Kansas Libertarians May Replace U.S. House Nominee with Prominent Republican

From Ballot Access News:

The Kansas Libertarian Party is ballot-qualified and nominates by convention.  Its original nominee for U.S. House, 4th district, David Moffett, recently dropped out of the race because of ill health.  The party has the right to choose a replacement nominee, up until September 20.

According to this story, the Kansas Libertarian Party is considering replacing Moffett with Wink Hartman, and Hartman is considering whether to accept.  Hartman ran in the Republican primary on August 4 for the same seat, and polled 22.8% in a five-person race.  The winner of the Republican primary is Mike Pompeo.  The seat is open because the Republican incumbent, Todd Tiahrt, did not run for re-election; instead he ran for U.S. Senate, but lost the Republican primary.

The 4th district is centered on Wichita.  Hartman is a successful businessman who already spent $1,000,000 on his primary campaign.

39 thoughts on “Kansas Libertarians May Replace U.S. House Nominee with Prominent Republican

  1. sane LP member

    Get him elected and it will help all the downticket candidates. Good move. Time to step it up.

  2. Robert Milnes

    Have I mentioned…
    All the Libertarian & Green candidates are going to lose soon?
    They could win if they tried PLAS?
    paulie has a fat gut?
    Tom K. can’t add 27 & 13?

  3. You must be kidding!

    Same as in Alaska – if he’s a libertarian OK. If not, just say NO!

    The LP is ready to ride a coming wave of libertarianism that is just starting to bubble up nationwide. This is no time to sell out our principles. It is time to stand firm for what we believe in. As much as possible we should keep the libertarian line for true Libertarians only.

  4. Robert Milnes

    “The LP is ready to ride a coming wave of libertarianism…” NOT.
    Unless they try PLAS.
    Where is this wave? Where is it coming from? What are you blathering about?

  5. Robert Milnes

    OK, I just ordered a 50 watt Duracell solar panel from Lowe’s. This maxes out my credit card there.
    When it arrives I will have about 93 watts. That is about 1/4 of what I need to run my household. So I will be budgeting my electric use carefully.
    Now I am thinking about wintertime electricity generation. Because the solar panels will be greatly diminished in productivity. I’m thinking incinerator>steam turbine.
    I already have a small 1000 watt generator/gas engine. I also have a larger Army surplus generator run by 9hp Briggs & Stratten engine.
    If I could find an inside space to capture the heat in winter & connect an incinerator to a steam turbine & either generator, I could accomplish 2 energy needs in one.
    So, does anyone have an old incinerator and/or steam turbine laying around? Or you can help me with this and/or my campaign by donating:
    http://www.milnes2008.freeservers.com/

  6. Robert Milnes

    Top 5 pathetic LPers.
    1. Tom K. Can’t add 27 + 13. Some sort of mental disease or defect concerning PLAS. Or maybe he has cold feet in his GI boots.
    2. Sweet Mary. Sour puss. A winning fusion ticket fell out of the sky into her lap-Gravel/Ruwart. & she had no idea. Has the political power of the radicals everyday & every day it passes through her fingers because she doesn’t use it.
    3. paulie cannoli, eats too much stromboli. Is a skilled writer & tech savvy. Wastes it on sarcasm. Knows it all except that he doesn’t know it all.
    4. Susan H., The Strict Disciplinarian Libertarian. Another brain (scan) wasted. Another do nothing radical leader.
    5. Wayne R., with the initials that say it all.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    kidding: The LP is ready to ride a coming wave of libertarianism that is just starting to bubble up nationwide. This is no time to sell out our principles. It is time to stand firm for what we believe in. As much as possible we should keep the libertarian line for true Libertarians only.

    me: I’d like to hear more. What evidence do you have that there’s a coming wave of Lism? Can you be more specific on what you mean by “selling out”? What is a “true” L, and what isn’t?

    People inherently want to breath free, to have liberty. But they also want to control others, so they are conflicted, near as I can tell. It does seem that both sentiments wax and wane over time, and aggregate (undefinably) in ways that seems like trends.

    Selling out is a matter of perspective. I, for ex., would vote for leglislation that reduced the net incidence of coercion even if it contained some line item increases. Is that selling out in your opinion?

    And I’m curious how you determine who is a “true” L and who isn’t?

  8. Jason Gatties

    Still waiting on Milnes to get elected to something. I mean, run for City Council or something and put your money where you’re insane mouth is.

  9. Mik Robertson

    @19 The conflict that a lot of those who say they know the only real and true libertarian way is that they don’t see actions as having impacts other than direct impacts. Often they don’t see such a thing as a society, only a bunch of individuals.

    Does the ability to exclude others from a certain geographic area impact their freedom? Does the discharge of thins that otherwise would not be there or would not be there as much to air or water adversely affect others? If someone cam claim ownership of all natural resources yet to be extracted, does that pose a problem?

    When a lot of Libertarians talk about property rights, it seems what is often meant is what can be claimed as ‘mine’. When they talk about liberty what is often meant is what ‘I’ am free to do.

    When you only look at what you are free to claim and do, the big picture of liberty can be quite distorted.

  10. No, RC, I'm not kidding!

    “Selling out is a matter of perspective. I, for ex., would vote for leglislation that reduced the net incidence of coercion even if it contained some line item increases. Is that selling out in your opinion?” – Robert Capozzi

    Generally, one could say that supporting a bill that had the net effect of a reduction in coercion and a net effect of an increase in liberty would not be selling out.

    But, there would be cases where those items that required a small increase in coercion would have a huge inpact on a small group, meaning a huge increase in coercion for that small group. Would this be acceptable, even though a much larger group would see incresed liberty and less coercion – even though the bill reduced coercion overall? No, of course it wouldn’t. You’d still have to vote against such a bill.

    An elected office holder would have to work carefully to make the best decisions in such cases. Purity in office is impossible.

    However, selecting candidates based on principle is not as difficult.

  11. Be Rational.

    “Does the ability to exclude others from a certain geographic area impact their freedom?”

    No.

    Private ownership includes the right to exclude others. This right is absolute and it does not impinge on the rights of those excluded.

    This is no different than the right of a woman to exclude the rapist from invading her body.

  12. You must be kidding!

    @20 “Still waiting on Milnes to get elected to something. I mean, run for City Council or something and put your money where you’re insane mouth is.”

    If Milness lived in a town with a total population of one, he’d still lose an election for town office.

  13. Sane LP member

    @ 24. Correcto !
    He comes across as negative on everything.
    What are HIS credentials anyway– other than going negative on every single thing out there, other than PLAS.
    Again, pathetic.

  14. Mik Robertson

    @23 “Private ownership includes the right to exclude others. This right is absolute and it does not impinge on the rights of those excluded.”

    So when the new world was divided between the kings of Spain and Portugal they would have been correct to keep everyone else out and no one would have had any rights restricted? That sounds more like a conservative position than a libertarian one.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    no kidding: An elected office holder would have to work carefully to make the best decisions in such cases. Purity in office is impossible.

    However, selecting candidates based on principle is not as difficult

    me: Yes, yours in interesting perspective, one I do believe I agree with. It’s not a simple matter when in office to assess what is indicated and what not.

    Candidate selection, however, seems similarly challenging. For ex., in the field of presidential hopefuls in 08, I probably would have agreed with Phillies on more issues than other candidates. Yet, despite the fact I agreed with his views less, I thought Barr was the optimal selection. Indeed, I would select Barr over myself, even though I almost always agree with me!

    Selecting candidates on “principle,” then, is not a straightforward exercise, at least not for me. My decision would be something like: “Who is the candidate most likely to advance the cause of liberty the most?” That requires a sense of what we mean by “liberty,” but it also means making an assessment of knowledge base, communications skills and background.

    A homeless person with a felony conviction who holds “principled” positions 100% in line with the platform would not make a good candidate in almost all circumstances I can think of.

    Nor would, say, Newt Gringrich, despite the fact that he’s knowledgeable, articulate, and has a strong resume.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    rational: Private ownership includes the right to exclude others. This right is absolute and it does not impinge on the rights of those excluded.

    me: Can’t say I agree. If a property owner blocks the way to save a life, for ex., the importance of saving a life supercedes property rights. IMO. Therefore, property rights are NOT absolute.

  17. Mik Robertson

    @22 “But, there would be cases where those items that required a small increase in coercion would have a huge inpact on a small group, meaning a huge increase in coercion for that small group. Would this be acceptable, even though a much larger group would see incresed liberty and less coercion – even though the bill reduced coercion overall? No, of course it wouldn’t. You’d still have to vote against such a bill.”

    Apparently this is why you would have to vote against a bill regulating emissions from a handful of highly polluting industries even though the impacts affect people worldwide.

  18. Selecting a Principled Candidate

    Actually RC, when it comes to candidate selection we have more options.

    The LP has the option, a very wise choice in some cases, of nominating no one.

    Every candidate nominated should meet the principled standards that we set as LP members. Then, in addition, we should avoid nominating undesireables such as your homeless convict example. If there is no one available who meets our standards then we should nominate no candidate.

    This is the case of the socialist who is running for congress on the LP ticket in MI. We don’t want non Libs on the ballot and should endeavor as much as possible to exclude them. We have limited resources anyway, so we should focus on candidates who are principled, presentable, qualified and electable. Fewer and better candidates.

    So, candidate selection is easier than being in office, because we are above the fray when we choose to be. An elected officeholder generally cannot abstain but must engage in the political battle, mud, blood and gore.

  19. Be Rational Mik

    The Libertarian principle of property rights means that private property is absolute. This means that the big polluters in your example have no right to release any pollutants into the air or water that belongs to any other property owner.

    In a Libertarian Society all pollution is illegal. It’s the socialists like you who do not believe in the absolute right of property holders to control their property who have made pollution legal and have caused our world to be polluted.

  20. Be Rational

    In the case of the property owner who excludes the rescuers from his property, this is one of the unfortunate outcomes that is theoretically possible when people are free. Your example is unlikely, but possible. Freedom is absolute, but sometimes we don’t like all the outcomes.

    In addition, a doctor may refuse to perform surgery in some cases and a patient may die. Should the doctor be forced to operate?

    You may have a matching kidney needed to save the life of a man who has only hours left to live without it, should you be forced to donated your kidney.

    Freedom is absolute.

    You have the right to encourage and persuade but not to use force to obtain your desired outcome – even if someone may die when the free individual refuses your plea.

  21. Mik Robertson

    @31 ‘The Libertarian principle of property rights means that private property is absolute.”

    If private property is absolute then all things in the new world are being used at the discretion of the kings of Spain and Portugal.

    And property is that which is created by labor. No one did anything to create the air, water, land or naturally occurring ecosystems that use them to live. The rest of the argument falls apart from there.

    “In a Libertarian Society all pollution is illegal. It’s the socialists like you who do not believe in the absolute right of property holders to control their property who have made pollution legal and have caused our world to be polluted.”

    I have not seen as much groundless nonsense since response #13.

  22. Robert Capozzi

    selecting, here’s the thing: I agree that we should not nominate socialists to run on the L line. But couching things as “principled” begs the questions: what is principle and who determines what the principle is and what it’s full implications are?

    Running warm bodies that reflect poorly on the cause of liberty is contra-indicated. Nominating articulate candidates who advance the ideas of liberty as an individual L in convention sees it is indicated.

    No doubt the specifics get messy.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    rational, no, the doctor shouldn’t be forced to operate…who’d want him or her to operate under such conditions?

    And, no, it seems unreasonable to be forced to give up an organ for another.

    Freedom is absolute on a metaphysical level, IMO, but in a civil society freedom is the default position, but sometimes things just ain’t as cut-and-dried as you seem to believe. Property rights are protected by the rule of law (in theory, at least), so blowing up buildings over a contract dispute, for ex., is not an absolute right. IMO.

    For those who wish to practice such absolutism, I advocate Nonarchy Pods, where a person can stay on his or her property with no limits as to what he or she does.

    Property rights, however, are a function of a civil social order. While a state of nature may be attractive on some level, bears don’t have conflict-dispute mechanisms beyond brute force, near as I can tell.

    But, if freedom and property rights ARE absolute, prove it! Or state it as an opinion.

  24. Be Rational

    RC,

    Of course you have the absolute right to blow up a building if you own the building and the land that it’s on. And, of course, you have no right to cause damage to or disrupt the peaceful use of lands and properties of your neighboring landholders.

    As for me, I advocate fascist-socialist isoation pods where people who want to practice violating the rights of others can all compete for power and leave the rest of us alone. Actually one such pod-of evil would suffice, so we can just airdrop all the fascist-socialists who refuse to stop their violations of the absolute rights of the free indviduals of the rest of the free world into North Korea and let them fight it out there.

    The use of North Korea as a pod-of-evil for the recalcitrant fascist-socialists of the world is positively indicated. However, we should set up rescue tunnels for the innocent people trapped there to have a chance to escape.

  25. Robert Capozzi

    rational, I was alluding to the fictional character Howard Roark’s “rationally” blowing up a building he’d designed but was altered.

    Isolating 99.99% of the population to practice statism amongst themselves has appeal, but, then, that pretty much describes the current configuration. Nonarchy Pods for conscientious objectors seem more plausible.

  26. Be Rational

    Yes, RC, I got the reference, and I always thought that if he didn’t own the land and the building he would be a criminal and not a hero.

    And I don’t believe that 99.99% of the population has any interest in practicing statism. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the population is clueless and responds more like domesticated animals being called to the food bowl. They would adapt to nearly any condiditions.

    No, the true statists, the ones who need to be isolated, are less than 1% of the population. They can easily be confined to pods-of-evil. They will not want to stay there, however, so this would not be a voluntary relocation. But, they are criminals, so I have no problem with confining them.

    The crime of using government power to violate the rights of an individual should carry severe penalties for those convicted. It’s the only crime that could possibly deserve the death penalty, although I’d prefer banishment to the pod-0f-evil.

  27. Robert Capozzi

    rational, OK, then. If you can make that happen, best o’ luck. I’d note that it could get outta hand in a French Revolution kinda way.

Leave a Reply

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