Rick Randall: Time to oust the anarchists from the Libertarian Party

Posted on LP Anarchist Caucus yahoo group by caucus organizer and Libertarian Party of West Virginia chair Matt Harris:

Reported by Susan Hogarth:

Rick Randall says to platform committee members…

“In Colorado … we still have a small handful of anarchists clinging on the the hope that they can one day regain control of the party. But their numbers are now negligible (I would estimate fewer than 12 – and most of them are no longer vocal at all).
Every time they surface, the mainstream (true) Libertarians quickly recognize them for what they are (people more interested in promoting in-fighting and , well… anarchy, than liberty) and oust them.”

Please take action now. email everyone on the LNC and platform committees to ask to have Mr. Randall removed for his disparaging comments. This is exactly what THEY would do if one of US said something like this. Let’s make sure our voices are heard. A vocal minority can make a difference!

Thanks for your help in fighting against these sentiments on the LP platcomm.

– Matt

Rick Randall is a platform committee member from Colorado. In a phone conversation, Ms. Hogarth told me that he is also the Colorado Libertarian Party state chair.

live homework help chat how to use viagra soft writing a resume to relocate example of bibliography in term paper http://www.nationalnewstoday.com/medical/weight-gain-prednisone/2/ thesis vs genesis hugh gallagher's college admission essay see url retin a 0.05 benefits source link thesis builder for an informative speech how to change default email on my ipad click go to site follow https://www.sojournercenter.org/finals/sat-new-essay-examples/85/ watch how to find a dissertation topic https://goodsamatlanta.org/patients/cheap-cialis-in-the-us/01/ thesis proposal qualitative county medical care biz indonesia https://childrenofthecaribbean.org/plan/writing-my-memoirs/05/ resume uz40lukoil overseas uz follow how to write history thesis source site https://thewrightcenter.org/healthcare/black-viagra-pill/2020/ paraja by gopinath mohanty essay check my punctuation viagra celebrity endorsements essay writing samples organizational behavior assignment UPDATE: That information was erroneous. Susan has since clarified that he is actually the former Media Director of the state party.

316 thoughts on “Rick Randall: Time to oust the anarchists from the Libertarian Party

  1. Daniel Kamerling

    Difficult to reference the link since you need membership to see the message.
    Anyone have a link or know what the “disparaging” comments were?

  2. Kevin

    There is nothing about Randel’s remarks that are “disparaging”, they are just factual.

    The anarchist faction and the LRC led faction that oppoe them are incompatable with each other. For each to obtain their goals they must oust the other.

    The LNC was the primary target for the LRC. Phase two is pushing out the opposition from the LNC.

    The secondary target are the Cental Committes of the state affiliates.

    This is real politics, not the Libertarian Party Debating Club.

  3. LP Observer

    Former LNC Vice Chair Chuck Moulton suggested a useful way of categorizing Libertarians along radical/moderate and purist/pragmatist lines:

    moderate purist = wants radicals out of the LP
    moderate pragmatist = moderate, but big tent
    radical purist = wants moderates out of the LP
    radical pragmatist = radical, but big tent

    Rick Randall is a moderate purist. Pragmatist Libertarians should unite in removing and keeping Randall from Libertarian leadership positions.

  4. paulie Post author

    Kevin,

    The anarchist faction and the LRC led faction that oppoe them are incompatable with each other.

    Actually, former LNC Vice Chair Chuck Moulton, an avowed anarchist, was (is?) a member of the Reform Caucus.

  5. paulie Post author

    The LNC was the primary target for the LRC. Phase two is pushing out the opposition from the LNC.

    The secondary target are the Cental Committes of the state affiliates.

    Kevin, where is this information coming from?

    Are you a leader of the Reform Caucus? I don’t know who you are other than a guy who posts messages on the Arizona yahoo group.

    People that I do know to be current or former leaders of the Reform Caucus are saying something different.

    Robert Capozzi says “My only real faction is the Rodney King Caucus, btw. The Reform Caucus is largely dormant, as it has largely done what we set out to do”. I, a radical anarchist, am a co-founder of the King Caucus.

    Brian Holtz, another Reform Caucus leader, says he is a “cop on the beat” for offenders who try to oust anarchists, radicals, etc., out of the party.

    Are you calling them liars? Or maybe just making stuff up?

  6. paulie Post author

    This is real politics, not the Libertarian Party Debating Club.

    Awesome!

    What real politics are you engaging in, outside of LP faction fights?

  7. Donald Raymond Lake

    It is NOT real politics, any more than Cindy Sheehan’s rantings against the Establishment Duolopy, any more than the Kindergarten style of pointless bickering, any more than yelling ’bout real issues when no one is listening [veterans care, privatization of Social Security, etc] then hiding under a rock when that same issue becomes high profile ……….

  8. Robert Milnes

    paulie @12, agreed. I personally would fall into the radical pragmatist= radical but big tent. LRC member. Hell, I’d even stomach Ron Paul back. The problem is the tilt to the right & rightists getting too many leadership positions. Anarchists & left libertarians need to be more assertive.

  9. Robert Milnes

    Another problem is neocons, paleos, dixiecrat conservatives etc. CALLING themselves Reformers to justify them being in the big tent. It’s not THAT big, OK?

  10. Donald Raymond Lake

    Thank you Matt for your disparaging dig at the first amendment. Ah Free Speech: free to hear what I want to hear.

    I consider you [and paulie and others] to be juvenile and petty, but would literally give up my life to allow you to make a fool out of your self and the Liberty movement on a regular basis!

  11. Morgan Brykein

    We need to be a coalition party to do anything – a coalition that centers on personal liberty. We should welcome all folks – anarchists, libertarian socialists, and such. Though, I think if we’re going to be serious, we have to have some rational people in the LP leadership. People like Mike Gravel, who are more “mainstream.”

  12. inDglass

    Whether you are anarchist or minarchist, you should seek nat-com members who are unifying, not polarizing forces in the party. Trying to steer the party in only one particular policy direction would not lead to much success for the party or the movement. The party should embrace its anarchists as well as its minarchists and other diverse or mainstream voices like Mike Gravel. They all seek to move national politics in a more libertarian direction and provide opportunities to draw members and voters from many parts of the libertarian half of the political spectrum.

  13. Michael Seebeck

    Paulie @20,

    Don is one of those who thinks that anything said that disagrees with someone else says and wants to do something because of that disagreement is somehow censoring that person and therefore attacking the First Amendment.

    The logical error or equating response to statement with preventing the statement from being made in the first place (two separate actions) is pretty obvious. Hence your confusion, because you saw the disconnect.

  14. tab

    In no way am I an anarchist, but Randall is definitely wrong for his comments. Each faction of the LP brings something different and unique that benefits the party overall.

    With that said though, why should Randall be removed for his comments? I’d say it is a difference of opinion more than anything. Just like having the opinion of anarchists is valuable, having the opinion of people like Randall is also valuable.

  15. Donald Raymond Lake

    Michael Seebeck: so much for the free and unfettered open market of ideas, and we quote

    “Please take action now. email everyone on the LNC and platform committees to ask to have Mr. Randall removed for his disparaging comments. This is exactly what THEY would do if one of US said something like this. Let’s make sure our voices are heard. A vocal minority can make a difference!

    Thanks for your help in fighting against these sentiments on the LP platcomm.”

    Mike the Egyptian, continuing to exist in ‘De Nile’ ……….

  16. Third Party Revolution

    This Rick Randall must be one of those people in the LP who wants to make the Libertarian Party libertarian, just as the name applies. Neither centrist nor anarchist, just libertarian.

  17. paulie Post author

    TPR, what’s not libertarian about being an anarchist?

    Douglass in 21 and Seebeck in 22 make a lot of sense.

    Lake in 24 is self-contradictory. He seems to be intolerant of Matt’s expression, while condemning Matt for allegedly being intolerant of Randall’s intolerance for Libertarian anarchists.

  18. Donald Raymond Lake

    Look away paulie, look away from your own quote:

    “Please take action now. email everyone on the LNC and platform committees to ask to have Mr. Randall removed for his disparaging comments. This is exactly what THEY would do if one of US said something like this. Let’s make sure our voices are heard. A vocal minority can make a difference!

    Thanks for your help in fighting against these sentiments on the LP platcomm.”

    [Yes it is Matt’s verbiage, but you forwarded this internal Lib Party bickering in to what is advertised as a broad based alternative political web site! Shame on you! ——- Lack of intelligence or lack of ethics?]

  19. paulie Post author

    I forwarded news about a faction fight in the largest alternative party.

    My volunteer task here is to report on what is happening with such faction fights. Task accomplished.

    It’s also to draw readers and comments to the site. It is doing that. Task accomplished.

    I also posted recent articles about other parties. Check the front page.

    You, on the other hand, contribute nothing while discouraging me from continuing to volunteer here.

    You sit back and throw your negative energy while not creating any positive alternative. Ethics?

    Shame on you, indeed.

    Anyway, do you agree to the poll conditions?

    Either I leave or you quit bitching. Deal?

  20. Susan Hogarth

    In a phone conversation, Ms. Hogarth told me that he is also the Colorado Libertarian Party state chair.

    I told you wrong – he is in fact LPCO’s Media Director.

  21. Susan Hogarth

    why should Randall be removed for his comments? I’d say it is a difference of opinion more than anything. Just like having the opinion of anarchists is valuable, having the opinion of people like Randall is also valuable.

    I am not sure if I think Rick should be removed, but I can certainly see the logic of it. It’s one thing to have a ‘difference of opinion’, but to have someone on a body responsible for formulating the LP’s policy statements who brags about his work ‘ousting’ a significant fraction of the Party’s best activists in his state party is not exactly the way to restore morale and excitement to the Party.

    I certainly hope that this sort of talk from Randall comes as a surprise to those who selected him as a platform committee member.

  22. Susan Hogarth

    Keven @6:

    The anarchist faction and the LRC led faction that oppoe them are incompatable with each other.

    I don’t believe this is true, unless it is so by definition of the “LRC led faction”. But I do not believe the Reform Caucus (I assume that’s who you refer to with ‘LRC’ was intended by most of its members to drive anarchists from the Party.

    For each to obtain their goals they must oust the other.

    The goal of anarchists within the LP is to make the Party a strong tool to weaken the power of the state over individuals’ lives. I think most LP anarchists envision doing this by working with – not against – their non-anarchist comrades.

  23. Susan Hogarth

    Randall, apparently speaking in the role of one of the leaders of the LPCO, also had this to say:

    My point is that the membership of the Colorado LP see very little difference between anarchists and communists.

    I find Randall’s remarks quite disturbing.

  24. Paulie

    Peter – much appreciated, thanks.

    Susan @ 30 -please fix it. I’m on Matt’s home computer, don’t feel like logging in.

    TPR: you did not answer my last query.

  25. Susan Hogarth

    More Randall:

    On a national level, the LP must continue to move beyond its past compromises (e.g., the Dallas Accord) and address its identity crisis
    (i.e., define WHO Libertarians really are) in order for it to grow

  26. Darryl W. Perry

    The Boston Tea Party will welcome any ousted members of the LP – so long as they agree to the one sentence platform of reducing the size and scope of the government at all level on all issues.

  27. Third Party Revolution

    BTW Paulie, the first comment that I made does not reflect my viewpoint of libertarianism and anarchism. It was my opinion on how Randall saw the whole issue. Personally, I believe that anarchism is libertarianism at its fullest.

  28. Marc Montoni

    Some observations:

    1. Randall is not going to be removed, because he was appointed by the LNC. Now were the remarks inflammatory enough that a vast majority would see them as such, then you’d have something. But we’re not there — we already know a majority on the LNC shares his sentiment.

    2. I believe it was Tom Knapp who said that making unkind or inflammatory remarks is not cause for removal from a body; and I agree.

    3. Don’t pick fights you’re not going to win.

    4. Back to basics: if you want your message to be the Party’s message, you have to out-organize your opponents and get more of your troops to **show up**. I see very little of that happening.

    5. For those of you who would like to ask the members of the Platform Committee if they share the same sort of bigotry that Randall’s remarks displayed, why don’t you ask them directly? Emails for the PlatComm are listed in the 2010 Delegation Chair’s Manual.

    6. Randall promotes himself as being able to train others in leadership, selling, writing, presentation skills, and such. At least it says so on his website. One wonders if he would advise his business clients to treat minorities with the sort of prejudice he calls for against radicals. If his words are accurately transcribed, perhaps they suggest his “leadership” skills are lacking, he’s maybe not so good at “selling”, and his writing and “presentation skills” are nonexistent. And I kind of wonder how long he has displayed his penchant for accuracy by misspelling “communication” on his own “professional” website (look at the last bullet point on the above page). Look quickly before it’s fixed.

    7. Lastly, an observer overhearing such nastytarian as Randall’s could easily conclude that Mr Randall himself is, perhaps ironically, “more interested in promoting in-fighting” than promoting good working relationships with all major divisions within our little coalition.

  29. Mary-Anne

    In order to be a “libertarian”, one must, by the definition I understand, be in favor of both social freedoms and economic freedoms.

    By that definition, a supporter of the Defense of Marriage act is NOT a libertarian, but an anarchist or minarchist who is in favor of both social and economic freedoms IS a libertarian.

    So, rather than just distinguishing purists from pragmatists, maybe we should by think about whether we can all agree on a concise definition of libertarian (small-l, meaning not necessarily being a member of any organization).

    To the extent that we can agree on a definition of libertarianism, the next question is how to best promote libertarianism in the functioning of government.

    In general, disagreeing with one another without being disagreeable is an option that works well in the organizations where I have seen it done successfully.

    I am a minarchist and former socialist style Democrat. My S.O. is an anarchist, gun rights enthusiast, and former Republican. I know that disagreeing without being disagreeable can be done, and I do recommend it.

  30. Third Party Revolution

    Maybe you should tell that to Anthony Gentile, the Libertarian Party’s senatorial candidate for Louisiana. He claims to be both a libertarian and a conservative, even though he is more of a conservative. He even calls the Libertarian Party the new home of conservatism.

  31. Back In Business

    Randall is right there should be a purge. We should purge the bigots, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, conservatarians and warmongers and anyone who advocates more government in our lives. I can deal with moderates who do NOT advocate more government in our lives and wants to decrease the size of the STATE!

  32. libertariangirl

    is he the Chair of Colorado , what happened to the cool young guy who’s on Jud Comm. whose name i forget cuz im parking on a dead brain cell.

    big big bummer for CO , cuz that guy was awesome if i remember correctly.

    been away for 3 days at Freedom Fest where well known LPers were mostly conspicuously absent .

    got to know Austin Peterson , what a hella cool guy and super easy to look at !

    i gotta catch up on all these posts , im surprised i didnt find the petition asking for Aaron Starr to apologize posted here that i got in my email .

    yall are slackin:)

  33. Michael Seebeck

    LG, you’re thinking of Travis Nicks, who was most recently LPCO Chair until he stepped down at the last LPCO convention (last month, I think).

  34. Michael Seebeck

    Susan @34:

    I too find them disturbing, and based on the LPCO members I know that I worked with when I was there, it’s also probably false.

    I *know* that’s not the consensus of the people I worked with back then, some of which are still on the LPCO board in in various places of leadership within the LPCO at all levels.

    Of course, things may have changed there in the past few years, but some of the core is still the same.

  35. Robert Milnes

    Susan, “I find Randall’s remarks quite disturbing.” Me too. But also quite interesting. According to the left-right linear political spectrum, libertarian anarchists are next to leftist anarchists who are next to commies. In the other direction they are next to right libertarians, then paleos & dixiecrat conservatives. So, when viewed from the Randall right, anarchists are in fact near commies. Actually pursuant to Soviet socialist theory, a successful soviet socialist revolution should lead to anarchism! The anarchists are “caught in the middle” so to speak.

  36. Mik Robertson

    Maybe it would help if we put a firm definition on anarchy so we can be sure we are all talking about the same thing.

  37. Andy

    Harry Browne on the anarchy vs. minarchy debate:

    It seems to me that a lot of time is wasted by libertarians who argue whether it’s possible to have a society without any government at all.

    What’s the point?

    Right now, we’re $2.3 trillion away from no government, and about $2.2 trillion away from limited government.

    That means that until we trim $2.2 trillion from the federal budget, the issue of limited government vs. anarchy is moot. I can only presume that both sides would be pleased as punch (and then some) to reduce the federal government by $2.2 trillion. So that’s what we all should be working toward as the ?rst goal.

    If we can get the federal government down to $100 billion, I’ll lead a drive to raise the money necessary to rent the New Orleans SuperDome for three months — so we can all get together and argue over how much further the federal government should be reduced.

    Those who want no government at all can continue working to reduce the size of government. Those who want limited government can ?ght to keep the federal government at $100 billion — or work to reduce it slightly more — or even work to increase it slightly.

    But none of it is relevant until we reduce the government dramatically from where it is now.

    As to the question of whether a society without government is possible, today we try to answer it with limited knowledge. If we can ever make government very small, we will undoubtedly ?nd that plenty of people — people with more creativity and imagination than we have — will ?nd it pro?table to devise ways to do things privately and voluntarily that today seem possible only through government. Until those creative people have an incentive to put their minds to the question, we’re contemplating the issue without knowing all the possibilities.

    But so what? The question is moot.

    In the meantime, there are two things we know for sure:

    • Government is force, and we want to reduce the use of force to the absolute minimum.

    • Government doesn’t work, and so we want to remove as many activities as possible from government.

    And no matter which side of the limited government vs. anarchy you’re on, when someone asks you what size libertarians think the government should be, you can answer:

    “Libertarians want to reduce government to the absolute minimum possible, and we can’t really know what size that is until we get there.

    “In the meantime, don’t you agree that government is way too big, way too powerful, way too intrusive, and way too expensive?

    “If so, please help us reduce it to the absolute minimum possible.”

  38. Michael H. Wilson

    Andy that is the first intelligent thing I think you have written, or at least I have read from you.

  39. Back In Business

    Yeah and he isn’t bitching about Lee, Sean or Angela either. Congrats Andy!

  40. Gary Fincher

    “That means that until we trim $2.2 trillion from the federal budget, the issue of limited government vs. anarchy is moot.”

    No, that’s dumb. That’s too linear thinking. Government financing/spending/action/scope is not perfectly monolithic, and certain narrow areas of interest an anarchist might be making inroads in addressing could absolutely be thrown off track or foiled altogether by a “limited-government” apologist.

    Abolitionists were able to get rid of chattel slavery – an endeavor that was FOUGHT, not collaborated on, many “smaller government” types.

    You’re crazy if you think that there’s no practical, real-world conflict, even irreconcilably so, between anarchists and self-styled less-government enthusiasts WHILE government is “bigger” than both types would admit to wanting.

    It’s not just a matter of simple mathmatics, as you try to make it out to be. It’s not that smooth & easy. Take it to the bank: less-government proponents WON’T agree to EVERY reduction, and quite probably there is no SINGLE area of reduction that EVERYONE who wants “less government” will agree to undertake reducing.

    All these facts spell frustration for the principled anarchist who thinks that all those less-government types will want to neatly, cheerfully and harmoniously agree to trim the budget with him till it’s “safely” down to .1 trillion (or $100 billion).

  41. Gary Fincher

    “Those who want no government at all can continue working to reduce the size of government. Those who want limited government can ?ght to keep the federal government at $100 billion — or work to reduce it slightly more — or even work to increase it slightly.”

    In other words, imagine an NFL with 32 teams. Further, imagine that 32 owners want to narrow the league down to 8teams (fantasy, yes, but follow my logic), while a rival league Commissioner wants to eliminate the league altogether. However, that Commissioner will feel that if the league is trimmed to 12, he can then feel more comfortable attempting elimination.

    The dynamics are thus:

    None of the 32 owners will agree to eliminate HIS team (Or, “Would you be willing to give up your favorite NFL team if it meant…”)

    8 owners will agree to eliminate all but the Packers, Cowboys, Steelers, Ravens, Titans, Forty Niners, Raiders and Broncos.

    Another 8 owners will agree to eliminate all but the Eagles, Redskins, Jets, Dolphins, Bengals, Browns, Bears and Lions.

    Another 8 owners will agree to eliminate all but the Buccaneers, Seahawks, Giants, Patriots, Bills, Chiefs, Vikings and Rams.

    And the other 8 owners will agree to eliminate all but the Jaguars, Panthers, Cardinals, Saints, Falcons, Colts, Chargers and Texans.

    Without changing anyone’s preferences (ideology), what’s the likelihood that the rival Commissioner and the owners will successfully end up with “less league” and stand 8 teams away from total elimination?

  42. Gary Fincher

    In #54, should have said:

    Abolitionists were able to get rid of chattel slavery – an endeavor that was FOUGHT, not collaborated on, by many “smaller government” types.

    Left out the word “by”.

  43. pdsa

    A Call To Arms from The Un-Libertarian Wing of The LP?

    These arses believe that the drool dribbling from the mouth of an inbred Hapsburg Monarchist is the Eucharistic Wine of Libertarian Economic Theory.

    These arses believe the sexually repressed ravings of a Hollywood Bodice-Ripping Scriptwriter from the mid-20th Century epitomises core Libertarian Theory.

    Now these arses propose moving up out of their slow-pitch softball city leagues, and directly into the Majors?

    A bit of advice: I throw sliders hard, tight and chin-high. Better wear a helmet with a full face cage in the batters’ box.

    Not one of these libertarian-poseur arses is even fit to tongue-shine the interred shoes of Barry Morris Goldwater.

  44. Melty

    I’m a minarchist. I’m from the Reform Caucus, or was (it’s now evidently moribund), and inclusiveness was a watchword for us there. I believe the LP needs its anarchists and minarchists both.
    So, where do I sign on to the Rodney King Caucus?

  45. Melty

    As for Mike Gravel, he joined the LP and reran for president for the same reason he ran for president as a democrat in the first place. That was solely to propound the National Initiative concept. He told me that himself a few weeks back. He also told me that that’s his life’s work. He’s 79 and speaks on Initiatives earnestly. I got the impression he has no interest in participating with the LP because he’s entirely preoccupied with Initiatives, but he did say he was impressed by the intelligence of Libertarians.
    Mike impressed me as intelligent, a great extemporaneous speaker, and real swell guy.
    I wonder, can we intelligent Libertarians get along?

  46. Robert Capozzi

    gf 55, your analogy doesn’t work. The NFL produces a service people voluntarily buy: football entertainment. Government produces services coercively.

    The costs and benefits of most government programs are not transparent. A skilled L politician and party could focus voters on the macro and micro effects that show voters that the macro effect of the current regime is moving toward fiscal disaster. The micro effects would be to highlight and agitate for cuts of the most obvious functions, the low-hanging fruit.

    For ex., far flung military bases and the “discretionary” component of the federal budget.

    The public choice challenges are not small of our endeavor. I still think it’s worth a try.

    BTW, if the NFL started to fail, it would most likely start with a few teams failing. It’s easy to imagine that the number of franchises would be reduced in such a circumstance. Think about retailers like Macys. Underperforming stores close during down economies.

  47. mdh

    The LP Anarchist Caucus believes that Mr. Randall’s statements show the true nature of many minarchists – to have a smaller Libertarian Party where everyone agrees with them, rather than accept anarchists and their ideals.

    Most anarchists on the other hand believe in a big tent Libertarian Party which welcomes both minarchists and anarchists alike.

  48. Robert Capozzi

    mdh, has any “minarchist” ever told you this? I’d think they want the LP to be bigger, as there are many millions who want government smaller, but very, very few who want no government.

  49. mdh

    Bob,
    I disagree that it is very very few, as a percentage of the libertarian movement in general. If you tack on non-libertarian anarchists, it’s even bigger.

    As far as a minarchist telling us this, I believe Mr. Randall’s comments are quite explicit.

  50. Robert Capozzi

    mdh, I agree as a percentage of the movement. I was referring to the wider world. Movements should not be insular things IF you want social change. Movements need to grow to be effective.

    Yes, thanks, but I meant ASIDE FROM Randall. You suggested that this is “true nature of many minarchists.” Who are the others?

  51. Susan Hogarth

    The LP Anarchist Caucus believes that Mr. Randall’s statements show the true nature of many minarchists – to have a smaller Libertarian Party where everyone agrees with them, rather than accept anarchists and their ideals.

    You should consider sticking to humor, Matt. As one of the LP’s anarchists, I find that statement utterly unhelpful.

    *This anarchist* believes that the vast majority of people working within the LP – *including Randall* – want the Party to become more effective at reducing the power of government and increasing the power of individuals, and simply disagree on what is the best strategy to do this.

    *This anarchist* thinks that people who believe there are a significant number of people busting their asses for the LP solely in order to cripple it are seriously logic challenged.

  52. Susan Hogarth

    Most anarchists on the other hand believe in a big tent Libertarian Party which welcomes both minarchists and anarchists alike.

    As do most non-anarchists within the Party. Why are you deliberately seeking divisive language?

  53. Thomas M. Sipos

    Andy: “I can only presume that both sides would be pleased as punch (and then some) to reduce the federal government by $2.2 trillion. So that’s what we all should be working toward as the ?rst goal.

    True minarchists (of which I am one) are working with anarchists toward that goal.

    True minarchists welcome, and always have welcomed, anarchists.

    Statist Lites masquerading as minarchists want to purge the LP of both anarchists and minarchists.

    What’s a Statist Lite? I won’t point fingers, but if you support the expansion of any aspect of government (which war and empire inevitably entail), you might be a Statist Light.

  54. Erik Geib

    I’m generally considered a ‘minarchist,’ but I don’t think I’d want to be in the LP if the anarchists weren’t around.

    Such a party (above) would likely be infiltrated with paleo-cons, and I have to say, I’m not a fan of such folks. I’d rather argue with anarchists than Christian fundamentalists. At least the anarchists don’t attempt to tell me what’s best for me “for (my) own good.”

    Someday middle America will wake up and realize that cultural socialism is just as evil as economic socialism.

    If one doesn’t believe me about the paleo-cons inevitably infiltrating a party without anarchists, just look at (many of) who’s attempting to purge the anarchists already.

  55. Thomas M. Sipos

    BTW, Andy, your definition of a minarchist is someone who wants to roll back government spending to $100 billion.

    That won’t fund the current level of our military and intelligence spending, even if all of it went to military and intelligence.

    Thus, I’m pleased to see that anyone who’s pro-war is not a minarchist by your definition as well.

  56. Erik Geib

    I believe much of the ‘minarchist’ misrepresentation comes from lumping in many other forms of ‘minarchists’ with libertarian minarchists. I know I, for one, don’t consider CP members or paleo-cons or even many LRC members to be ‘libertarian minarchists.’ I’d also oppose the idea of lumping someone like Mike Gravel or social-agenda-heavy-types into the ‘minarchist’ group, because though they may call for a minimal state and have libertarian beliefs in some regard, I still don’t (personally) consider them libertarian minarchists.

    Perhaps a lot of the agitation the anarchists are seeing from the minarchists on this subject is the misassociation of libertarian minarchists with the many other types of minarchists.

  57. Gary Fincher

    “gf 55, your analogy doesn’t work. The NFL produces a service people voluntarily buy: football entertainment. Government produces services coercively.”

    Capozzi, I wasn’t doing that exercise as an “analogy” (I was afraid someone was going to jump on it that way) – I was trying to point out the problem in “number dynamics”, if you will.

  58. Gary Fincher

    My only point being that “less-government” advocates are going to be nibbling at DIFFERENT edges of government, all the while FIGHTING WITH OTHER “less-government” advocates to KEEP their *own* edges, which could easily cancel out each other, giving the anarchist’s laments real substance (no, it’s NOT a “moot point”, Andy).

  59. Melty

    Erik
    why would ya wanna dis somebody just for bein a member of Libertarian Reform Caucus? or just for satisfyin definition of “paleoconservative”? or just for leanin both leftward and libward Gravel-like? oughtta be welcomin in yanks of every stripe o freedomlover… Ron Paul and Mike Gravel got alot more in common than you and I got in common with Bush/Obama. I would not call “Libertarian Radical Caucus member” a strike against. Maybe the labels’re better ignored. . . or maybe more labels’re needed.
    I dub myself, first and foremost, Anti-Euphemist.

  60. mdh

    Susan, maybe it’s a bit much to say that a lot of minarchists are heading in that direction, but I think we need to have some more backlash against any who do. This is certainly neither the first nor the most egregious example of this sort of behavior. Not long ago Rebecca Sink-Burris included a very hostile and offensive essay written by Bush 2004 supporter and former Libertarian candidate John Hospers.

    The LPAC will stand firm against these sorts of statements and behaviors which show hostility towards anarchists. We’ll do so using the same techniques that have allowed vocal minorities to be successful in a number of arenas over the past centuries.

  61. Susan Hogarth

    I think we need to have some more backlash against any who do.

    That is precisely *why* you need to be specific and not run off on a DavidsonRant(tm) at any given provocation.

    “Backlash” against Randall’s inappropriate comments is entirely appropriate. Making wild generalizations about large numbers of your allies is *exactly the same behavior that is reprehensible in Randall*.

    If you have reason and right on your side, not only is hyperbole pointless, it is downright harmful to your cause.

  62. robert capozzi

    gf, can’t say I agree with your either/or view. If I emphasize exiting NATO and cutting discretionary spending, and you, say, emphasize medical marijuana, I don’t see that as a zero-sum game.

    We Kingsters see the value of differing paths to the same goal.

  63. Brian Holtz

    “Ousting” libertarians just because they are anarchists is completely unacceptable. Here are some comments I’ve recently posted on the PlatCom list:

    A libertarian is somebody whose highest political value is to minimize the role and incidence of force initiation in society. Anarcholibertarians are libertarians. Communists and socialists and totalitarians are not libertarians.

    There are many kinds of libertarians (see lists here or here). The LP should welcome all of them who are trying to unite voters who want more personal liberty and more economic liberty behind the electoral choices that will most effectively move public policy in a libertarian direction.

    The LP would be crippled, and nearly lobotomized, if we lost all of our members who question whether America needs a state monopoly on any service (even justice and defense). The important thing is to keep anarchists from hijacking the LP into being a vehicle dedicated to promoting anarchism. Instead, the LP should unite voters who want more personal liberty and more economic liberty behind the electoral choices that will most effectively move public policy in a libertarian direction. The platform’s job is to describe our shared libertarian principles that define what a “libertarian direction” is.

    P.S. As for “Statists Lite”, it’s simply addled to suggest a correlation between 1) thinking that there is at least one kind of aggression (e.g. pollution) that the U.S. government should do more to oppose and 2) wanting to “purge” anarchists from the LP.

  64. Carl M.

    Andy nails it. Without smaller government the question of libertarian anarchy (vs. civil war chaos anarchy) is moot. With it, it could become politically feasible to call for experimental government free zone or such like (think Heinlein’s “Coventry”.

    Gary is dead wrong. Slavery was abolished by a coalition that got into power on a very moderate abolition platform The early Republicans called for no new slave states. The libertarian equivalent would be calling for a mere freeze on the size of government. Actual abolition occurred after the other side went radical and lost.

  65. paulie Post author

    is he the Chair of Colorado , what happened to the cool young guy who’s on Jud Comm. whose name i forget cuz im parking on a dead brain cell.

    Travis Nicks. He is not chair anymore either IIRC

  66. paulie Post author

    lg, send A.S. petition to paulie. He’ll post it. He posts everything.

    I’d rather someone else did, and in general I want to discourage the sentiment expressed above.

  67. Susan Hogarth

    Hmm. Randall wants me to convey that not only is he not chair (I need to make that correction above, perhaps), but he is not even currently Media Director for LPCO.

    Now there is a discussion on the Platform Committee list about whether the individual comments there are confidential. I have never considered them so, viewing it as the same as a face-to-face meeting where Party members are welcome to listen (though not contribute). Hopefully this discussion will clarify the situation. In NC, we open our platform discussion list to members to *read* but not *comment*, and this seems to work fine. There seems to be some sentiment against this on the current national list, but the discussion has just started.

  68. Donald Raymond Lake

    In my anti fascist imperial global empire dreams I see Iceland, Canada, and the USA self de-evolving to an ‘associate’ membership in NATO. I would like to see these three post soviet nations shut down their offices and replace it them with one low level clerk!

  69. Austin Petersen

    Hey thanks libertarian girl! Can you remind me who you were? Freedom fest was a blast right?

  70. paulie Post author

    Hmm. Randall wants me to convey that not only is he not chair (I need to make that correction above, perhaps), but he is not even currently Media Director for LPCO.

    I finally got around to fixing it. Thanks!

  71. Gary Fincher

    “gf, can’t say I agree with your either/or view. If I emphasize exiting NATO and cutting discretionary spending, and you, say, emphasize medical marijuana, I don’t see that as a zero-sum game.”

    It’s more like you and 10,000 activists seeking to exit NATO & cut discretionary spending, while FIGHTING efforts to implement medical marijuana, meanstwhile 10,000 separate activists are seeking to implement medical marijuna while FIGHTING efforts to exit NATO & cut discretionary spending.

    I don’t see how you view that as an “either/or” position on my part – as it’s not a “position” at all, but an observation on the state of how totally ideological misaligned the populace really is, a veritable hodgpodge, unfortunately.

    I’m generalizing and simplifying, of course, but I thought that most people would get my gist.

  72. Gary Fincher

    “Andy nails it. Without smaller government the question of libertarian anarchy (vs. civil war chaos anarchy) is moot.”

    It’s NOT moot, since it will never be YOU (or me) who gets to “corral” all the less-government types into shrinking goverment in a linear manner, even as coalitions are trying to be built. Recent experience has taught me that hell, even getting professed ANARCHISTS to agree to work to combat aggression consistently is worse than herding cats. Also, it’s anarchism, not anarchy (the latter being defined in the dictionary as “chaos”).

    “Gary is dead wrong. Slavery was abolished by a coalition that got into power on a very moderate abolition platform”

    Nope, not wrong AT ALL (let alone “dead wrong”). Slavery was abolished with PLENTY of opposition from activists who wanted to curtail government in other areas. Read up on history, man.

  73. Carl M.

    Gary, you missed my point. The abolitionists got behind a moderately abolitionist candidate. Their incremental attack on slavery resulted in outright abolition after the pro-slavery forces radicalized. I’m using slavery abolition as an analogy — as it appeared you did.

    The anti-slavery coalition was so big tent and so incrementalist that to this day Southern partisans argue that abolition wasn’t even the goal of the Republicans.

    And yes, some of those Southern partisans are quite libertarian in other respects; many write at lewrockwell.com.

    Anyway, my point is that incremental moderate libertarianism can accomplish quite a bit — even more than explicitly attempted. Big government feeds on itself. A small shrinkage runs the feedback cycle in the other direction.

  74. Gary Chartier

    Susan @84,

    That’s very troubling news. The NC practice you describe seems sensible–very much in the interests of transparency and accountability. Surely this ought to be national-level practice.

    It seems to me that participants in a membership organization ought to resist tenaciously if an official body serving the organization wants to control access to information about its deliberations.

  75. libertariangirl

    austin , Im debra dedmon , I sat next to you every day:)
    i never use my real name in the blogosphere:)

  76. Joe Blackburn

    For you history buffs, the general sentiment of the Confederacy was that slaves should be freed gradually – as opposed to the abolitionist movement which wanted slavery ended at once.

    The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, as adopted on March 11, 1861 appears to support this is BANNING the “importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America”!

    ——————————–
    The Constitution of the Confederate States of America
    Section 9 – Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights

    1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

    2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

    ————————————–

    It should also be noted that Lincoln did not care whether the slaves were freed, as these quotes make abundantly clear:

    “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”
    – Abraham Lincoln

    Also…
    “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
    – Abraham Lincoln

    So you see, the war was about slavery… just not about the african slaves. It was about whether the Southern states had the freedom to leave the Union. And we see how that turned out.

  77. Mik Robertson

    @54 “It’s not just a matter of simple mathmatics, as you try to make it out to be. It’s not that smooth & easy. Take it to the bank: less-government proponents WON’T agree to EVERY reduction, and quite probably there is no SINGLE area of reduction that EVERYONE who wants “less government” will agree to undertake reducing.”

    Of course human society cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation. I thought the idea was to maximize individual liberty. I did not think the goal of the LP was to reach some defined endpoint.

    I am not aware of any human society that has remained static. Arguing over some temporary endpoint for society in the United States is beyond pointless given the current circumstances.

    It may be that individuals can enjoy maximum liberty in a society without a government, or that may not be the case. Even if it were to come to pass that government was eliminated, might there be additional changes to human interaction that could further increase liberty, or would the role of the LP end with the elimination of government?

    I think in many cases it will be difficult to define effects of separate actions on liberty, let alone identify when it has been maximized. In any case, stopping the momentum in the other direction is going to be a monumental task, and it will take everyone possible to help get that change started.

  78. libertariangirl

    incidentally , i will not be signing the petition to force A. Starr to apologize. the author didnt even give their real name .but thats not why i wont sign it ,to me it’s just unnecessary dog-whipping.
    stupid even.

  79. Gary Fincher

    “Gary, you missed my point. ”

    If I missed your point, then you missed mine – that it’s difficult to get people working on the same page enough to shrink government, since all of the people are resisting shrinking some of the time, and some of the people are resiting shriking all of the time. If you don’t believe me, consider that as recently as 2008, you had a Libertarian Party Headquarters advocating for MORE aggression (even committing it themselves). How the hell are us anarchists gonna get *anything* shrunk, given this reality?

  80. George Phillies

    Meanwhile, the radical to be subjected to an attempted purge at this LNC meeting has been chosen. It’s in the LNC draft agenda.

    And the winner is…Steve LaBianca, LNC Regional Alternate.

    LaBianca, who will not be attending the LNC meeting, has indicated that he has not been informed of the charges against him, but the line in the draft LNC agenda as it came across the transom was “Discipline—or not—of Steve LaBianca (Karlan) 15 minutes” You can read more at LaBianca’s Facebook pages.

  81. libertariangirl

    damn , i lost that bet , i thought it would be Ruwart .
    George do you know if this will be S. B second missed meeting?

  82. libertariangirl

    the word ‘discipline’ should be stricken from the language used by the LNC . It sounds either at best tittilating ( as in the case of the Keaton) or fascist at worst . it implies the LNC is some sore of parental authority over its members .
    please LNC folks , quit using that word

  83. robert capozzi

    gf, anarchists stand a better shot at shrinking the State by adopting a theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist stance. That would entail adopting a program that is credible and attractive to large percentages of voters.

  84. George Phillies

    @100 Steve is an alternate, not a member, so taht rule appears not to apply. The Regional Rep, Rachel Hawkridge, will be there, so there is no rational reason for him to attend.

  85. Kevin

    paulie // Jul 12, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    The LNC was the primary target for the LRC. Phase two is pushing out the opposition from the LNC.

    The secondary target are the Cental Committes of the state affiliates.

    Kevin, where is this information coming from?

    Are you a leader of the Reform Caucus? I don’t know who you are other than a guy who posts messages on the Arizona yahoo group.

    People that I do know to be current or former leaders of the Reform Caucus are saying something different.

    Robert Capozzi says “My only real faction is the Rodney King Caucus, btw. The Reform Caucus is largely dormant, as it has largely done what we set out to do”. I, a radical anarchist, am a co-founder of the King Caucus.

    Brian Holtz, another Reform Caucus leader, says he is a “cop on the beat” for offenders who try to oust anarchists, radicals, etc., out of the party.

    Are you calling them liars? Or maybe just making stuff up?
    ======================

    It really does not matter what some individuals within the LRC say, they are just some individuals.

    The situation of the LRC demands the ousting of the anarchists, anarchists are not compatible with their goal of being a viable political party that can win elections. To obtain that goal they must separate themselves from the LP anarchist past, this is done by chasing out the anarchists.

    Sun Tzu called this knowing the Earth. That is to say your actions to be successful are dictated by the terrain, fail to follow these dictates and you will likely fail.

    Of course there are people in the LRC running around chanting “Big Tent” as this is a wise action. This is so not to incite the anarchists to do what they are not inclined to do, unite against a common opponent. If you can lull your opponents into complacency you can easier defeat them.

    That the LRC took control of the 2006 LP National convention is without doubt. (Yes many here will scream this is not so) They almost totally took control of the convention and it was their effort that wiped out the anarchist platform. The exception was the Plank opposing taxation, the delegates voted to remove the Plank but some people were able keep it in anyway. This was done by incorrectly reporting the vote total to retain that Plank. With tat Plank incorrectly listed as having been voted to be retained the Plank was then voted on for amendment. So the amended Plank vote was not valid because you cannot amend a Plank that is not in the Platform. The LRC made big gains in positions in the Watergate that convention but could not get past the improper effort that retained the voted out Plank.

    The LRC faction at the 2006 convention was small and poorly organized, but poorly is a term relative to other political parties. In relation to the anarchist faction they were much better organized. Heck, all the copies of the Platform for the delegates to vote on magically disappeared. There are several copy centers in walking distance from the convention site and a copy center in the convention site. Yet nobody could seem to get copies of the Platform made for the delegates to vote on. The LRC faction found the copy enters and had flyers passed out to the delegates sayinh how could they vote to retain a plank they could not read a copy of. The LRC faction waded through the anarchists like a Roman legion running through a pack of boy scouts, it was a slaughter. There was no Big Tent, they went for the throat.

    They have enough people at Watergate now to exert a great deal of control there.

    The next natural target is the affiliate central committees.

    Now may people here will disagree with my evaluation. See how things work out over the next couple of years. While waiting think back to 2005 and consider that you never thought the events at the 2006 convention would happen.

  86. libertariangirl

    George , I missed you at FF , in fact I missed alot of you all:(

    can you elaborate on the LaBianca situation . he and i are not friends on facebook( i sent a request) and his updates are protected/locked.

    i’d really like to knowe . im bummed i cant attend the lnc meeting in st louis , who’s going and who’s broadcasting .

    seebeck i hope , his set-up was pretty good in SD.

  87. libertariangirl

    K_The LNC was the primary target for the LRC. Phase two is pushing out the opposition from the LNC.

    The secondary target are the Cental Committes of the state affiliates.

    me_ can you show me the written statement of objectives backing up your accusation?
    or
    can you give me the name of the LRC member who told you this?

    if not then its just a theory whether or not it may be accurate.
    i always get annoyed when LP people , who are EXTREMELY BRIGHT , who have no problem seeing thru lies and smokescreens perpetrated by the media and govenment , restate suspicions or theorys as proven facts.

  88. paulie Post author

    damn , i lost that bet , i thought it would be Ruwart .
    George do you know if this will be S. B second missed meeting?

    The two missed meetings rule applies to Reps, not alternates. Alternates can miss as many meetings as they wish. Also, per conversation with one of the region reps today, the committee can only remove At Large members and officers for cause. Region reps and alternates can onl be removed by a vote of the state chairs in their region.

  89. Pingback: Bash Back | Austro-Athenian Empire

  90. paulie Post author

    Kevin, 2006 is old news. Although there was no anarchist platform before then, you can bet that no one will be complacent in 2010.

    Robert Capozzi and Brian Holtz are credible spokemen for their cause, and I have no reason to doubt their word, but we plan on being vigilant.

    There is a new dawn coming at the h2ogate with the impending arrival of Wes Benedict.

    Our legions are rallying and will carry high the banner of liberty to St. Louis and beyond.

    Anarchy is not the immediate target, but it is the inevitable eventual end result, and it’s all good!

  91. paulie Post author

    me_ can you show me the written statement of objectives backing up your accusation?
    or
    can you give me the name of the LRC member who told you this?

    Methinks Kevin pulled it out of a deep, dark place where the sun doth not shine.

  92. paulie Post author

    LG, facebook sez


    Steve LaBianca is amused that the LNC’s agenda for the July ’09 mtg in St. Louis includes “Discipline-or not-of Steve LaBianca (Karlan) (15 minutes)”. Seems my refusal to read and/or acknowledge the LNC policy on sexual harassment is cause for “disciplinary” action. Karlan, (wrote the policy) thus believes the LNC is at risk for action by the US Govt. Flood, Mattson, Karlan, Sullentrup, Starr, & Sink-Burris-will all vote YES!
    7 hours ago · Comment · Like

  93. Gary Fincher

    RC, good luck with THAT.

    I’ll believe a shrunken State when I see it.

    Best I can tell in my lifetime, every attempt at a shrunken State has resulted in a even bigger one than before (regrettably).

    I’ve been in the movement for over 20 years and I see NO cohesion – only a bunch of bullshit counterproductive infighting. And that’s in the MOVEMENT itself, let alone the public-at-large-with-less-gov-tendencies.

    Whole expensive ballot drives are sacrificed at the altar of personality clashes; that REALLY portends well of cohesively shrinking government, huh? There’s not even a freakin’ libertarian candidate for the voters to CONSIDER, in that case, let alone do something about getting him elected.

    Ok, so there’s a START…Wes Benedict has been hired. And hopefully that will mean the divisive and counterproductive Kraus will be out on his ear.

  94. Gary Fincher

    LG, it was bad timing for me, even though I’m in the ballpark (Arizona). I’ve been talking to Mark Pickens, whose been nearby in Phoenix, and he mentioned going there, to represent ISIL. My s.o. was here during that time period from a long trip abroad, and she’s apolitical, so it wouldn’t have worked for me anyway. Did you run into Mark there? How was the attendance?

  95. Gary Fincher

    BTW, RC: “your analogy doesn’t work. The NFL produces a service people voluntarily buy: football entertainment. Government produces services coercively….if the NFL started to fail, it would most likely start with a few teams failing. ”

    Taxpayer-financed stadiums undermine your argument here, and I’d consider the NFL a quasi-government institution. Aside from that, the business is the league itself, not a network of teams competing (in the economic sense) against each other. There is profit-sharing, so more popular teams (and ones in larger markets) tend to subsidized less popular teams (and those in smaller markets), thereby making a scenario where a few teams fail at first unlikely, if not impossible. Besides, even if the league started to fold (it’s highly unlikely that the dominant league in the country’s most popular sport would fail) the government would just force the taxpayers to bail them out anyway.

    Again, I wasn’t using that as an “analogy”, per se. I was illustrating number-dynamics.

  96. Collection Agent

    Fincher,

    I see you are enjoying the gigolo lifestyle. Must be nice being a gentleman of leisure!

  97. paulie Post author

    incidentally , i will not be signing the petition to force A. Starr to apologize. the author didnt even give their real name .but thats not why i wont sign it ,to me it’s just unnecessary dog-whipping.
    stupid even.

    The petition has some rather suspicious signatures.

    http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?StarApol&1

    For example

    17. M Carling You losers are intimidated by Aaron’s genius, tightly sculpted abs, and his firm buttocks pulsating with raw sexual energy. Your hatred of his greatness is anti-life. Touch and love this great man. I do.

    6. Melinda Moore Redpath Can you get Jim Lark’s balls out of Bill’s mouth?

    I don’t think those are real LOL

  98. Sean Haugh

    Yeah, you would know a thing or two about forged signatures F-R-A-N-K-E-L. After all you were convicted of signature forgery in Oregon. Is that why you sign your posts as “Cannoli” and libel me, your superior and by far the greatest political director in the history of the Libertarian Party and the best ballot access manager who ever lived?

    ” Under the law of North Carolina, a libel per se is a publication which, when considered alone without innuendo or explanation: “(1) charges that a person has committed an infamous crime; (2) charges a person with having an infectious disease; (3) tends to impeach a person in that person’s trade or profession; or (4) otherwise tends to subject one to ridicule, contempt or disgrace.” Renwick, 310 N.C. at 317, 312 S.E.2d at 409.

  99. Jesse Crouch

    The two sides of this argument have been fighting forever within the party. I really see no reason why they cannot coexist peacefully. If the LP truly is the party of principle we should be able to leave it at just that. Perhaps abolishing the one-platform-for-all-libertarians would do the trick.

    Quite honestly though, being on the anarchist side of libertarian politics, I think it’s odd that anarchists want much to do at all with the party. Democracy, no matter who is in control of it, is corrupt and immoral intrinsically from the perspective of most anarchocapitalists.

  100. Aaron Starr

    The Sean Haugh supporters petition is unconscionable. Although I must thank my good friend and good luck charm M Carling for his fine sentiments and just to let you all know, the feeling is mutual. M Carling is magically delicious! M, there will be a pot of gold at the end of the LP rainbow for the two of us, I know it.

    If you hate Sean Haugh and Lee Wrights like I do
    and you love M Carling and Aaron Starr show your support at

    http://AaronStarr.com

  101. Andy

    “Sean Haugh // Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 pm”

    Haugh, you lying chickenshit turd. You are a liar and rip off artist. You are a CRIMINAL, Haugh. Your attempt at burning 2,000 Libertarian Party ballot access petition signatures “whether they had been paid for or not” was a CRIME and you are damn lucky that you were in North Carolina and not Massachusetts when that happened. I talked to an LNC member recently who acknowledged that you caused over $100,000 of Libertarian Party donor’s money to be WASTED due to the MORONIC and corrupt manner that you handled ballot access. You are by far the WORST person to ever work at LP National. You are a PATHETIC JOKE and LOSER, Haugh. The best thing you could do for the Libertarian Party is just diappear.

    I don’t know how many asses you kissed to get in the positions you had, but more and more people are finding out the truth about you. That TRUTH is that you are an incompetent asshole, a liar, a backstabber, an irrational mental case, and a crybaby. It is about damn time that you get EXPOSED for the worthless piece of garbage you really are.

  102. Andy

    Here is the Massachusetts law that Sean Haugh ordered Massachusetts LP officials to break:

    General Laws c. 56, § 11, states:

    “Whoever falsely makes or wilfully alters, defaces, mutilates, destroys or suppresses a certificate of nomination or nomination paper, or letter of withdrawal of a name from such paper, or an initiative petition or a petition for the submission of a question to the voters, or unlawfully signs any such certificate, paper, letter or petition, or files any such certificate, paper, letter or petition, knowing the same to be falsely made or altered, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year.”

    Fortunately the Massachusetts LP officials were not deranged like Haugh is, so the crime did not get carried out. However, keep in mind that Haugh’s actions were still criminal as attempting to committ a crime IS a crime. This is like if a person tried to hire a hitman to carry out a murder but the murder did not end up happening, the person who tried to hire the hitman to carry out the murder is guilty of conspiracy.

    Haugh IRRATIONALLY order Massachusetts LP officials to “BURN (quite literally)” 2,000 ballot access petition signatures “whether they had been paid for or not.” This was a clear attempt at RIPPING OFF a petitioner and showed a wreckless regard for Libertarian Party donor’s money. It also showed that Haugh had no regard for the candidates on the petitions as well as the voters who signed the petitions.

    The signatures on the petitions in question were checked and were found to have been of high validity (which is more that can be said for some of the signatures that were turned in by mercenary petitioners whom Haugh hired who in several cases got validity that was in the 40% range and lower). If there had really been a concern about the signatures the proper protocol was to CHECK them, not destroy them, because destroying even one valid signature is a criminal act. Haugh didn’t really care if the signatures in question were good or not, he just wanted them burned because he’s an irrational mean-spiritied vindictive petty asshole who was on a power trip.

  103. Michael Seebeck

    Andy, did it occur to you that A) nobody really cares about you regurgitating this for the umpteenth time, and B) the posts by “M Carling”, “Sean Haugh”, and “Aaron Starr” are all spoofs and not the real people?

  104. Gary Fincher

    #115: “I see you are enjoying the gigolo lifestyle. Must be nice being a gentleman of leisure!”

    Ok, if you call collecting signatures in 109 degree heat and being run off from location to location “leisure”

    #117 “I don’t think those are real LOL”

    Arthur Torrey would NEVER have signed a petition in support of Haugh after what Haugh did in MA

  105. Gary Fincher

    “Congressman Ron Paul, R-TX, has sent a statement of support for Free & Equal Elections, and an endorsement of Theresa Amato’s new book Grand Illusion.

    In the statement, Congressman Paul says that Americans “deserve a system where third parties can compete,”that he is “impressed by the work of the Free & Equal Elections Foundation,”

    I somehow doubt this is real. Why would Ron Paul be impressed with a group who FAILS on petition drives?

  106. Carl M.

    Joe: the Confederate constitution you cited gives no indication of a desire to phase out slavery. The Southern states wanted to ban the importation of slaves at the time the country was founded. Reason: a surplus of slaves. They multiply.

    By the time of the war the soil in the Old South was too exhausted for cotton. The primary asset owned by the elite were their slaves. Creating new slave states out west was a way to increase the value of those slaves for sale. Importing new slaves from Africa would reduce the values of existing slaves.

    And this is why the states in the Old South were so up in arms over a mere freeze in the number of slave states.

  107. Andy

    “I somehow doubt this is real. Why would Ron Paul be impressed with a group who FAILS on petition drives?”

    Ron probably really did say that. I seriously doubt that he knows who Sean Haugh is or knows anything about the nuts-n-bolts of the petition business. He probably just heard about this group called Free & Equal that advocates for minor party and independent candidates to be on the ballot and thought that that sounded like a good thing.

  108. Andy

    “Michael Seebeck // Jul 14, 2009 at 1:22 am

    Andy, did it occur to you that A) nobody really cares about you regurgitating this for the umpteenth time, and B) the posts by “M Carling”, “Sean Haugh”, and “Aaron Starr” are all spoofs and not the real people?”

    This is a fast growing website. New people are surfing in all the time so just because long time readers already know about Haugh’s criminal acts and incompetence it doesn’t mean that new readers should not be warned about him, because they most definetely should be warned about this pariah.

    I did think that the post from “Sean Haugh” might not really be him, but I’ll take any opportunity to bash/expose Sean Haugh that I can get.

  109. Erik Geib

    @127:

    I don’t quite think burning petitions is quite on the same level as ethnic cleansing, collectivized economics, bloodlust for land expansion, and totalitarian control of civil liberties, but you’re free to argue so absurdly.

    I’m by no means defending Haugh (I didn’t care for him either) – I’m merely stating that you shouldn’t be so hyperbolic if you wish to get your point across.

  110. Gary Fincher

    Erik, notice I said that IF HE WERE IN THE SAME POWER POSITION AS HITLER AND STALIN

    reread it as many times as you like

    also, surf where it’s reputed that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

  111. Gary Fincher

    Andy TALKS a good game about being anti-Wrights and anti-Haugh, but the truth is right now he is cavorting with one of Wrights’ supporters (who signed a petition wanting to keep Wrights on the LNC).

    He doesn’t put his money where his mouth is, and seems to have little or no personal standards when it coms to associating or cavorting with the enemy.

  112. Erik Geib

    Again, even IF HE WERE IN THE SAME POWER POSITION AS HITLER AND STALIN (I, too, can yell at the screen), I doubt Sean Haugh is an advocate of ethnic cleansing, collectivized economics, bloodlust for land expansion, and totalitarian control of civil liberties. Once again, however, you are more than welcome to spew such absurdity.

    Horrible person? Yes. “THE WORST HUMAN BEING AND CRIMINAL WHO EVER LIVED”? Hardly.

  113. robert capozzi

    gf, hmm, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then it would follow that ANYONE with Hitler or Stalin’s powers would behave as they did, not just Haugh (who I don’t and assume he did the best he could and made a mistake, as is the human condition).

    I suspect Erik’s point is if you persistently make wild accusations and conspiratorial speculations, you undermine your credibility.

    Que sera.

  114. Gary Fincher

    Erik, I believe he would, actually. The man is a madman. I can’t prove it (because he isn’t or never will be in the same power position) but I’ve seen glimpses of his wishful “cleansing”.

    On the other hand, you can’t prove that he isn’t secretly for cleansing of his enemies and wouldn’t take it to the nth degree if in that position.

    It’s hardly “absurd” to think that depravity in an individual wouldn’t expand exponentially with an increase in personal power.

  115. Gary Fincher

    RC, I am not the one advancing poor observations. If Haugh simply committed a “mistake”, then why did he unremorsefully brag about it several months later in a blog column?

    In principle, Haugh is the worst scum the human race has to offer. Would I put it past him to commit atrocities if he had the power to do so? No. I stand by that, no matter what you wish to call it.

  116. Erik Geib

    I’m not arguing that power doesn’t corrupt (quite the contrary) – I’m arguing that you’re acting ridiculous.

    Two reasons:

    1.) I believe, if actually rated, “THE WORST HUMAN BEING AND CRIMINAL WHO EVER LIVED” rankings list would be comprised of people who actually accomplished horrible feats such as ethnic cleansing, etc., not just ones who *may* (had they had such power as the actual worst people) because of a perceived character flaw.

    2.) No, I can’t prove he doesn’t have such visions in his head, but shadiness as an LNC staffer does not prove your argument either. The fact that he was working with libertarians (as opposed to say, communists or national socialists) alone should imply [key word] he has respect for human rights on at least *some* level, even if he didn’t respect you, others, and the work y’all did. I didn’t see him attempt any “petitioner cleansing.” There was no Night of the Long Knives where he *literally* killed you.

    You do realize, of course, that you’re sounding like quite the madman yourself in the way you’re handling this.

    What Robert has said sums up my points quite nicely.

    Nevertheless, this is the last of this I’m arguing (honestly, I don’t know why I bothered with this as much as I have). Feel free to ignore my points and argue that I’m the absurd one, but your cause would likely be better served if you quieted down and re-focused your criticisms in more palatable terms.

  117. robert capozzi

    gf, not unlike your persistently posting hyperbolic statements about a fellow party member, perhaps Haugh makes a mistake in not recognizing his previous mistake.

    Can we all just get along?

  118. Gary Fincher

    EG and RC: Haugh is unrepentently STILL trying to ruin my life and career, and of course, he has never apologized. I was the one that initially wanted to get along (with everyone) but if you push me far enough to the edge, I become your enemy for life. Such is the case with Haugh.

    And EG, I respect that you have your own definition of what constitutes “the worst human ever” – it just isn’t shared by me. Why couldn’t you have simply said that you have a different definition, and left it at that, without attacking me for having my own opinion? I didn’t attack you for your opinion (and this goes for RC too) so in the vein of courtesy, I would have expected the same courtesy. All I did was expound upon my definition, when attacked.

  119. Christopher Thrasher

    First and foremost, as someone who works with Sean on a daily basis, I can tell you for a fact he hardly ever even reads IPR, and certainly does not comment.

    Frankly, I am sick and tired of reading the mindless dribble that comes from Andy and Gary.

    It is exactly this type of madness from a couple of disgruntled individuals that takes away from IPR’s journalistic value.

    Every post somehow devolves into a forum for bashing people, and Andy and Gary are the worst offenders. I make a point to ignore it when possible.

    I will not stand by, however, when the bitter rantings of trolls attempt to undermine our organization.

    First of all, The Free & Equal Elections Foundation, for which Ron Paul has given his support, has nothing to do with petitioning.

    The petitioning company is a separate entity from the foundation, run by Christina Tobin and Sean Haugh.

    The foundation is a non-partisan election reform and activist organization dedicated to improving ballot access laws in the United States; challenging these laws through the lobbying of state legislators, court challenges, and initiatives.

    Ron Paul gave us his support because of what we are doing to eliminate restrictive ballot access laws across the nation, not because we run petition drives.

    I cannot for the life of me understand what Gary and Andy want to accomplish here. Everybody knows that you don’t like Sean Haugh. Ok, we get it.

    But if you two care at all about the independent movement, if you care about eliminating ballot access laws, if you care at all about finally breaking the two-party stranglehold on American politics, then bite your tongue.

    The point was made earlier that new people come to IPR to read up on the third party movement every day.

    Ask yourself, if you, as an average American, stumble upon IPR and read the mindless bashing and he-said, she-said interparty fights that dominate the comments board, would you want to have anything to do with the independent movement or third parties? I think not.

  120. Gary Fincher

    “Frankly, I am sick and tired of reading the mindless dribble that comes from Andy and Gary”

    Hardly. Sean Haugh STARTED all this, maliciously and premeditatively.

    Anyone who would defend such behavior – while ridiculing anyone who points out that such behavior is unacceptable, unprofessional and criminal – has zero credibility with me, or any decent person who chooses NOT to behave in the manner Haugh behaves in.

  121. Gary Fincher

    “I cannot for the life of me understand what Gary and Andy want to accomplish here. Everybody knows that you don’t like Sean Haugh. Ok, we get it.”

    All you have to do is click on my name to find out what we are trying to accomplish. Obviously, you DON’T “get it” – if you think justice should simply be a matter of who “likes” or “don’t like” who.

  122. Gary Fincher

    And CT, where were you when Sean Haugh was endlessly and mindlessly trashing and bashing me, at the detriment of my work and career?

    Or is your ideologically opposed only to DEFENSIVE stikes, not to INITIATIVE strikes?

    My own ideology eschews initiative strikes and allows for defensive ones.

    We apparently have totally contrasting ideologies.

  123. Gary Fincher

    EG #139 “Again, even IF HE WERE IN THE SAME POWER POSITION AS HITLER AND STALIN (I, too, can yell at the screen),”

    Just so you know, I don’t have ability to italicize on my computer (except within certain programs) so the caps were an ALTERNATIVE to italics, absent that ability. It was not “yelling”.

    Good for you if you have italics.

  124. robert capozzi

    gf, you most certainly deserve courtesy and respect for your opinions that are offered with civility and good will. Malicious opinions need to be flagged as such, and discouraged unambiguously.

    If you have grievances with Haugh, I suggest you find a more appropriate venue for seeking redress.

  125. Back In Business

    Robert,

    Gary and Andy do have a venue. They can have their own blog(s) but since no one would read it, they have to post their dribble here cause there is more traffic.

  126. paulie Post author

    That post REALLY WAS Sean Haugh, and it can be verified.

    The comment purporting to be Sean’s was posted from IP anonymizer service Hidemyass.com, as was the one purporting to be from Aaron Starr. I would bet money that neither Haugh nor Starr posted those. I also notice that Bernie Madoff has now signed the petition in support of Haugh; I will guess that was probably actually Gary.

  127. paulie Post author

    Andy TALKS a good game about being anti-Wrights and anti-Haugh, but the truth is right now he is cavorting with one of Wrights’ supporters (who signed a petition wanting to keep Wrights on the LNC).

    We’ll try to keep the cavorting to a minimum so as not to disturb the neighbors.

  128. paulie Post author

    Ok, if you call collecting signatures in 109 degree heat and being run off from location to location “leisure”

    I was thinking of working there next month. How many signatures are you averaging a day?

  129. paulie Post author

    On the other hand, you can’t prove that he isn’t secretly for cleansing of his enemies and wouldn’t take it to the nth degree if in that position.

    Nor can I prove that you would not do the same.

  130. paulie Post author

    I was the one that initially wanted to get along (with everyone)

    Yeah, I saw your “enemies list” of current and former LP members. Yes, folks, he really did take the time to write one up.

    In Fincher’s mind, all those people – I can’t remember how many there were, but I will just roughly guess 30 – all created a problem with him and he had no share whatsoever of the blame. He never does, does he?

  131. paulie Post author

    Just so you know, I don’t have ability to italicize on my computer (except within certain programs) so the caps were an ALTERNATIVE to italics, absent that ability. It was not “yelling”.

    Good for you if you have italics.

    Gary,

    [i]italics[/i]

    replace the square brackets with angular brackets. On this keyboard they are found on the same keys as , and . and can be activated with the use of the shift key.

    italics

    replace the [i]…[/i] with [b]….[/b] for bold.

    more: http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/quicklist.html

  132. Back In Business

    Gary is so delusional about Sean Haugh. I’m sure Sean is spending every waking moment in his bungalow in North Carolina coming up with new plans to ruin you and Andy. You’ve already ruined yourselves no need for him to push you over the cliff.

  133. Gary Fincher

    Robert, the malice was done in the beginning, unprovoked, by Haugh. Why wouldn’t anyone respond to malice aimed at them, [i]especially[/i] since absolutely [i]no[/i] corrective action was taken on the perpetrator? I have a hard time understanding why anyone wouldn’t, albeit I suspect it’s because it didn’t happen to [i]them[/i].

    Paul, you know damn well that that “libertarian asshole” list was drawn up at Andy’s insistence. Otherwise, it never would have been done. (But yes, that’s correct, I never provoked tensions with any of those – I’ll itemize if you wish.) Why don’t you ask Andy is I “share any of the blame” with anyone on that list – I hear he is in the vicinity?

    Ask Mark Pickens about one of those, k?

  134. Gary Fincher

    I don’t know who this Back in Business creep is, but he/she is like fingernails on a chalkboard, good grief.

    George (Phillies), have I “ruined myself” as a petitioner?

  135. paulie Post author

    Gary,

    1. Read the full instructions on italics. Angular brackets, not square.

    2. How would Andy know whether you shared any of the blame in any of those conflicts? Has he followed you around every waking minute for 10, 15 or however many years?

    The broader point is that with so many different conflicts, it seems rather unlikely that none of the blame is with you.

    3. You can itemize if you wish.

  136. paulie Post author

    I also wonder why Paul rubs people the wrong way (Ann Davis, Michelle Shinghal, etc) and then goes “who, me?”

    I’ll readily admit that some of the blame with my falling out with Michelle was mine. She is correct that it was ill mannered of me to protest when she asked me to leave her room. I was drunk and tired, and irritable because I wanted to hang out with her and her other guests but was having a bad reaction to the cigarette smoke.

    I don’t know Ann Davis well enough to comment.

    And I don’t think I could think of anything close to “30 Libertarian enemies” if I tried.

  137. paulie Post author

    Ask Mark Pickens about one of those, k?

    Non-sequitur. Which one, and what would it prove if I did?

  138. Gary Fincher

    Paul: “Yeah, I saw your “enemies list” of current and former LP members. Yes, folks, he really did take the time to write one up. ”

    Need to elaborate further on this one…

    That last sentence – written while knowing that I was prodded into writing up a list – can ONLY be inferred to be inflammatory and to whip up sentiment against me, with untenable grounds.

    The list was drawn up in response to Andy’s observing that so many people had backstabbed me, meaning people who I had BELIEVED were my friends/allies – through seemingly apparent amicable relations – took hostile or underhanded action behind my back without my knowledge and to my total surprise. Haugh fits that category (we had never sparred) as does David Euchner, Angela Keaton and Joseph Knight. At least one person on that list (Scott Kohlhaas) defrauded me on a project…and Paul knows damn well I didn’t do anything to Scott prior to that to merit it.

    Paul is just shitting on the carpet, as usual.

  139. Gary Fincher

    If you think that Mark’s observation on my conflict with one female activist constitutes a non-sequitor (demonstrating that I turned out to be correct in that I did not start the minor verbal altercation) then you aren’t using logic.

    And while you may think it’s unlikely or improbable, it’s nevertheless true. That is underscored by the fact that I did not even PLACE ON THE LIST those in which I shared some responsibility for any of the conflicts (Karen Fincher, for instance). Logically, if I shared any of the blame, why would I label them as “assholes”? Duh. If I shared any blame for any conflict, they are left off the list. Andy is not on the list. You are not on the list. (But you’re starting to push it).

  140. Gary Fincher

    “Correction, Andy says there are 50 people on Gary’s enemies list of Libertarians.”

    Did Andy add that it’s basically HIS list too? He assented to them all. Did he add that HE was the impetus to the writing of the list? Did he add that ther list never would have gotten written had it not been for his prodding? Did he add that the people on the list basically put themselves on the list? (In other words, I didn’t ask them to malbehave.)

  141. Gary Fincher

    Also, why are you calling it an “enemies list” when clearly Andy named it officially an “assholes list”? Whipping up hysteria perhaps?

  142. Gary Fincher

    “2. How would Andy know whether you shared any of the blame in any of those conflicts?”

    Because all the details of the accounts were related to him. What else would you like to know?

  143. Gary Fincher

    Also, did Andy tell you that he badmouthed my current girlfriend (called her a cunt & a bitch) and then after presumably cooling off for weeks, said that he “stood by” those remarks? (And this, with her having done absolutely nothing to him, has had virtually zero interaction with him, ever.)

    Did he tell you that she challenged him to a duel (after I offered to do so first) and that he is apparently too frightened to respond to the challenge?

    I like Andy but he needs to learn that it’s not acceptable to call someone’s girlfriend a “cunt” and a “bitch”, audibly, where she can hear it.

  144. Andy

    “I cannot for the life of me understand what Gary and Andy want to accomplish here. Everybody knows that you don’t like Sean Haugh. Ok, we get it.”

    This is supposed to be a fast growing site. New people come on here all the time. Just because the long time readers have heard it before it doesn’t mean that the new readers have.

    I want to see Sean Haugh go down. He cost me a lot of money and lied about me behind my back. He attempted to rip me off out of more money. He was extremely rude to me over the phone years ago.

    I also know that Haugh has stabbed other people in the back/screwed over other people such as Gary and Jake Witmer (to name just two). Haugh also screwed over Libertarian Party donors by SQUANDERING over $100,000 with nothing to show for it. Haugh is a no talent worthless hack that has been parasiting off of party donors for far too long. His only talent is showing up at meetings and kissing the rear ends of those who he thinks are important. That’s the only reason that he ever obtained any positions in the first place. It is past time that this fraud get exposed for the charlaton that he is.

  145. Andy

    “I like Andy but he needs to learn that it’s not acceptable to call someone’s girlfriend a “cunt” and a ‘bitch’, audibly, where she can hear it.”

    Funny how you neglect to mention the reasons for my anger. It was because she was sticking her nose in my business by making comments where she had no clue about what she was speaking and this created more problems for me. I barely know her and she barely knows me. I would NOT stick my nose in her business. I do NOT appreciate busybodies and gossips.

    Also, you told me that she had ZERO appreciation for the fact that I laid all of the groundwork for you to meet her. You’d have NEVER met her if it were not for me loaning you money and hooking you up with a work opportunity (plus some other stuff). Heck, I paid for the freakin’ motel room where you had your first date with her. You told me her response to all that I did was “So.” I call that being an ingrate, and I don’t like ingrates either.

  146. Donald Raymond Lake

    Gary Fincher: Get a clue, consider the source, the Kindergarten Krew ……..

    “Gary Fincher // Jul 14, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    I also wonder why Paul[ie] rubs people the wrong way (Ann Davis, Michelle Shinghal, etc) and then goes “who, me?” ”

    —- Years of practice, obviously ……..

  147. Andy

    “Did Andy add that it’s basically HIS list too? He assented to them all. Did he add that HE was the impetus to the writing of the list? Did he add that ther list never would have gotten written had it not been for his prodding? Did he add that the people on the list basically put themselves on the list? (In other words, I didn’t ask them to malbehave.)”

    I don’t know all of the people who were on that asshole list, and there were one or two who I questioned whether or not their actions rose to the level of where they should be on an asshole list, however, there are several people who were on there who I know for a fact most definetely should be on there.

  148. Andy

    “Back In Business // Jul 14, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Gary is so delusional about Sean Haugh. I’m sure Sean is spending every waking moment in his bungalow in North Carolina coming up with new plans to ruin you and Andy. You’ve already ruined yourselves no need for him to push you over the cliff.”

    So says the person posting under a fake name.

    It is really easy for somebody to sit back on a high horse when they are not the ones who directly got screwed (although if they are a Libertarian Party donor Haugh’s actions did in fact screw them over, even if the person on a high horse is too ignorant to realize it).

  149. Andy

    “Yeah, I saw your “enemies list” of current and former LP members. Yes, folks, he really did take the time to write one up. ”

    The Asshole List was made somewhat as a joke. The people who made the list were all on there for a legitimate reasons (except maybe one or two where I thought it was was debatable as to whether or not their actions were bad enough to put them there), but it was something done partially for shits & giggles.

    I KNOW for a fact that some of the people on that list most definitely DESERVED to be there and some of them would be on my Asshole List as well.

  150. Gary Fincher

    Itemizations (I don’t have the list in front of me, don’t care enough to want to keep a written list):

    Shane Corey = Tried to defraud me out of money owed me and lied about me behind my back, vicious, malicious lies (such as saying that I stole money from the LP).

    Scott Kohlhaas = Defrauded me in a scheme in Nebraska in 2006…I recovered damages (from another source) but not the principal.

    Roger Pope = Called the IRS on me for being an income tax avoider over a petty disagreement we’d had. Over the same petty disagreement, called up all my clients and tried to get me fired. When that didn’t work, he invented lies and spread them about me, such as that I beat up a female assistant and killed his dog.

    Joseph Knight = In order to deflect the heat from the State coming down on his LP state chairmanship, scapegoated my wife and I simply because we were out-of-staters with no recourse to counter attack. His campaign tactics included trying to get us arrested for something we didn’t do, and trying to cut us out of work. His wrongheaded and mean-spirited crusade has continued for almost 10 years now.

    Sean Haugh = Criminally tried to rip me off to the tune of $3,000, and had the audacity to carbon-copy his superiors of his plot, and then brag about it months later, after, incredibly, not getting fired for it for such a long time. Called up my other clients to try to cut me out of work. Deliberately spread vicious and malicious lies about me, such as that I committed fraud and that I committed sexual harassment.

    Ron Crickenberger: Shut my wife and I out of contract work with our own party, despite the fact that our work was quality and our services in demand. Sided with Knight (above) constructing that we committed fraud, even though credible sources tell me that during that time Ron Crickenberger himself committed fraud in Arizona (falsely signing affidavits).

    Al Anders = Sided with Roger Pope contending that I killed Pope’s dog, even though I did not and that there was no evidence to the contrary. Falsely misled Andy into believing that he possessed incriminating evidence.

  151. Gary Fincher

    “Funny how you neglect to mention the reasons for my anger. It was because she was sticking her nose in my business by making comments where she had no clue about what she was speaking and this created more problems for me. I barely know her and she barely knows me. I would NOT stick my nose in her business. I do NOT appreciate busybodies and gossips. ”

    This is a lie. She did NOT stick her “nose in your business”. Heck, she has even told me that she does NOT want to hear your name!!

    Also, none of my friends agree with you on the appreciation bit. My best friend Scott said that your rationalizations are that are quite farfetched.

  152. paulie Post author

    If you think that Mark’s observation on my conflict with one female activist constitutes a non-sequitor (demonstrating that I turned out to be correct in that I did not start the minor verbal altercation) then you aren’t using logic.

    Anything other than complete knowledge of all the details of every single one of those situations is a non-sequitur to my point.

  153. paulie Post author

    Also, why are you calling it an “enemies list” when clearly Andy named it officially an “assholes list”? Whipping up hysteria perhaps?

    I say potato, you say potatoe.

  154. paulie Post author

    “2. How would Andy know whether you shared any of the blame in any of those conflicts?”

    Because all the details of the accounts were related to him. What else would you like to know?

    The other side of each story.

    Duh!

  155. Gary Fincher

    You’ve got it right on the potatoe analogy. A “potatoe” is not a potato any more than an “asshole” is not (necessarily) an enemy.

    Although, with a handful on the list, they ARE enemies, and I hope they suffer the same fate as Hitler.

  156. Steven R Linnabary

    Partial title of this thread is “Time to oust the anarchists from the Libertarian Party”.

    Maybe it should read “Time to oust the assholes from the Libertarian Party”. Starting with those that hijack threads.

    And yeah, I will give Milnes a pass on that as he can’t help himself.

    PEACE

  157. robert capozzi

    suggestion for IPR editors: set up a new category, “Andy & Gary’s complaints.”

  158. paulie Post author

    Gary has quite a talent for petitioning in 109 degree heat and typing on IPR at the same time.

    Me – I can barely walk and chew gum at the same time 😛

  159. Gary Fincher

    “suggestion for IPR editors: set up a new category, “Andy & Gary’s complaints.””

    Any reason you’re not including Paulie Cannoli’s complaints? Fair is fair.

  160. Gary Fincher

    Your dumb comments are part of the reason I haven’t been able to pull myself away from the computer and get out and work.

    Oh and btw, it’s only 1:49 here. Andy doesn’t even START yet at this time.

  161. JT

    Wow, Gary, you’re quite the innocent victim at the hands of so many libertarians, aren’t you?

    Guess what? If you have a long list of people who have allegedly screwed you, the problem is you, not them.

  162. Donald Raymond Lake

    “Michael Seebeck // Jul 14, 2009 at 1:22 am

    Andy, did it occur to you that A) nobody really cares about you regurgitating this for the umpteenth time, and B) the posts by “M Carling”, “Sean Haugh”, and “Aaron Starr” are all spoofs and not the real people?”

    And Mike, did it ever occur to you that after the Bible Thumpers, Conservatives, and Libs ruined Third Party Watch, juvenile extremists are working the same voodoo on IPR?

    Some of us are shocked at the decline of post war American culture [monopoly money, non metric of a failing industrial giant, and a citizen ship dupped by the power elites on every level —- local, state, national, global] and at least want to register a complain.

    Oh well, it is too important to play silly, personal games …………..

  163. Donald Raymond Lake

    JT the genius!

    JT // Jul 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm: “If you have a long list of people who have allegedly screwed you, the problem is you, not them.”

    Hey thx JT, or whom ever you are, I’ll relay the news scoop to my Jewish, Afro – American, female, Polish, Native – American/ First Immigrant, and Asian buddies. You are so brilliant!

  164. Andy

    “Al Anders = Sided with Roger Pope contending that I killed Pope’s dog, even though I did not and that there was no evidence to the contrary. Falsely misled Andy into believing that he possessed incriminating evidence.”

    You might want to consider taking Al off of your Asshole List. I spoke to Al today and I did not even bring you up in the conversation but he made it a point to bring you up by saying that he would be happy to invite you to work on any petition drive because you do good work.

  165. Andy

    “Gary Fincher // Jul 14, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Which ones on the list don’t you think did something screwy to me, Andy?”

    I don’t want to bring any of this up in a public forum. If you wish to discuss it further I will do so in private.

    “186 Gary Fincher // Jul 14, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    Paul, I related ALL of the details of each account, INCLUDING everything said and done by the “other party”.

    So duh back.”

    I have no doubt that most of the people on that Asshole List deserved to be there.

  166. Andy

    “Gary Fincher // Jul 14, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Your dumb comments are part of the reason I haven’t been able to pull myself away from the computer and get out and work.

    Oh and btw, it’s only 1:49 here. Andy doesn’t even START yet at this time.”

    This is complete bull. When I’m on a petition drive I generally start working in the morning. Of course there are various factors involved but the fact is that I USUALLY start in the morning and I usually put in a long day, 8-12 hours. Yes, there are exceptions, and I’m sure you will try to point to those, but keep in mind that I have NOT worked with you on most of the petition drives on which I worked. I’ve worked with Paul more than I’ve worked with you (not to mention the numerous petition drives I worked by myself or with somebody other than you or Paul) so you’ve only seen me in a minority of occassions when compared to every petition drive on which I’ve worked.

    If I was in your financial situation I’d be working as hard as I could to dig myself out of the hole.

  167. Andy

    “This is a lie. She did NOT stick her “nose in your business”. Heck, she has even told me that she does NOT want to hear your name!!”

    Yes she did. She talked about me behind my back and commented on a situation in which she was far removed. This has already been admitted.

    Also, she loaned you $500 and is demanding that you pay her back BEFORE you pay me back even though you owe me THOUSANDS of dollars and have owed it to me for much longer than you owe her the $500. I think that she’s got a lot of nerve demanding her $500 back before you pay me since you owe me more and have owed it to me longer.

  168. Andy

    “Guess what? If you have a long list of people who have allegedly screwed you, the problem is you, not them.”

    Some of the people on the list did not directly screw him, some of them are people who latched on to false stories that were being spread by other people and then they spread these false stories themselves.

    Like I said above, I know for a fact that some of the people on his list definitely belong on there.

  169. Andy

    “Also, she loaned you $500 and is demanding that you pay her back BEFORE you pay me back even though you owe me THOUSANDS of dollars and have owed it to me for much longer than you owe her the $500. I think that she’s got a lot of nerve demanding her $500 back before you pay me since you owe me more and have owed it to me longer.”

    I think that anyone here would be irritated by this. I loaned Gary several thousand dollars to help him out of some bad situations. He’s owed me money for a year a half now and has yet to pay me back one penny. I laid the groundwork to make it possible for him to meet Jane. After meeting Jane, Gary borrows $500 from her. Then Jane, who KNOWS that I loaned Gary several THOUSAND dollars and that he’s owed me money for over a year and has not made any payments, DEMANDS that she get her $500 back BEFORE I get one penny. When it was pointed out to her that he owes me more money and has owed it to me longer she gave a “So what” response. I think that this is quite an arrogant attitude.

  170. Gary Fincher

    “Wow, Gary, you’re quite the innocent victim at the hands of so many libertarians, aren’t you?

    Guess what? If you have a long list of people who have allegedly screwed you, the problem is you, not them.”

    Wrong guess. Try again. I believe I can stand scrutiny on this one, and my record speaks for itself.

    Helpful Hint, JT: try not to speak before you get the facts on something next time. That way, you won’t run the risk of egg on your face when you’re proven incorrect.

  171. Gary Fincher

    paulie: “I was thinking of working there next month. How many signatures are you averaging a day?”

    Yeah, I’m absolutely positive you were thinking of coming to Arizona in August to work %-(

    andy: “You might want to consider taking Al off of your Asshole List.”

    Did he apologize for accusing me of killing a dog without facts or evidence and then spreading such tripe to would-be clients?

    andy: “I don’t want to bring any of this up in a public forum. If you wish to discuss it further I will do so in private. ”

    Then why don’t you call me and do so? 520 207 7832

    andy: “Yes she did. She talked about me behind my back and commented on a situation in which she was far removed. This has already been admitted. ”

    I reiterate: No, she did not. I told you she even wants to AVOID the topic of you, and gets mad at me whenever I mention your name innocently, relating to some past experience or whatnot. Jane is doing the <i?opposite of “sticking her nose” in anyone’s business. You have made the ridiculous assertion that Jane should not know X or that Jane should not be friends with Y. I have never heard anyone say anything remotely resembling this in all my 47 years.

    andy: “I think that anyone here would be irritated by this. I loaned Gary ”

    Need I remind you that you demanded that I repay YOU before repaying PAUL (his deb preceded yours by at least 7-8 mos.) By your logic, Paul should be irritated at you.

  172. paulie Post author

    Gary,

    Paul is just shitting on the carpet, as usual.

    LOL. I wonder which of us most folks here thinks is the biggest carpet bomber? I’ll spot you Don Lake and Bob Milnes.

  173. paulie Post author

    Your dumb comments are part of the reason I haven’t been able to pull myself away from the computer and get out and work.

    Oh and btw, it’s only 1:49 here.

    I guess my comments are still to blame three hours later, even though I was gone in the meantime.

  174. Gary Fincher

    “Wow, Gary, you’re quite the innocent victim at the hands of so many libertarians, aren’t you?

    Is it MY fault that someone jumped on a ‘Bash Gary Fincher’ bandwagon that kept adding more clueless members as it grew steam?

  175. Gary Fincher

    “Gary,

    Paul is just shitting on the carpet, as usual.

    LOL. I wonder which of us most folks here thinks is the biggest carpet bomber? I’ll spot you Don Lake and Bob Milnes.”

    As I see it, you.

  176. Gary Fincher

    I’m only defending myself against smears – it’s the only reason I was ever on IPR in the first place.

    You – can you say the same thing?

  177. paulie Post author

    Yeah, I’m absolutely positive you were thinking of coming to Arizona in August to work %-(

    I don’t really have any other solid leads after this county ends, and the money is not coming in fast enough to do another one. So I may have to come out to Arizona and bake, like it or not. Maybe I’ll go to Flagstaff, it’s not so bad up there weatherwise. Although I’m afraid lots of other petitioners may be thinking the same thing.

  178. Gary Fincher

    paulie: “LOL. I wonder which of us most folks here thinks is the biggest carpet bomber? I’ll spot you Don Lake and Bob Milnes.””

    LOL, Well, I’ve got Andy:

    “Also, I repremanded Paul for bringing up that Asshole List. I did NOT even tell him about it, he just happened to see it mixed in with a pile of my stuff and he asked me about it. I told him that we came up with it for fun just to point out all of the assholes in the Libertarian Party. I did NOT want him bringing this up on a public forum so I’m irritated that he [shit on the carpet].”

  179. paulie Post author

    As I see it, you.

    That’s a given, now I’ll leave it up to more objective opinions. My vote and yours do not count. Or if you prefer, they count and cancel each other out.

    And btw, I was gone in the meantime also.

    Working? How’d you do?

    I’m only defending myself against smears

    At this point, the more you talk the less people like you, so if your objective is to defend yourself, you would be better served by not even looking at IPR. Of course, I doubt highly you’ll follow this advice, and I won’t remove your comments. So keep carpet bombing away because most of it is landing right back on you.

    You – can you say the same thing?

    Absolutely not. I mostly come here to be informative, get informed, teach, learn, socialize and have fun.

    I’ve found that defending myself against Haugh or whoever on here mostly does not work, so I do my best to not repeat myself about that stuff too much and to try to laugh it off as best I am able, even when I don’t feel like it.

  180. Gary Fincher

    paulie: “I don’t really have any other solid leads after this county ends, and the money is not coming in fast enough to do another one. So I may have to come out to Arizona and bake, like it or not. Maybe I’ll go to Flagstaff, it’s not so bad up there weatherwise. Although I’m afraid lots of other petitioners may be thinking the same thing.”

    Well, I can’t even venture outside of the Tucson/Tucson South area, so Flagstaff (and cooler weather) is out for me.

    TK: “What organization/entity is petitioning in Arizona?”

    MPP. Medical MJ initiative for 2010.

  181. Gary Fincher

    paulie: “At this point, the more you talk the less people like you, so if your objective is to defend yourself, you would be better served by not even looking at IPR. Of course, I doubt highly you’ll follow this advice, and I won’t remove your comments. So keep carpet bombing away because most of it is landing right back on you.”

    No, not really. Most people can take speech/discourse, even if it comes from a place of righteous indignation, without getting it personal and disliking the person. People usually draw the line when it comes to personal attacks on them and I haven’t done that, except to those who have done it to me. I doubt anyone dislikes someome over strong speech; if that were the case, they’d dislike you, now wouldn’t they?

  182. Gary Fincher

    paulie: “Absolutely not. I mostly come here to be informative, get informed, teach, learn, socialize and have fun. ”

    Wrong. I’ve seen you make PLENTY of carpet bombings. Last I heard, some Julian guy is so pissed off at you for doing so one too many times he wanted to kill you.

  183. Gary Fincher

    “I’ve found that defending myself against Haugh or whoever on here mostly does not work”

    I’d bet no on that one. Apparently, being vocal and repetitive about someone does work, witness responses by Carla Howell, David Euchner, Al Anders and Mike McHugh. Short memory there?

  184. paulie Post author

    Thanks for reminding me about Julian. Here’s an oldie but goodie where I changed his questions around after he kept not answering questions and demanding that I answer his silly repeated queries as to whether I am an Osama Bin Laden supporter. Grade A fruitcake! btw that would fall in the “having fun” department, not the “defending myself” category, although in the three years since then I have toned things down a lot.

    j

    Again with the questions. Well, since you persist in asking questions and not answering, I have some more questions for you.

    How do you want to feel about George W. Bush? With your tongue?

    Is he your hero or would you have him use you as a goat?

    What about Cheney? Do you fantasize about him bending you backwards over a latrine and making you gag on his swollen member?

    If you were nice to him, would he be nice to you from the back?

    Is he the one adminstering your enema?

    How come every time Don Rumsfeld comes around your London bridge is going down? If he agreed to be yout personal dictator would he be allowed to remain in power?

    Why are you so attracted to something on him which is huge and growing? Could it be right for you to desire something so wrong?

    Is he correct in his desire to eliminate on you and dominate you like a puppet of his hormones?

    Your honest opinion would be appreciated.

  185. Gary Fincher

    Paul, why do you always have to come back with something? Can’t you just let things be said and let it lie? This is what I meant about keeping to stoke it, continuing to whip up hysteria.

  186. paulie Post author

    lol this italics thing hasn’t been working

    Looking at the code version you are doing the angle brackets right but doing the equivalent of this [i]italics[i] instead of this [i]italics[/i]. See the difference?

    “I’ve found that defending myself against Haugh or whoever on here mostly does not work”

    I’d bet no on that one. Apparently, being vocal and repetitive about someone does work, witness responses by Carla Howell, David Euchner, Al Anders and Mike McHugh. Short memory there?

    I don’t remember any of those people being on here.

  187. paulie Post author

    Paul, why do you always have to come back with something? Can’t you just let things be said and let it lie? This is what I meant about keeping to stoke it, continuing to whip up hysteria.

    You may want to ask yourself that question.

  188. Jessica Irons

    I see the loser crew is back.

    Gary – the woman beating slob who forged voter registrations in New Mexico

    Paul – the convicted felon, rapist, child molester and crackhead who forged signatures in Oregon

    Andy – the original inspiration for the character in the 40 year old virgin. He hasn’t been caught forging yet, but since he hangs around with Gary and Paul there is a pretty high probability that he is a forger just like his loser friends. He always acts crazy and has to be removed by police because he petitions at grocery stores without permission and yells at people.

    Andy is currently stalking a young woman in Tennessee. He recently had to be fired from the voter registration drive in Arizona for deranged behavior and low quality work.

    All three have been fired in North Carolina and then again nationally by Sean Haugh, who is by far the best political director the Libertarian Party has ever had.

    Paul is now on the executive committee of the Alabama LP even though he is actually a homeless bum who hitchhikes all over the country and posts lies and slanders here against Sean Haugh, Christina Tobin, Angela Keaton, Richard Winger, Michelle Shinghal, Scott Kohlhaas and ElfNinosMom – all due to petty jealousy against his betters. Incidentally he is also a plagiarist.

    Roger Pope and Joe Knight have the straight scoop on these guys. They should be blackballed from petition drives, kicked off this website like they were at Last Free Voice, and ostracized at party meetings.

    All petition contracts should go to Free and Equal and competent petitioners like Eric Dondero, David Jackson, Ronn Cook, Edee and Russ Baggett and Darryl Bonner.

    The GAP boys are now turning on each other here over money. Don’t trust them, and don’t hire Mark Pickens who is just a front for them.

  189. Gary Fincher

    This Jessica Irons guy is a lunatic.

    I never beat a woman and I never forged voter registrations (although evidence is that Darryl Bonner has – which makes this post even MORE ludicrous).

    See what I mean, Paul – I always have to come on here to defend my name against moron creeps like this.

  190. Gary Fincher

    This loser has everything EXACTLY backwards (except for Ronn Cook & the Baggets).

    Roger Pope and Joseph Knight are CERTIFIABLE nuts and who would trust anyone who would even REMOTELY give credence to the likes of them?

  191. Liberty For All

    by Sean Haugh
    Below is an item I asked to be submitted for the agenda of the upcoming meeting of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC). I tried to do this quietly and through normal channels, but sadly have been rebuffed. Following that will be some follow up correspondence on the matter and a long overdue correction of some of my past reporting, including an apology to Regional Representative Stewart Flood for implying he had behaved inappropriately.
    *
    First, the original request itself:

    This is a request from Sean Haugh to have an item placed on the agenda for the July meeting of the Libertarian National Committee in St. Louis.
    In a memo to the LNC dated 4/21/2009, Treasurer Aaron Starr spun a very lengthy tall tale in an attempt to justify purging At-Large Representative Lee Wrights from the Committee. In that memo, Starr committed several acts which must be addressed directly by this Committee, in order to protect the integrity of the Party which Starr so blithely damaged.
    If the Committee takes no action in this matter, it will be endorsing Starr’s actions, thus sending some very damaging messages to the membership, as well as exposing itself to legal liability. With one exception below, whatever specific action should be taken is up to the Committee. I only ask that some action be taken.
    Issue 1: The Treasurer openly discussed the personal donor history of both myself and Lee Wrights in order to carry out internal party warfare.
    Donor information should, in general, be considered private. There are exceptions, such as the legal demands of reporting to the FEC and thanking donors publicly for their recent donations. Beyond such examples, however, it has always been the policy of the LNC to keep such information private.
    The reason why this is a sound policy should be readily apparent. If prospective donors knew that the LNC does not value their privacy and can not be counted upon to treat their financial records with discretion, they may well feel inhibited to make any future donations. If a member feels that their contribution may later be cited for a purpose other than the benefit of the party, they have an incentive to cease being a member.
    Issue 2: The Treasurer instructed the [Acting] Executive Director to change my donor records in order to carry out internal party warfare.

    Attached please find documentation that the [Acting] Executive Director [Robert Kraus], based upon transparently false information supplied by the Treasurer, determined that a perfectly legal contribution I had made was illegal, and issued a refund for said donation. When I refused to accept this “refund” check, it was counted as a donation made by me in April 2009, when I made no such donation. My requests to have my donor records corrected have been met with silence.
    There are certain administrative functions that must be kept totally neutral, insulated from any internal disputes we may have. The willingness of the Treasurer and the [Acting] Executive Director to politicize these core administrative functions is a profound breach of ethics that cannot be tolerated. In the corporate world, our [Acting] Executive Director would have been fired immediately for such behavior.
    My one specific demand is that my donation records be corrected so that they accurately reflect my donation history. Since the Treasurer and [Acting] Executive Director refuse to do so, I am appealing to the Committee as a whole to enact this correction.
    Issue 3: The Treasurer deliberately lied to the Committee about FEC regulations, including deliberately misrepresenting the opinion of our professional consultant on this matter.
    The notion that paying for someone else’s membership is a violation of FEC regulations is nothing but a transparent and absurd lie. I am stunned that anyone would claim to believe this for one moment. The situation the Treasurer described amounted to a simple internal bookkeeping error, with no FEC reporting implications whatsoever, which should have been corrected without controversy.
    As proved when the Chair put the question to our consultant directly, her advice does not conform with how our Treasurer represented her advice to the Committee. By doing so, the Treasurer impugned the reputation of someone upon whom we rely for legal services.
    If the Treasurer is willing to lie so blatantly to the Committee both about the law and the advice of our professional consultants, how can you possibly trust anything else he reports to the Committee?

    Issue 4: The Treasurer, in his official capacity, indulged in slanderous speculation about my motives.
    In his memo, the Treasurer speculated that I knowingly violated campaign finance law, and also that I knowingly attempted to influence LNC elections with my contributions. Considering current case law, to raise such slanderous notions and then dismiss them does not insulate him from legal liability. Writing as an officer of the Party, he thus exposed LNC, Inc. itself to this legal liability. I have not closed the door on the possibility that I may need to take legal action in this matter, and if I deem it necessary, LNC, Inc. would definitely be a defendant.
    Your fiduciary responsibility to the membership demands that you take action to ensure that the Treasurer is disciplined for his behavior, and that these gross breaches of ethical behavior by an officer of the Party never happen again.
    yours in liberty – Sean Haugh
    [reference to attachments]
    *
    First, a minor correction: After receiving legal advice, I understand that when I used the term “slander,” the more accurate term for Starr’s behavior is “libel per se.” In real English, if you make up malicious lies designed to impugn a person’s professional reputation, saying at the end something like, “but I don’t really believe this,” is absolutely no defense against a charge of libel. In fact, the charge becomes easier to prove because in case law, these statements are automatically presumed to be malicious.

    It just now occurs to me that Starr also openly discussed the donation history of Ruth Bennett in that memo, for no other reason than to cite an example.
    Here is a follow up email I sent to our Chair Bill Redpath, with a copy to Flood, under the subject line “an easy out”:
    Bill, by now you have seen what I have submitted for the agenda for St. Louis. You can make this all go away of you simply make sure my donation records are restored to the truth. Don’t buy anyone’s bullshit that it can’t be done or that it has anything to do with FEC reporting. Don’t reply with anything other than *proof* that it has been taken care of. If you can do that, I will be happy to report in public comment at the beginning of the meeting that my concerns have been resolved to my satisfaction. How you deal with Aaron Starr and Robert Kraus is your problem, but feel free to inform Starr that including me in his actions detailed in his memo of 4/20 [sic] was the dumbest thing he ever did. I just pray that you realize by now that taking Starr’s advice has only caused you and the party great harm.
    If you can’t or won’t do this, well, know that I don’t bluff. I am going to keep taking this to the next level until I get satisfaction on this one specific point. Stewart has counseled me, I believe wisely, to let it all go, and I believe that I can, except for this one nagging point of my own donation records being changed to a lie to carry out internal party warfare.

    *
    Simple enough, right? Apparently when dealing with someone so intent upon acting with no moral integrity in this matter, no, nothing is that simple.
    Several LNC members have forwarded to me parts of the conversation about setting the upcoming agenda. In reference to my request for this item to be heard, Redpath stated, “I don’t think what Donny Ferguson wrote was such that it should be an agenda item, it would be a personnel matter to be handled by the Chair and ED anyway…”
    Here Redpath most disingenuously refers to a prior complaint of mine, regarding the content of some “Monday Messages” which come from our office. That complaint has been quietly resolved to my satisfaction. Ferguson was cautioned to no longer promote Republican candidates and office-holders in these messages, and he has not repeated the error.
    Note that this statement came a few days after the correspondence quoted above. Redpath knows full well what my request for an agenda item was about.

    Flood, in this same exchange, stated, “I later received several documents that Mr Haugh told me that he would be sending. While he included a list of charges and copies of the April 2008 check and the April 2009 refund letter that we have already received from Mr Kraus, he submitted no other evidence to support his extensive list of charges.”
    Let me directly address him here: Stewart, the Starr memo of 4/21 is the “other evidence.” I did not include it because you are already in receipt of it. This again is very weakly disingenuous attempt to avoid the real issues.
    Read the Starr memo yourself, and as you do, ask yourself these questions:
    Is it acceptable for an officer of the party to publicly discuss the donation history of members in order to carry out internal party warfare?
    Is it acceptable to change donor records to contain lies constructed to carry out this internal party warfare?
    Is it acceptable for an officer of the party to lie to the committee about the law and the advice of our professional consultants?
    Is it acceptable for an officer of the party to expose the LNC to legal liability by engaging in libelous behavior while writing in his official capacity?

    Stewart, if you find all of these acts to be perfectly acceptable, by all means, continue to object to any discussion of them at your next meeting.
    *
    Although I have just criticized Flood over this, I do owe him a correction and apology for an item of my own past reporting.
    In my articles on the LNC budget passed in December, I highlighted the line item showing $5000 going to Ballot Base, a company owned by Flood, who happened to be the prosecutor for the witch trial of Angela Keaton at that same meeting.
    Flood, Kraus, and Starr all gave me information showing that this $5000 is not going to Ballot Base and was never intended for that purpose.
    Flood reiterated that the LNC’s relationship with Ballot Base ended shortly after the system failed in our attempt to allow Ron Paul supporters to use it to call New Hampshire voters. Flood stated that there has been no business relationship with the LNC since then-ED Shane Cory ended it in early 2007, and there were no intentions at that time to start a new one.
    Since then, Flood did enter into a new business relationship to provide similar services to Libertarian candidates. My investigation of that revealed that no money has been paid to Flood or his company by the LNC for these services. In fact, Flood has conducted this business in an incredibly scrupulous, ethical and legal manner, involving some personal and professional sacrifice.
    For this, Flood should be commended. Although I did not go so far as to commit “libel per se” as Starr so blithely has done, I apologize to him for anything I said which might have led someone to believe he was receiving a corrupt payoff from the LNC.

    Kraus confirmed Flood’s account. He explained that this $5000 was intended for more general candidate support, such as buying voter registration lists for candidates or sponsoring candidates for Leadership Institute or similar training. Both Flood and Kraus denied the $5000 was listed on the Ballot Base line.
    Starr confirmed that he had indeed listed the $5000 on the Ballot Base line, but claimed the purpose was as Kraus described, for more general candidate support. Starr said he just put it there because it was the closest existing budget line to that purpose. Looking at the budget document, this is correct. The only other line under “Campaign Candidate Support” is the equally obsolete Candidate Tracker program.
    This means that instead of eliminating obsolete line items and replacing them with accurate ones, inaccurate descriptions are used to describe how the LNC intends to spend our members’ money.
    While the explanations became detailed to the point of confusion, they ring true. There was never any payment intended by the LNC to Ballot Base or Flood for any reason.
    What we have here instead is simply another example of the lies and incompetence of Starr, fitting his now well-established pattern of attempting to deflect blame for his sins and errors onto someone else.
    *

    One final observation: I hate it that I am always so full of complaints about the unethical and incompetent behavior of LNC officers and staff. I would love nothing more than to let it all go so that we can all move on with our lives. However, as long as Starr and Redpath continue to invoke my name as they attempt to justify their misdeeds, I simply cannot allow that to stand.
    Bill Redpath, prove to me that you have fixed my donation records and I will leave you to deal with the membership regarding the other aspects of the corruption of your administration.

    Sean Haugh is assistant editor for Liberty For All. Sean is married to longtime Libertarian Pam Adams, and they have a family of three dogs and five cats. Besides them, Sean loves God, Liberty, and Oklahoma Sooners football. Write to Sean at seanhaugh@mindspring.com.

  192. LNC

    Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

    July 18-19, 2009 Meeting Agenda

    St. Louis, Missouri

    Saturday, July 18, 2009 & Sunday, July 19, 2009

    Call to Order

    8:30 AM

    Moment of Reflection

    1 minute

    Opportunity for Public Comment

    10 minutes

    Credentials Report and Paperwork Check (Secretary)

    5 minutes

    Report of Potential Conflicts of Interest

    5 minutes

    Approval of the Agenda

    5 minutes

    Standing Reports

    Chair’s Report

    15 minutes

    Treasurer’s Report

    30 minutes

    Secretary’s Report

    10 minutes

    Staff Report

    Staff Reports

    60 minutes

    Counsel’s Report

    15 minutes

    Reports Previously Submitted in Writing

    Campus Organizing Report (Lark)

    5 minutes

    Various Regions

    5 minutes per

    Action Items Not Previously Submitted in Writing – Old Business

    Confidentiality Agreement (Held Over from Charleston)

    15 minutes

    Strategic Plan Review (Held Over from Charleston)

    30 minutes

    Action Items Previously Submitted in Writing – New Business

    Credentials Committee Selection

    20 minutes

    Sean Haugh Formal Complaint to the LNC (Ruwart)

    15 minutes

    Resolution of Apology & Restitution (Hawkridge)

    45 minutes

    Action Items Not Previously Submitted in Writing – New Business

    Sbcglobal.net email problems (Fox)

    10 minutes

    APRC (Ruwart)

    10 minutes

    Financial Records Confidentiality (Ruwart)

    15 minutes

    FEC Report Information Gathering (Hawkridge)

    10 minutes

    LNC Convention Committee Report (Colley)

    30 minutes

    Discipline—or not—of Steve LaBianca (Karlan)

    15 minutes

    Policy Manual Amendment (Karlan)

    5 minutes

    Bylaws Comm. & Policy Manual Overhaul Subcomm. (Karlan)

    10 minutes

    Non-Disclosure Agreement (Flood)

    10 minutes

    Ballot Access Report (Redpath)

    5 minutes

    Telephone Discussion with LNC Counsel Gary Sinawski at 2PM Sat.

    Telephone Discussion with FEC Consultant Paula Edwards at 3PM Saturday

    Report on LNC Meeting Site Selection Process for December 2009

    5 minutes

    Opportunity for Public Comment

    10 minutes

    Adjournment

  193. Gary Fincher

    For everyone else reading’s benefit (NOT for the kook who wrote it):

    “Andy is currently stalking a young woman in Tennessee. He recently had to be fired from the voter registration drive in Arizona for deranged behavior and low quality work.”

    Andy did not get fired from a voter registration drive in Arizona and did NOT have low-quality work. I worked on that same drive in Arizo
    na and we BOTH had high quality work, as we always do.

    “is actually a homeless bum who hitchhikes all over the country ”

    What’s wrong with not owning a home and hitchhiking places?

    “kicked off this website like they were at Last Free Voice,”

    I was not kicked off of LFV, and I’m pretty sure Andy wasn’t either.

    “Paul – the convicted felon, rapist, child molester and crackhead ”

    I have never heard of Paul being convicted of rape, child molestation or using crack. And I’m not aware of his ever raping anyone or molesting a child. I have high doubts that he ever did such things.

    “and Darryl Bonner”

    It was brought to my attention that Darryl (by process of elimination) forged at least a few pages of signatures in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1995. Initially, the candidate mistakenly thought I did it – but since I know it wasn’t me, I figured out it had to have been Darryl.

    “All three have been fired in North Carolina ”

    I didn’t get “fired” in North Carolina. Ballot Access coordinator Kris Williams suspended the drive and Sean Haugh asked hours later for my wife and me to vacate his house, which we did.

    “lies and slanders here against Sean Haugh, Christina Tobin, Angela Keaton, Richard Winger, Michelle Shinghal, Scott Kohlhaas and ElfNinosMom -”

    I doubt Paul would say anything negative about Richard Winger. Shinghal and Paul had a minor personal disagreement but I doubt anything egregious was said about her. Haugh, Keaton and Kohlhaas have engaged in lies and worse, and deserve anything said about them. Best I can tell, Tobin and ElfNinos Mom are only guilty of poor lapses in judgment.

  194. Gary Fincher

    “He [Andy] always acts crazy and has to be removed by police because he petitions at grocery stores without permission and yells at people.”

    Andy does not yell at people while petitioning, and that line about being removed by police for petitioning at stores without permission (as if the stores seek permission to soak taxpayers for their corporate welfare) leads me to think these new posts are…LEE WRIGHTS.

  195. Andy

    “The GAP boys are now turning on each other here over money. Don’t trust them, and don’t hire Mark Pickens who is just a front for them.”

    LOL @ the GAP boys comment!!!

    Everything this poster said is BULLSHIT. They are either stories that have been altered or they are outright fabrications.

    I don’t know who this poster really is, but whoever it is that is hiding behind fake names is a LIAR and obviously has very low intergrity.

  196. Andy

    “Andy is currently stalking a young woman in Tennessee. He recently had to be fired from the voter registration drive in Arizona for deranged behavior and low quality work.”

    There is no stalking going on and I am not even in Tennessee. Also, the female in question has been communicating with me on a friendly basis for the past week or so and in fact has been contacting me.

    I was never fired in Arizona and in fact produced good work as can be attested by Jim March and David Euchner, both of whom I’ve got emails from which I have already posted here commending me on my good work.

  197. Gary Fincher

    “I was never fired in Arizona and in fact produced good work as can be attested by Jim March and David Euchner, both of whom I’ve got emails from which I have already posted here commending me on my good work.”

    But did you ever convince David Euchner that I do good work? I called Jim March re LP regs and he was supposed to consult with Euchner about it THAT NIGHT but never got back to me (weeks ago now).

  198. Andy

    “I never beat a woman and I never forged voter registrations (although evidence is that Darryl Bonner has – which makes this post even MORE ludicrous).”

    The stuff about Gary supposedly beating women and forging registrations are a bunch of lies which have already been debunked.

    In all fairness to Bonner, I doubt that he forged any registrations or petitions. I don’t know of any solid evidence that connects him to doing that. The signatures in question that MIGHT have been forged may have been collected by somebody that he hired and that was years ago. It is not good to spread false stories about people, so unless there is any verifiable evidence about this I would not discuss it further.

  199. Andy

    “But did you ever convince David Euchner that I do good work? I called Jim March re LP regs and he was supposed to consult with Euchner about it THAT NIGHT but never got back to me (weeks ago now).”

    I told him that you did good work but I don’t know if it “got through” to him or not. He SHOULD ALREADY KNOW that you did good work since you got him on the ballot in Massachusetts years ago.

  200. Gary Fincher

    “In all fairness to Bonner, I doubt that he forged any registrations or petitions. I don’t know of any solid evidence that connects him to doing that. The signatures in question that MIGHT have been forged may have been collected by somebody that he hired and that was years ago. It is not good to spread false stories about people, so unless there is any verifiable evidence about this I would not discuss it further.”

    It’s germane, given CREDIBLE reports from 2008 over Bonner’s validity (Illinois and Pennsylvania). The circumstantial evidence (no, I didn’t catch him red-handed, but…) in Maryland is very compelling, even overwhelming (like the trout in the milk). Either way, he doesn’t care about the quality of his work.

  201. Gary Fincher

    “I told him that you did good work but I don’t know if it “got through” to him ”

    What exactly do you mean that you ‘don’t know’ if it ‘got through’? You are referring to that email message board back in February when you told him and he said that he would not discuss it?

  202. Andy

    “Wrong. I’ve seen you make PLENTY of carpet bombings. Last I heard, some Julian guy is so pissed off at you for doing so one too many times he wanted to kill you.”

    Oh come on, that Julian guy was a wacko. Paul didn’t do anything wrong, that guy was nuts. Also, that was on the old Hammer of Truth site like 3 years ago.

  203. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    “The stuff about Gary supposedly … forging registrations are a bunch of lies which have already been debunked.”

    Fincher has publicly admitted to the forgery in question (inserting false SSNs on registrations in New Mexico), and you’ve publicly defended his actions, indicating that you know about them, on this very site.

    Yes, Fincher offered a bunch of EXC– USES for the forgery, and you’ve offered similar EXC– USES on his behalf, but you’ve both already stipulated to the fact OF the forgery.

    Please stop lying about this. Every time you lie about it I catch you, and every time I catch you, you get all pissy about getting caught.

  204. Andy

    “It’s germane, given CREDIBLE reports from 2008 over Bonner’s validity (Illinois and Pennsylvania). The circumstantial evidence (no, I didn’t catch him red-handed, but…) in Maryland is very compelling, even overwhelming (like the trout in the milk). Either way, he doesn’t care about the quality of his work.”

    Bonner did not work in Illinois in 2008. He has got bad validity on some occassions but there are other occassions where he has gotten good validity. There is no verifiable evidence that he ever forged a signature. I have no problem with the Libertarian Party hiring this individual, I just did not like the double standards where he got handed sweetheart deals that other proven petitioners (some of whom are also longtime Libertarian activists) got cut out of. Those double standards were not right, but this is not the fault of Bonner as he was not the one calling the shots.

  205. Gary Fincher

    No, Knapp, you are wrong.

    You cannot forge SSNs – you can only forge signatures. In fact, SSNs are a fiction to begin with. You should know this – what party are you in?

    Ergo, I did not commit any forgery.

    However, one of my biggest persecutors at the time, Ron Crickenberger, DID commit fraud, right here in Arizona, while serving as Political Director. I have eyewitness testimony to this. And we’re talking signatures, not irrelevant digits.

  206. Andy

    There’s no evidence that Bonner did anything wrong so don’t put out any innuendos that he did. This is how rumors get started and you should know how that shit goes.

  207. Gary Fincher

    Andy, I asked you to call me. You are going to want to hear about this monumental LP news slice that ONLY I am in possession of. But it’s going to be one of those “you have to promise not to let it get past you & me” kind of things.

  208. Chris Bennett

    Andy, I do believe Bonner did work briefly in Illinois but was not part of Bonnie Lee’s group. Remember I checked validity rates and got criticized by Dondero for being a minor equation of that petition drive.

  209. Gary Fincher

    Also, Knapp:

    Is Social Security a legitimate “insurance” program (as it purports to be)?

    Is the Social Security Administration legitimately supposed to track every American with numbers, using intimidation?

    Are SSNs legitimately part of screening people over their ability to be able to vote?

    Do the sequence of digits in a number universally deemed to be illegitimate and not relevant by libertarians make the registration any more, or less, valid?

    Is a voter not still a voter despite what arrangements of digits appear in an OPTIONAL and IRRELEVANT box on the form?

    Was the work involved in persuading the voter to declare “Libertarian” on the form any less so due to unrecognizable arrangements of those unnecessary digits?

    Unless your answer to these questions vastly differ from mine, I’d say you’d better CLAMP IT and CEASE AND DESIST calling me a forger.

  210. Andy

    “Fincher has publicly admitted to the forgery in question (inserting false SSNs on registrations in New Mexico), and you’ve publicly defended his actions, indicating that you know about them, on this very site.”

    JESUS FUCKING CHRIST KNAPP, IF YOU ARE REALLY THIS DENSE YOU’VE GOT NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER OFFICE!

    This has already been explained to you multiple times. I will go through it one more time. Please PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME.

    1) There was no legal requirement that a person had to fill in the voter registration box for their registration to count.

    2) Joe Knight – acting out of ignorance and parinoia – issued a mandate AFTER the Finchers had already travelled to New Mexico and been working for around 2 weeks that he didn’t want them to get paid for any registrations where the Social(ist) (In)Security box was left blank.

    3) Joe Knight only issued this edict to the Finchers who were working in Alburquerque (Knight was in Farmington). Scott Kohlhaas was working in Las Cruces on the SAME registration drive during the same time period and Knight NEVER issued this edict to Kohlhaas and Kohlhaas was paid in full and on time for all of the registrations that he gathered, including the ones that lacked Social(ist) (In)Security Numbers.

    4) Gary is highly opposed to Social(ist) (In)Security Numbers from both a moral and legal basis. If Joe Knight had told him in advance that he was going to issue this edict Gary would never have accepted the job and would have declined travelling to New Mexico to work on it.

    5) Since Gary is so opposed to Social(ist) (In)Security Numbers he could not bring himself to browbeat the people he was registering to vote into giving them. He left it up to the voter as to whether or not they wanted to fill in that box (and keep in mind that it was OPTIONAL – as in the voter was NOT legally required to give it). Most of the people that the Finchers registered did in fact fill in that Social(ist) (In)Security box with their “real” number.

    6) A minority of the cards that they collected had the Social(ist) (In)Security box left blank. This was somewhere around 10%-20% of the cards they collected. After Joe Knight issued this edict the Finchers were faced with having their pay docked by 10%-20%.

    7) This was not a high paying campaign and they turned down other work to travel there so they found the prospect of facing a 10%-20% pay cut to be unacceptable – ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR IT. So this is what lead to then filling in random numbers in the 10%-20% of the cards that they collected where the voter opted to leave the Social(ist) (In)Security box blank.

    8) Now I happen to think that they did a poor job handling the situation because this looked bad, but it was NOT immoral and it was NOT illegal and it was NOT forgery. No charges were pressed against them because they did not do anything illegal and their voter registrations were in fact counted by the state (ballot access expert Richard Winger can attest to this).

    9) The fact of the matter is that the Finchers did nothing wrong. Ron Bjornstad and Mike Blessing of the New Mexico LP both actually witnessed them working in the field (unlike Joe Knight) and they said that the Finchers did nothing wrong (and note that Bjornstad was the one who took they turned in their registrations to). The investigator from the Bernalillo County elections office issued a report that VINDICATED the Finchers. The truth of the matter is that Joe Knight just didn’t like the fact that the Finchers didn’t cowtow to his “authority” and Joe Knight got mad (in a very Cartman “Respect my authority!” from SouthPark manner) and decided to turn the Finchers into his scapegoats/whipping boy & girl.

    10) This incident happened back in 1999 and Gary has worked on numerous campaigns since then with no problems. It should be a dead issue.

  211. Andy

    “Chris Bennett // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:28 am

    Andy, I do believe Bonner did work briefly in Illinois but was not part of Bonnie Lee’s group. Remember I checked validity rates and got criticized by Dondero for being a minor equation of that petition drive.”

    Are you sure about that? I’m pretty sure that Bonner was in Pennsylvania during that time period. He may have been in some other state or states before PA, but I don’t think any of them were Illinois.

  212. JT

    I have egg on my face? (Fincher # 207). I think not. What I do think is that some people in life complain about being victims, and some people don’t. You’re just coming off like a whiny bitch.

    Lake, you’ve proven here that you’re too unhinged to argue with (Lake # 196). You’re pretty much an embarrassment. Keep trying to get people to notice you or care what you do.

  213. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Gary Fincher:

    “I’d say you’d better CLAMP IT and CEASE AND DESIST calling me a forger.”

    If that means what I think it means, I’d say “skin that smokewagon and see what happens.”

    Mi US District Court es su US District Court. But don’t say I didn’t warn you: By the time you’ve paid your attorney’s fees, my attorney’s fees, and the sanctions I’ll seek against you for false and frivolous litigation, you’ll be lucky to have a pot to piss in for the rest of your natural life. Your call.

    None of your questions, or the answers to those questions, are the least bit relevant. If you prefer the term “fraudster” to “forger,” I’ll try to remember to use the latter instead of the former from now on.

    You have publicly admitted to knowingly and intentionally filling in false information on voter registration forms. That fact will remain a fact regardless of how many times you or Andy lie about it, and regardless of what excuses and justifications you come up with to try to weasel your way out of the ramifications of your own admissions.

  214. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    You write:

    “It should be a dead issue.”

    A lot of things should be dead issues — but that doesn’t stop you from bringing those things up any time you think that you can get attention with them, regardless of whether or not they’re relevant to the alleged topic.

    Sauce for goose, sauce for gander.

  215. Andy

    “1) There was no legal requirement that a person had to fill in the voter registration box for their registration to count.”

    This should read “There was no legal requirement that a person had to fill in the Social Security Number box on the voter registration form for their registration to count.”

  216. Andy

    “Al Anders = Sided with Roger Pope contending that I killed Pope’s dog, even though I did not and that there was no evidence to the contrary. Falsely misled Andy into believing that he possessed incriminating evidence.”

    I never believed it when Al was saying that you killed Roger’s dog. The time period that you were alleged to have killed the dog kept changing and I know where you were during those times and I know that you couldn’t have possibly been where Roger lives in order to kill the dog during those time periods. I asked Al to get back to me with evidence that you killed the dog and he never did and in fact never talked about it after that, and this happened over 2 years ago.

  217. paulie Post author

    An email exchange on the original subject of this thread…

    Rachel Hawkridge


    I think Kn@pp said it best . . .

    “Limited government is conducive to minimal government; minimal government allows the question to be raised, in an environment where it can be considered seriously: do we really need this institution at all? I don’t expect that to happen within my lifetime, nor do I feel the need to pursue it as an immediate goal.

    The Libertarian Party is a train that is going in my direction. I recognize that the bulk of the passengers will be disembarking at stations somewhere east of the one for which my ticket is stamped.

    Some will get off the train when we’ve reached their notion of “limited government.” Others will keep their seats until we arrive at their conception of “minimal government.” At each stop, those disembarking will have the opportunity to urge their fellow passengers to join them. At each stop, those hanging on for the whole ride will have the opportunity to urge those getting off to buy another ticket and go a little farther down the track.

    I don’t have to be a minarchist or constitutionalist or disgruntled paleoconservative or anti-authoritarian liberal in order to work with people who are. Nor should they have to be anarchists to work with me.”

    Roderick Long

    While I have great respect for Tom, I have serious problems with the train metaphor. Here’s one. It makes it sound as though minarchists and anarchists share a common strategy and methodology up to the very end. But that’s not at all obvious. For the minarchist, the goal is to lop off all the lesser branches, the ones over and above monopoly defense (police/courts/military), and then after all that’s done, to argue about what remains. But for the anarchist, it’s the monopoly defense that’s the root of all those other branches — which is why, for many anarchists, it’s wasteful to focus all our time on attacking the branches; the appropriate methodology is to focus on getting rid of the root, and then the branches will fall of themselves. So it’s not necessarily the same train; anarchists, or at least some of us — particularly those who favour the so-called “dual power” strategy — are trying to build an express train to their destination while, from our perspective, minarchists want a long wasteful detour.

    Of course I acknowledge a grain of truth in the train metaphor, which is that there is significant overlap in means — above all, education — between minarchists and anarchists. But I don’t think the disagreement about methods is one that only arises late in the game.

    Steve Gordon

    My observation is that a considerable amount of our effort is applied neither towards branches nor roots, but towards each other. Until this ends, we’ll collectively continue to receive the level of government we all deserve. When we are able to start aiming our guns (or should I say axes and shovels?) outward as opposed to inward, we’ll have more concrete results which we can then analyze to determine which method is more effective or advantageous.

  218. Stewart Flood

    Amazing. After waiting almost six months, I finally get a back-handed apology from Mr Haugh.

    A few minor corrections: Ballot Base is not and never was a company. It was simply the domain name that the party purchased to re-brand an existing product for their use.

    My company’s services were terminated in 2008, not 2007.

    Neither I or Mr Kraus ever denied to Mr Haugh that there was an item in the 2oo8 budget for my services. The budget was approved in December of 2007, and my services were terminated several months later. Our discussion with Mr Haugh at the February 2009 LNC meeting regarded the fact that my company — as Mr Haugh knew quite well — was no longer a vendor to the LNC and had not been for more than a year.

    The budget for 2008 was obviously never revised to remove the line item. Why does Mr Haugh now claim that we denied the existence of something that clearly existed? All that we ever said was that no money was disbursed to my company — a clearly provable fact. Now he owes me another apology for libeling me YET AGAIN!

    Regarding the upcoming LNC meeting:

    Mr Haugh did not indicate to me what other evidence he was going to present. Having received no evidence, I stand by my statement that he had submitted no evidence to support his claim.

    The fact that he now states that the other evidence that he did not identify to me was already in my possession is of no importance. He had not identified or submitted any evidence at the time I wrote my message to the LNC.

    Stewart Flood

  219. mdh

    Steve Gordon is right. People like Mr. Randall are advocating for a circular firing squad methodology for achieving our goals and that’s not going to get us anywhere. This is what upsets me so about his statements. They do nothing to advance liberty other than to attempt to ostracize an oppressed minority within the LP. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was saying the same things about ousting blacks from his country club whenever they tried to join back in the 60’s!

  220. Thomas M. Sipos

    I have serious problems with the train metaphor. Here’s one. It makes it sound as though minarchists and anarchists share a common strategy and methodology up to the very end.

    It also makes it sound as though minarchists and minarchists share a common strategy and method up to the very end.

    But antiwar minarchists are closer to anarchists than to Big Empire “minarchists,” who support a huge, expensive military, but would prefer that it be paid for by exacting imperial tribute from conquered peoples (i.e., make them “pay for their own liberation”) rather than have the Empire raises taxes on the “minarchists.”

  221. Gary Fincher

    JT #254: It only sounds “whiny” to you because you’re seeing typed words and not my deep, gruff voice and my 250-lb frame.

    Does it sound whiny to you if I say if you don’t shut your goddamn mouth you might get your teeth crammed down your throat?

    That’s what happens sometimes to people who speak when they have no idea what they are talkiung about.

  222. robert capozzi

    I agree with Long to this extent: If some anarchists want to focus all the LP’s efforts on felling the tree — smashing the State entirely and pulling up the roots — that IS inconsistent with incrementalist Ls of various stripes. Since most Ls ARE incrementalists (including anarchists and theoretical asymptotic anarchists), I’d be curious how the good professor suggests we solve that fundamental disagreement.

  223. Gary Fincher

    Peter, #254: An apology from the LNC, for one – and apology that has never been issued. Mr. Redpath, who has known me since 1991 and knows that I do good work, merely says to me, over the phone, that the issue is “water under the bridge” but won’t admit the LP was wrong to officially try to rip me off out of $3K last summer. Since Haugh was officially representing the party when this happened, and since he was not relieved of his duty at the time of the discovery, I’d say legal liability lies with the LP.

    For Haugh, an apology and restitution, as some serious disruption of my career has resulted from his actions, at some detriment and damage that run into the thousands, although hard to quantify an exact amount. Several thousand I can directly trace to Haugh’s recklessness, and probably many thousands more in future earnings I will miss out on due to it.

    An LP political director who threatens to burn your hard-earned signatures gathered BEFORE your getting paid on them (from a petitioner’s perspective) is deranged and unacceptable. And the resultant damage shouldn’t be swept under the rug because I’m the only one who felt the losses.

  224. Gary Fincher

    LOL. Roderick Long is expressing the exact same concerns that I did back in #54-56, which I received criticism for.

    It really DOES matter who the messenger is, regardless of the message, doesn’t it?

  225. Michael H. Wilson

    “I have serious problems with the train metaphor. Here’s one. It makes it sound as though minarchists and anarchists share a common strategy and methodology up to the very end.”

    The first person I read who used the train metaphor was David Brudnoy, but he’s gone now and the libertarian movement is missing his shining light. I do however get the point that he was making. It really isn’t that complicated. As most things in life are not complicated. We just make them that way.

    MW

  226. Michael Seebeck

    “I agree with Long to this extent: If some anarchists want to focus all the LP’s efforts on felling the tree — smashing the State entirely and pulling up the roots — that IS inconsistent with incrementalist Ls of various stripes. Since most Ls ARE incrementalists (including anarchists and theoretical asymptotic anarchists), I’d be curious how the good professor suggests we solve that fundamental disagreement.”

    That’s because people don’t see the obvious answer. To extend the metaphor, every tree chopped down is chopped down one axe swing at a time, and trees die off faster when the limbs are cut off.

    So we do BOTH.

    That means some of us work on the reverse incrementalist approach by cutting off the limbs, while others keep swinging the axe to try to drop the whole thing. We’re all working towards the same goal–turning the tree into a decomposing pile of sawdust–but we’re using different and not opposed methods.

    In other words, they are NOT in opposition, except in the mistaken belief of “my way or the highway.” That’s where the real disagreement is–in tactics, not goals, and everyone thinks everyone else should be doing it their way and only their way.

    Some people want to be Paul Bunyan, and that’s fine. It’ll take longer and a lot of effort, but while they’re working that approach, others can wield the pruning shears and be breaking the job down into smaller pieces along the way.

  227. robert capozzi

    ms, yes, my way or the highway-ism is dysfunctional…a key precept in Rodney King-ism! 😉

    I’d certainly agree that the State could be viewed as MANY trees, not just one, as Prof. Long seems to.

    Personally, I’m down with felling most of them, although pruning them seems a good place to start. Good for practice, and more likely to attract more lumberjacks to the cause.

  228. Michael Seebeck

    No, Bob, The Rodney King Caucus can be likened to 4 cars coming to a 4-way stop, one from each direction, at the same time, each having to yield to the one on the right. Nobody moves, and they just sit there, doing nothing, but refusing to simply say “F*** it!” and go, in the name of getting along.

  229. robert capozzi

    ms, oh, you’re apparently not familiar with the RKC’s conflict-resolution techniques 😉 We’re very effective at co-creating win/win/win scenarios.

  230. Michael Seebeck

    What conflict resolution, get beat up by cops?

    Sorry, your best win-win scenario is to face reality and human nature.

  231. Michael Seebeck

    The RKC is more like “everyone’s way to the parking lot.”

    I can do that on the LA freeways, with the exception being they actually can get you somewhere over time.

  232. Gary Fincher

    paulie: “I was thinking of working there next month. How many signatures are you averaging a day?”

    Well over 100, in a 3.5 hour day of work.

  233. Andy

    “Well over 100, in a 3.5 hour day of work.”

    That’s great! This means that you should be earning a good $700-$1,000 plus per week which means that you should be able to start sending me payments soon for the money that you owe me.

  234. Gary Fincher

    Andy: “JESUS FUCKING CHRIST KNAPP, IF YOU ARE REALLY THIS DENSE YOU’VE GOT NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER OFFICE!”

    Andy, he is dense but you need to CALM DOWN. That “president” thing is a JOKE. Remember Pat Paulson’s runs for president in the 70s and 80s? Those were JOKES and this is in the same vein. So chill, ok?

  235. Gary Fincher

    Darryl Bonner committed fraud in Maryland in 1995. He personally handed me the stacks of signatures that were later found to be forged. He was blocked from working in the city of Baltimore as a result of that.

  236. mdh

    Knapp is no joke. He is an awesome guy, a great activist, and among the best qualified candidates in the race.

    Some people see a working class regular guy and see that as a bad thing in a candidate. I see it as a very very good thing. Above and beyond that, Tom has a better grasp of libertarian ideas than most people, is extremely intelligent, and has the potential to be a very outspoken candidate who’d bring in a lot of young people and new blood to the LP!

  237. Gene Trosper

    @281 I’ve never met the guy, but I have tons of respect for Tom Knapp.

  238. Andy

    “281 mdh // Jul 16, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Knapp is no joke. He is an awesome guy, a great activist, and among the best qualified candidates in the race.”

    LOL! Knapp is irrational. Knapp also alienates large groups of high potential supporters (Ron Paul supporters for example). Knapp would be a horrible candidate.

  239. Andy

    “Andy, he is dense but you need to CALM DOWN. That “president” thing is a JOKE. Remember Pat Paulson’s runs for president in the 70s and 80s? Those were JOKES and this is in the same vein. So chill, ok?”

    LOL!

  240. Andy

    “Gary Fincher // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    Darryl Bonner committed fraud in Maryland in 1995. He personally handed me the stacks of signatures that were later found to be forged. He was blocked from working in the city of Baltimore as a result of that.”

    Do you know for a fact that Darryl actually collected those signatures himself? How do you know that those signatures weren’t collected by somebody that he hired?

    There was no conviction with this incident, there’s no proof of anything, and it was years ago.

  241. Susan Hogarth

    I think it’s worth noting that Randall is a rich old white man in a suit.

    1) Why do you think it’s ‘worth noting’?

    2) That’s *old*? sigh…

    3) How do you know he’s rich?

  242. mdh

    I think it’s worth noting because it seems like lately we’re seeing this class warfare thing within the LP, where the rich old white men in suits are trying to oppress us young, attractive, long-haired anarchist types.

    Susan, he looks a lot older than you do! 😉

    Finally, I think he’s rich because he’s wearing a suit that doesn’t look poorly tailored (like Imperato’s was…) He talks on his website about a bunch of business consulting crap, and those guys are generally rich and feasting upon the carcass of corporatism.

  243. Susan Hogarth

    I think it’s worth noting because it seems like lately we’re seeing this class warfare thing within the LP, where the rich old white men in suits are trying to oppress us young, attractive, long-haired anarchist types.

    What. Utter. Drivel.

    You can do better than this sort of collectivist nonsense.

  244. Thomas L. Knapp

    This Saturday, I’ll be an old white man in a suit. Not rich, though. I had to pawn my Lamborghini for that last feast of foie de gras and sturgeon eggs.

  245. paulie Post author

    From lpanarchists yahoo group:

    Re: On Rick Randall’s comments

    You call moving from the current pro-minarchist language to language that’s neutral between minarchism and anarchism “a favored position for anarchists”? Wow.

    Roderick

    — On Thu, 7/16/09, Richard Randall wrote:

    From: Richard Randall
    Subject: Re: On Rick Randall’s comments
    To: “Susan Hogarth”
    Cc: “Bruce Dovner” , “Roderick Long” , “Rachel H. for LPWA Communications” , adamsmayer@gmail.com, brian@holtz.org, agmattson@gmail.com, stephen@gordonemail.com, jon@jonroland.org, robpower@robpower.com, joeh46250@yahoo.com, chris@advancedhandlingltd.com, guy@meclendon.net, jshuey@shueyfamily.org, D_z_dln53@hotmail.cm, Crystal@jurczynski.com, jason@jasonpye.com, Campbell.paul.f@gmail.com, mcarling@gmail.com, rbetzel@penn.com, hallww@wnj.com, grow.daniel.2008@gmail.com, chair@lp.org, michael@resetamerica.com, rwsully@att.net, starrcpa@pacbell.net, chair@lptexas.org, narwhal3@gmail.com, mary@ruwart.com, rleewrights@gmail.com, TRLeap@aol.com, freeutahns@yahoo.com, mark@garlic.com, scott73@earthlink.net, rebecca.sinkburris@gmail.com, jaxonusa@msn.com, sff@ivo.net, Heatherscott01@hotmail.com, jwlark@lp.org, berlie@etzel.us, Dankarlan@earthlink.net, LIB203@yahoo.com, jfox1214@sbcglobal.net, jake@jakeporter.org, freedhwy@gmail.com, lpanarchists@yahoogroups.com, GrassrootsLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, lpradicals@yahoogroups.com
    Date: Thursday, July 16, 2009, 11:13 AM

    Susan Hogarth wrote:
    > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Bruce Dovner wrote:
    >
    >> …
    >> It’s not a question of playing along and shutting up. Anarchists are trying
    >> to gain advantage or favored position for anarchism within the LP. Of
    >> course, minarchists are going to oppose that.
    >>
    >
    > You’ve heard at least one anarchist on the platform deny that – and
    > yet you keep repeating it as if it were true. Are you calling me a
    > liar, or are you trying to imply that if *some* anarchists behave that
    > way, they should *all* be treated as guilty

    Let’s review: On 07/09/09 (at 03:04PM) you began a thread on the PlatComm titled “Dallas redux?” where you (1) noted how the LP Platform Committee is fighting “the same battle over and over plank-by-plank over” for anarchist vs. minarchist language. (2) You promoted the idea of “a true ‘big tent’ LP” where minarchists should compromise their values and beliefs (consistent with less / smaller / limited government) in order to accommodate anarchist language (removing all references to defining a proper role for government) in the LP Platform. (3) And, in “Dallas redux?” you promote (pitched) the idea of forming a working subgroup within the LP Platform Committee “to strive for such wording”.

    Yet you’re denying that any of this would lead to a “gain, advance or favored position of anarchism within the LP”?

    — Richard C. Randall
    rrandall@richardrandall.com
    http://www.richardrandall.com/
    Cell: (720) 840-1314
    FAX: (815) 550-2261

  246. paulie Post author

    Knapp is no joke. He is an awesome guy, a great activist, and among the best qualified candidates in the race.

    Some people see a working class regular guy and see that as a bad thing in a candidate. I see it as a very very good thing. Above and beyond that, Tom has a better grasp of libertarian ideas than most people, is extremely intelligent, and has the potential to be a very outspoken candidate who’d bring in a lot of young people and new blood to the LP!

    I agree, but it will all be for nothing unless he gets in the media like Root is doing, as well as the LP internal stuff (conventions, press releases, etc) that Root is doing as well.

    Of course, he heard me the first 574 times I said this, and Davidson says I am “pestering” him, so maybe we just need another candidate. How about Ernie Hancock or Loretta Nall?

  247. little bit

    we should runyou as a candidate. dont you all think this V for vandetta thing is all about anarchy I mean come on!

  248. Susan Hogarth

    In a separate email discussion provoked by this whole Rick Randall thing, Carling (also on the platform committee) said this:

    “The pledge clearly implies that initiation of force is bad only as a means of achieving political or social goals. In other words, the
    pledge implies that initiation of force to achieve personal goals is acceptable. How very unfortunate.”

    I considered that so egregiously stupid (inexcusable for a long-time LP member) that I responded to it on my personal blog:

    http://www.colliething.com/2009/07/m-carling-stupid-or.html

  249. Susan Hogarth

    Another Platform Committee member, Jon Roland, has this to add about the pledge:

    “I can take the pledge without being dishonest because I don’t consider it to have any real meaning. It is not a decision rule that unambiguously guides decisions in every situation. It is like being asked to pledge “I agree not to winglegobber the parsnatz.” Maybe that means something to somebody but it doesn’t mean anything to me. “

  250. libertariangirl

    MC_The pledge clearly implies that initiation of force is bad only as a means of achieving political or social goals. In other words, the
    pledge implies that initiation of force to achieve personal goals is acceptable. How very unfortunate.”

    lol , thats flippin ridiculous .

    he was joking right?

  251. Andy

    “lol , thats flippin ridiculous .

    he was joking right?”

    I was thining the same thing.

  252. paulie Post author

    @ lpanarchists yahoo group….


    The Pledge also doesn’t mention that 2 + 2 = 4, so it clearly implies that 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4. That also seems unfortunate.

    Roderick

  253. Susan Hogarth

    honestly though , M must have been trying to be funny.
    right?

    You could ask him. mcarling@gmail.com

    If he’s smart he will jump at the chance to claim he was speaking with dry humor.

    He wrote it in response to Tom Blanton’s saying this:

    The Libertarian Party Pledge – “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

    This is such a simple statement that an idiot should be able to understand it. The general meaning is clear and thousands of words analyzing the meaning of these words don’t serve to clarify the general meaning.

  254. Joe Blackburn

    WHY are you people continuing to beat this dead horse? The LP is a lost cause for anarchists. The longer people take to realize that, the longer it will take to build up the Boston Tea Party!

  255. libertariangirl

    Susan , I wont waste M’s time by emailing him to ask , thats silly to me , I dont even know him.

    Im going to to go out on a completely uninformed limb and guess he was joking . when you think of it in that context , as a joke, maybe out to ruffle a few feathers , its pretty god damned funny.
    I laughed out loud.

    we all need to lighten up a little i think:)

  256. Dixon Yarmouth

    If the LP would finally get the balls and get rid of a few dozen, loud, obnoxious anarchists that look like the freak show at the zoo and smell like the animal cage, we could be leading the Tea Parties, running Sarah Palin for President and have the endorsement of Glenn Beck.

    Get rid of the anarchists already please.

  257. JT

    Penny, you’re posting now on a thread from 2009?? Okay…it gives me the opportunity to respond to this, which I didn’t see at the time:

    Fincher: “JT #254: It only sounds “whiny” to you because you’re seeing typed words and not my deep, gruff voice and my 250-lb frame.

    Does it sound whiny to you if I say if you don’t shut your goddamn mouth you might get your teeth crammed down your throat?

    That’s what happens sometimes to people who speak when they have no idea what they are talkiung about.”

    That’s a weird thing for a “libertarian” to say. You whiny little bitch 🙂

  258. Harry V. Joiner

    Fincher IS whiny. Just because he’s a lardass doesn’t make him a tough guy. He whines like an old woman constantly and threatens suicide every week or two, but never actually tries. He has serious diabetes related complications because he’s scared on needles. According to him nothing is ever his fault. His little sister even posted on the petitioner open thread #1 that she used to protect him when he would get his ass kicked in school. Seriously.

  259. Alan Pyeatt

    You mean, the LP would actually allow – gasp – people who DON’T WANT GOVERNMENT into the party? The horror!

    I’ve been away from the internet for a couple of days, so I didn’t realize there was actually a movement afoot to purge anarchists from the LP. So Murray Rothbard (http://mises.org/store/Betrayal-of-the-American-Right-The-P434.aspx) and Gary Chartier (http://permakent.com/2011/03/05/the-conscience-of-an-anarchist/) wouldn’t be allowed? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard since the Millerites sat in trees waiting for the rapture! John Jay Myers was right: the LP needs a tent that’s big enough for libertarians!

    I think it’s time to recognize that there is a deliberate attempt by SOMEBODY to redefine the word “libertarian” – much like the word “liberal” was redefined in the early 20th Century. Our movement is clearly under attack, and no, it isn’t the anarchist wing that’s trying to destroy us. OTOH, it might very well be somebody who wants us to run Sarah Palin for president. We might also want to look at “leaders” who lionize other non-libertarians.

    Those of us who have been in this movement for a while know what the acid test is: DO THEY FOLLOW THE NON-INTERVENTION PRINCIPLE? Or do they pick and choose, and have exceptions and other excuses?

Leave a Reply

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