George Phillies: ‘To Libertarians civil liberties are fundamental’

By George Phillies

We’re the Libertarian Party. We’re for liberty. We’re against people who believe that the state should be omnipotent, knowing no limits to its powers or deeds.

Once again, Mr. Root has missed the boat on positions that a libertarian should take. And when you are on our National Committee, you have a real obligation not to miss that boat.

I quote for purposes of review a recent Facebook message he sent to me:

Wayne wrote: “Obama is an extension of Bush only to people who understand ZERO about economics and have never run a business in their lives. There is no comparison. Bush violated civil liberties that 90% of Americans did not even notice.

“Obama effects my business, my bank account, my savings, my stocks, my real estate, my future business decisions, the jobs that I decide to create or not, and for millions of business owners- whether they choose to stay in America or not. If you don’t understand this…you are probably without a job, own no stocks, own no home, own no business, have no family.

“Sorry but listening in on a phone call is not on par with destroying capitalism and redistributing my income. One is a pesky Nanny State…the other is communism. [emphasis added]

“And the irony for Libertarians who don’t get it…is that Obama still listens in on your calls, still runs 2 major wars, hasn’t cut one dollar in foreign aid. Yes on certain issues, Obama is an extension of Bush. On all of Bush’s worst issues.

“But Obama has added hundreds of bad economic policies that are plunging USA into economic Armageddon and destroying capitalism.

“Obama is in a league all his own.

“That could be why I have HUNDREDS of friends who all own businesses…and they all agree…to a man and woman…that Obama is the worst President of our lifetimes…and a threat to our existence. Not one of them would say that about Bush.

“So I guess Libertarian leftist radicals and anarchists are living in an alternate world…or just don’t own anything that Obama is grabbing.”

To this I answer: It’s hard to see how you could go farther off the rails. We are the party of liberty, not the party of greed.

Sir, the essence of Communism is the police state, the KGB and its American counterpart the National Security Agency listening to our every phone call. That’s what real Communism is about, and that’s what George Bush brought to America. The KGB apparatchiks who tried to listen to every thought of every Russian were enemies of civilization, enemies of freedom, enemies of basic civil liberties. The NSA apparatchiks who listen to our every phone call are equally evil and far more of a danger to us and our fellow Americans.

You just don’t get it. We’re here about LIVE FREE OR DIE, not about TAKE MY FREEDOM, JUST LET ME KEEP MY LOOT.

I understand that your small business friends, like the legendary Mr. Babbitt, have thus far spent the first third of the book completely missing the point about what is wrong with their lives. They still do not know. What is clear is that it is not you who will lead them to the libertarian understanding of why America is rotting out from the core.

Mr. Root, the basic problem that you share with your Republican friends, from the banksters and defense contractors who just want more corporate warfare to the Bachmanns, Angles, Palins, Savages, and their fellow shock troops of the Republican Party’s Christian Taliban wing, is that you have not the least understanding of what it means to be a libertarian.

And for readers who think that I spend all my time discussing the inadequacies of Mr. Root as an LNC member, be prepared for change. Another LNC member has volunteered to be next on my list.

George Phillies is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. You can contact Dr. Phillies at phillies@wpi.edu.

46 thoughts on “George Phillies: ‘To Libertarians civil liberties are fundamental’

  1. You go George!

    Root is wrong on civil liberties.

    Keep pushing for the real Libertarian principles of liberty, George!

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    George, that’s the thread Wayne unfriended me for. That’s because I told him that I’ve owned a business for 26 years, I’m a Christian mother (a demographic he thinks is particularly ripe for his type of Libertarianism), and, although I worry gbout money, my top issues were still our wars and our loss of civil libertaerties.

    Apparently that kind of arguing is difficult for him to handle.

    Good article, George!

  3. Jill Pyeatt

    Apparently I need to proof-read a little better.

    Also, on Wayne’s thread I told him that I hated Bush more than Obama because we kind of expected bad things from Obama. Yet Bush arrogantly came in and completely ignored what are usually considered Republican principles and thumbed his nose at everyone. One of my two comments got me unfriended.

  4. Corey Moore

    To Wayne:

    It’s about time you shut up and actually learn libertarian philosophy, history and ethics. Your vision of libertarianism runs counter to the vision of libertarians before you. Sure we might “win” elections if we run more “right-wing” candidates, but at what cost? What difference does it make if you run a conservative as a Libertarian and they win? This is why party does not matter, but I digress.

    Obviously one core plank of being an American libertarian is believing in free markets. Now I don’t know if you made your money honestly or not, but I would be willing to bet many of your business friends benefit greatly from corporate welfare and skewed regulations. So on one hand you are fine with a police state that would be sicked on the serfs and protect the corporatists and politicians; on the other hand, Obama’s policies are leading to the demise of capitalism?

    I think it is you that needs a reality check, and not the so called “Libertarian leftist radicals and anarchists!” Obama’s economic policies are very similar to W’s, and other than Obamacare and a few banking regulations, I don’t see much of a difference.

    This country is in trouble. While you play your little games trying to turn the party into the GOP farm team, unemployment is at nearly 20%, police brutality is increasing at a phenomenal rate, the dollar is collapsing, and we are still fighting two immoral and unwinnable wars. So worry about Obama “ending” capitalism (read: corporatism). I’ll be spending my time trying to wake people up to the reality of the situation, including you Mr. Root.

    For Liberty,
    Corey Moore

  5. '..... just look at the activists ' [Lake]

    Corey Moore // Aug 29, 2010:
    “To Wayne: It’s about time you shut up and actually learn libertarian philosophy,”

    [Lake: including the Doctor George Phillies’ fact that the LP is (in spite of W. A. R.) the one and only 21st Century American Peace Party! Wow, what an intellect!]

  6. '..... just look at the activists ' [Lake]

    “Obama effects my business, my bank account, my savings, my stocks, my real estate, my future business decisions ……….”

    A year and a half away from Bush II and Georgie forgets the near Depression AND distant war of the 21st Century? What a mush brain!

    [a] Obama, my Yokohama Momma, is the third term of the dufus Bushites!

    [b] LP is not the only peace party!

    [c] Change, obviously the Big O means only the coins in the sofa cushions!

    [d] Some where on the west coast is the dumbest Chiropractor in the world!

    [e] Some where in New England is the dumbest PhD ………….

  7. Thomas M. Sipos

    George Phillies: “the essence of Communism is the police state, the KGB and its American counterpart the National Security Agency”

    Good article, George. Root doesn’t understand Communism.

    I do. This so-called “left libertarian,” saw Communism first hand, and wrote about it, albeit in satirical form.

    I’m disgusted with how these police state apologists misuse the term “Communist,” much as the term “Nazi” has been misused. Not everyone and everything opposed to the GOP is “Communism.”

  8. Robert Capozzi

    I would agree that economic matters are more “seen” and civil liberties can be more “unseen.”

    Whether Obama’s policies are worse on economic matters than Bush’s…dunno. NCLB and Medicare expansions have a more permanent flavor to them than Obama’s stimulus. ObamaCare may well be more dysfunctional than anything Bush did.

    I prefer to frame Bush-to-Obama like Hoover-to-FDR. All four made a challenging situations more challenging.

    OTOH, such rankings are mostly intra-L sideshows. If we’re searching for rhetoric and narratives to critique the Rs and Ds, and to advance Ls, I suggest our emphasis be on the failures of BOTH on an across-the-board basis.

  9. Michael H. Wilson

    Mr. Root needs to remember that he lives in Nevada, a state that has not diversified it’s economy. It is pretty much a tourist magnet, but the hotels have raised their prices in recent years. As Robert Capozi would say – contraindicated.

    Then their is his own business which is heavily subsidized by the government. If the government didn’t build millionaire’s their sports stadiums they’d have to dig into their own pockets and if the government didn’t subsidize state colleges there wouldn’t be the football and basketball programs that provide Mr. Root with an opportunity to guess the outcome.

    There be a hell of a lot fewer games without those government subsidies.

  10. Michael H. Wilson

    Perhaps Mr. Root needs to move to a state with an actively diverse economy.

  11. NewFederalist

    As I have said before it is a real shame that Root doesn’t fathom the difference between Ed Clark and Ronald Reagan. I wonder if he has any clue that the position his email appears to take makes a compelling case NOT to vote Libertarian (or any other alternative) because this time it is just too important to vote out the Democrats! He is as misguided as can be.

  12. paulie Post author

    “Obama effects my business, my bank account, my savings, my stocks, my real estate, my future business decisions ……….”

    A year and a half away from Bush II and Georgie forgets the near Depression AND distant war of the 21st Century? What a mush brain!

    Reading comprehension time: George was quoting Wayne there.

  13. tired of the whining

    I move that George Phillies declare his candidacy for the 2012 Libertarian Presidential nomination. We know he his going to run again. He should name Tommy Boy Sipos as his running mate. They would be the Blame America First Libertarian Left Dream Team. Since they both have a hate Wayne Allyn Root obsession, they are a perfect match.

  14. paulie Post author

    Didn’t I just answer this?

    Phillies is not running, he’s backing Wrights.

    I don’t think Sipos is running either.

  15. Eric Dondero

    How is it when Left Libertarians talk of civil liberties, it always has a national security angle to it?

    Frankly, I care little about the “rights” of some illegal alien Muslim dude from Saudi Arabia looking up plans on how to build a dirty bomb, on the internet at a taxpayer subsidized public library in Peoria.

    I MOST CERTAINLY DO! care about my right, as a United States born citizen to drive in my car, that I purchased with MY OWN DAMNED MONEY, without a seat belt on if I so choose.

    Ya see, practical civil liberties such as seat belt laws, that affect the every day lives of real Americans, are of little interest to the George Phillies of the world. There’s no angle to bash Bush, or make Republicans look “evil.” So, they get ignored.

    Ditto for speed limits, nanny-state limits on trans fats, smoking bans, mostly Muslim-led efforts in some US communities to ban alcohol and liquor stores, repeal of affirmative action laws, ending political correctness on college campuses, ect…

    Phillies & crew, only care about so-called “civil liberties” issues that appeal to the Left.

  16. George Phillies

    I am not running for President in 2012. Not unless the stock market goes fabulously higher and I max out on the lottery, which I never play.

    I am delighted to support Lee Wrights. I look forward to being happy to support a sound alternative, if Lee and friends make a good deal, but I will be happy to support Lee.

    It is possible I will run for LNC again, if LNC Inc has not self-destructed by then.

  17. Steven wilson

    The difference here is very simple. What you know and what you apply. Root gets people excited about capitalism but can’t go any further, because all he knows is bankruptcy law. If he is to gain validity, it must be here, in this party, and that won’t happen until he stops pushing elephant candidates our way, and starts creating solutions based on no government.

    He is just an infomerical of negativity.

  18. John Jay Myers

    Thanks again George for another great article.

    @Cory “Sure we might “win” elections if we run more “right-wing” candidates, but at what cost?”

    I don’t really agree that we will win elections if we run more right wing candidates. Who do you think will vote for them?

    Surely not the right wing, they will never vote for anyone that might risk the Republicans from losing an election.

    Wayne appeals to people in theory; right wingers, or the sad few that believe that his media appearances will actually grow the party or gain us votes.

    But he is not inspirational in trying to get people to form behind the libertarian movement.
    Thank god we have Wes Benedict who is putting out strong Libertarian statements that people seem to like to share.

    Wayne doesn’t appeal to the part of the GOP that Ron Paul appeals to; in fact he makes most of them sick, and is the exact reason why they fled from us in 2008.

    So he only appeals to hardcore Republicans, “gee I don’t see that working out.”

    To see the difference between Wayne and Ron you only have to look at their takes on the Mosque controversy.

    One is a disciplined libertarian, commenting on the sad state of our media and people playing politics.
    One is a rightwing wind bag, who is the sad state of our media and only plays politics.

    We need to run more Libertarian candidates if we expect to grow. Not left or right.

  19. Corey Moore

    Mr. Myers, I agree with you 100% on the first few points. I was speaking on the hypothetical that running right wing candidates will help the LP win elections, which appears to be the current neolibertarian theory.

    A party full of John Jay Myers’ types (read: Ron Paul supporters and true constitutional minarchists) would be a viable political threat to the establishment, which is why the LP has become infiltrated by everything wrong with the right wing. Wayne keeps saying the party won’t win because its filled with left-wing radicals, but in my experience the “radicals” have become such a small percentage of the party.

    I consider myself a left-libertarian in many ways, especially because of my opinions on property rights and strategies, but I have a lot more in common with the moderates than Wayne does. For one I am willing to concede that a strict Constitutional government would be so much better than what we have right now (not that I think restoring such a thing is possible). The one other big thing we have in common is support for peace. The Dondero’s of the world can say all day long the Muslims are gonna kill us, and Wayne can go on Fox News and refuse to speak out against the “divisive” war, but that doesn’t change the fact that the LP is the party of nonintervention.

    Of course my official involvement within the party has been limited, and largely this is because I’ve never seen the LP as a viable method for change. The political process is so incredibly skewed, and the LP does not run candidates strategically. For instance, I had David Nolan on my program today, and we were discussing his chances of winning his Senate race (or at least pulling double digits). Almost every hypothetical we came up with were possible, and currently in the polls the combo between “Other” and “Undecided” is 16%. Yet David has only raised a few thousand dollars. If the LP ran candidates strategically instead of the current “paper candidates” and others who do not stand a chance of getting more than 4% of the vote, real libertarians could be elected. So instead of running a bunch of candidates, capital should be directed towards 15 or so national candidates that actually could swing an election, and the rest of the national candidates should drop out and throw whatever weight they can towards those elections. This is not a popular position to take, but if the LP wants to play politics, it means play by the rules. You don’t have to sacrifice principal if you have money. The “radical centrist” campaign of Ross Perot should have taught you that.

  20. Robert Milnes

    Thanks be that it looks like an election cannot be bought by a billionaire. There are actually quite a few. You really want Perot, Bloomberg or Oprah for President?
    Let’s lavish 35 million on Nolan like Ron Paul. He’s at least as antiwar as Paul. & that might raise his chances from virtually none to slim to virtually none. Which is a better chance than GOP Paul ever had-absolutely none.

  21. Corey Moore

    Ross Perot would have won in ’92 had he not dropped out and reentered. All of the polls indicated as much. Bill Clinton wining that election was a fluke.

    Discount the Ron Paul campaign if you want, but it was the most successful libertarian campaign in recent history. If Paul runs again in ’12, he will be an instant front runner, especially if he can capture the tea party vote. He got more votes in the primaries than any LP candidate has received ever.

  22. Thomas M. Sipos

    “Wayne keeps saying the party won’t win because its filled with left-wing radicals, but in my experience the “radicals” have become such a small percentage of the party.”

    What percentage of the LP is composed of radicals depends on how you define radical.

    If by radical, you include people who support Ron Paul and Myers and Phillies and Hinkle and Keaton and Gravel (as I do), then most of the LP is radical.

    I’m fine with all of the above people. I’m fine with low tax and no tax. I’m fine with incrementalists. I’m fine with small government and no government. I’m fine with Constitutionalists and anarchists and minarchists.

    I am not fine with pro-war, pro-police state imperialists.

    As I define radical, it is not limited to purists or anarchists. It includes purists and anarchists, but it also includes most minarchists. (I mean real minarchists, and not pro-war, Statist Lite, liberventionist, fake minarchists.)

  23. Jill Pyeatt

    Most of the Libertarians I respect are Left-leaning and/or radicals. I don’t consider them a small percentage of the party. In fact, I consider them the nucleus of the party.

  24. Robert Milnes

    Corey Moore, you seem to be a newcomer here & a little mixed up.
    Ron Paul was never a frontrunner & never will be.
    Ron Paul is not a libertarian.
    It is unknown whether Perot would have won had he not dropped out & then reentered. I think not.

  25. Corey Moore

    I gotta love me some internet trolls. Ron Paul is not the most consistent libertarian out there, but he is by far the most prominent. We can sit and debate all day long about Paul…at the end of the day the petty net bickering won’t change the fact that anyone of Paul’s caliber that advocates for mostly libertarian positions is a net plus for the movement. I could give a damn about winning elections if the ideas of liberty are being spread.

  26. Robert Capozzi

    cm: I could give a damn about winning elections if the ideas of liberty are being spread [by Ron Paul].

    me: thought experiment–If Paul wasn’t and hadn’t been a MC, would he be effective in spreading ideas? Compare his relative effectiveness since 08 in communicating broadly to his ability in the early 90s, when he was out of Congress. Now, he gets on national TV frequently. In the 90s, he had apparent bigots writing a newsletter under his name, reaching perhaps a few thousand more bigots.

    Winning elections can promote the spreading of ideas.

  27. paulie Post author

    If the LP ran candidates strategically instead of the current “paper candidates” and others who do not stand a chance of getting more than 4% of the vote, real libertarians could be elected. So instead of running a bunch of candidates, capital should be directed towards 15 or so national candidates that actually could swing an election, and the rest of the national candidates should drop out and throw whatever weight they can towards those elections.

    It doesn’t work that way. Donors decide for themselves where their donations will go. Those may be based on any number of factors, including personal friendship or wanting to see an LP presence built where they personally live. There’s no central capital direction machine that can make them give money to other campaigns far from them.

  28. paulie Post author

    Discount the Ron Paul campaign if you want, but it was the most successful libertarian campaign in recent history. If Paul runs again in ’12, he will be an instant front runner, especially if he can capture the tea party vote.

    He won’t be the front runner, and most of the tea party vote will go to Palin.

  29. paulie Post author

    Most of the Libertarians I respect are Left-leaning and/or radicals. I don’t consider them a small percentage of the party. In fact, I consider them the nucleus of the party.

    Exactly.

  30. George Phillies

    @30

    We tried this for several election cycles in the late 90s through 2002.

    Money did focus, but there was almost no outcome. The strategy did not work.

    George

  31. Robert Capozzi

    jp: In fact, I consider them the nucleus of the party.

    me: What any one person considers the factional “nucleus” is a function of one’s biases. In my case, I don’t consider the LP to have a “nucleus,” per se. At 15k, we still haven’t created a nucleus.

    Back in the day, my HS had what cliques and in-crowds. I’d like to think we’d be over all that 😉

  32. Marc Montoni

    @ 21 Corey Moore said:

    Of course my official involvement within the party has been limited, and largely this is because I?ve never seen the LP as a viable method for change.

    The LP hasn’t become a viable ‘method for change’ because you have limited your involvement in it.

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said some variation of this statement in the thirty years I’ve been an activist in the LP. I’d be rich.

    Of course I’d gladly give up every one of those nickels if instead those people would get involved without hesitation. I admit to being somewhat annoyed at that “I’ll wait until the LP has already succeeded before I get involved” mantra. That position is essentially “intellectual hostage-taking”: holding one’s involvment hostage to party success; essentially expecting others to do the job one knows must be done. The hostage-taking on the part of so many ‘libertarians’ guarantees the LP will never succeed.

  33. Robert Capozzi

    mm, there are other forms of hostage-taking that leads to dysfunction in the LP. For ex., some Ls believe THEY are the “true believers” in THE L philosophy, and others are mere fellow travelers. Anyone who “deviates” from the “true believers” is viewed as “impure,” “unprincipled,” and otherwise unworthy.

    That approach is pretty much guaranteed to keep the LP very, very small, don’t you think?

    If we can’t respect small differences, then we’ll remain ineffective.

  34. Marc Montoni

    George Phillies @30 said:

    We tried this for several election cycles in the late 90s through 2002. … Money did focus, but there was almost no outcome. The strategy did not work.

    George is still obsessed with obliquely dissing the Browne-Winter-Willis-Dasbach “axis”. The truth is that the 1994-2002 period was one of the most encouraging in the LP’s history. I tip my hat to those guys.

    Yes there were (relatively) huge numbers of candidates. In my next post I’ll list a summary I wrote up in 2007 (if anyone has the last couple of years figured up, I’d love to add them to the tally).

    Yes, some of them were paper candidates, and some were targeted for extra support by various individuals. Gene Cisewski, for instance, supported [Republican-Libertarian-Republican] Murray Sabrin (for Governor of NJ in 1997) for intensive nationwide support. The LNC at various times supported various legislative races (notably Jon Coon in MI in 1994.

    The thing with paper candidates is that you can never tell if someone intending to run only a paper campaign is going to get excited about the race and become a real candidate. Heck, I ran a ‘paper campaign’ myself, and wound up getting elected, beating a well-known local Democratic activist in the process.

    One also must acknowledge that the Democrats and Republicans often run “token” or paper candidates, if only to put opposition in a race. In my ancient history, I worked in one or two of them. They may have been low-key, but the party heirarchy thought they were worthwhile to do. Do I even need to tell you that the old parties spend millions of dollars on studies and expert political consultants every year, learning how to win elections?

    We can certainly steal what our competition has learned. People who deride paper campaigns as not being legitimate political activity for the LP are preaching from a script they haven’t checked for accuracy.

  35. Marc Montoni

    If anyone can fill in the holes in this data, please let me know.

    Year # Candidates Wins
    ——————————————
    1971
    1972
    1973
    1974
    1975
    1976
    1977
    1978
    1979
    1980 ?? ??
    1981 ?? ??
    1982 ?? ??
    1983 ?? ??
    1984 ?? 11
    1985 ?? ??
    1986 200+ ??
    1987 ?? ??
    1988 ?? ??
    1989 ?? ??
    1990 ?? ??
    1991 ?? ??
    1992 700+ ?
    1993 ?? 15
    1994 650+ 40
    1995 ?? 3
    1996 800 7
    1997 64
    1998 853 19
    1999 215 20
    2000 1,436 34
    2001 312 96
    2002 1,642 ??
    2003 230 46
    2004 699 ??
    2005 ?? ??
    2006 ?? ??
    2007 81 ??
    ——————————————

  36. Marc Montoni

    Captain Capozzi says:

    mm, there are other forms of hostage-taking that leads to dysfunction in the LP. For ex., some Ls believe THEY are the “true believers” in THE L philosophy, and others are mere fellow travelers. Anyone who “deviates” from the “true believers” is viewed as “impure,” “unprincipled,” and otherwise unworthy. … That approach is pretty much guaranteed to keep the LP very, very small, don’t you think? … If we can’t respect small differences, then we’ll remain ineffective.

    There are those who think various differences are “small” and those who think the same differences are “not small”.

    As an example, there are currently libertarians who think we should all keep our mouths shut about privatizing emergency services (police, fire, rescue, etc), because they are relatively “innocuous services that everyone agrees we should have”. Other libertarians — ones who want to talk about those things — feel that the huge resources stolen from taxpayers and given to those enterprises ($42 billion annually on marijuana enforcement alone…), coupled with the built-in inefficiency, corruption and rampant abuse that conmes with government-owned anything, makes them all that more deserving of our forceful agitation for private-sector replacement.

    Roadway privatization also serves as another example. Members of the Virginia LP were treated to a four-minute long, loud, obnoxious tongue-lashing at a state convention in 1999 by Kris Overstreet about why Libertarians and Libertarian candidates should never, ever, utter even Word One about privatization of the means of transportation — at the same time when Democrats and Republicans are tripping over themselves trying to shunt off expensive public projects into the private sector.

    Sorry, Bob, but I’m not here to advocate new taxes, to support preventing people from moving from place to place, to call for expanded federal mafia power, to call for increasing this or that tax just because some bureaucrat calls it a “user fee” rather than a tax, or to just meekly call for maybe a study or a single-county experiment with, um, medicinal marijuana — oh, never mind, maybe boss, we could simply do a substitute trial with diluted marinol, eh?

    I was silent for years whenever someone else called for consistent libertarians to sit down, shut up, and sit at the back of the bus while “those of us who have the magic bullet [that will turn the party mainstream] drive the bus.”

    I’m not silent any more. My one-on-one rhetoric is now full-on abolitionist, using the Browne model. And unlike people who want us to say nothing that might reveal the libertarian philosophy as an abolitionist one, I no longer care what you think.

    The proof is in. Fundraising, number of candidates, number of members, media mentions, elected Libertarians — all down precipitously since the peak (ca 1999) of the alleged “anarchist time” of the LP, and showing absolutely no signs of going anywhere — despite the best efforts of Wes Benedict. The heart of the LP has been cut out; there is little left to inspire people to support it.

    All of your posturing and hundreds of hours of time tilting at windmills here on IPR and other blogs could be better spent attempting to improve the LP in the areas noted in the previous paragraph. You guys have had your day since 2006, and nothing is happening. Rather than blaming me and others for what’s not happening, maybe you should spend some of your time recruiting some candidates in your local area and doorhanging your neighbors to scare up some new LP donors for the next campaign.

    Have at it. You can have all the last words you want. I’m done; I have work to do today. By the end of the day, I will have signed up at least one more new LP member, to add to the 600+ I’ve signed up personally, mostly face-to-face, since 1998.

    Oh, one last thing. I never read Rothbard, but I know you tend to get all foamy whenever you hear his name (or perhaps more accurately, whenever you imagine you hear his name. Therefore:

    Rothbard!
    Rothbard!
    Rothbard!
    Rothbard!
    Rothbard!

  37. Robert Capozzi

    mm, thanks for illustrating my point!

    I consider myself to be a consistent L, but I am not an abolitionist. Abolitionists often seem to believe THEY are the “consistent” Ls, and non-abolitionists are “inconsistent.”

    Abolition of the State is fraught with many, many theoretical and practical challenges, a view that most abolitionist Ls seem to recognize, even Rothbard, who, for prudence sake, advocated “transition” plans!

    As for precipitous declines, I’m confident that any statistician will concur that small numbers are more prone to wild fluctuations over time on a percentage basis. That’s the nature of small numbers. A decline from 25K to 15K is “big” on a percentage basis, tiny in the grand scheme of things. Surely you see that, yes?

  38. Robert Capozzi

    mm: You guys have had your day since 2006, and nothing is happening.

    me: Actually, I don’t know who “you guys” are. There are 2 members of the Rodney King Caucus (Paulie and I) and 4 members of the TAAAList Caucus (Paulie, Erik G., Dasbach and I). Separately, the Reform Caucus “only” garnered 3/4 of the Portland Conventioneers, falling short of the 7/8ths hurdle, to cleanse the SoP of the illiterate and inaccurate “cult of the omnipotent state” clause. We were also not successful in dropping the crypto-abolitionist-anarchist pledge. IMO, these are the biggest impediments to the LP’s growth, as they create a sand foundation when rock is indicated.

    mm: Rather than blaming me and others for what’s not happening, maybe you should spend some of your time recruiting some candidates in your local area and doorhanging your neighbors to scare up some new LP donors for the next campaign.

    me: Blame? It’s my practice to not do the blame thing…I find it childish. I tire of rebuilding the house over and over again when it’s the foundation that needs fixing first. Given my limited resources, I find that to be my highest and best use. Walking my ‘hood is pushing on a string, as I reside inside the Beltway, where promoting a lessarchist agenda seems most futile compared with virtually any other area in the country.

    But thanks for your input.

  39. Michael H. Wilson

    Marc writes “I was silent for years whenever someone else called for consistent libertarians to sit down, shut up, and sit at the back of the bus while “those of us who have the magic bullet [that will turn the party mainstream] drive the bus.”

    I could not agree more. I sat down and shut up because I thought those running the organization knew what they were talking about.

    I found out that was not the case.

Leave a Reply

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