Classically liberal: The Libertarian Party is a walking corpse

Classically liberal explains

The (formerly) Libertarian Party has had a birthday. It is now 37 years old. In my view the LP is a zombie — the living dead. It walks and moves about but it is a corpse for all practical purposes.

LP National Chairman Bill Redpath has issued a list of promises that the LP has never backed down on — or so he says. Now, for the record, I have no personal grudges with Mr. Redpath. We have met socially and never had cross words. I know almost nothing about what he has done, or hasn’t done, as national chairman. But I do know what a debacle the national offices of the LP was and how corruptly it acted during the presidential nominating convention. And I have to hold the national chairman partially responsible for that. I don’t know if Mr. Redpath was a Barr supporter or not. So I have no known disputes with him behind what I’ve stated.

That said I found his list of LP pledges very disappointing. It was certainly redundant. He promised the LP would “promote free market alternatives” and “protect a free and competitive market”. He said the LP will let “you keep the money that you earn” and will “work towards the repeal of the income tax.” He promises to “fight for less government” and to “cut the size of government.” He is against “bailouts” and “subsidies”. He is saying the same thing several times and counting each new time as if it were another pledge.

I have no problems with what he pledges at all. He basically says: no bailouts; promote free markets; less government; no new taxes, etc. All good things I think.

But what is shocking is what Mr. Redpath has left out. There is not a single mention of the LP fighting the war on drugs. Of course they pushed a drug warrior for president in the great Denver sell-out. There is no mention of civil liberties of any kind. Mr. Redpath doesn’t mention anything outside the realm of economics. He wrote a list of promises that the ultra-Right John Birch Society could sign. There is no mention of foreign policy at all.

Apparently Mr. Redpath doesn’t want to pledge the party will support a non-interventionist foreign policy. Why? He doesn’t want to discuss government interference in marriage rights. Why? There is nothing about abortion, censorship, or sexual freedom. There is nothing offered that will appeal to anyone Left of Bob Barr, nothing for the millions of civil libertarians. Redpath’s pledge list is meant to appeal only to free market conservatives and no one else.

Has the (formerly) Libertarian Party given up on civil liberties and a non-interventionist foreign policy?

Mr. Redpath’s pledge list was another example of how the LP has become a Right-wing, conservative party and is no longer a libertarian one.

I can’t see him accidentally leaving off all references to civil liberties and foreign policy. This is not an oversight but appears to be a conscious decision to disassociate the LP from any policy that conservatives would find offensive. Mr. Redpath only confirms my reasons for disassociating myself from the LP. His lack of even a token reference to civil liberties speaks volumes.

Redpath’s list of promises:

* The Libertarian Party will never use your money to bailout private corporations

* The Libertarian Party will always promote free market alternatives to government action in the economy

* The Libertarian Party will always fight for less government intervention in the market

* The Libertarian Party will never raise your taxes, letting you keep the money that you earn

* The Libertarian Party will ensure transparency is included in all government expenditures

* The Libertarian Party will drastically cut the size of government, not increase its size with positions like “Car Czar”

* The Libertarian Party will protect a free and competitive market, which allocates resources in the most efficient manner—even in times of economic downturn

* The Libertarian Party will always oppose all government attempts to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade

* The Libertarian Party will work towards 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

* The Libertarian Party will fight against government debt, which burdens future generations without their consent

* The Libertarian Party will divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals

* The Libertarian Party will oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest

* The Libertarian Party will repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment

* The Libertarian Party will support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and protect the right of an employer to recognize or refuse to recognize a union

* The Libertarian Party will oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain

* The Libertarian Party will repeal all governmental impediments to free trade

* The Libertarian Party will protect your rights as a taxpayer, businessman or consumer

89 thoughts on “Classically liberal: The Libertarian Party is a walking corpse

  1. Mike Theodore

    “Mr. Redpath’s pledge list was another example of how the LP has become a Right-wing, conservative party and is no longer a libertarian one.”

    A mantra I agree with. My lunch yesterday was spent trying to convince people that there is a difference between Republicans and Libertarians. They’ve pushed us so far right, there’s no line anymore! I wouldn’t be surprised if Barr himself voted McCain!!!

  2. Libertarian Joseph

    What “right”? What do we have in common in Republicans? They’re religious nuts that don’t even believe in balancing the budget anymore. We have more in common with democrats

  3. Mike Theodore

    “What “right”? What do we have in common in Republicans? They’re religious nuts that don’t even believe in balancing the budget anymore. We have more in common with democrats”

    I make that point to boastful laughter…

    I guess a party needs to stand for more than that nowadays.

  4. Libertarian Joseph

    Mike,

    That was their only redeeming value for awhile, and now they don’t even have that much. Really, what use is the GOP? The only better thing there is that the libertarians in the republican party are more organized than they are in the democratic party. Other than that.. dems are alot better on social and privacy issues. Not perfect, not unanimous, but nonetheless, better.

  5. paulie cannoli Post author

    So, the Republicans have abandoned any pretense of fiscally limited government, and the Libertarians have apparently abandoned peace and civil liberties. The Democrats and Greens have not abandoned big spending and high taxes in the least, and the Constitution Party certainly continues to stand strong for big government on a variety of social issues, albeit at the state and local level, and for tariffs and migration barriers.

    That doesn’t leave a whole lot out there for those who believe in peace, civil liberties, and fiscal sanity. The BTP is tiny, and apparently spends most of its time on juvenile bickering.

    This seems like a rather bleak picture, and I’m normally an optimist.

  6. Trent Hill

    “lol. Now you understand why you just can’t win by being a minarchist. It’s futile”

    You just dont get it do you? Paulie is ancap. Im the minarchist, and minarchism has nothing to do with what the various parties are doing.

  7. paulie cannoli Post author

    I agree completely. So when those technologies advance enough so that they are economical,

    Anarchist, yes – most recently since 2000. (I was a syndico-nihilist for a while in the ’80s).

    Capitalist: depends on what you mean. I generally dislike the political use of the term.

  8. Catholic Trotskyist

    Joseph, I am glad that you have such kind words for Democrats. Clearly, you are moving slowly but surely towards Catholic Trotskyism.

    And Paulie, what’s a syndico-nihalist? Is that similar to my position, without so much of the religious stuff?

  9. songster7

    Anarcho-syndicalist myself … in fact that is the specific structure under which Rational Review was formed, and has been operating for … nearly 7 years now! We make policy decisions by unanimous consent; divide gifts received by an agreed-upon formula; accept ONLY donations for our services; operate (mostly) off the grid; … and continue to be amazed h0w few people have “gotten” this concept, and chosen to not only support it (with a relatively paltry contribution, were it coming in from all of our readers), but to attempt similar ventures which could coordinate with our efforts and help build an entirely off-grid “economy” based on open gifting and mutuality among enterprises.

    We have been providing a widely valued (according to those few who’ve chosen to keep us going, even by the smallest subscription-price) service, one that helps folks to distill the vast array of news and opinion out there on the Web, into a fairly concise summary (hence, “digest”) of those that touch on the issues of liberty, ranging from Second Amendment issues, to the War on (Some) Drugs, to foreign policy and imperialism, to economics, to health reform, to … left and right, conservative and progressive, domestic and foreign, …

    All using the lens of liberty to focus the impact, and (in cases where the source and author are only slightly on-key) adding editor’s notes to expand on the subject a bit. (That one was my idea, as was the one about using direct quotes from the text, instead of making a feeble attempt to summarize in our own words … To my knowledge, we were the first news-gathering website that took this approach; now it’s almost standard-fare!)

    But apparently it is more fun to play at “politics” than to toss this week’s latte allotment toward annual support for things like this that actually produce a product!

  10. Thomas M. Sipos

    The solution to taking back the LP is simple, but requires effort.

    BE a radical libertarian, OPENLY, LOUDLY, REPEATEDLY.

    What does this mean?

    Call radio talk shows, give public talks, write letters to the editor, and articles, etc. Whenever you do so, identify yourself as a Libertarian Party member (or officer, or delegate), then be as outrageously radical as you can.

    If enough of us do that, the public will view us as pro-civil liberties, antiwar radicals. Those types of people will be attracted to the LP and join us; Republican Lites will be disgusted and avoid us.

    If enough of us are publicly radical Libertarians, the Republican Lites will have their hands full doing damage control, explaining, “No, no, we’re not really like that!”

    Let’s sell a radical LP to the public, and put the Republican Lites on the defensive.

  11. Melty Rox

    I agree, but it’s hardly fair to dis Barr for being a warondrugster years ago. He ran on a much weaker line on drugs than I’d’ve liked, but he at least talked in favor of medicinal use of cannabis. This list o promises’s farther right than Barr.

  12. JimDavidson

    @10 “The BTP is tiny, and apparently spends most of its time on juvenile bickering.”

    The BTP is tiny, no doubt. We are also growing very rapidly.

    Not all of us spend our time on juvenile bickering. Neil Stephenson doesn’t seem to spend any of his time on anything, else, but he’s only one seventh of the national committee.

    One of the things you may not have yet fully perceived about the Boston Tea Party is that nobody has to ask anyone’s permission to do things. If you want to start a county party where you live, if you want to organise a letter writing campaign, if you want to do any political thing that you think needs doing, just do it. If you need help, ask for help. If you need money, ask for money – there are many people in the party who have money and time to contribute to projects they deem worthy.

    The main impetus for individual liberty has to come from the individual. If you wait for approval from higher authority, you’ll be waiting a long time.

  13. JimDavidson

    @26 Barr made no mention of ending the war on drugs. In several interviews, especially on Fox, he talked about continuing the drug war at the state level, and through international intervention, such as occupying Colombia. He is clearly not a libertarian on the drug war.

    Yes, he paid lip service to medical marijuana. He did not seek Steve Kubby as his running mate, though, so I don’t think he was serious.

    And his miserable half hearted campaign raised a fairly paltry sum compared to his huge promises. Now he demands that the LP be saddled with his debt. Previously, his scurrilous campaign of jerks had the audacity to suggest that Angela Keaton was the reason they wouldn’t agree to a contract with the LP.

    There’s nothing in the Barr candidacy for anyone who is against the war on drugs. There never was.

  14. joetauke

    Saying that half-assedly supporting the use of medical marijuana is the same as truly supporting an end to the War on Drugs is like saying that half-assedly supporting the use of flying shoes against Bush is the same as truly supporting an end to the War on Terror.

  15. Melty Rox

    just comparing Barr to the list of promises to point out that the list of promises is the worse

  16. Melty Rox

    Had Kubby been Barr’s runningmate I would’ve voted for him.

    More to the point, will the chairman speak up for legalization of marijuana anytime soon?
    I wrote to HQ several weeks ago asking why Davis is for E

  17. mscrib

    @JimDavidson

    Despite his wishy-washy stance on the drug war as a whole, I think Barr is strongly supportive of medical marijuana. I mean, he was endorsed by DC delegate and founder/ED of MPP Kampia, so that ought to count for something in terms of credibility. But you’re right. He’s certainly no Kubby and it was irritating to hear him continually frame the issue as a debate about “state’s rights.” What about individual rights? Ughhh…

  18. paulie cannoli Post author

    Exchange with Dave Schwab at GreenChange. I’ll also be posting this at NFV (link coming up after I do). Not sure if it really merits IPR guidelines for a subject post here, but I’m open to the idea.

    Subject: Libertarian Greens?

    Hi Paulie,

    I just read the commentary you posted about the Libertarian Party turning into a free-market conservative vehicle. Very interesting. I’ve noticed that you post both Green and Libertarian related articles – do you belong to both?

    p] I’m a life member of the Libertarian Party and a region rep for several counties in Alabama.

    I don’t formally belong to any Green Party organization right now, but I’ve been getting more involved with Green activities the last few months – attended the national meeting in Chicago, write articles at IPR and sometimes GPW. You should be aware however, that not all articles I post at IPR represent my own views – I post a variety of opinions from and about independents and alternative parties.

    As it so happens, I do indeed share the concerns of the author of that article, except that he has already quit the LP and I am still involved in it. But I make no secret of being involved in other parties as well. I’m also a petitioner, and I have worked with the Greens – I and people I brought in got Arkansas Greens on the ballot in 2006 and 2008, and I tried to help out the Utah Greens, but got there too late to make the difference.

    I’ve heard of left libertarians, are there also green libertarians?

    p] Yes. Roderick Long has a couple of good articles that address these two topics. They are long, but I highly recommend reading them:

    http://mises.org/story/2099

    deals with left and right issues relating to libertarianism in a way I agree with

    http://praxeology.net/blog/2006/11/24/greensleeves-was-all-my-joy

    relates to Green-Libertarian fusion – the short summary I would provide is that libertarianism is a philosophy of means: the non-initiation of coercion principle, see

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

    whereas Green politics is defined by ends: the ten key values, and the best application of both is using libertarian means to achieve green ends – in other words, there is no contradiction. Long goes into detail about how exactly this works.

    I also studied environmental geography in college and belonged to an environmental club in college, and worked briefly for a PIRG going door to door back in 1989 when I was 17 y.o. – so I have been into environmental issues for a long time.

    I’ve sometimes wondered about making the Green Party appealing to Libertarians, but I always figured that issues like climate change and free trade would preclude much cooperation.

    p] It depends on what you want to do about climate change – I don’t think the government is the best organization to solve any real problem we have. For instance, I would agree that terrorism, poverty, and drug abuse are real problems, but I don’t see all the government money spent to solve them as doing so.

    On the other hand, there is much that government could do by way of getting out of the way to help solve climate change and other environmental problems: ceasing actions such as corporate welfare, corporate personhood, nonconcensual limited liability, military-industrial complex actions on behalf of petrochemical interests, prohibition of hemp…and less obvious ones, such as the disproportionate impact taxes and regulations have on new and startup businesses that could challenge prevailing ways of doing things.

    As for free trade, I’m for it – but not globally managed trade, with book-length agreements and enforcement bureaucracies, which is deceptively called free trade, and not with the aforementioned corporate personhood, non-concensual limited liability, corporate welfare, etc., that in my view greatly distorts the would-be natural ecology of a true free trade system.

    On the other hand, if it’s true that the LP is following in the footsteps of Mr. Barr, then I can see left libertarians finding the GP to be a stronger advocate for equal rights, civil liberties, ending the drug war, reproductive choice, and other issues that people care about.

    What do you think?

    Peace,
    Dave

    p] I think there is much in the way of potential there, but it would by no means be easy. With your permission, I would like to post our exchange thus far at

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/

    and

    IPR, and continue there.

    -p

    Dave writes back:

    Thanks for the reply, and the links. I look forward to reading them soon.

    Feel free to post our exchange on the sites you mentioned. It seems like the fur is still flying at LP meetings, but if the right-wingers take over, it might be worth looking into how to welcome left libertarians into the Green tent.

    I also wonder about issues like a carbon tax, progressive taxation schemes, and fuel efficiency requirements, and the general preference among Greens for community decision-making in areas that recent government actors have treated as the domain of private interests, such as logging in public forests or offshore drilling. Basically, if government intervention is the only feasible way to conserve the environment, can libertarians make peace with that?

    Peace,
    Dave

  19. Michael H. Wilson

    Regardless of Redpath’s promises the LP has little in the way of literature, or outreach efforts to make any of these promises come true.

    MHW

  20. paulie cannoli Post author

    ME:

    Syndico-nihilist: non-property rights anarchist, prone to violence, denying all forms of authority and tradition.

    ST:

    Anarcho-syndicalist myself …

    ME AGAIN:

    The syndicalist part refers to a cooperative-based economic structure. That suits me just fine, as does true free market activity, which I distinguish from corporate capitalism.

    The nihilist part refers to the willingness to initiate violence and the disregard for all forms of authority (family, property, religion, tradition, school, society). In other words, what many non-anarchists mean by anarchist when they abuse the term.

  21. paulie cannoli Post author

    @10 “The BTP is tiny, and apparently spends most of its time on juvenile bickering.”

    The BTP is tiny, no doubt. We are also growing very rapidly.

    Good. I hope we keep growing.


    Not all of us spend our time on juvenile bickering. Neil Stephenson doesn’t seem to spend any of his time on anything, else, but he’s only one seventh of the national committee.

    There has been a lot more bickering than what Neil has been involved in.


    One of the things you may not have yet fully perceived about the Boston Tea Party is that nobody has to ask anyone’s permission to do things. If you want to start a county party where you live, if you want to organise a letter writing campaign, if you want to do any political thing that you think needs doing, just do it. If you need help, ask for help. If you need money, ask for money – there are many people in the party who have money and time to contribute to projects they deem worthy.

    No, I understood that part just fine.

    Starting county affiliates isn’t my thing, since I spend most of my time traveling all over the country, and while I am in Alabama, I sit around on the computer and don’t have a car to get to places easily.

    But as you already know, I’m willing to work on BTP ballot access when and if the money is there. I’ve posted many BTP articles here, I’ve blogged on the BTP website a couple of times, and I voted in the last BTP online convention.


    The main impetus for individual liberty has to come from the individual. If you wait for approval from higher authority, you’ll be waiting a long time.

    I’m not waiting for approval from any authority. But, I do tend to be more motivated to work on efforts which other people are motivated to work on as well. That’s just me.

  22. MarcMontoni

    Sipos said:

    If enough of us are publicly radical Libertarians, the Republican Lites will have their hands full doing damage control, explaining, “No, no, we’re not really like that!”

    You mean like this:

    Posted by: Andrew Davis at Oct 24 — To respond to John, the message of the Libertarian Party is as you said it: limited government and lower taxes. We fight day in and day out to achieve the idea that the individual knows how to run his life best, and the government should have as little interference as possible. This translates into cutting taxes and increasing individual liberty. I would have to disagree with the assertion that the national office (LP headquarters in D.C.) is pushing marijuana legalization as its chief issue. I disagree because my job with the Libertarian Party as the National Media Coordinator is to set the tone and the message of the party. Trust me, while marijuana legalization is an important issue for us and many LP members, it is not an issue we push at the national office. As for the flyer advertisement about the beer, that’s something that was probably done by a lone Libertarian, or either by the a Libertarian student organization. That’s not something we put out. Heck, I don’t even know if those facts are true. I encourage you all to read up on the Libertarian Party and see what we’re really doing, and the issues we’re really pushing, by visiting http://www.lp.org. On the Web site you will find press releases as well as a blog where we discuss issues important to Libertarians (FISA, privacy rights, Patriot act, Iraq…). Thanks. Andrew Davis National Media Coordinator Libertarian Party

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    LJ,

    I can positively attest that no, it’s not all about the money for Paulie Cannoli. He did a lot of hard work for the Kubby campaign, never knowing when or if he would be paid, or if so how much.

    Granted, “the money being there” for ballot access probably does mean some money for Paulie if he’s one of the guys working on it. That’s just a fact of life, not a statement of greed.

    In states with high petitioning barriers, even volunteers are going to cost money (to room, board and transport them). Professional petitioners are probably going to cost a little more money on the face of it, but actually less once you get down to the brass tacks of how much each valid signature ends up costing. Pros generally collect more signatures, faster, with a higher validity rate, and with overlapping petition periods and deadlines, can make the difference between coming in before the deadline or after it, with enough signatures or not enough.

    At the moment, the BTP seems to primarily visibly function as a stage prop door for various people to dramatically slam when going through it in one direction or the other. The same is true of the LP … and for both, note the phrase “at the moment” and the word “visibly.” There’s more to both parties than that particular momentarily visible aspect.

  24. TheOriginalAndy

    “Libertarian Joseph // Dec 15, 2008 at 11:06 am

    It’s all about the money, right Paulie? Is that why you ditched the LP?”

    Paul hasn’t ditched the LP.

  25. paulie cannoli Post author

    Paul hasn’t ditched the LP.

    Yeah…should be obvious from when I said

    I’m a life member of the Libertarian Party and a region rep for several counties in Alabama.

    above…

    But why are we responding to trolls, anyway?

  26. VirtualGalt

    I don’t think the LP is dead, certainly. I wouldn’t have been a delegate, or tried to get involved otherwise, if I thought it was futile.

    That said, I am not waiting around for the glorious day when we have a Libertarian president and Congress. I am living as free as possible, right here and right now.

  27. LibertarianGirl

    Amen , I live free now and hope the law doesnt catch up with me before we change the laws:)

    im not too sure about my strategy but I wouldnt have it any other way:)

  28. BrianHoltz

    Speaking of the Bill of Rights, does Tom Sipos’s advice about being outrageously radical extend to public condemnations of the element of the BoR that radical libertarians disagree with?

  29. joetauke

    Really, LibertarianGirl? You wouldn’t have more of a libertarian presence on a national political level if you could?

  30. LibertarianGirl

    Really, LibertarianGirl? You wouldn’t have more of a libertarian presence on a national political level if you could?

    ?? not sure i understand the question

  31. Michael H. Wilson

    paulie in the original post there is this insight that all should pay attention to from the writer: “All the political parties are committed to big ideals and give no explanation of how they will support them.”

    This man is right in more ways than one.

  32. joetauke

    “?? not sure i understand the question”

    It seemed like you were saying that you thought our current situation is the best we can hope for.

  33. LibertarianGirl

    Not at all . I’m saying I live free now but that some facets of my freedom could catch up with me before the liberty movement changes certain laws.

    I wouldn’t be here if i thought we couldnt make a difference.

  34. JimDavidson

    @31 But you gotta admire a guy who will throw his shoes at Bush. I mean, he might not have gotten them back!

  35. Catholic Trotskyist

    So syndico-nihilism isn’t at all like Catholic Trotskyism. I support complete government intervention in the economy, with much social pressure to support the institutions of family and tradition, with some modern innovations.

  36. LibertarianGirl

    Yep….a lot of us have those issues

    May we avoid the long arm of Big Brother all the days of our lives!

  37. VirtualGalt

    … public condemnations of the element of the BoR that radical libertarians disagree with

    Would someone mind clueing me in as to which BoR element radicals disagree with? Perhaps I am hopelessly naive…

  38. hogarth

    Would someone mind clueing me in as to which BoR element radicals disagree with?

    Easy!

    “Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law…”

    Ha. That’s an old joke 🙂

    More seriously, and consulting my handy-dandy disappearing BoRs mug (which fortunately happens to be cold!), I can point quickly to my least favorite, Amendment 6: “In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right to… have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor…”

    That one gives me the creeps. Suppose I’ve got something more important (to me) to do than testify at your trial? What right’ve you got to drag me into court like I was a criminal myself?

  39. hogarth

    “Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law…”

    Ha. That’s an old joke 🙂

    D’oh! And I got it backwards. That’s the part I DO agree with!

  40. JimDavidson

    @35 I called Andrew Davis after the “slam Mary Ruwart” press release he wrote (and quoted himself in – quite the little self-promoter) and asked him where the Constitution for the United States has any power for Congress to spend more money on fighting child pornography. Davis said that the commerce clause was infinitely elastic, and clearly covered anything Congress wanted to do.

    In other words, this supposed paragon of free markets was saying that the constitution gives Congress plenary power.

    There’s no way to work with these guys.

  41. JimDavidson

    @72 In a universe where the state could not bring prosecutions and compel people to rot in prison indefinitely, while awaiting what passes for “speedy trial” in this country, perhaps you would have a point.

    Compulsory process for bringing defense witnesses is intended to protect the accused from having, among others, the accuser disappear and be inconveniently unavailable to be confronted by the defendant. Article 6 is referring to criminal procedures, and is intended to protect those accused of crimes back in the old days when it was a big deal. You know, when a crime was evil in itself (against property or persons) and not mala prohibitum.

    There’s a fairly famous death penalty case in which the accused was executed because, among others, Winston Churchill wanted the case out of the news of the day. He was unable to summon a witness who had left the country. The witness was the alleged murder victim. It has since been demonstrated that the executed prisoner was convicted with manufactured evidence because the police had a hard on to close the case (prompted by politicians). And there never was a victim.

    If you can live in a world without the government having compulsory process to accuse someone and put them on trial, with, among other egregious penalties, death on the line, I’ll be happy to figure out some way not to want compulsory service for witnesses to exonerate a defendant. But the one is clearly tied to the other for good reasons.

    And I am very sorry you had to miss your appointment with the hair stylist when they wanted you to testify in court.

  42. JimDavidson

    Paulie, I feel like saying that I don’t click on many of these videos you post. Maybe one in ten? I would rather you made your point in text.

  43. paulie cannoli Post author

    Sorry, text doesn’t make the same point. They are songs which take off in free-association fashion on themes that come up in the discussion – in this case, criminality.

Leave a Reply

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