Ernest Hancock explains reasons for running for Libertarian National Committee Chair in LP News

Via http://www.ernesthancock.org

The renaissance of libertarian philosophy has produced the hoped for
revolution in the minds of America’s youth, and libertarianism has
reentered American politics.

In the past, the LPUS served as a ‘Liberty Nexus’ for those that chose to
embrace the principled libertarian philosophy that advocated for individual
rights, peace, freedom and tolerance. However, soon after making new
alliances with others of the same mind inside the LPUS, it is often clear
to many of the most passionate libertarian minds that their efforts are
more productive outside the LPUS. This revolving door effect has produced
more libertarians outside of the National Party than inside. This isn’t
necessarily a bad thing. But for the LPUS to be relevant to human freedom
we must understand what is happening and be of service to the individuals
that are the change we seek.

Many tools provide immediate peer to peer communication and coordination
with local LP groups. But the LPUS’ inaction is often perceived as being an
impediment to these communications and the accompanying networking of
libertarians that results when we are politically active.

Often it is only the LPUS that has the standing to Challenge the
Idolization of an all powerful all knowing Federal Government, but the
perception is that the LPUS is not a challenge to the tyranny America
increasingly suffers.

Fear of criticism has eliminated the LPUS from consideration as a front
line ally in the quest for liberty. 20 years of Hard Core No-Compromise
libertarian activism hasn’t kept me incarcerated, targeted and removed from
relevance in the world of politics, in fact, it has had just the opposite
effect. Fearless advocacy of libertarian philosophy is exactly what is
missing from the LPUS.

My goal is to make it perfectly clear to the world that the LPUS in
Convention made a very clear choice to join the peaceful revolution against
the Omnipotent State. Any attempt to negotiate for a place inside this
corrupt and illegitimate abuser of human rights on their terms is a clear
sign of fear and weakness to those possessing the passion and talent to
work for individual liberty.

Vote percentages, money raised, laws passed, media coverage, inspired
activists, are all side effects of a clear standard set and advocated for
in freeing as many minds as possible with the truth.

Peace over War, Truth not Lies, Courage trumping Fear, Resolve instead of
Compromise, Inspiration vs Compulsion, Self-Reliance not Dependence,
Tolerance over Bigotry, and above all, the advocacy of Love.

I offer nothing less than participation in a worldwide LOVEolution. The
LPUS has the opportunity to influence the greatest decentralization of
power in Human History, but we must first lead by example and be of service
to the individual activists advocating libertarian philosophy, if not,
then why would they need us?

Ernest Hancock

27 thoughts on “Ernest Hancock explains reasons for running for Libertarian National Committee Chair in LP News

  1. Bruce Cohen

    Ernie is saying that if you are a loud, rude, ‘radical’, extreme and SHOCKING presenter/speaker/activist, then:

    People will like you, pay attention to you and give you money.

    I think that’s what he’s saying, but it’s hard to figure out.

  2. Tom Blanton

    For the life of me, I can’t comprehend how anyone could not clearly understand what Ernie Hancock has stated here.

    In fact, I would say that anyone who can’t figure out what Hancock is saying, in clear and ordinary language, has no understanding of what freedom is, no comprehension of where we are in history, and no vision for the future worth considering.

    People that believe a future where human beings can live in freedom is somehow shocking or radical have no place in the freedom movement.

    What I find both shocking and disturbing is how so many people in the LP seem to have abandoned the goal of moving society in a libertarian direction in any meaningful way.

    The freedom train is ready to leave the station and it’s time to get on board or get the hell off the tracks.

  3. Donald Duck

    “Do I really look like a man with a plan, Harvey? I don’t have a plan. The mob has plans, the cops have plans. you know what I am, Harvey? I’m a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught one. I just DO things. I’m a wrench in the gears. I HATE plans. Yours, theirs, everyone’s. Maroni has plans, Gordon has plans. Schemers trying to control their worlds. I am not a schemer. I show schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are. So when I say that what happened to you and your girlfriend wasn’t personal, you know I’M telling the truth”*Gives Dent Gun*”It’s a schemer who put you where you are. You were a schemer. You had plans. Look where it got you. I just did what I do best-I took your plan and turned it on itself. Look what I have done to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple bullets. Nobody panics when the expected people got killed. Nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plans are horrifying. If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will get blown up, nobody panics. But when I say one little old mayor will die, everyone loses their minds!! Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I AM AN AGENT OF CHAOS. And you know the thing about chaos, Harvey. It’s fair”

  4. Donald Duck

    I don’t know who this goofy Don Lake is, but he can eat a hot bowl of dicks. Unless CooCooohen gobbles them all up first, that is!

  5. Donald Duck

    ….and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

    With love! (and shoulder fired rockets…)

  6. George Phillies

    @4 @6

    You are fine. Ernie is very clear.

    Let the Professor explain what is baffling here, based on 30+ years of teaching:

    #1) No matter how much you make it clear, someone will find a new way to to understand.

    #2) Yes, some students really are terminally clueless, and we have competition here for the undergraduate who I asked to draw lines of longitude — got that one right with prodding — and then lines of latitude, which he drew meeting at the East Pole.

    @6 OK, name another antiwar political party that is actually a political party. Nader is not a Party. People who won’t campaign in states where they might cause Kerry to lose–they are not a party. Those voices in your head — they are not a party.

  7. He is a Doctor of Spin ??????????? [Lake]

    People who won’t campaign in states where they might cause Kerry to lose–they are not a party.

    ———- Yes they are, and as much as I do not like them, especially Patricia (Handcock model of ‘Don’t Vote’ for me) LaMarshe, they are political parties, inspite of your Fantasy Land spinning!

  8. LP Life Member

    it’s time to get on board or get the hell off the tracks

    Some of us have been on board the whole time, and have never quit a freedom-oriented party. Others can’t name a freedom-oriented party they haven’t quit…

  9. Donald Duck

    “Some of us have been on board the whole time, and have never quite a freedom-oriented party.”

    Never quite…what?

  10. Tom Blanton

    Donald Duck, “LP Life Member”, meant to write “quit”. That is a reference to me, who quit the LP in disgust and later quit the Boston Tea Party.

    LP Life Member has not yet realized that political parties aren’t the solution.

    You won’t find freedom in government. Freedom requires truth and political parties don’t deal in truth or freedom.

    What I haven’t quit is the much larger libertarian movement (or freedom movement), unlike many neolibertarians in the LP who quit that a long time ago. They remain lingering and in the way of those who seek to promote freedom. They want you to believe that our government is legitimate and they want you to consent to be governed by it. They want a tax cut for themselves and call that freedom for you.

    People like Ernie Hancock make them squirm and some can’t even understand his simple message above.

  11. Mik Robertson

    @ 4 “People that believe a future where human beings can live in freedom is somehow shocking or radical have no place in the freedom movement.

    What I find both shocking and disturbing is how so many people in the LP seem to have abandoned the goal of moving society in a libertarian direction in any meaningful way. ”

    Just as different people as suited to approach the issue differently, so are different organizations configured to approach the issue differently.

    While, for example, Freedom’s Phoenix may take one approach to moving public policy, the LP, established as a political party, may take another approach. Both approaches may be valid and they may each be effective in different ways.

    I think trying to impose one approach on everyone or every organization would be a mistake. One person’s fearless advocacy stance can be another person’s flaky wingnut position.

  12. Donald Duck

    “Donald Duck, “LP Life Member”, meant to write “quit”.

    I know, know. Freudian slip?

  13. Harvey

    I’d just put Ed Hickey into a taxi. Ed had been mixing his rye with his gin, and I just felt that he needed conveying. Well, anyway, I was walking down along the street and I heard this voice saying, “Good evening, Mr. Dowd.” Well, I turned around and here was this big six-foot rabbit leaning up against a lamp-post. Well, I thought nothing of that because when you’ve lived in a town as long as I’ve lived in this one, you get used to the fact that everybody knows your name. And naturally I went over to chat with him. And he said to me… he said, “Ed Hickey was a little spiffed this evening, or could I be mistaken?” Well, of course, he was not mistaken. I think the world and all of Ed, but he was spiffed. Well, we talked like that for awhile and then I said to him, I said, “You have the advantage on me. You know my name and I don’t know yours.” And, and right back at me he said, “What name do you like?” Well, I didn’t even have to think twice about that. Harvey’s always been my favorite name. So I said to him, I said, “Harvey.” And, uh, this is the interesting thing about the whole thing: He said, “What a coincidence. My name happens to be Harvey.”

  14. Andy

    “Bruce Cohen // Apr 10, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Ernie is saying that if you are a loud, rude, ‘radical’, extreme and SHOCKING presenter/speaker/activist, then:

    People will like you, pay attention to you and give you money.”

    This approach seems to be working for him with the Freedoms Phoenix Workshop in Arizona.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    Hmm, well, while language is ultimately all metaphorical and imprecise, I find Hancock’s missive quite vague. It reads like stream of consciousness writing, which has its place, although not so much in this context.

    He seems to have in mind a specific philosophical perspective that, if the leadership hold it, the LP will take its rightful place at the forefront of radical decentralization. OK. But I think we need more specifics to assess what he plans to do.

  16. The showoff

    It some ways that would be correct. Loud, expressive and etc. TV Evangelist = get money. Obama = get elected
    The drummer boy (Christmas Carol) how many pay attention to him?

  17. Alexander S. Peak

    Some random thoughts:

    (1) Between Hancock and Root, my preference is for Hancock. While I do not find the above campaign explanation very useful, I do appreciate the success he had with the Ron Paul Revolution and the success he is continuing in his home state. I’d like to see that translated to the national level.

    (2) If it is between Phillies and Root, my preference is for Phillies.

    (3) Between Phillies and Hancock, however, I don’t know where I stand. Ideologically, I suspect Hancock is closer to me than Phillies. But from what I’ve seen online concerning their successes, they seem to both be rather good organisers.

    (4) I suspect that Wes Benedict would make a good chairman. I’m under the impression that he’s doing a good job currently as Executive Director, and that he had done a good job in Texas as well.

    (5) I also quite like Barry Hess. Like Root, Hess was at one point a conservative Republican (according to politics1.com). Unlike Root, Hess is clearly a libertarian these days. Root is far less clear.

    Hess is an amazing speaker, and I would have no problem throwing support to him. In fact, given his ability to clearly explain and promote libertarian principles, I wouldn’t have a problem voting for him for president, were he to get the nomination.

    (6) “Donald Duck” quotes a fictional ethical nihilist. Said fictional ethical nihilist incorrectly believes himself to be an anarchist, when in fact, he is the precise opposite. I would urge this fictional character to read “The Joker is Not an Anarchist.”

    Sincerely,
    Alex Peak

  18. paulie Post author

    (4) I suspect that Wes Benedict would make a good chairman. I’m under the impression that he’s doing a good job currently as Executive Director, and that he had done a good job in Texas as well.

    I don’t see Wes giving up his paying job to take on a volunteer headache at this time.

    Hess is an amazing speaker, and I would have no problem throwing support to him.

    Hess is good friends with/supporting Hancock.

  19. paulie Post author

    (6) “Donald Duck” quotes a fictional ethical nihilist. Said fictional ethical nihilist incorrectly believes himself to be an anarchist, when in fact, he is the precise opposite. I would urge this fictional character to read “The Joker is Not an Anarchist.”

    Sincerely,
    Alex Peak

    I think Mr. Peak defines anarchism too narrowly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

    You’ll note that Nihilism is among the many schools of anarchist thought:

    Agorist · Buddhist · Capitalist · Christian · Collectivist · Communist · Crypto · Egoist · Feminist · Free market · Green · Heathian anarchism · Immediatist · Individualist · Info · Insurrectionary · Leftist · Lifestylist · Mutualist · Nihilist · Pacifist · Panarchist · Philosophical · Platformist · Post-anarchism · Post-colonial · Post-left · Primitivist · Queer · Social · Syndicalist · Vegan · Zenarchy · Without adjectives

    The introductory paragraph sums it up well, I think: “Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.[3] Anarchists may widely disagree on what additional criteria are required in anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, “there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance.”[4]”

    The Joker does not seek to replace existing authority with his own, only to destroy it.

    Many advocates of a peaceful polycentric legal order – what Alex calls anarchy in his essay linked above, and certainly a type of anarchist thought – acknowledge that a chaotic period of transition is likely between the collapse of a territorial monopoly and the establishment of such a peaceful polycentric order. However, it is true that many/most would hope for a peaceful transition and thus do not engage in violent revolution against existing legal monopoly.

    An interesting question is whether The Joker would exist under a polycentric legal system, and how such a system would deal with him. I think that sociopaths as exemplified by the Joker will most likely exist until the next stage of biological evolution, but that they would be far rarer in a peaceful polycentric order.

    The initiation of force that is legitimized by a legal monopoly creates ripple effects throughout society, normalizing violence and theft. The greater the degree of state control, the more this ripple effect infects and perverts society.

    Also, I think that a polycentric legal order would be more effective/efficient at dealing with sociopaths. Bureaucratic monopolies, having little/no bottom line incentives, tend to be extremely inefficient.

    Chaos is also generated and used to their advantage by totalitarian movements and states, but the character of the Joker shows no such tendencies.

    Thus, I would say that both chaos and order intersect both anarchism and statism. In the Joker, we find the combination of both chaos and anarchy that the popular imagination considers all anarchism to be.

  20. Alexander S. Peak

    Paulie,

    (1) That’s wikipedia.

    (2) Russian nihilism is not something I know much about, but it is my understanding that they weren’t necessarily what I would call “ethical nihilists” (although, they may very well have been, in which case I would reject them as anarchists).

    I also disagree with wikipedia’s claim that anarchists wish to destroy “authority.” If someone wishes to rid me of my innate authority over my own body, then that person aims, essentially, to enslave me, and thus to impose a different authority, an illegitimate one. Anarchists, I would argue, wish to destroy only illegitimate authority. (Some self-proclaimed anarchists may disagree. I would simply argue that they have not considered the matter thoroughly enough.) The Joker, contrary to me, has no problem with illegitimate authority; every time he murders an innocent person, he employs the very illegitimate authority I so despise.

    Yours truly,
    Alex Peak

Leave a Reply

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