Wayne Root: Citizen Revolution- One Nation Under Tea Party Revolt!

The Peasants With Pitchforks are Coming.

By Wayne Allyn Root, Chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee and 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee

Obama continues to name Czars without any vetting or confirmation from Congress. His latest Czar – appointed only days ago — was the “Asian Carp Czar.” I’m not kidding (I wish I were). Well if Obama thinks his unaccountable executives are “czars,” then King Obama and Queen Michelle must consider the rest of us serfs and peasants. But there’s a hitch in this scenario. When peasants with pitchforks decide to revolt, it usually doesn’t end well for the ruling class.

When I wrote my book, “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts,” I predicted that Obama’s radical Marxist agenda would lead to a citizen revolution, the likes of which had not been seen in this country since 1776. I predicted that this revolution to take back our country would be led by a coalition of Libertarians, conservatives, disgruntled Republicans, independents, taxpayers, small business owners, gun owners, patriots, and Christians. That revolution now has a name: The Tea Party.

And who are these new revolutionaries? Many of them are reenacting the ‘60’s revolution. They have evolved from peace and pot to pitchforks…from tie die to torches…from denim to deficit and debt…and from communes to condos. Today the Holy Grail isn’t Woodstock, it’s Washington. Why the change? It’s called financial responsibility. The “me generation” is now all about THE GRANDCHILDREN. And the same people who changed the world in the ‘60’s with their passion and enthusiasm are about to change the world again.

The remarkable Tea Party victories on Tuesday night are yet more proof this is not business as usual. Entrenched incumbents and establishment D.C. insiders are being swept away like debris in a tsunami. Most importantly, it isn’t only liberal Democrat scalps the Tea Party is taking. At the top of the list are the enablers- big government RINOS (Republicans in name only). Exhibit A is Michael Castle. The longtime Delaware Republican Congressman is normally the kind of GOP insider that survives times of voter unrest. Political insiders like Castle have always known how to turn on the charm, raise lots of money, and use that money on advertising campaigns to convince voters that “next time” they’ll vote with the people. It’s always “next time.” Except for Castle there will be no more next times. This citizen revolution sent Castle to the unemployment line. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out Mike.

Castle is a RINO who votes gave bi-partisan cover to big government expansion and an ever-expanding welfare state. Castle was the exact type of Republican fraud who through his compromise and “bi-partisanship” (see SELLOUT) made fiscal conservatives and free-market Libertarians fighting for the survival of our children and grandchildren appear as “extremists, radicals and nutcases.” The reality is the extremists are those who have bankrupted our once great country and left us with over $100 Trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities.

It is the so-called “bi-partisan moderates” that have sold out our children’s future- saddling them with unsustainable deficit and debt for decades to come, in order to bring home the bacon to their districts today. GOP Rinos such as Castle and “blue dog Democrats” such as Nebraska’s Ben Nelson are the problem, not the solution. How can you be a “blue dog” when you vote for bigger government, universal healthcare, cap and trade, stimulus, bailouts, earmarks, and financial reform bills that demand banks give out small business loans based on affirmative action? How can you be a patriot and demand “Cornhusker kickbacks?”

In the end I’m rooting (excuse the pun) for V.E.T.O. — Vote Everyone of Them Out. Republicans, Democrats, lawyers, lobbyists, union bosses, D.C. political insiders and incumbents of all stripes — it’s time to clean house and throw all the bums out. If America is to be saved, it’s necessary to throw out both the socialist, entitlement-addicted Democrats and the establishment Republican enablers like Mike Castle, Charlie Crist, Rick Lazio, Lisa Murkowski, and Bob Bennett. The debt and deception stops here — with the Tea Party.

The Tea Party candidates have been successful in primaries because they have been singularly focused on the most important and pressing issues our country faces today: the economy, jobs, government spending, government employees, and the unchecked growth of the deficit and debt. These issues should have been Obama’s only priority. Instead, we got a healthcare bill that will ultimately bankrupt the country, more government employees, and a stimulus that only stimulated the ratings of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. But wait, Obama isn’t done yet. He still has card check (unionize the entire nation) and cap and trade to ram through in the lame duck session of Congress after he’s lost in a landslide. And you wonder why the people are angry?

The peasants have awoken from a long slumber. The time for excuses and promises is over. All that is left is for the winners in November to deliver — shrink government, cut government employees and pensions (as Cuba is busy doing right now), dramatically lower the deficit and debt, and dramatically reduce spending, while lowering taxes (as Canada has done for the past decade). Deliver or the Tea Party promises to throw this class of bums out just like the last one … and they’ll be patriots for doing so. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing…It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

151 thoughts on “Wayne Root: Citizen Revolution- One Nation Under Tea Party Revolt!

  1. Brian

    “If there’s one thing that Tea Partiers hate, it’s being called racists. If there’s another thing Tea Partiers hate, it’s black people.”

    In all seriousness, the Tea Party is a joke. This desperate attempt by Root to paint the mob in a positive and serious tone falls short of it’s goal. While they raise some serious points, any positive contribution to political discourse on the part of the Tea Partiers will always be overshadowed by their racist, conspiracy theorist, nativist, and theocratic elements.

  2. Robert Capozzi

    There is much to learn from the Tea Party movement for us Ls as this page of history is being written. There is also much to be concerned about. Like the French Revolution, angry mobs with pitchforks can turn ugly and destructive. Some of the TP candidates winning their primaries have thin resumes (not an inherently bad thing) and some oddball stances (definitely contra-indicated, IMO).

    Life is about taking the bad with the good, and politics is no different. There is certainly a strong energy and positive sentiment in the TP, but the bad stuff can be REAL bad.

    We saw this played out in a slightly different way with the Paul 08 campaign, when the haters besmirched the reputation of the smaller government crowd and our one L/l elected politician of note.

    Drawing that positive aspect of the TP to us while filtering out the hater element is no small task.

  3. JT

    Brian: “If there’s one thing that Tea Partiers hate, it’s being called racists. If there’s another thing Tea Partiers hate, it’s black people.”

    Who are you quoting?

    Brian: “In all seriousness, the Tea Party is a joke. This desperate attempt by Root to paint the mob in a positive and serious tone falls short of it’s goal.”

    It seems to me like the Tea Partiers are being taken pretty seriously judging by the media coverage (whether positive or negative) they’ve been getting for months, especially after the defeat of a number of incumbent Republican politicians. I think most Libertarians would love to be taken as seriously by the public.

  4. Robert Capozzi

    jt: I think most Libertarians would love to be taken as seriously by the public.

    me: Yes, most probably would. Some do not care, as they are playing a multi-century game in which by holding high the banner now, somehow, some day, generations down the line, people will realize that a monopolistic State is not only evil, but unnecessary. With this abolitionist model, relevance is not a consideration. Draw stark black-and-white lines is what’s necessary for today’s vanguard, with little-to-no consideration for the art of the possible.

    This construct careens perilously close to a crucifixion complex, IMO. Course correction indicated.

  5. Patriotson

    If America needed revolution, its now. The very government we voted into congress has become the enemy of the American citizen. Laws are not being enforced in immigration; laws are being perverted in voting rights with the Black Panther and the Obama/Holder gang refuse to enforce or investigate the violations.
    Obama’s “new order” of mandated socialism is destroying the free market system; lies about the european socialist health system imposed without the concent of the America people is to egregious to allow this bolshevik agenda to continue.
    November we can change the direction of America and return to the constitutional principles our forefathers envisioned.

  6. Steven R Linnabary

    Watching the primary election results of another party is like watching a high school football game in a distant state. Interesting and maybe fun to watch, but I can hardly get excited about the outcome unless I have a personal stake (as in money on the game, or maybe having a nephew on the team).

    I simply do not understand the fascination some people have in the outcome of republican (or democrat) primaries…unless they have a personal stake in the game.

    PEACE

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

    Steven R Linnabary // Sep 16, 2010:

    ” ……… do not understand the fascination some people have in the outcome of republican (or democrat) primaries…unless they have a personal stake in the game.”

    [Lake: well unfortunately the comparison can be made to ‘scouting’. They ARE the enemy and may be we need to recognoiter for weaknesses! Not that much seem to erode ‘entoto’ as time trundles on. Dems up / GOP down; Dems down / GOP up! Kinda a ‘zero sum’ game where the biggest zeros (ethically) are the constant winners ——– sorry to say]

  8. Sane LP Member

    History being made in front of our eyes. There WILL be a third party that rises up to major party status. Question # 1 will be if the GOP survives the next 10 years or becomes a regional player. Question # 2 will be “WHO” is the new third party? Will it be the Libertarian Party or will it be a brand new party, formed from portions of the Tea Party, the Reform Party, the GOP, and the Libertarian Party?

    The other option is that the GOP evolves into a “liberty-leaning ” party and the RINOS and Moderates instead create a new party.

    End of the USA as we know it, if something does not break us free of the two-party stranglehold we are in. They are BOTH so corrupt and flawed.

  9. George Phillies

    The notion that Congressman Castle, a man with three and then some decades of public service to his party behind him, is not a Republican, as Mr. Root claims, is absurd. Castle did not, however, support authoritarian Republicanism of the Demint-Palin variety.

    Furthermore, unlike the Republican fruitcake who defeated him, Congressman Castle was at least in touch with reality. He believed in evolution. He understood the reality of global warming. The fruitcake’s positions on sex are particularly amusing, and will undoubtedly be extensively discussed before the election.

  10. George Phillies

    However, Libertarians may be cheered by O’Donnell’s victory, because it is one more step toward convincing the American people that Republican politicians are crazy, many almost as crazy as Sarah Palin, and certainly should not be trusted with high political office, such as animal control officer.

  11. Steven wilson

    You cannot bankrupt america because we use elastic currency. It can be devalued or purchase power can decline.

    Bankrupt is a language game now called debt restructuring. America can continue to live beyond it’s means, but we use elastic currency.

    Our Military is our market. If you don’t invest in us, we will occupy you.

    Hyper inflation is the only weakness to elastic currency.

  12. Deran

    I love when ignoramuses like Root and Beck get all hysterical about the Democrats being socialist. As they are obviously not socialists in any historical definition, it gives room for my ilk, actual existing socialists, to talk abt actual socialist sustainable ideas.

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

    [Lake: Oh yuck!] The GOP has heard the tea party and is listening.

    “Eventually you have to respect the will of the voters,” said Delaware’s Republican state auditor Tom Wagner, a longtime Castle friend who said the state GOP is still in shock. He said he’d campaign with O’Donnell.

    It’s still not clear how soon — or even if — the state party will unify behind her.

    Said a GOP House candidate who lost her primary, Michele Rollins: “We’re going to need a little bit of time to kind of settle down.

    It’s pretty shocking to Delaware, because we’ve never had an outside influence come in and dictate the result.”

    [Lake: true TEA partiers, whom ever and what ever you are: tread carefully and keep your eyes opened!]

  14. Be Rational

    GP @ 12, 13,

    You are correct that Congressman Castle was a good Republican in the sense that he was a team player – his team being the big R squad inside the duopoly – and so he worked for his squad and the duopoly team to win.

    This party spirit is part of what is hurting America so badly. We need candidates and elected officials who put principle ahead of party.

    Even when they are wrong on some issues, it is better to choose such candidates. The tea party -not wanting to be rooked again – has made a good start in Delaware by getting rid of a slimy republican politician.

    In the future we can only hope that the voters will continue this tea party effort, that they will continue to look for and vote for candidates who share their principles: that we need a much smaller government and a much freer America.

    In turn, this new voting block being available to fund and support libertarian leaning candidates wll hopefully draw out better candidates who will make better elected officials.

    I suggest that you make use of this as an opportunity to stop complaining and to bring forward and help to fund those high quality Libertarians that you prefer as candidates.

  15. Root Impies That Republicans Are Pro-Liberty

    Root: “it isn’t only liberal Democrat scalps the Tea Party is taking. At the top of the list are the enablers- big government RINOS (Republicans in name only).”

    By this, Root implies that true Republicans are pro-freedom, and support the things that he and the LP support.

    I thought the LP’s official position was that Democrats and Republicans were both inherently bad?

    Not according to Root! According to Root, real Republicans are pro-liberty.

    If that is true, why should any freedom-loving American vote LP? Why vote for a pro-liberty third party that can’t win, when you can vote for a pro-liberty major party the does win?

    Root’s implying that the path to freedom is to vote for true (non-RINO) Republicans.

  16. Root Impies That Peace Is Bad

    Root: “who are these new revolutionaries? Many of them are reenacting the ‘60’s revolution. They have evolved from peace and pot to pitchforks…from tie die to torches…from denim to deficit and debt…and from communes to condos.

    Root implies that the Tea Party is anti-peace and anti-pot, and that this is a good thing.

    Real “pro-freedom” people, according to Root, aren’t about peace and pot — they’re about money.

  17. Michael H. Wilson

    I think it would be worth looking at the turnout in these states and then at the percentage of the vote that the tea party candidates won. Election day in November is seven weeks away. Lots of time for things to happen. In other words don’t count your chicken until they hatch.

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

    Host for the evening–Doc Thompson

    The highlight of the ACP Leadership Conference is the Friday evening dinner (open to non-members), our Conservative Leadership Recognition, featuring Marconi Award recipient and talk show host Doc Thompson.

    There will be other special guests and awards will be given for Conservative Leader of the Year and Conservative Thinker of the Year.

  19. Robert Capozzi

    “Impies”: By this, Root implies that true Republicans are pro-freedom, and support the things that he and the LP support. I thought the LP’s official position was that Democrats and Republicans were both inherently bad?

    Me: I’m not sure there’s an “official” L position on this matter. It’s more aligned with the Ron Paul thesis that the Old Right Republicans were indeed pro-liberty, and he’s the last elected Old Right R. I’d say there are a lot of grassroots Rs who are still L-leaners, which is the demographic that Root is appealling to.

    If we Ls are going to make any headway (a big if), we should take care not to alienate voters. It’s one thing to criticize the political class, another to indict the citizenry as “stupid” or “evil.” Attracting people to L-ism doesn’t mean screaming at people, in effect, “you’re all wrong!” Not, I’d submit, a sound strategy for making friends.

  20. As usual a bunch of idiots

    True liberty are conservative Republicans. Whether you are called Republicans, you have to look beyond just the name. Freedom libertarians are closer to conservative. Democrats = lefty’s = communist along with greens. I am not going to convince these type of people with this belief, it is a lost cause. They like handout, they like what communism have to offer even though they are in denial. Brainwashed, mushy brains, warped thinking. Until they get rehabilitated, they can’t see anything else.

  21. Imperialism IS Socialism

    “They like handout, they like what communism have to offer even though they are in denial.”

    Do you mean the handouts the State gives to no-bids arms merchants?

    Or do you mean the handouts the State gives to the millions of people living off the military dole?

    Or do you mean the foreign aid handouts the State gives to bogus “allies” with powerful lobbies?

    Neocons, Republicans, and liberventionists enthusiastically support all those handouts.

    You can’t support war and occupation, and not support those handouts.

  22. JT

    George: “Furthermore, unlike the Republican fruitcake who defeated him, Congressman Castle was at least in touch with reality. He believed in evolution. He understood the reality of global warming. The fruitcake’s positions on sex are particularly amusing, and will undoubtedly be extensively discussed before the election.”

    I’ve heard you say these many times. Why are these things relevant unless a politician wants to use government force to impose his or her beliefs on others?

    Perhaps O’Donnell in particular does want to use government power in these ways; I don’t know. But I do know that in a heartbeat I’d take a politician who consistently votes for reducing the size and scope of government while not thinking evolution is true over a politician who votes to expand government and who does think so. I don’t really care unless it directly impacts my life and the lives of other people without individual consent.

    Libertarianism isn’t about changing some people’s personal beliefs, even if they’re irrational, but about changing government policies. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball.

  23. paulie

    True liberty are conservative Republicans.

    You couldn’t be more wrong. War, empire, drug war prohibitionism, police-prison-industrialized complex, militarized, corrupt, abusive police at home, corporate welfare, war on sex, military as world police, religious intolerance, coercive “morality,” subtle (and not so subtle) racism, domestic espionage, torture, indefinite detentions…these conservative Republicans are the opposite of true liberty.

    Democrats = lefty’s = communist along with greens. I am not going to convince these type of people with this belief, it is a lost cause. They like handout, they like what communism have to offer even though they are in denial. Brainwashed, mushy brains, warped thinking.

    Yes, the part of that before “brainwashed, mushy brains, warped thinking” is indeed brainwashed, mushy brains, warped thinking.

  24. paulie

    You be the judge.

    via Delaware Libertarian

    In Her Own Words: Christine O’Donnell 2006 U.S. Senate Radio Commercial

    Transcript:

    My name is Christine O’Donnell, write-in candidate for U.S. Senate.

    The biblical first fruits principle proves that, as the first state of our nation, Delaware has a unique responsibility to elect godly leaders.

    There are two issues facing America next year that could force lawsuits on churches who refuse to ordain or marry homosexuals.

    Neither of my opponents are pledging to protect the church body.

    There’s legislation that would make Delaware the global hub of embryonic stem cell research.

    This expands our state’s abortion tolerance and opens the door to human cloning in our backyards.

    My opponent also wants to surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations.

    The Washington Post once described Christians as poor, uneducated and easy to command when it comes to elections.

    By writing me in on November 7th the body of Christ would come together and reclaim the authority we are given in government.

    Delaware can elect a God-fearing U.S. Senator.

    Learn more…[snip]

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    “True liberty are conservative Republicans”

    The GOP was founded on a platform of imposing tariffs and expanding “public works.”

    The Republican Party gave America the Sherman AntiTrust Act, the FDA, the income tax, the Federal Reserve, the war on drugs.

    In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran for president on a platform of balancing the federal budget and cutting the size of the federal government by 25%. Once elected, however, he instead implemented and expanded Herbert Hoover’s REPUBLICAN platform, re-naming it “The New Deal.”

    The rhetoric of the occasional Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan is small potatoes compared to the GOP’s historical record in action: It always has been, and remains, the original American party of big government.

  26. Robert Capozzi

    pc, thanks for that transcript. Some of her defenders are saying, well, yes, she was a bit too zealous in her youth, but she’s an adult now.

    I get that. In my youth, I was lockstep with Rothbard, even on the fetuses are parasites issue, so I’m sympathetic. But, 2006 was only 4 years ago. The youthful zealotry defense doesn’t wash, particularly when we see that she was saying such over-the-top stuff in an ad.

    If she gets elected, I might just really buy that we’re in the end times! 😉

  27. JT

    Me: “Libertarianism isn’t about changing some people’s personal beliefs, even if they’re irrational, but about changing government policies. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball.”

    I should be more clear here. Libertarians should certainly aim to change the personal beliefs of some people about *government*. But their personal religious beliefs? I don’t care.

    Paulie, the language you posted from O’Donnell certainly isn’t what I like to hear. I bristle when I hear a candidate talk about the “body of Christ,” the need to “reclaim the authority [Christians] are given in government,” and the like.

    That said, forcing churches to marry gays isn’t libertarian, and I think her opposition to the United Nations is well-founded. And none of that has to do with her personal beliefs regarding evolution, global warming, or abstinence and masturbation, unless she wants to make opposing views on such things illegal.

    I personally don’t care if a politician believes in Bigfoot as long as he or she consistently acts to reduce the size and scope of government instead of expanding them (though I obviously don’t think talking about that is good political strategy).

  28. Be Rational

    “If she gets elected, I might just really buy that we’re in the end times! ” – RC

    This year it’s possible for her to win. This year she is actually electable and no one should count her out. Delaware has only 3 counties and one Congressional District. She has thousands of tea party backers. If the GOP funds her race and the tea party provides the troops for GOTV, she could pull this off. I wouldn’t vote for the Dem running against her.

    I expect the GOP to take back the house with a large margin. They should hit 49+ in the Senate.

  29. Darryl W. Perry

    Why doesn’t Root spend as much time supporting the LP candidates as he does the “TEA Party” anti-RINO candidates?
    Not once does he mention Delaware LP Senate candidate Jim Rash… or any other LP candidate why???

  30. AroundtheblockAFT

    #37: the local tea party is having trouble turning out volunteers to stuff envelopes let alone go door to door or GOTV. At the end of the day, tea party activism may consist of climbing on a bus to go to a rally or write a check but not much else.

  31. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT,

    You write:

    “forcing churches to marry gays isn’t libertarian”

    That’s true.

    So is forbidding churches to marry gays.

    In Missouri, clergy who solemnize same-sex marriages face jail time.

    I’ve never heard anyone who supports ending marriage apartheid propose forcing churches to marry gays.

    The only people who talk about churches being forced to marry gays are those who are willing to lie their asses off in order to convince people to maintain marriage apartheid.

  32. George Phillies

    @36 JT while out the conservative talking point “And none of that has to do with her personal beliefs regarding evolution, global warming…”

    The issue is that people who are out of touch with reality on issues such as global warming or the age of the earth, or who weight the evidence in such a bizarre way as to come to their conclusions, are

    OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY

    and therefore completely untrustworthy.

    They’ve established that, given the same evidence that everyone else can access, they have the habit of reaching strange conclusions once and again, and therefore, when they must once again make some other decision, they will probably do something completely irrational and possibly dangerous.

  33. Robert Capozzi

    jt: I personally don’t care if a politician believes in Bigfoot as long as he or she consistently acts to reduce the size and scope of government instead of expanding them …

    me: Me too. If a candidate made Bigfoot’s existence a major campaign theme, I’d question his or her judgment. Similarly, making explicitly religious themes in the manner O’Donnell did 4 short years ago were inappropriate and makes me question her judgment. Someone who bases his or her campaign on his or her metaphysical and spiritual views is exercising poor judgment. Having them, practicing them, occasionally mentioning a religious theme is fine with me.

    A paranoid schizophrenic might be 100% L (if there were such a thing), but I wouldn’t want him or her to run for office as a L, and I wouldn’t want them to win.

    Judgment and behavior matter a lot in politics, possibly as much as policy positions. It’s show biz, after all.

  34. JT

    I agree, Thomas. I was responding only to what O’Donnell said about lawsuits against churches, whether or not that’s actually baseless rhetoric. However, I don’t agree with her (and the majority of Americans over age 30) that same-sex marriage should be illegal.

    Regardless, her own convictions about evolution, global warming, homosexuality, masturbation, or American Idol don’t matter to me unless she’s trying to foist her views on others through the force of law.

    Libertarianism doesn’t reject (or accept) religious views; it only rejects violations of individual rights. I want politicians in this country to significantly reduce the size and scope of governments, not necessarily to read Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins.

  35. NewFederalist

    #38- THAT is a very good question. Perhaps he will grace us with an answer right here at this forum.

  36. JT

    George, are you saying that elected officials who dispute scientific conclusions can’t act to reduce the size and scope of governments in this country? I don’t think someone’s denial of evolution means that he or she can’t fight for less government intervention across the board. And that’s all I want elected officials to do.

  37. George Phillies

    As a practical matter, the bulk of the people who deny evolution, and promise to reduce the scope of government, are $&*()^%&*()_$ Republicans, and I *know* they can be trusted to do everything they can to INCREASE the )*(&^(*& size of the government. Furthermore, people who have such trouble seeing our world may face challenges with obscure concepts like ‘reduce’ and ‘increase’ and get them backwards.

    I agree that there may be some politicians who think the earth is getting colder, and who might actually try to shrink government, but in modern America ‘disbelieves evolution’ ‘disbelieves global warming’ are good ways to test if someone is a Republican, a person who can be trusted to bloat government. It’s not perfect, but it’s where the smart money is.

    That includes the folks who want to adjust the 14th Amendment so that states can take away your right to smoke, a woman’s right to choose, a religious person’s right to pray, and an African-American’s right to vote.

  38. volvoice

    JT your keyword here is “across the board”…what we have here is a strict social conservatives gaining power…in the end these TEA Party guys are a dangerous lot to our civil liberties. Even beyond that they will fly high the banner of “fiscal conservative” until it comes time to vote for war funding. I mean really…if you vote for millions of dollars in taxpayer money in order to occupy foreign countries can you really call yourself fiscally conservative? So in reality they are the worst of both worlds as far as I am concerned.

  39. Darryl W. Perry

    I’m just glad the cavemen had SUV’s otherwise they never would have gotten out of that horrible ice age… must be why they like GEICO!

    #George, isn’t it possible that “global warming”/”climate change” is cyclical and related to solar flares?

  40. Bryan

    It is INCREDIBLE how so many so-called Libertarians are still in full, and growing, support of the tea-baggers. They are embracing the absolute worst social stances found in the gop…They are taking “social conservative” beyond the wing-nut category…

    Makes me wanna’ puke…and if I see the Palin look-alike on the news again…within the next 15 min…I’m gonna PUKE

  41. Bryan

    Well, that didn’t take long…I guess it’s good to purge the system once in a while….Is she paying for all this air time???

  42. George Phillies

    @49

    We can measure the brightness of the sun by pointing scientific instruments at it. We have been doing so for decades. At the present time, we are at a sunspot minimum, which happens every eleven give or take years, and as a result the sun is a bit dimmer than average, as happens every eleven or so years.

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

    CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer – 20 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON – With just six weeks to avoid a possible election catastrophe, Democrats are trying to limit the damage with a closing argument that’s more plea than platform:

    We know you voters are furious with us, but just let us explain why the Republicans would be worse ……… as a chance to slap the Washington establishment that the public seems to dislike so deeply.

    Democrats admit the Republicans have a big emotional advantage with voters who are fed up with high unemployment, soaring deficits and what many see as an arrogant Congress and administration that rammed a revolutionary health care plan down their throats.

    If voters keep burning with the throw-the-bums-out fever that animated so many primaries, Democrats would be likely to lose more than 40 House seats

    ………. costing them the majority and positioning Republicans to block virtually any Obama initiatives in the next two years

  44. Jose C.

    I’ve never heard anyone who supports ending marriage apartheid propose forcing churches to marry gays.

    The [New Jersey] state Division on Civil Rights ruled Sunday a lesbian couple can move forward with a discrimination complaint against Ocean Grove [Camp Meeting Association] for refusing to let them use an oceanfront pavilion for a civil union.

    Since the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association [it is a church and it is the church’s property] regularly offered the pavilion to the broader public, it was bound by the state Law Against Discrimination from barring civil unions, division director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo ruled. Because its action was voluntary, he added, use of the discrimination statute does not impair the association’s “free exercise of religion.”

  45. Michael H. Wilson

    Whether or not man caused global warming is true Libertarians can offer a couple of ideas that might help mitigate the problem.

    First bring home the military. The U.S. military is one of the world’s largest consumers of fossil fuels. By reducing or military’s overseas commitments we can reduce the use of oil products.

    Secondly open up the urban transit market. Low income workers often have no other choice than to own a car that they have difficulty maintaining because the local government have made alternative transit such a jitney, ride sharing cabs and private bus companies difficult if not impossible to own and operate in many cities. Open the market and allowing private alternatives to develop will offer low income people an alternative to the cars that now consume a lot of household income and often are poorly maintained and some of the most polluting. Simply give people a choice and you’ll give them a chance.

  46. Michael H. Wilson

    Thanks Derek. I’ve been using a variation of that for years. ”

    Without a choice some won’t have a chance”. How’s that? Use it as you wish.

  47. JT

    So your argument, George, is that people who don’t accept global warming and evolution are typically Republicans, elected Republicans have increased government, therefore the people who don’t accept global warming and evolution will increase government if elected. This isn’t a valid argument. Also, (you might want to take a deep breath before reading this one) I’m sure there are Libertarians don’t accept global warming and evolution but would be committed to reducing government in both the economic sphere and social sphere if elected.

    volvoice: “JT your keyword here is “across the board”…what we have here is a strict social conservatives gaining power…in the end these TEA Party guys are a dangerous lot to our civil liberties.”

    Well, I didn’t say anything about the “Tea Party guys” except that they’re generally being taken seriously, which they are. My subsequent point was essentially that I’d take a politician who consistently works to cut government (a rare phenomenon) whatever his or her personal convictions are unrelated to the law. George, a scientist, evidently thinks certain views on global warming, evolution, and other scientific issues automatically make that person unacceptable as an elected official regardless.

  48. Starchild

    @18-19 – Second that. Any time Libertarians hear Wayne Allyn Root using “RINO” in a derogatory context, they should ask him, “So Wayne, what’s so wonderful about the Republican Party that you think being a ‘Republican-In-Name-Only’ is a bad thing?”

    If there’s anyone here who still supports this guy in his quest to lead the Libertarian Party, I’m curious to hear your rationale for continuing to do so.

    It’s one thing to appreciate the pro-freedom aspects of the Tea Party movement — Brian and George’s wholly negative characterizations of that movement are about as removed from reality as is Wayne’s implication that the Republican Party has traditionally stood for liberty.

    But to talk up the Tea Party as if it’s the libertarian revolution we’ve been waiting for, without acknowledging the anti-freedom qualities of nationalism and xenophobia that are also sadly rampant among Tea Partiers, is unfortunately characteristic of Root. He has never really stopped sounding like a Republican, and I for one have zero confidence that he would choose libertarianism over conservatism, if he needed to choose between the two and conservatism looked to him like it offered a greater chance of “winning”. I think he would sell the Libertarian Party and its philosophy out in a heartbeat.

  49. Robert Capozzi

    jt: So your argument, George, is that people who don’t accept global warming and evolution are typically Republicans, elected Republicans have increased government, therefore the people who don’t accept global warming and evolution will increase government if elected. This isn’t a valid argument.

    me: Agree. Phillies is probably correct that there’s a high probability that GW deniers and creationists are Rs. It’s true that Rs (and Ds) increase government. It’s not true that ALL Rs intent is to increase government, although it’s probably true that virtually all Rs might want to increase some aspect of government.

    (As process issues like same-gender marriage illustrates, some Ls could be viewed as wanting to “increase” some aspect of government, too.)

    Near as I can tell, the “scientific community” likes to think that it’s “objective” and that those who do not defer to the scientific community’s current consensus are somehow lacking intellect and judgment. I hear that, however, when we look at the scientific community’s penchant for reversing itself, it seems prudent to be skeptical of science and the “God” of “the scientific method.” It seems an arrogant stance when the track record is examined.

    Science does some very useful stuff. It’s methodology seems to work a lot of the time. When scientists get dogmatic about their scientific method, however, they seem to make the same mistake that dogmatic metaphysicians make.

    Hmm, could be that the epistemologically minded get a bit dogmatic about our skepticism about everything, too, but at least we’re skeptical about our skepticism! 😉

  50. Starchild

    George @41,

    Growing numbers of people are skeptical of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, and plenty of them can be found in the Libertarian Party, myself among them.

    I notice that you only refer to people not believing in “global warming”, rather than to people not believing that humans are the main cause of it. I hope this was just shorthand or an oversight on your part, and not an example of the disingenuousness so frequently found in AGW supporters in the media who have tried to make it believers in natural climate change as the main cause of warming sound like nuts by implying that they deny the earth has gotten warmer at all.

    If you have a good explanation for why the earth cooled during a good part of the 20th century when according to AGW theory it should have been getting warmer, and why temperatures have been relatively flat for most of the past decade, when again according to AGW theory the temperatures should be rising as a result of increasing amounts of “greenhouse gases” being released by humans into the atmosphere, I’d love to hear it.

  51. Robert Capozzi

    sc: [Root] has never really stopped sounding like a Republican, and I for one have zero confidence that he would choose libertarianism over conservatism, if he needed to choose between the two and conservatism looked to him like it offered a greater chance of “winning”. I think he would sell the Libertarian Party and its philosophy out in a heartbeat.

    me: I’m not a mind reader, but if what you say is true, why hasn’t Root gone back to the Rs already? From a career and win-ability standpoint, staying in the LP seems an odd choice.

    There is no such thing as “conservatism” or “L-ism” or “liberalism”. It seems obvious that there are many strains of political philosophies, yes?

    Rooting for the TP seems like a reasonably solid stance for a L to take. The TP appears to be a network with no one leader and no one overarching political theme or philosophy. It is probably fertile ground for the LP to recruit from.

    I might be inclined to reach out to the RINOs and independents. If they are R in name only, perhaps they are more prone to another affiliation. My sense is they’d be less inclined to drag along social- and neo-con baggage.

  52. Thomas M. Sipos

    “if what you say is true, why hasn’t Root gone back to the Rs already? From a career and win-ability standpoint, staying in the LP seems an odd choice.”

    I’m so tired of repeatedly answering this question. I’ve answered this question a whole lot of times, not just a few times.

    Here it is again (though my answer probably won’t register with any Root fans):

    There are many Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter wannabes out there. Many Fox News pundit wannabes.

    There was nothing special about Root, despite his have written Millionaire Republican. Just another neocon windbag.

    Root had to do something to stand apart from the crowd of wannabes on the D-list.

    No way Root would be considered as the GOP presidential candidate, or even a Senate candidate. But the LP is a small pond. Securing its presidential nomination would grant him instant “political creds.” Not as great as a GOP nomination, but that wasn’t gonna happen. So Root went for the LP creds.

    Without those LP creds, he’d still be perceived as an infomercial huckster. An infomercial huckster with political opinions, but no more than that.

    With official LP creds under his belt (on the ballot in nearly 50 states, on what is arguably America’s largest third party), Root could leverage that into a book deal, media appearances, and build up his career.

    I’ve been saying this for over 3 years, since the 2007 LPC convention.

    And Root followed my predictions to the letter.

    In 2007 I saw how Root was planning to use the LP. Anyone could, if they were watching. If people claim they don’t see it now, they’re lying or in denial.

    As for “why doesn’t he go back to the GOP”? I’ve answered that question many times too.

    Root will try to appeal to every customer base so long as he can. LP, Tea Party, GOP. Why displease any customer base until and unless he has to?

    But don’t worry. If and when he has to decide who to offend, he’ll offend the smaller group.

    Evidence? Libertarians overwhelmingly support the property rights and religious freedom of the Muslims who want to build the cultural center near Ground Zero.

    Yet Root kicked sand in Libertarians faces, siding with the Tea Party bigots, because “that’s where the money is.”

    Root will keep the best of both worlds so long as he can, but he’ll drop the LP if it ever hinders his appeal to the larger customer base.

  53. Robert Capozzi

    ts, we could check the record, but I seem to recall that Root came out very quickly on the “Ground Zero Mosque,” ahead of most Ls. I doubt he viewed it as a sand kicking, but rather as his opinion, which is reflexively still in a hybrid kinda place. I double doubt that he doesn’t believe his position, though it is of course possible that he simply pandering. And while my view of CH was probably in the center of L opinion, I certainly didn’t feel Root kicked sand in my face. Perennial victims might, though.

    (Some Ls might well agree that of course CH should not be prohibited, but that it’s bad form, all things considered.)

    My recollection is the “that’s where the money is” was NOT in reference to Cordoba House, yes? You’re conflating issues. Root’s marketing position is that small business people and the right are the greenist fields for support for the L cause. I don’t quite agree, but that’s not an unreasonable view.

    You may be correct that the Rs wouldn’t have him, but some of the primary winners for Senate seats are pretty fringey, arguably fringier than Root.

    Or, we might believe that Root is the devil. 😉 Or a R plant, out to ruin the LP through misdirection…a Trojan Horse, sent to foil all 15K of us. Any theories along these lines, TS?

  54. Thomas M. Sipos

    “I seem to recall that Root came out very quickly on the ‘Ground Zero Mosque,’ ahead of most Ls.”

    That’s irrelevant to my point. Surely by now Root knows that property rights and religious freedom are the libertarian positions. (Big L and small l) on such an issue. Yet knowing this, Root disregarded it.

    Or is Root “still learning,” as some of his apologists occasionally claim?

    Odd, that a “leader” should still be learning the fundamentals.

    “I double doubt that he doesn’t believe his position, though it is of course possible that he simply pandering.”

    I agree there’s genuine Islamophobia mixed in with Root’s opportunism, but he’d suppress his Islamophobia if he thought it was bad for his career.

    “My recollection is the ‘that’s where the money is’ was NOT in reference to Cordoba House”

    I never said it was.

    Nevertheless, that Root phrase summarizes much of his worldview. It’s the view that informs his opinions, and guides his actions, on many matters.

    It’s valid to evoke that quote in other contexts, because it’s one of those quotes that defines the speaker.

    “That’s where the money is,” defines Root, much like “I am not a crook,” defines Nixon, and “It all depends on what the meaning of is is defines Clinton.

  55. JT

    Starchild @ 62: I totally agree. Well said.

    Robert: “There is no such thing as “conservatism” or “L-ism” or “liberalism”.”

    If these concepts didn’t refer to particular things, then they’d be useless and the words would have no meaning. The fact that you’re using them and expecting people to understand you at all proves they do.

  56. Hmmm ...

    TMS @ 64,

    I’d have to say that I agree with most of your assessment of Root. He is a huckster and looking out for himself, using the LP to make a buck and promote his career.

    However, the jist of what Bob Capozzi seems to be saying, that Root actually believes in what he is promoting, also seems to be true.

    Root fits in the LP so he is promoting it and himself – himself more. But, he’s not a “pure” libertarian, and he’d fit just fine in the Republican Party as well these days.

    The R and D parties are big tent parties, after all. Most LPers would “fit” in those parties somewhere – since, by design, everyone fits in those parties somewhere.

    The Democrats have everyone from KKK, Black panthers, socialists, fascists, feminists, greenies, and larouchies, to workers, housewives, bankers, businessmen and bureaucrats … and the Rs have many of the same groups and a large number of other wacko fringe hangers on.

    If the LP is going to win, if libertarian ideas are going to garner enough support and influence to change the direction of our government, then we need to reach out to everyone and anyone in the libertarian quadrant – even the unpure l’s. We need to make a bigger tent. Of course, we need to do that while maintaining our overall principles. We need to try to pull everyone into a more pure position, once we find them within the L quadrant. We need to encourage and support such growth and not attack our allies so vociferously. A private letter of concern to a public figure like Wayne Root might go farther than a public condemnation.

    We need more and more members and supporters. We need the Roots, Barrs and Gravels as well. We need to encourage them to join us and to help them to become 99.98% pure, For a New Liberty, Rothbard libertarians – or at least join us all in the almost pure perfect political position part of the L quadrant that you and I and RC and the rest of our purity police have found.

  57. Robert Capozzi

    tms, beg your pardon, but you did say THIS:

    64: “Yet Root kicked sand in Libertarians faces, siding with the Tea Party bigots, because “that’s where the money is.””

    As for your statement: “Surely by now Root knows that property rights and religious freedom are the libertarian positions.”

    Has Root said that the government should stop CH and that exceptions should be made re: the developer’s property and church rights should be trampled? Or has he said that CH is a bad idea under the circumstances?

    The former is indefensible. The latter, understandable, though not my view.

    If you are so tuned into Root’s real motives, can you be more explicit? Is he a R mole? Is he just interested in making a buck while promoting his particular philosophy? Or does he not even believe what he’s saying?

  58. Robert Capozzi

    jt: If these concepts didn’t refer to particular things, then they’d be useless and the words would have no meaning.

    me: Hmm, there’s cobalt blue, powder blue, royal blue, navy, etc., etc. Some conservatives are pro death penalty, some aren’t. Some liberals are free traders, others aren’t. Some Ls think the “moral” thing is to auction off all the courthouses as soon as practicable as part of a grand strategy to abolish the State, some Ls don’t.

    Philosophies are not relatively precise things like numbers or letters. They come in many, many shades. The world might be simpler if philosophies WERE that precise, but I submit that ain’t the case.

  59. JT

    Robert, I don’t want to continue with this much longer, but the idea that concepts have particular meanings doesn’t mean there aren’t different types of the same thing. It does mean that “thing” still exists and is what it is.

    You say, “there’s cobalt blue, powder blue, royal blue, navy, etc., etc.” There are in fact different shades of blue, but the word “blue” still has a particular meaning: the color evoked from light with a wavelength between 440 and 490 nm. The concept “blue” does exist.

    Similarly, the fact that there are are pro-choice (i.e., legal abortion) libertarians and pro-life (i.e., illegal abortion) libertarians, for example, doesn’t mean that the concept “libertarianism” doesn’t exist. Those differences are a matter of application of the essence of libertarianism: a recognition of individual rights and the corollary principle of non-aggression (which is the same as not violating individual rights). Both types of libertarians approach the issue from that viewpoint, although they come to different conclusions.

    By contrast, there can’t be pro-drug-prohibition libertarians. Such a position isn’t a matter of a different application of individual rights and non-aggression; it’s a contradiction of them.

    Of course, a libertarian may say that pot should be legalized first, or a libertarian might say drug prohibition should be ended immediately. That’s an issue of strategy to achieve a common goal and not a contradiction of the essential characteristic of “libertarianism.”

    I’m all for growing the LP by not insisting that everyone in the party agree on every point, as well as encouraging Libertarian candidates to just focus on those issues that will most likely resonate with the voters in their district or state. That doesn’t mean I agree that libertarianism itself doesn’t exist.

  60. Robert Capozzi

    jt: The concept “blue” does exist….That doesn’t mean I agree that libertarianism itself doesn’t exist.

    me: JT, it may “exist” for you, but blue and L-ism are concepts that most obviously don’t exist. Blue, at least, may well be measurable. A political philosophy is completely amorphous and non-measurable. It has no tangible substance.

    I agree that a political philosophy requires some amount of agreement of opinion to be actionable and useful. As a longtime L, I generally agree with other Ls, but I don’t agree and don’t base my political opinions on the NAP, because I don’t find it useful in politics or political discourse. I respect that others DO find it useful. I don’t, however, feel the love when others tell me that it’s imperative that I and others must adhere to the NAP if we wish to call ourselves L.

    I do wish you luck in your search for epistemological certitude, but I frankly don’t like your chances. Thought and perception reside in the mind, which continues to evade quantitative measurement.

  61. JT

    Robert: “A political philosophy is completely amorphous and non-measurable. It has no tangible substance.”

    Of course it doesn’t have a “tangible substance”; it’s not a physical entity. It doesn’t exist in the sense that you can touch it or smell it; it exists in the sense that it’s a concept symbolized by a word that’s formed from other concepts ultimately based on facts of existence. The concept “libertarianism” is much higher up the conceptual ladder than the concept “blue,” which refers to a visible color, but that doesn’t make it divorced from existence and undefinable.

    Robert: “I don’t, however, feel the love when others tell me that it’s imperative that I and others must adhere to the NAP if we wish to call ourselves L.”

    I’m sorry if you don’t feel loved. I’ve already addressed how people can be gradualists and libertarians (as well as Libertarians, obviously). LibertarianISM, however, isn’t the same thing.

    Robert: “I agree that a political philosophy requires some amount of agreement of opinion to be actionable and useful.”

    I don’t know how you’re going to come to some agreement of opinion if you deny there’s any conceptual place from which to agree to some extent.

    Robert: “I do wish you luck in your search for epistemological certitude, but I frankly don’t like your chances.”

    I’m not searching, Robert, so I really don’t need luck (nor care if you like my “chances” of anything, lol). I believe I’ve proved the case already, even if you don’t want to see it.

  62. Bryan

    I can’t believe the incredible amount of BULLSHIT that is being thrown around this comment section.

    What is. What is not. A Libertarian.

    If you are opposed to abortion, but do not think the state should be the deciding factor…you might be a Libertarian.

    If you support the right to choice in abortion…you might be a Libertarian.

    If you feel that our military misadventures should be stopped and the military budget cut by at least 50%…you might be a Libertarian.

    If you feel that we have made commitments, or that there are reasons to be involved…moderately…in foreign military/police affairs…you might be a Libertarian.

    If you feel that the “tea parties” and their “candidates” have gone totally insane, and far over the edge to the right, or that limbaugh, beck, palin, and the gang are right wing nuts…You Are a Libertarian.

  63. Michael H. Wilson

    Here’s on fer ya Bryan. Anyone who does not understand and accept Jury Nullification is not a libertarian.

    Does that help fill out your Bingo Card?

  64. Thomas M. Sipos

    Robert: “Has Root said that the government should stop CH and that exceptions should be made re: the developer’s property and church rights should be trampled? Or has he said that CH is a bad idea under the circumstances?”

    Neither, but something in between. He didn’t say govt should stop it — but neither did he merely worry that it was a “bad idea” i.e., a mistake. He suggested that it was morally outrageous to build CH. That’s bigoted, and at the very least, is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of libertarianism.

    “If you are so tuned into Root’s real motives, can you be more explicit?”

    I was clear and specific in this and previous posts. I don’t see how anyone could be more explicit.

    It seems that you’re being intentionally obtuse. No one can explain anything to someone who refuses to understand.

  65. Bryan

    Oh…I was careful not to say anyone wasn’t a Libertarian…

    It’s just that more, and more often, I feel like an “outsider” at L meetings. The tea-bagger movement has lost me with their socially conservative views. I still place social/personal liberty on the same plane that I rate economic issues, which puts me at odds with others.

    And the last last time I played Bingo, I won 3 times on the same day!

  66. Thomas M. Sipos

    Bryan: “If you feel that we have made commitments, or that there are reasons to be involved…moderately…in foreign military/police affairs…you might be a Libertarian.”

    Interesting choice of words.

    What if someone believes that “we have made commitments” (whatever that means) to pay for people’s health care, education, nutrition, subsidies to their businesses, access to public art, etc.

    Might such a person be a libertarian?

    I have several times over the past few years heard libertarians argue that “we have made commitments” to foreign nations and “allies,” and that it somehow justifies continuing our foreign aid and military presence.

    Yet I never hear these libertarians argue that we’ve “made a commitment” to all the myriad entitlement programs that have passed into law.

  67. Starchild

    “Hmm” @70 writes,

    If the LP is going to win, if libertarian ideas are going to garner enough support and influence to change the direction of our government, then we need to reach out to everyone and anyone in the libertarian quadrant ? even the unpure l?s. We need to make a bigger tent. Of course, we need to do that while maintaining our overall principles.

    This is indeed an important challenge. Brian Holtz has proposed a system under which LP candidates and leaders would meet a certain standard:

    “I would count you as libertarian if 1) you score at least 130 on my test below, and 2) any major deviations (e.g. on the franchise schisms of abortion, immigration, libervention) come with a serious argument for why you think the policy would minimize the net incidence of aggression. LP candidates and leaders should score at least a 160, and ideally a 200…”
    -Brian Holtz (https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/brian-holtz-lnc-chair-candidate-hancock-on-baldwin/comment-page-1/#comment-188915)

    In other words, let more people into the party as voters, donors, and activists, perhaps even as “members”, so long as “member” is defined so as not to include voting on bylaws, platform, officer elections, or otherwise setting party policy or representing the party to the public.

    An approach along these lines seems to offer the best answer to the dilemma of how to have a “big tent” party without abandoning our philosophy.

    I think Brian is right to focus on the question of aggression (this is the heart of libertarianism).
    But instead of saying people “are” or “are not” libertarians, I think we should focus on which *positions* are or are not libertarian. That way it becomes less of a personal issue, and people are less likely to get defensive.

    I recognize that my own views are *not* 100% libertarian all the time! For instance, I have come to believe that organizations should be required to split into multiple parts when they reach a certain size, because organizations that grow too large, whether they call themselves governments or not, tend to develop authoritarian characteristics.

    But while I believe a well-designed law requiring such breakups would be a positive for freedom, I cannot philosophically justify it under the Non-Aggression Principle, and so I do not think the LP should take such a position. The Libertarian Party, in my view, should stand for 100% libertarianism (i.e. non-aggression), all the time.

    Given the well-known historical tendency of political parties, and their candidates and elected officials to become less libertarian the more power they achieve, we should *expect* this and *plan for it*. Anyone whose views are even *moderately* pro-freedom should be glad to belong to a political party that upholds much more radically pro-freedom views, because either a party will abandon those views as it achieves power, or the person can quit the party and go elsewhere if he or she sees society becoming (as he/she sees it) too libertarian.

    In the meantime, moderates could have confidence that the party would keep pushing for more freedom without selling out. Personally I would be *delighted* to belong to a Libertarian Party which had such strict requirements to vote on internal party matters or represent the party as a candidate, that I myself did not qualify!

    I could happily go out and work hard as an activist for such a Libertarian Party without getting involved in party politics, secure in the knowledge that the LP was in principled hands, and would not betray libertarianism.

    Ideally, perhaps, people might receive decision-making power in the LP proportional to how libertarian their views are, rather than there being an arbitrary cut-off point. But that would be a complicated system to maintain. In the absence of such a system, I think Libertarians would do well to adopt an ideological test (Brian’s looks pretty good, imho) and limit voting membership and leadership in the party to
    the highest minimum score that seems likely to result in a sufficient number of people qualifying to run the organization.

    Then the rest of us could focus primarily on activism, outreach, and so on, in a big tent party, without jeopardizing the LP’s commitment to libertarianism.

  68. Tom Blanton

    Where the hell is Brian Holtz? He needs to explain how Christine O’Donnell is a libertarian and prove it by taking his own Nolan test for her – the same way he proved that Glenn Beck is a libertarian.

    But we don’t even need Holtz to prove the Tea Parties are true libertarians. If news reports are accurate, the Kochtopus is helping them out with cash and, as we all know, the Koch boys are true libertarians. The fact that they are among the largest GOP contributors in history proves they are libertarians. Right?

    All Wealth Master millionaire Republicans are libertarians, even if they are only pretending to be millionaires. This includes Wayne Root, damn it.

    Big government would be great if only all the Marxists and RINOs were gone and good men like Wayne Root controlled the levers of power. You know, God, gambling, guns, tax cuts, and all that shit.

    So, salute, click your heels, pay your taxes, and shut the fuck up. We’re all libertarians now – except the Marxists. Enjoy your God-given right to claim to be a libertarian that American soldiers have fought and died for in the war against Islamofascism.

  69. Bryan

    By commitments I was referring only to military/police. These activities should have a definite objective or time frame.

    No “war/police action” we have engaged in over the past 65+/- years have had a definite (legitimate) objective, therefore there should be a time frame.

    Our activities in Afghanistan will prove to be fruitless. No foreign invader has succeeded there, and in the long run, neither will we.

    Some argue we have made a commitment to restore order to Iraq and Afghanistan. As soon as they have elections…whether we like the outcome or not…our commitment is over. In the case of Iraq, they are “on the clock” till our ultimate pull-out. We must make the same demand of Afghanistan. After our withdrawal, i am hopeful that our “leadership” sees the futility of “nation building”, while allowing our nation to go to hell in a handbasket.

    Entitlement programs are a little different. SSI is something that has TAKEN our money… so, like it or not, it will have to be phased out, otherwise citizens will have had their money taken, and then stolen again by not having the product they thought they were buying.

    About 2 years ago, I suffered a medical problem which put me out of work for ~3 months…I had paid (out of my own pocket) a temp. disability policy and had very few financial problems. It will take time to get the rest of America to see this issue the same way as we (?) do.

  70. Robert Capozzi

    jt: I don’t know how you’re going to come to some agreement of opinion if you deny there’s any conceptual place from which to agree to some extent.

    me: Right, the “conceptual place” could easily be something like minimize coercion/maximize freedom. Why do we need a highfalutin and (IMO) dysfunctional guiding principle of the NAP? I could be of the view that MY guiding principle is “peace on Earth” and your guiding principle is the NAP and we’d BOTH be espousing a form of L-ism.

    Some have suggested that the Western mindset has been brainwashed/inculcated with a 10 Commandments approach. Very specific rules need to be set forth and rigorously followed.

    The Eastern mindset is brainwashed/inculcated by a Tao approach. Follow virtue/flow from “evil” might be a good shorthand for the “rules”. Very non-specific and individualized.

    Consider checking your premises back to the source. You might be delighted to find that your “case” has not only NOT been proven, but CAN’T be proven.

    OR maybe watch INCEPTION or THE MATRIX if you need some help understanding.

  71. Robert Capozzi

    tms: Yet I never hear these libertarians argue that we’ve “made a commitment” to all the myriad entitlement programs that have passed into law.

    me: I agree, the foreign and domestic “commitments” are not set in stone. Treaties are revised and broken. Entitlements are changed and amended, though rarely abolished, even gradually.

    This is one of the many reasons why I don’t believe the abolitionist approach is a sound one. Like it or not, my observation is that most people believe that a “commitment” of a sort has been made to other nations and to the less-well-to-do. Advocating abolishing both “commitments” more often than not backfires — rather than persuading, it repels.

  72. Robert Capozzi

    bryan: No “war/police action” we have engaged in over the past 65+/- years have had a definite (legitimate) objective, therefore there should be a time frame. Our activities in Afghanistan will prove to be fruitless. No foreign invader has succeeded there, and in the long run, neither will we.

    me: Hmm, if there is NO legit objective, then why engage in the military action at all?

    I can’t say I agree that the initial stated objective was no legitimate. Rooting out a non-State terror organization that claimed credit for 9/11 sounds legitimate to me. We can talk about Lincoln Brigades or LM&R, but commandeering airliners and flying them into key US facilities required a response, IMO.

    Nation-building, OTOH, especially in a place like Afghanistan, seems awfully arrogant, I agree.

  73. George Phillies

    @61

    “are typically Republicans” Well, no, they are more or less all Republicans, and not the very bright ones either.

    @62 Serious support for the natural cycle interpretation is much like support for the no warming interpretation, namely it has faded and vanished.

    @62 If you have a good explanation for why…

    “http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/global.pdf

    Let me give you explanations

    1) Questions are what you get from people who have no understanding of the advancement of science, namely if you want to make a claim you actually have facts that make a case and you make a case.

    2) You are a useful idiot repeating the factons — not real facts — that other people made up for you.

    Explanation #1) The earth did not grow cooler for most of the 20th century.

    Explanation #2) The most recent decade — ten year average — was considerably warmer than the prior decade — ten year average.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/global.pdf

    The red line is the five year average. The temperatures near 1900 are gone after the 1920s. The temperature for the last decade — middle of the 2000s bar — are well above the temperatures for the 1990s — middle of teh 1990s bar.

  74. Robert Capozzi

    GP: …they are more or less all Republicans, and not the very bright ones either.

    me: What is it with your tendency to weigh in on other people’s “brightness” or lack thereof?

    It’s pretty widely known in L circles that you narced to the FEC on your own party. I’d be surprised if most Ls (and the human league generally) would consider that to be an “unbright” act.

    It seems bright to me that one first learn not to throw stones when one lives in a glass house. Spewing bad karma has a very high probability of boomeranging…or haven’t you noticed?

  75. Robert Capozzi

    fixing:

    I’d be surprised if most Ls (and the human league generally) would consider that to be a “bright” move. Serious odds in favor of assessing that one to be UNbright, especially coming from someone who wanted to Chair the party! Mind-boggling, actually.

  76. Robert Capozzi

    tk, yep, it could well be bright to narc to the FEC, then run for Chair, and then credibly judge the brightness or lack thereof of others.

    I may stand alone in not seeing this. And I’m OK with that, since I know I have no monopoly claim on truth.

  77. Thomas M. Sipos

    Robert: “most people believe that a “commitment” of a sort has been made to other nations and to the less-well-to-do. Advocating abolishing both “commitments” more often than not backfires — rather than persuading, it repels.”

    I’d think we can abolish all foreign aid “commitments” overnight. Polls show a large majority of Americans want to end all foreign aid.

    SSI and such are a harder case, and I’d support incrementalism there.

    But there’s no reason for incrementalism in foreign aid or foreign occupation. If we end all foreign aid overnight, our “allies” have only one moral option — to express gratitude for all the money we’ve already spent on them.

    BTW, when I say “foreign aid” I mean direct financial handouts. I do not mean installing our military bases in foreign nations.

    We do not “defend” nations in which we have bases. We occupy them. U.S. military bases are an extension of the American empire. Our bases in Germany and Romania are part of the supply line to Iraq.

    Foreign aid is when we give a nation money to buy their own weapons. Occupation is when our troops maintain control of those weapons.

    We do not pay for Germany’s or Japan’s or Saudi Arabia’s defense. If the U.S. withdrew its military bases, and let them “pay for their own defense” by buying any weapon system they wanted, I doubt they’d object.

    U.S. military bases are not a “commitment” or foreign aid, but imperial occupation. It’s important to distinguish between foreign aid and occupation, because Root and his supporters sometimes conflate the two, saying that “our wealthy allies in Europe and Japan should pay for their own defense.”

    Do they mean that we should withdraw all U.S. bases? Or that Europe and Japan (and the Arab oil states) should pay imperial tribute to our occupying forces? The latter, I suspect.

  78. Robert Capozzi

    tms: Polls show a large majority of Americans want to end all foreign aid.

    me: If this is true (I’ve not seen a poll saying that), it does illustrate a very large gap bet. the elites and the people. Since foreign aid’s a small percentage of federal spending, I don’t see it as a headline issue.

    ts: We do not “defend” nations in which we have bases. We occupy them. U.S. military bases are an extension of the American empire.

    me: I support Ls making closing overseas bases a headline issue, but to call it an “empire” is poor rhetoric and arguably false. If the US is “occupying” Germany and SK, I’d think the occupied would be making a bigger deal about the US presence in those places.

    This is the rhetoric that ensures that the LP remains on the fringe. Let’s not kid ourselves: if we want to STAY on the fringe, we should use such hysterical framing. If not, we should move toward more accurate, measured positioning.

    IMO.

  79. Michael H. Wilson

    re Sipos @ 91. I think you have a point however I don’t think most people have any idea what the costs are, in money term or otherwise, in keeping our troops overseas nor have any politicians spelled this out.

    The LP should be both demanding a withdrawal of the troops and an accounting of the costs.

  80. JT

    Robert, what’s with the obnoxious language? “I wish you luck in your search for expistemic certitude…you might be delighted to find that your case has not only NOT been proven, but CAN’T be proven…?” If you disagree, just say you do and why. Check the condescending nonsense at the door.

    Anyway, I’ve checked my premises as far back as one’s premises can go. They don’t go back to pure epistemic skepticism though.

    Robert: “OR maybe watch INCEPTION or THE MATRIX if you need some help understanding.”

    I’ve watched both movies more than once and loved them. I don’t get my philosophical convictions from them.

    George to me: ““are typically Republicans” Well, no, they are more or less all Republicans, and not the very bright ones either.”

    George, you’re really mincing words now. “Typically” vs. “almost all”? Either one doesn’t make your above argument valid.

    George: “Serious support for the natural cycle interpretation is much like support for the no warming interpretation, namely it has faded and vanished.”

    This just isn’t true. As just one example:
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4286

    Also, there are books regarding global warming that dispute your view (and its implications) that contain many scientific references. Just some the authors, prominent climatologists and scientists, include Roy Spencer, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, and Ralph Alexander.

  81. Darryl W. Perry

    @George, “support for {that} has faded and vanished”

    Does that mean that only things which are widely accepted are true?

    It could be argued that support for smaller government has faded. Support of nullification has faded.

    “Truth is true even if nobody believes it, falsehood is false even if everybody believes it.”
    C.S. Lewis

  82. George Phillies

    Support for natural climate change has faded and vanished, much like support for the flat earth theory. There are supporters left, but they are not meaningful.

    However, support for scientific models is based on objective standards of debate, more or less, as opposed to support for, e.g., support for the Divine Right of Kings, which is a fluctuation in taste.

    It is possible to look at the people who are actually professionaly active in the area. Of the top 50 climate researchers in the country — there are objective ways of assessing this — 49 support the model I am describing. Of the top 200 researchers, 196 support my position.

    With respect to Mr. Crapozzi’s defense of the Blue Wall of Silence, he is at least consistent in his defense of the core immoral argument protecting police brutality and racism.

  83. Darryl W. Perry

    What’s your opinion of the 30,000 Scientists that sued Al Gore for fraud?
    Or does the fact that Al Gore received the Nobel Prize, eliminate the fact that he manipulated data when making “Inconvenient Truth”?

  84. Michael H. Wilson

    May I butt into this discussion? I don’t know whether or not AGW is real but I don’t doubt that humans can have an impact. It has been suggested that the mass deaths of some many native Americans in the western hemisphere and the subsequent growth of the rain forest in area that were formerly populated resulted in a cooling of the atmosphere.

    Secondly we know little about what is beneath the ocean and volcanoes there could have a significant effect. I recall reading that the Western Pacific Ocean may have as many as 2000 volcanoes beneath the surface and volcanic action sure as hell could cause a change in the water temperature and then the atmosphere.

    Given those points why argue about it? Instead propose solution to help mitigate the human caused parts of the problem.

  85. Robert Capozzi

    jt: Check the condescending nonsense at the door.

    me: Sorry if it comes across that way. As one whose only certainty is UNcertainty, I’m always a bit surprised to encounter other life forms that claim a sense of certainty. I cite THE MATRIX and INCEPTION as helpful illustrations of a willingness to suspend judgment and question perceptions and concepts, especially complex ones like political beliefs. I find the application of such philosophical flexibility liberating, and I’ll cop to sometimes getting frustrated when others don’t share my enthusiasm for mindbending exercises. My bad. I’m a work in progress, as we all seem to be.

  86. Robert Capozzi

    gp: With respect to Mr. Crapozzi’s defense of the Blue Wall of Silence, he is at least consistent in his defense of the core immoral argument protecting police brutality and racism.

    me: Crapozzi? Wow, I’d not heard that since maybe 3rd grade! Oh, to be a child again. 😉

    I don’t recall defending any “Blue Wall,” police brutality or racism, so you’ve lost your readers with what I’m guessing is some sort of oblique and cryptic reference to something else.

  87. JT

    George: “It is possible to look at the people who are actually professionaly active in the area. Of the top 50 climate researchers in the country — there are objective ways of assessing this — 49 support the model I am describing. Of the top 200 researchers, 196 support my position.”

    Let’s just say this is true. How many “top economists” say that more government spending is good for the economy? Hint: a lot.

    It’s not a popularity game; it’s a science game.

  88. Thom S

    What a load of crap. When spokesmen for the LP start spouting pro-peasant, anti-intellectual populist crap, it means any chance to be a viable third party has been lost. Go join the Buchananite, Neo-Con Constitutional Party please.

  89. Starchild

    George @86,

    I said @62, “If you have a good explanation for why the earth cooled during a good part of the 20th century when according to AGW theory it should have been getting warmer, and why temperatures have been relatively flat for most of the past decade, when again according to AGW theory the temperatures should be rising as a result of increasing amounts of ‘greenhouse gases’ being released by humans into the atmosphere, I’d love to hear it.”

    In response, you provided a link to a graph of global temperatures during the 20th century. A casual reading of this graph appears to show that the earth did indeed get cooler for a period during the 20th century, or at the very least, the warming stopped and plateaued for a couple decades.

    Even if we say for the sake of argument that it was merely a temperature plateau and not a significant cooling, defenders of the anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming theory still need to explain why the warming was not *accelerating* during this period, given that humans were releasing growing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    You have not explained this. Instead, you assert that “The earth did not grow cooler for most of the 20th century”. That’s nice; I never said otherwise, and happen to agree with you!

    You also claim that “The most recent decade — ten year average — was considerably warmer than the prior decade — ten year average.” Again I do not disagree. The fact that the most recent decade has been warmer *on average* with the decade prior is not inconsistent with a reality in which the earth has stopped getting warmer!

    Even if global temperatures have been *dropping* for most of the past decade, your statement could still be true, so long as they have not been dropping as quickly as they rose during the prior decade!

    I’m sure that as a physics professor, your math is good enough to understand that. So please tell me why I shouldn’t conclude you are simply being disingenuous?

    According to the US National Climatic Data Center, the world grew *cooler* between 2002 and 2008 (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/23742380/Climategate-Scandal-Caught-Green-Handed)! The report at that link, by the way, reveals a host of other problems for defenders of AGW — I encourage those interested in the climate change question to read it.

    Anyway George, regarding the apparent global cooling from 2002-2008 (possibly since then as well; I have not seen that discussed), I would like to know whether you were (a) unaware of this, (b) think their data or the report referencing those data are wrong, or (c) simply don’t want to acknowledge it.

    If you think they are wrong, I’d like to hear what you think global temperatures have been doing since 2000, and why.

    This shouldn’t be so difficult for you, since you seem to think it’s all so obvious that I am a “useful idiot” for being skeptical of AGW.

    While you’re at it, perhaps you can provide some evidence in support of this statement you made @96: “Support for natural climate change has faded and vanished, much like support for the flat earth theory. There are supporters left, but they are not meaningful.”

    But your most outlandish statement in this thread has to be the what you said @86: “Questions are what you get from people who have no understanding of the advancement of science.”

    Quite the opposite — asking questions is *fundamental* to the advancement of science! A *failure to ask questions* is what you get from people who have no understanding of the advancement of science!

  90. Starchild

    “Hmm” @70 writes,

    If the LP is going to win, if libertarian ideas are going to garner enough support and influence to change the direction of our government, then we need to reach out to everyone and anyone in the libertarian quadrant ? even the unpure l?s. We need to make a bigger tent. Of course, we need to do that while maintaining our overall principles.

    This is indeed an important challenge. Brian Holtz has proposed a system under which LP candidates and leaders would meet a certain standard:

    “I would count you as libertarian if 1) you score at least 130 on my test below, and 2) any major deviations (e.g. on the franchise schisms of abortion, immigration, libervention) come with a serious argument for why you think the policy would minimize the net incidence of aggression. LP candidates and leaders should score at least a 160, and ideally a 200…”
    -Brian Holtz (https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/brian-holtz-lnc-chair-candidate-hancock-on-baldwin/comment-page-1/#comment-188915)

    In other words, let more people into the party as voters, donors, and activists, perhaps even as “members”, so long as “member” is defined so as not to include voting on bylaws, platform, officer elections, or otherwise setting party policy or representing the party to the public.

    An approach along these lines seems to offer the best answer to the dilemma of how to have a “big tent” party without abandoning our philosophy.

    I think Brian is right to focus on the question of aggression (this is the heart of libertarianism).
    But instead of saying people “are” or “are not” libertarians, I think we should focus on which *positions* are or are not libertarian. That way it becomes less of a personal issue, and people are less likely to get defensive.

    I recognize that my own views are *not* 100% libertarian all the time! For instance, I have come to believe that organizations should be required to split into multiple parts when they reach a certain size, because organizations that grow too large, whether they call themselves governments or not, tend to develop authoritarian characteristics.

    But while I believe a well-designed law requiring such breakups would be a positive for freedom, I cannot philosophically justify it under the Non-Aggression Principle, and so I do not think the LP should take such a position. The Libertarian Party, in my view, should stand for 100% libertarianism (i.e. non-aggression), all the time.

    Given the well-known historical tendency of political parties, and their candidates and elected officials to become less libertarian the more power they achieve, we should *expect* this and *plan for it*. Anyone whose views are even *moderately* pro-freedom should be glad to belong to a political party that upholds much more radically pro-freedom views, because either a party will abandon those views as it achieves power, or the person can quit the party and go elsewhere if he or she sees society becoming (as he/she sees it) too libertarian.

    In the meantime, moderates could have confidence that the party would keep pushing for more freedom without selling out. Personally I would be *delighted* to belong to a Libertarian Party which had such strict requirements to vote on internal party matters or represent the party as a candidate, that I myself did not qualify!

    I could happily go out and work hard as an activist for such a Libertarian Party without getting involved in party politics, secure in the knowledge that the LP was in principled hands, and would not betray libertarianism.

    Ideally, perhaps, people might receive decision-making power in the LP proportional to how libertarian their views are, rather than there being an arbitrary cut-off point. But that would be a complicated system to maintain. In the absence of such a system, I think Libertarians would do well to adopt an ideological test (Brian’s looks pretty good, imho) and limit voting membership and leadership in the party to
    the highest minimum score that seems likely to result in a sufficient number of people qualifying to run the organization.

    Then the rest of us could focus primarily on activism, outreach, and so on, in a big tent party, without jeopardizing the LP’s commitment to libertarianism.

  91. Robert Capozzi

    Interesting stuff. AGW could be so, but a healthy does of skepticism certainly seems in order. Scientists are people, and people have a limited capacity to perceive. Even “objective” computers and technology ultimately have to be perceived and interpreted.

    I’ve been a bit surprised that the AGW crowd rely near as I can tell on computer models, not actual replication, which is not possible. JT makes a great point about economists, who claim to be “scientists,” too.

    When a “scientist” says, in effect, “we’re the experts here, you cannot understand this, defer to us,” alarm bells should go off.

    Personally, I have no position on AGW. I do have a position on human-made pollution, which is that it should be minimized. I don’t believe we should rely on torts to remedy carcinogens being spewed into the commons, as some Ls suggest, because the rule of law has not evolved to enforce that. I am convinced that environmental hazards are sufficiently pronounced that waiting for the rule of law to evolve is not indicated.

    So, I’m for a green-tax shift. Shift taxes from capital, labor and savings toward penalizing polluting behavior.

  92. Witch One Is O'Donnell..Hint: Not The Brain

    Dan Farber from CBS News wrote,

    “With her past dabbling into witchcraft, and statements such as, ‘American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains,’ candidate O’Donnell will have to explain to the citizens of Delaware what’s behind her some of her more controversial ideas past and present. “

  93. JT

    Solid post @104, Starchild. I hope George responds, and with something other than a blatant appeal to popularity and the irrelevant statement that most people who disagree with AGW are Republicans.

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

    REgarding Thom S // Sep 19, 2010:

    What a load of crap. When spokesmen for Nightmare Nightingale crowd, Jim King, Lussenheide, Grundman and Nevada’s Quirkie Boy start spouting pro-peasant, anti-intellectual fake populist crap, it means any chance to be a viable third party has been lost.

    Go join the Buchananite, Neo-Con Constitutional Party (including Sinister Sister Bay , the 2000 $12.5 FEC thief, as the Tommy campaign director) please.

    Ballot access the California Constitution Party. More power to you! Just leave the new and improved California American Independent Party alone.

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

    * Search Results

    1. Automatic Gate Wholesalers | As a ……………. agw.net – Cached

    What does AGW stand for? AGW; Anti-Global Warming; Access Gate Way; AGW; Atmospheric Gravity Waves; AGW; Art Gallery of Windsor; Art Gallery of Windsor; alt.games.warbirds; …
    /acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ Agw; Actual gold weight; AGW specializes in gate openers; [or may be] Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming;

    Fact: we humans have pumped a lot of gunk into the air in the last 250 years and especially after WWII began!

    Supposition: Here on the twin of Hell Hole Venus [even hotter than Mercury!], a period of global warming (code phrase ‘Climate Change’) is well under way. Stop ALL hot house emissions immediately and it would take decades or even centuries to modify?

    Fact: there have been bitterly cold spells in the 20th Century!

    Supposition: the warm up has occurred during a Mini Ice Age. [and or, climate change overs are not smooth but very ragged, rugged transitions].

  96. George Phillies

    For those of you interested in what is actually going on I found some graphs. These are based on instrumental measurements, not computer simulations.

    This is actually a NOAA graph, but someone was kind enough to put it up:

    http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Decadal.gif

    The horizontal axis is year, from 1880 to almost the present. The vertical axis is the temperature relative to a particular date. The little crosses are the single-year averages. Notice how they jump up and down from year to year. There are 1-3 year events, such as La Nina and El Nino, which describe mixing of Pacific Ocean waters and effects on air temperature that do this.

    The brick-red areas are decade averages. Average over more years, and things smooth out.

    Starchild asks about cooling from the early 2000s to 2008. Look at the graph. 2008 was the coldest year on the past decade, so from 2002 to 2008 temperatures fell 0.2 C. However, from 2000 to 2009 temperatures went the other way, and by 50% more: +0.3C. Furthermore, using all 9 or ten years, not just two, every year in the last decade was warmer than the 1990s average, and every year in the 1990s was warmer than the 1980s average.

    When you have graphical data, and you hear someone — whoever write the item that Starchild read — say from date A to date B, that is a not-very-legitimate debating trick. It’s like watching the waves break on the beach, and saying that the tide is going in or out by pointing at a wavecrest here, and a wave trough there. The crest and trough are very different in height, but they don’t tell you about the tide–you need a tidemeter for that.

    Similarly, you can see the last century, cool up to WW1, a rapid rise into the 1940s, several decades of little change, and a much more rapid climb more recently.

    You can avoid some of the noise by looking at ocean temperatures, which are much less irregular. See this graph

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/ocean-heat-2000m.gif

    which is the upper ocean warming, fairly smoothly from 2003 to 2008.

    There is a huge amount of information out there.

    Are the predictions perfectly accurate? It si very difficult to predict polar ice melting accurately. Most computer models predict rather less melting than has actually taken place; the north polar cap is melting faster than expected. (On the other hand, the model predictions that global warming will spread out the sea ice around the south pole has turned out to be fairly accurate; Antarctic sea ice coverage during winter has increased.)

    And that is all I am going to spend on this.

  97. JT

    George, thanks for the graphs @ 114.

    The data clearly show that the Earth has warmed overall during the time period shown, and steadily as a decade-average from the 1970s to the present.

    There are two questions here that the graphs don’t answer: Is that warming caused by human activity? Is that warming bad for life on Earth?

    To the first question: Human-cause GW theorists don’t explain why the Earth wasn’t warming significantly or at all during several decades in the mid-century when more CO2 was being released. It’s up to those theorists to prove their assertion, and they haven’t.

    To the second question: Many scientists say that, regardless of the cause, a slightly warmer atmosphere and more CO2–and the change depicted is very slight historically–is quite beneficial to the Earth’s ecosystems. The notion that this warming trend is dangerous is totally unjustified.

    Finally, I’ll say that Libertarians should obviously be suspicious of any alleged catastrophe that supposedly requires more government authority (and damage to the U.S. economy) to remedy it. How many of the scientists who are human-cause GW theorists and environmental doomsayers are *not* proponents of more government power to fix the “problem”?

    That’s all the time I’m going to spend on this as well.

  98. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Human-cause GW theorists don’t explain why the Earth wasn’t warming significantly or at all during several decades in the mid-century when more CO2 was being released.”

    Actually, they offer two explanations.

    One is that there was a huge mid-century increase in both human-created and volcanic sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, creating a cooling effect despite the ongoing increase of CO2 as well.

    The other is a data/math argument — that the manner in which ocean temperatures were measured changed in 1945, leading to an apparent, but not actual, difference in observed temperatures.

    I’m not particularly interested in arguing about whether or not those two explanations merit acceptance, but they’re not new, novel or little-known.

  99. Robert Milnes

    Tom is challenged by data/math arguments. So we can’t expect much from him with that. Even when he is spoon fed the facts & figures.
    Fortunately with GW, the damage to Earth is acceptable & there is some time to do SOMETHING, government action or not.
    And with the election coming up in about 5 weeks, the damage to the candidates is catastrophic but expected so goes by unnoticed.

  100. Hmmm ...

    “Fortunately with GW, the damage to Earth is acceptable … the damage to the candidates is catastrophic but expected so goes by unnoticed.”

    -Milnes

    ****

    … so, it seems that GW has a direct, catastrophic effect on human candidates for public office … perhaps it causes their brains to swell even further …

    They should have remembered to wear their tinfoil hats, eh Bob?

  101. Robert Capozzi

    jt: Finally, I’ll say that Libertarians should obviously be suspicious of any alleged catastrophe that supposedly requires more government authority (and damage to the U.S. economy) to remedy it. How many of the scientists who are human-cause GW theorists and environmental doomsayers are *not* proponents of more government power to fix the “problem”?

    me: Yes, skepticism seems in order. I can’t say that it’s impossible consider that there might be a threat SO large that a temporary increase in the State might be indicated. A full onslaught from space invaders, for ex., could justify full mobilization. IOW, the circumstances are remote, but conceivable. (I’d stipulate that household handguns would be completely ineffective against the space invaders.)

    JT’s no one’s proven that anyone’s damaged by global climate disruption is true, but misses the point: Proving damages is probably impossible. If the sea levels do rise, for ex., to the point where major property damage is done and lives are lost, it can’t be PROVEN to excess CO2 caused it. There are too many variables in this game to isolate cause and effect.

    Could shifts in the rules of the game dissuade the chaos of having no way to police emissions into the air and water while doing the least amount of harm to the current game? Taxing pollution could be a solution that leads to a win-win situation.

  102. paulie

    How many of the scientists who are human-cause GW theorists and environmental doomsayers are *not* proponents of more government power to fix the “problem”?

    Not sure how many, but saying there is a problem is not an automatic reason to believe that government is the, or even an, answer.

    There are many real problems in the world: drug abuse, poverty, hunger, disease epidemics, terrorism, etc. We don’t have to deny that these problems exist in order to say that the best solutions are outside of monopoly government, or that monopoly government can only make them worse and create new ones.

    Much as you propose that (at least some of) the science may be driven by an urge to empower government, it seems that at least some of the skepticism over the more widely accepted climate change theories is driven by fear of what the likely solutions will be.

    In fact, “both” sides should divorce their observation of data from what they believe should be based on desired political outcomes.

    For my part, I’ll continue to say that it is precisely when the problems are worst that getting government involved is a particularly bad idea.

  103. Robert Capozzi

    pc: For my part, I’ll continue to say that it is precisely when the problems are worst that getting government involved is a particularly bad idea

    me: (Interesting that a thread about Root’s column has become a GW discussion!)

    Paulie, what you say sounds sensible on its face, but I submit that “government” is already deeply involved in the conditions that AGW theorists describe. Like it or not, “government” runs the “rule of law.” The rule of law never evolved to police the air and water. It probably can’t, at least not in the tort sense of rule of law, given the unique and ubiquitious nature of air and water.

    We could wait until something like the SkyTrust becomes in force. What to do about widespread aggression on a global scale (in the form of largely unfettered spewing into the commons of various chemicals) is a good question.

    “Nothing” seems contra-indicated to me.

  104. paulie

    It probably can’t, at least not in the tort sense of rule of law, given the unique and ubiquitious nature of air and water.

    Sure it can. I’ve linked the theory on that before.

  105. paulie

    “Nothing” seems contra-indicated to me.

    So does “handing retarded monkeys on PCP surgical tools,” which is what any government solution pretty much amounts to.

    I can’t say that it’s impossible consider that there might be a threat SO large that a temporary increase in the State might be indicated. A full onslaught from space invaders, for ex., could justify full mobilization. IOW, the circumstances are remote, but conceivable. (I’d stipulate that household handguns would be completely ineffective against the space invaders.)

    In the extremely implausible scenario where “space invaders” are both aggressive in intent and technologically similar to us in their stage of evolution where any kind of resistance is even remotely feasible, monopoly government is probably the least likely entity to come up with an effective solution.

    The closest parallel we have is asymmetrical warfare among humans. Smaller armies get crushed by larger ones; the best hope weaker countries have comes in the form of guerrilla warfare/leaderless resistance.

  106. JT

    Robert: “JT’s no one’s proven that anyone’s damaged by global climate disruption is true, but misses the point: Proving damages is probably impossible. If the sea levels do rise, for ex., to the point where major property damage is done and lives are lost, it can’t be PROVEN to excess CO2 caused it.”

    Maybe not with certainty given the variables, but with probability, yes. To date there’s no evidence establishing a probable causal connection between CO2 emissions and (very slightly) rising global temperatures; there’s just a theory that might be true even though the data don’t show constantly rising average-decade temperatures along with rising CO2 emissions over the last century. And on the basis of this theory and slight global warming, many human-cause GW theorists declare a catastrophe and advocate government-imposed changes to our technological society that would harm the U.S. economy.

    Paulie: “Not sure how many, but saying there is a problem is not an automatic reason to believe that government is the, or even an, answer.”

    I obviously agree with that.

    Paulie: “Much as you propose that (at least some of) the science may be driven by an urge to empower government, it seems that at least some of the skepticism over the more widely accepted climate change theories is driven by fear of what the likely solutions will be.”

    That may be true for some, sure. Though those people are justified in being afraid of some of the solutions that have been proposed, which would seriously damage the U.S. economy (such as the Kyoto Treaty, which thankfully was soundly rejected in the U.S.).

    Paulie: “In fact, “both” sides should divorce their observation of data from what they believe should be based on desired political outcomes.”

    Yes. I’ve done that as well as a number of climatologists who have reviewed the data and have more logical explanations for something that isn’t even unusual in fairly recent history.

    Paulie: “For my part, I’ll continue to say that it is precisely when the problems are worst that getting government involved is a particularly bad idea.”

    I’ll second that general statement.

  107. George Phillies

    @116

    Yes, they have. Current models do a reasonable job of handling the long term temperature trends over the last century. They do not predict year-to year fluctuations, which year they occur; this is a slight variation on the matter that it is rather easier to predict climate years in advance than it is to predict whether it will rain Tuesday or Thursday in 2014.

    There are also extensive predictions of the consequences, in terms of climate changes and sea level changes, though sea level modeling perpetually understates what is actually happening.

  108. Robert Capozzi

    pc: So does “handing retarded monkeys on PCP surgical tools,” which is what any government solution pretty much amounts to.

    me: If correct, we’re in for a world of hurt. The “monkeys” have long-range ballistic missiles and thermo-nuclear warheads, after all.

    More importantly, I’d suggest there are never actually “solutions,” but rather serviceable palliatives that allow and maintain a modicum of domestic tranquility. Most of the time, that works, more or less. The “monkeys” seem to be educable to allow some amount of commerce and leisure such that for most, most of the time, life goes on.

  109. JT

    George: “Yes, they have. Current models do a reasonable job of handling the long term temperature trends over the last century. They do not predict year-to year fluctuations, which year they occur; this is a slight variation on the matter that it is rather easier to predict climate years in advance than it is to predict whether it will rain Tuesday or Thursday in 2014.”

    This doesn’t contradict anything I said @ 116. I didn’t say anything about year-to-year fluctuations.

  110. Robert Milnes

    All this is arguing about something that is not all that urgent. The elections coming up are urgent. All your candidates are going to lose. What are you doing about that?

  111. Robert Milnes

    All your candidates are going to lose.
    No, you don’t know that.
    C’mon.
    All your candidates are going to lose.
    Yeah, they always do.
    C’mon.
    All your candidates are going to lose.
    Yeah, so what?
    C’mon.
    All your candidates are going to lose.
    Yeah, but there isn’t much we can do.
    C’mon.

  112. Starchild

    George @114,

    You wrote quite a bit in this post, but most of it rather narrowly focused. I don’t see you making the larger case that would need to be made in order to prove that human activity is the main cause of global warming.

    @104, I said, “I’d like to hear what you think global temperatures have been doing since 2000, and why.”

    In response, you basically reasserted the point you made @86 comparing the average temperature in the 1990s versus the 2000s.

    But temperatures rising sharply in the 1990s, and then declining moderately in the 2000s until rising in 2009 does not demonstrate the consistent warming trend that we should see if human activity is the main cause of global warming, since human CO2 emissions have been increasing steadily during this entire period.

    Even leading advocates of AGW theory have admitted that global warming has essentially stalled recently:

    “In February 2010, after he’d been suspended as head of the [Climate Research Unit] following the Climategate scandal, and in an attempt to restore his reputation as an honest scientist, [Phil] Jones came a bit clean in an interview with the BBC. For example, Jones agreed with the BBC interviewer that there had been ‘no statistically significant warming’ since 1995 (although he asserted that the warming was close to significant), whereas in his 2005 email he was at pains to hide the lack of warming from the public and even fellow researchers.”

    “Jones admitted that from 2002-2009 the planet had been cooling slightly (-0.12ºC per decade), although he contended that ‘this trend is not statistically significant.’ [Perhaps it was “close to significant”, lol!] In short, as far as Jones knew in February 2010-and as the keeper of the Hadley-CRU surface temperature record he was surely in a very good position to know-the planet hadn’t warmed on average over the decade.” (from http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=111)

    Even if theories such as Tom Knapp mentions @117 accurately explain the mid-20th century cooling — something of which I am by no means convinced — they obviously do not account for the more recent cooling period, nor for historical periods when the earth was warmer or cooler than it is now. In fact, arguments that a cooling period may be due to a change in the way data was collected, or an increase in sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, illustrate how uncertain climate science still is — and consequently how foolish it is to jump to alarmist conclusions. Who’s to say that some of the warming may not also have other so far undiscovered explanations?

    Let’s step back and look at the big picture here. We know that the earth’s climate has been changing as long as the planet has been around, and that there have been periods in the past when the planet was warmer than it is now, and periods when it was cooler than it is now — despite there sometimes being more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than at present.

    “When CO2 concentrations were ten times greater than today the Earth was in the grips of one of the coldest ice ages. The history of climate and CO2 concentration shows that temperature changes precede CO2 changes and can not be a significant driver of climate.”
    (from “The Science In Summary”, http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html)

    You can find more details on the relationship between CO2 and temperature later in that link. The 2007 British documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (viewable here — http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php) also does a good job explaining the point.

    Another mainstay of AGW theory advocates is that ice is melting in the Arctic. But ice melts and refreezes every year with the seasons. I have yet to see any data showing conclusively that this is a trend, and there is some indication of the opposite.

    “According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.” (from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/ipcc-scientist-global-cooling-headed-our-way-for-the-next-30-years/)

    Also at the link above are two images of the earth, one from January 11, 1980, and one from January 10, 2009. If you look at the areas covered by ice (not the white coloration on the continents added to the later photo to show snow cover, that’s irrelevant — just look at the ocean areas), you will notice they are just about the same in each picture.

    Skepticism about AGW does not mean lack of concern about the environment. I strongly believe that humans are causing terrible destruction of habitat and loss of species. To me it is absolutely nuts to be contemplating expensive “solutions” to the possibility of temperature increases which may or may not occur, and which if they do occur may turn out to be a positive thing for the planet, when we know for a fact that habitat destruction and species loss is real and is happening now.

    To combat those problems, we need to focus on reducing poverty, since poor people around the world tend to have higher birth rates, and the inability of developing countries to sustain their rapidly growing populations is a key cause of environmental destruction (cutting down rainforests for firewood and farming, destroying coral reefs with destructive fishing practices, etc.)

    Libertarians know that the key to reducing poverty is more economic freedom. Climate change alarmists, however, are for the most part lobbying for less economic freedom, in the form of increased regulations and limits on industrial activity. Thus there is a real danger that climate change alarmism will not only fail to do anything positive for the environment, but will in fact indirectly have devastating environmental consequences.

  113. Robert Capozzi

    rm: The elections coming up are urgent. All your candidates are going to lose. What are you doing about that?

    me: Agree with TK. Elections are more IMMEDIATE, but “urgent” implies more important than OTHER elections. Poor choices lead to poor outcomes, and that’s basically human history in a nutshell. No one person can plausibly change this outcome, so what I will do about it is accept it…seems the only sane response.

    I will root for gridlock, though, as it minimizes the damage that tend to come from one-party rule.

    Somehow or other, we do muddle through, so there’s that.

  114. paulie

    If correct, we’re in for a world of hurt. The “monkeys” have long-range ballistic missiles and thermo-nuclear warheads, after all.

    Yep, we’re lucky they haven’t used them yet. We’ll see how much longer our luck holds out.

  115. paulie

    Paulie: “Much as you propose that (at least some of) the science may be driven by an urge to empower government, it seems that at least some of the skepticism over the more widely accepted climate change theories is driven by fear of what the likely solutions will be.”

    That may be true for some, sure. Though those people are justified in being afraid of some of the solutions that have been proposed, which would seriously damage the U.S. economy (such as the Kyoto Treaty, which thankfully was soundly rejected in the U.S.).

    That’s backward thinking. Opposing the drug war does not mean we should deny that some people have terrible problems with drug abuse. Opposing the war on poverty does not mean we should claim there is no problem of poverty. Opposing the “global war on terror” does not mean we suddenly conclude that religious extremism and terrorism are not causes for concern.

    Similarly, the science of global climate change/destabilization should be viewed independently of whatever policy conclusions some people draw from the data.

  116. paulie

    First bring home the military. The U.S. military is one of the world’s largest consumers of fossil fuels. By reducing or military’s overseas commitments we can reduce the use of oil products.

    Secondly open up the urban transit market. Low income workers often have no other choice than to own a car that they have difficulty maintaining because the local government have made alternative transit such a jitney, ride sharing cabs and private bus companies difficult if not impossible to own and operate in many cities. Open the market and allowing private alternatives to develop will offer low income people an alternative to the cars that now consume a lot of household income and often are poorly maintained and some of the most polluting. Simply give people a choice and you’ll give them a chance.

    Good thinking.

  117. paulie

    I’ve never heard anyone who supports ending marriage apartheid propose forcing churches to marry gays.

    The [New Jersey] state Division on Civil Rights ruled Sunday a lesbian couple can move forward with a discrimination complaint against Ocean Grove [Camp Meeting Association] for refusing to let them use an oceanfront pavilion for a civil union.

    Since the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association [it is a church and it is the church’s property] regularly offered the pavilion to the broader public, it was bound by the state Law Against Discrimination from barring civil unions, division director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo ruled. Because its action was voluntary, he added, use of the discrimination statute does not impair the association’s “free exercise of religion.”

    So, they ruled that a frivolous lawsuit can proceed. So what?

    Racist churches can still refuse to marry interracial couples if they wish.

    This “issue” is a red herring by those who want state-decreed marriage inequality.

  118. paulie

    I personally don’t care if a politician believes in Bigfoot as long as he or she consistently acts to reduce the size and scope of government instead of expanding them (though I obviously don’t think talking about that is good political strategy).

    Same here. However, it should be clear from the language of the commercial I quoted, O’Donnell wants her views to reclaim the authority [Christians] are given in government, which is far from consistently acting to reduce the size and scope of government.

  119. Hint: Not The Brain

    It’s all a hidden plot to have underground witches take over government while posing as Christians and have massturbation and sex orgies on satanic altars in government offices.

  120. Claire Voyant

    Perhaps, but it is definitely part of a plan to keep Democrats in control of Congress by selecting the craziest Republicans possible.

  121. JT

    Paulie: “That’s backward thinking. Opposing the drug war does not mean we should deny that some people have terrible problems with drug abuse. Opposing the war on poverty does not mean we should claim there is no problem of poverty. Opposing the “global war on terror” does not mean we suddenly conclude that religious extremism and terrorism are not causes for concern.”

    With respect, Paulie, you shouldn’t read into what I write. I didn’t say that bad policy proposals mean that the problems they’re intended to address don’t exist (though in this case I think it doesn’t). That statement is so obviously false it shouldn’t need to be pointed out. I said that people are right to be very concerned about the government policies that have been proposed thus far to address relatively slight GW. Those policies, though supported vociferously by most if not all radical environmentalists, would seriously damage the U.S. economy if adopted. That’s all.

    Paulie: “However, it should be clear from the language of the commercial I quoted, O’Donnell wants her views to reclaim the authority [Christians] are given in government, which is far from consistently acting to reduce the size and scope of government.”

    I wasn’t defending Christine O’Donnell with that quote, if that’s what you’re implying (I’m not sure). That was a general statement in response to George’s assertion that rejecting scientific conclusions means one shouldn’t hold government office. To me, a good politician is one who consistently supports reducing the size and scope of government (which is a rare phenomenon, particularly at the federal and state levels). Whatever beliefs they hold about evolution or masturbation etc. are meaningless to me unless they intend to impose their beliefs through government force.

  122. Robert Capozzi

    jt: Whatever beliefs they hold about evolution or masturbation etc. are meaningless to me unless they intend to impose their beliefs through government force.

    me: Meaningless, or of little to no concern? Your statement seems to suggest that one’s ability to think, analyze, articulate, and frame issues are not a consideration for you; it may imply that “character” would also not be a concern of yours. Are you saying that so long as a candidate took positions that you mostly agree with, you support them, and those you mostly don’t agree with, you don’t support them, all else equal?

  123. JT

    Robert, I mean that I don’t care about a politician’s religious beliefs as long as he or she doesn’t try to impose them through the force of law. If he or she consistently moves to reduce government while holding some mystical views that aren’t supported by scientific evidence, then…whatever.

    If it were revealed, for example, that Ron Paul rejected evolution on religious grounds, it wouldn’t matter to me as far as supporting him in a political context. Even if a politician thinks that mediums are able to communicate with the dead, what difference does it make to me as long as he or she does what I want him or her to do politically? I don’t want to marry any of them; I just want them to seriously reduce government so we can have a much freer and more prosperous America.

    As far as character, I wouldn’t support anyone who was guilty of what I consider immoral. I’m not going to get into that here, but I’ll say that I hardly think anyone’s beliefs about evolution or global warming qualify.

  124. Robert Capozzi

    jt: Robert, I mean that I don’t care about a politician’s religious beliefs as long as he or she doesn’t try to impose them through the force of law. ….As far as character, I wouldn’t support anyone who was guilty of what I consider immoral.

    Me: I sort of agree. I personally might vote for an openly practicing Satanist, for ex., but I probably wouldn’t support him or her, as I don’t think that most people would vote for the Satanist. The Satanist might be great on the issues, and might even be charming and articulate, but I suspect voters in general just aren’t that open minded.

    As for immoral acts, I don’t really know what that means. Depending on your definition of “immoral,” I suspect most people have committed at least one, even by your (unstated) standards. Agorism has its advantages, I admit.

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

    and in California, in 2002, incumbent governor Gray Davis and boost GOP ‘weak link’ candidate Bill Simon (Junior, son of the former federal Secretary of Commerce) and eroded support of ‘stronger’ potential opponents ………

    He got re-elected, was challenged by Lake and other ‘obsessed’ citizens and was disposed off (for only the second time in US history) to make way for the nearly as worthless Der Ahnold in 2003 ………..

Leave a Reply

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