrase I noted and I would smoke out all the dogmatic NAPists in screaming hysterics in a heartbeat.

    Of course, they wouldn’t defend it as “taxing the poor, but not the rich.” They would defend it as abdicating the NAP.

    The end result is the same.

  36. Anthony Dlugos

    And everyone else in the world refers to that as “Rothbard’s Button,” not the “Rapidity problem.”

    Ahh, the return of the Aggressively Pedantic Caucus!!

  37. robert capozzi

    A question for any actual NAPist. If the platform says this:

    “We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax,…”

    Is it not the case that AD’s hypothetical “eliminate all taxation on people who make over and above $1,000,00, and only those people,” to be consistent with the platform, a L MUST support such a tax law change?

    If not, why not?

  38. Anthony Dlugos

    “Arguing with the ill-informed and malicious minded is just too much of an energy drain with no upside.”

    RC,

    In this setting, you are almost assuredly right.

    Within an organization that has the rules and by-laws the LP has?

    There would be value in smoking out the malicious,, to demonstrate to, say, the assembled delegates at a Convention just how malicious the person is.

    As an aside, I don’t think the subject at hand is ill-informed. Just the opposite, I think he’s well aware of the foolish places NAPist dogmatism can end up, and the maliciousness and pedantry is designed to head off a demonstration of that.

    I’m very certain a proposal at a Convention to delete the taxing phrase I mentioned would have the NAPists in hysterics. I’m sure you agree.

    Call it the rapidity problem or rothbard’s button, I don’t give a sh*t. The point is 10 out of 10 NAPists/radicals would entertain the question, falling on one side or the other. The other 99.98% of the public would look at the question as ludicrous, and everyone knows that.

    So make a pedantic point to misdirect.

  39. robert capozzi

    AD,

    It wasn’t Rothbard’s button, it was Read’s.

    While “taxation is theft” fails on every level, it — like NAPism — really just needs a tweak. “Taxation is force” is a true statement.

  40. dL

    Arguing with the ill-informed and malicious minded is just too much of an energy drain with no upside.

    The Button was the FEE founder Leonard Read’s concept.

    I agree. But arguing with the half-informed is not much better. Leonard Reed’s button was price and wage controls, not the state.

    RE: malicious. You got a glass jaw, Bob.You revel in your little passive aggressive posturing(the liberty to travel==sovereign citizens whack jobs) but whine like a little boy when someone merely states the facts RE: you’re viewing habits. But I understand your touchiness. You’re viewing habits are an embarrassment.

  41. paulie Post author

    I think one of the commenters finally explained why some people take Molyneux seriously, which I never understood before:

    He says things angrily in a tone that conveys disdain for anyone disagreeing.

    That’s the kind of habitus a lot of people associate with intellect.

  42. dL

    What part of that don’t you understand?

    The part where “abolish any tax” equals tax the poor, not the rich. Please cite such a tax currently on the books that if abolished, the poor would still have to pay but the rich would not.

    I could find a lot more than one crackpot.

    Cite them, then. Name names…

  43. Jim

    paulie “He says things angrily in a tone that conveys disdain for anyone disagreeing. That’s the kind of habitus a lot of people associate with intellect.”

    A week or two ago I watched a few of Vox Day’s videos for the first time and he was doing the same thing. He’d say things like ‘this is what a debate looks like when there’s a 2 standard deviation IQ gap,’ or ‘the thing you guys don’t understand is…’

    I was surprised he had any regular viewers. He came across like he had no self confidence and was trying to mask it by being contemptuous towards the intellect of everyone else. The constant need to remind people that he’s smarter than them is like the intellectual version of a dude who goes around beating people up because he thinks it makes him ‘alpha’.

  44. paulie Post author

    Worse, because there are direct physical consequences of going around thinking you can physically beat everyone. Substituting verbal aggression is similar, but tends to have fewer consequences, so more people tend to persist in that habit longer (especially if physically beating people is not an option for them).

  45. robert capozzi

    pf: I think one of the commenters finally explained why some people take Molyneux seriously,

    me: When I watched him occasionally several years back, it was mostly to get a sense of what motivates the NAPist mind. Since he went full alt-right, I’ve only watched him when he has a literature prof on and a few of his call-in shows, none of which are particularly interesting. I also watched his appearance on the Rubin Report, where he behaved himself, hiding his alt-right-edness, as I recall.

  46. dL

    When I watched him occasionally several years back,

    You’re not just a watcher, you’re a subscriber. And it’s been clear for almost 5 years now that Molyneux is a bigot and a fraud. And he is not an anomaly in your youtube subscribe list. Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Scott Adams, Peter Schiff. It’s not an eclectic list. It leans pretty heavily as reactionary.

    it was mostly to get a sense of what motivates the NAPist mind.

    As a self-professed “recovering Napster,” why would you need to watch Stefan Molyneux to figure out what motivates the”NAPist” mind? You were one.

    I only point this out b/c you take every opportunity to troll the Non Aggression principle and in a passive aggressive posture, intimate that NAP is a stepping stone to the reactionary sewer. I dunno, are you being autobiographical here?

  47. dL

    I think one of the commenters finally explained why some people take Molyneux seriously,

    Not an argument!

  48. dL

    A week or two ago I watched a few of Vox Day’s videos for the first time and he was doing the same thing. He’d say things like ‘this is what a debate looks like when there’s a 2 standard deviation IQ gap,’ or ‘the thing you guys don’t understand is…’

    Harping on IQ invariably invites a confabulation constructed for the lowest common denominator. I mean if you really want to follow along with a “High IQ” substrata, check out the physics forums
    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/calculating-the-number-of-energy-states-using-momentum-space.958402/

    Vox Day ain’t that. Instead, Vox’s High IQ highfalutin pretense gives the male sexual hierarchy of the sigmas(Vox), the alphas, the lambdas(gay), and the gammas(marxists), whereby the sigmas will save the alphas(and western civilization) from the lambdas and the gammas. LOL. You have to be one hard up, sexually frustrated motherfucker to suck that up…

    IQ is just a test, and the results for any test are normally distributed. It is not an absolute measure. There is no such thing as a high IQ population. If you took the sample subset that scored two standard deviations left from the mean(roughly ~ 2%), eliminated the 98%, gave a new test, the test results would again be normally distributed. If you scored two standard deviation left from the mean on planet earth, you would score 2 SD from the right on planet Vulcan. On earth, you’re genius, on Vulcan you are moron. So, obviously no space travel between Earth and Vulcan! And that analogy is apt b/c in a generation or two, the bots will be better at everything than humans. And in an human-bot population, the humans are the morons. So, human sequestration, human elimination? IQ aside, hopefully the bots are actually smarter than the humans.

  49. robert capozzi

    For those who continue to engage with the pseudonym known as dL, you may not recognize just how distorted his postings are. S/He apparently could see what I subscribe to on Youtube. S/He cites a VERY short list of my subscriptions (for which I offer no apology) there, which totals 68. I also happen to bookmark others, so I effectively have over 70, many of which I never watch or watch very sparingly.

    As I was coming to the conclusion some months back that his/her intentions as an interlocutor were malicious, I asked him/her for recommendations of what I SHOULD watch, the only thing s/he could come up with was some very obscure website geared toward techies, iirc.

    Engaging with such nonsense and duplicity yields no light that I can see. Others may see it differently. I now need to avoid even indirectly addressing this apparently deeply confused and embarrassed energy drain that types. ymmv.

    If any of the adults in the room have a different approach to intelligent-but-malignant trolls, I’d love some feedback.

  50. dL

    S/He apparently could see what I subscribe to on Youtube.

    I’m male. And “apparently” is correct given that a user’s youtube subscriptions are public, in case you didn’t know that.

    As I was coming to the conclusion some months back that his/her intentions as an interlocutor were malicious, I asked him/her for recommendations of what I SHOULD watch

    You apparently don’t know the definition of malicious. Pointing out what is publicly available is not malicious. Not obliging a purported request to supply a recommendation request is not malicious behavior. Suggesting that perhaps you are not the one people should be taking recommendations from when it comes to disassociation from reactionary extremism–based on your own anti-immigration views posted here and your youtube subscriptions–is not malice. You offer no apology. Well, It’s fair game.

    intelligent-but-malignant trolls

    Nah, I like Tom Woods ‘ smack “deranged, fact-free leftist” better. So much so, I put in my twitter bio. But I didn’t oblige his demand for a list, either. What is it with you guys and demands for lists?

  51. Anthony Dlugos

    “The part where “abolish any tax” equals tax the poor, not the rich. Please cite such a tax currently on the books that if abolished, the poor would still have to pay but the rich would not.”

    Moving the goalposts like a champ, eh dL?

    My original statement was,

    “We would apparently be in favor of a hypothetical bill to eliminate all taxation on people who make over and above $1,000,00, and only those people.”

    That statement makes no reference to tax abolishments that would result in the government taxing only the poor.

    Per the platform, and per my original point that a significant portion of the “Taxation is Theft” crowd means that LITERALLY, we would apparently be in favor of a bill eliminating the estate tax in the United States, a tax with a current exemption of $11.18 million per taxpayer that consequently affects approximately 2,000 people, TOTAL.

    I’ll make another gentleman’s wager…I’ll bet MM or some other radical/NAPist would readily confirm that they would indeed be in favor of such a bill.

    I’m not really sure what the argument is here. Radicals are radicals proudly. They should have zero problem with eliminating the estate tax as a way of demonstrating just how strongly they believe “taxation is theft.”

    me: I could find a lot more than one crackpot.

    dL: Cite them, then. Name names…”

    I explained how I could find them: by presenting a deletion of the phrase “ANY initiative to reduce or abolish ANY tax” at an LP Convention. Don’t you worry, they’d come out of the woodwork.

    In the meantime, how could I have any names? I just came up with this hypothetical deletion in the last couple days and posted it here.

  52. dL

    “We would apparently be in favor of a hypothetical bill to eliminate ALL taxation on people who make over and above $1,000,00, AND ONLY those people.”

    That statement makes no clear reference to tax abolishments that would result in the government taxing only the poor in the poor still having to pay but the rich would not

  53. Anthony Dlugos

    “The part where “abolish any tax” equals tax the poor, not the rich.”

    The platform phrase in question reads:

    “We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax…”

    Any tax means any tax.

    Not only is there zilch in the platform that precludes elimination of a tax on the rich only, I am quite sure the radicals themselves would tell you any tax means any tax, and would argue the platform means exactly what it says.

  54. Jim

    robert capozzi “He cites a VERY short list of my subscriptions (for which I offer no apology) there, which totals 68. I also happen to bookmark others, so I effectively have over 70, many of which I never watch or watch very sparingly.”

    It would take me a year to watch just one video from 70+ channels. I have one channel that I subscribe to, and I watch less than a quarter of what he puts out. That one channel is Esoteric Entity (now known as Esoteric The Free after some youtube dickery.) I, also, offer no apology.

    But, seriously, I don’t think anyone but dL cares what channels you have subscribed to.

  55. dL

    Any tax means any tax.

    And your hypothetical tax–one that the poor would have to pay but the rich would not–no one would support, in principle or in practice, notwithstanding your self delusional fantasy of leading some point of parliamentary procedural smoke out at the libertarian national convention.

  56. dL

    But, seriously, I don’t think anyone but dL cares what channels you have subscribed to.

    I could give a rat’s ass what videos he watches…

  57. DJ

    RC: It took the 11 Normals and me about 10 minutes to find the dude guilty.

    Me: Guilty of what?

  58. robert capozzi

    J: It would take me a year to watch just one video from 70+ channels. I

    Me: My point exactly. I’ve been attacked for Youtubes I subscribe to, even though I watch few of them. It strikes me as malicious to attack me for what I merely subscribe to. It’s a ridiculous thing to even bring up. And, yet, it was. It apparently was some kind of guilt-by-association charge that is transparently absurd.

  59. robert capozzi

    DJ: Guilty of what?

    Me: 1) Delaying a peace officer and 2) Driving without a license.

  60. DJ

    RC: Delaying a peace officer and 2) Driving without a license.

    Me: BFD- LOL- not much of a crime. As with most laws, it’s merely a revenue generator. Of course in cases like “Delaying a Peace Officer” I’d say that’s meant to tell citizens that cops are special and can’t be delayed and we will force you to comply- and, what were the circumstances this happened under? If those are the only “crimes” he was cited with then most likely the original “stop” was bogus to begin with. Sounds like y’all just wanted to punish the guy for being “not” normal.

    There was a well known lawyer down here, years ago, who did that very thing- took them to court, and won.

    If I had the money I’d drive w/o a license and fight them in court every time. That too is a revenue source that likely doesn’t pay for itself so extra revenue is necessary from enFORCErs who have nothing better to do after their doughnut break. They may very well get their fine, but after the 2nd time or so they’d find themselves in the news. Every. Fucking. Time.

  61. Florida Man Larry

    It looks like the Florida Libertarian Party was scammed out of a lot of money. The state party treasurer who was scammed is also the budget officer for the City of Daytona Beach, Fred Coulter.

    The email chains for the board distribution list ec@lpf.org are here:

    https://docs.lpf.org/ec-emails/

  62. Chuck Moulton

    Earlier this year or last year LP national treasurer Tim Hagan reported receiving the wire transfer email scam and warning state treasurers about it. I will try to fish out the Treasurer’s report or email when I get home.

    It’s unfortunate that this scam included LP affiliates in its targets. I hope other affiliates can learn from this situation.

  63. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    The dude drove in front of a cop car in a parking lot without plates as well. The cop pulled him over because of the plates. The driver refused to give his name or birthdate, claiming he had the “right to travel” and just wanted to drive on the roads without being subject to the government’s rules. It was all taped, and he refused to comply in any way.

    The driver also defended himself without an attorney.

    He IMO had a wacky idea about rights to drive on government roads, and was probably looking to challenge the law. His closing argument was an explicit call for us to Jury nullify. I might consider nullification, but not in this case. Plates and licenses make sense to me. The dude just wasted everyone’s time for spurious reasons.

  64. LPF fails again

    More on the LPF treasurer fuck up. The state party has lost “at least $14,000” according to one person close to the situation.

  65. DJ

    Robert, that’s all fine and dandy, but, as I said, it seems y’all just wanted to punish him for not being “normal”, which BTW, puts you in the class of normal vs your sentence ( the 11 Normals and me), I also stated “that’s not much of a crime”- and he shouldn’t need a lawyer to explain it, except in a police (show me your papers) state. Now, admittedly, it is against the law- IF that was pointed out to him, fine, otherwise it’s just a look at how smart we are because you needed a lawyer statement and this is, after all, a “police state” where if permission isn’t granted by the state it isn’t a right to travel- he is correct in that he does have the right to “pursue”, which can be defined as travel, thus the state, the courts and the law are unconstitutionally restricting his efforts. Just because he (or I) don’t use the words preferred by the police state doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. Now, what was his argument for the jury to nullify? Were they not approved by the police state normals?

    The bigger thing, to me, is the licensing of cars and people. They are just revenue generators, Period.
    They serve the state to control the masses “pursuit” in every endeavor that requires getting from point “a” to point “b”- we’ve been trained to accept that as “normal” and animals are easily trained meaning we are no mare than animals in the eyes of the state. And like animals, we comply or pay the price. I’m surprised the guy wasn’t shot. The “normals” would probably have defended it.

  66. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I assure you I had no interest in punishing the defendant. I felt great compassion for him on several levels. The law was clear, as were the instructions. I support those laws for public safety reasons, even though it’s also a revenue generator. I suspect the revenue for plates and licenses doesn’t fully pay for the roads, however.

  67. Libertydave

    roberty capozzi

    You said you support licensing of cars and people for public safety reasons. Can you tell me how licensing cars or people make the public safer?

  68. robert capozzi

    LD,

    Plates ID cars, which are used to ID other law violations, both of the rules of the road and other crimes.

    Licenses are denied to people who cannot drive a vehicle safely.

    These are not, of course, guarantees of safety on the roads. Rather, they are screens for unsafe behavior, and I’m OK with these light requirements.

    To be against plates and licenses are political kryptonite — fringe ideas.

    Private institutions often require passes to move about on private property. The people require such passes when people choose to navigate on public property.

  69. Libertydave

    robert capozi,

    You do know that licensing don’t work at keeping anybody safe and that the government is lying to you about why they passed these laws. As far as car tags go they’re a piece of metal that can easily be removed or stolen before the car is used in a crime. So that law is ineffective at keeping anybody safe and is just a revenue generator. And do you really believe that people who cannot drive a vehicle safely can’t get a license or even care about a license. Come on now give me a break. You really need to quit repeating these lies.

Leave a Reply

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