Wayne Allyn Root Dressed in 1776 Garb
Seven Magazine in Las Vegas Features Cover Story about Libertarianism
Independent Political Report
Covering third parties and independent candidates since 2008
Wayne Allyn Root Dressed in 1776 Garb
Seven Magazine in Las Vegas Features Cover Story about Libertarianism
Wayne Root: de facto spokesperson of the Libertarian Party.
Aaron Starr: de facto kiss ass to Wayne Allyn Root
DP @2
That’s actually a funny retort.
Whatever happened to Wayne’s reality TV show? I was looking forward to seeing what happens when you put seven bona fide douchebags in a house, people stop being polite and start being REAL.
Just think of how many arguments he and Jon Gosselin would get into over spray tanner!
As I understand it, that fell through when he didn’t get elected LNC chair.
One might wonder: Now in a contest with Starchild for gaudiest dresser in the party?
This 7 page PDF article includes pictures. Murray Rothbard and Doug French receive substantial coverage. This article is worthwhile reading.
Starchild wins.
Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of these United States of America …… Yankee Doodle!
Root is really working his new look. I hope will continue to wear this outfit after he is elected. He can’t lose with this new image!
Actually, the magazine provided the outfit for use during their three-hour photo shoot for the magazine cover, so it’s unlikely you will find this garb in Wayne Root’s closet.
I actually find this George Washington look entertaining.
Wayne mentioned to me that the photographer kept insisting he not smile because none of the Founders would have smiled. Go figure.
I prefer the goof ball image to his being taken too seriously. Now if we can just get him to say SECESSION every 14 sentences, I’ll be happy.
He should also say “end the drug war” and “bring the troops home” every now & then, too
@11 and 12
It seems to me that rarely is someone completely satisfied with how someone else communicates a message to the public.
The solution is to go out there and do that yourself.
Speaking of which…
Getting late here tonight, but Darryl, give me a call tomorrow to discuss media strategies if you have time.
Paulie, will do!
Call paulie @6:30& be on Today @7:30!
There are substantive issues to suggest adjustments. Petty barbs? Not so much.
Root’s big on Tea Party positioning. Me? Not so much. Yet, this particular shoot is well done. The headline — great…”don’t tread” is a L theme if there ever was one.
‘Course, in this Garden Party, ya can’t please everyone… 😉
Mount Vernon is not upstate NY. Nice bit about Murray. Wry detachment . . . childlike way of saying them . . . good takes.
“Wayne mentioned to me that the photographer kept insisting he not smile because none of the Founders would have smiled. Go figure.”
Nobody bleached their teeth back then I reckon!
as: The solution is to go out there and do that yourself.
me: Not sure it’s a “solution,” but good point. Of course, if someone says “secession” every 14 sentences, there are large percentages of the pop. who will immediately associate the communicator with tall white mansions and little shacks, me included!
In which case, good luck explaining the Revolution was actually a “secession,” 13 separate ones at that, and then spend the NEXT 14 sentences explaining the Byzantine interpretation of the 10th Amendment and that a few slaves MAY have fought for the CSA (as if that PROVES anything).
Of course, I’m always quick to share my wince when Root uses the term “states’ rights”!
Rodney King, call your office.
es: Nice bit about Murray.
me: Hmm, I s’pose. It’s heavy on MNR, not my preference…surprise, surprise.
For those of us not pushing up daisies in 20 years, I have a wild-ass prediction: Someone close to NewsletterGate will admit that it was actually MNR who wrote the hate in question.
I have zero proof of this, other than the style was his, and Rockwell’s statement at the time, where he said the author is long gone.
good luck explaining the Revolution was actually a “secession,”
Why, that’s pretty simple. The colonies were part of the UK, and they seceded. They didn’t overthrow King George back in England – he stayed on his throne. If the objective had been to take over the entire British Empire, that would have been a revolution (or a civil war).
As it was, it was a secession. Plus, the colonial secessionists had a lot of slaves. Meanwhile, most slaves in England were emancipated in 1772.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#Great_Britain
You may also wish to peruse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements
* 1 Africa
o 1.1 Algeria
o 1.2 Angola
o 1.3 Botswana
o 1.4 Burundi
o 1.5 Cameroon
o 1.6 Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau
o 1.7 Central African Republic
o 1.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo
o 1.9 Côte d’Ivoire
o 1.10 Egypt
o 1.11 Eritrea
o 1.12 France
o 1.13 Ghana
o 1.14 Katanga
o 1.15 Kenya
o 1.16 Mali
o 1.17 Mauritius
o 1.18 Morocco
o 1.19 Mozambique
o 1.20 Namibia
o 1.21 Niger
o 1.22 Nigeria
o 1.23 São Tomé and Príncipe
o 1.24 Seychelles
o 1.25 Sierra Leone
o 1.26 Somalia
o 1.27 Sudan
o 1.28 Tanganyika
o 1.29 Tunisia
o 1.30 Uganda
o 1.31 Zambia
o 1.32 Zanzibar
o 1.33 Zimbabwe
* 2 Asia
o 2.1 Bangladesh
o 2.2 Burma
o 2.3 Cambodia
o 2.4 India
o 2.5 Indonesia
o 2.6 Japan
o 2.7 Kazakhstan
o 2.8 Korea
o 2.9 Laos
o 2.10 Malaysia
o 2.11 Maldives
o 2.12 Mongolia
o 2.13 North Korea
o 2.14 Oman
o 2.15 Pakistan
o 2.16 Philippines
o 2.17 Singapore
o 2.18 Sri Lanka
o 2.19 Syria
o 2.20 Vietnam
o 2.21 Yemen
* 3 Europe
o 3.1 Albania
o 3.2 Armenia
o 3.3 Azerbaijan
o 3.4 Belarus
o 3.5 Belgium
o 3.6 Bulgaria
o 3.7 Croatia
o 3.8 Cyprus
o 3.9 Czech Republic
o 3.10 Estonia
o 3.11 Finland
o 3.12 France
o 3.13 Germany
o 3.14 Georgia
o 3.15 Greece
o 3.16 Ireland
o 3.17 Latvia
o 3.18 Lithuania
o 3.19 Republic of Macedonia
o 3.20 Moldova
o 3.21 Poland
o 3.22 Slovakia
o 3.23 Spain
o 3.24 Ukraine
o 3.25 United Kingdom (and associated territories)
o 3.26 Yugoslavia
* 4 North America
o 4.1 Antigua and Barbuda
o 4.2 Belize
o 4.3 Bahamas
o 4.4 British West Indies
o 4.5 Canada
+ 4.5.1 Secessionist
+ 4.5.2 Autonomist
o 4.6 Dominica
o 4.7 Guyana
o 4.8 Jamaica
o 4.9 Haiti
o 4.10 Mexico
o 4.11 Nicaragua
o 4.12 Panama
o 4.13 Trinidad and Tobago
o 4.14 United States
+ 4.14.1 Puerto Rico
* 5 South America
o 5.1 Brazil
o 5.2 Colombia
o 5.3 Peru
o 5.4 Spanish America
* 6 Oceania
o 6.1 Australia
o 6.2 Fiji
o 6.3 Kiribati
o 6.4 New Zealand
o 6.5 Papua New Guinea
o 6.6 Samoa
o 6.7 Solomon Islands
o 6.8 Vanuatu
* 7 References
While I’m over at wikipedia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements
is interesting. It’s actually a metapage – each of these is its own page:
See:
* List of active separatist movements in Africa
* List of active separatist movements in Asia
* List of active separatist movements in Europe
* List of active separatist movements in North America
* List of active separatist movements in Oceania
* List of active separatist movements in South America
* Autonomism
* Autonomous area
* Committee of the Regions
* Dependent territory
* European Free Alliance
* Irredentism
* List of irredentist claims or disputes
* List of political parties campaigning for self-government
* List of proposed states
* List of U.S. state partition proposals
* Lists of ethnic groups
* Nationalism
* Self-determination
* Self-governance
* Separatism
* Sovereignty
* Special Committee on Decolonization
* Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization
* List of territorial disputes
* Enclave and exclave
* Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization
* eLandnet – indigenous peoples and national minorities worldwide
* Territorial Disputes
at the Open Directory Project
* List of leftist secessionist movements
http://www.unpo.org/
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization
Makes interesting reading for anyone who thinks secession is about reviving slavery….
Of course, I’m always quick to share my wince when Root uses the term “states’ rights”!
“States rights” is a double edged sword….or maybe a double bladed sword.
On the one hand, it means more local autonomy, which is a step in the right direction. On the other, it has a bad history of association with slavery and Jim Crow in the US. Additionally, it implies that states, rather than individuals, have rights, contrary to libertarian theory.
I like “decentralization” better.
As the Green Party puts it in its key values…
5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.
“It’s heavy on MNR, not my preference”
That seems to be largely a function of the fact that Rothbard taught at UNLV for awhile. The story is Vegas/Nevada-focused.
Comment posted in response to the article:
As If Government Were Effective Now!
Government’s monumental levels of waste and chronic ineffectiveness when compared with voluntary sector endeavors being what they are, I have to thank Greg Blake Miller for giving me a good laugh this morning with his speculation that government might be “slowly drained of its financial ability to be effective” if libertarian ideas capture the public’s imagination.
As former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne noted, government is basically good at doing one thing (besides maintaining its own power and control): The State has a real talent for breaking peoples’ legs and then handing them crutches and saying, “See? If it weren’t for government, you wouldn’t be able to walk!”
Here’s the second response comment I posted:
Give Non-Aggression A Chance
Miller’s more substantive criticism of libertarianism is his contention that “societies have found it nearly impossible to achieve certain goals without pooled money, public priorities and political force. Infrastructure, defense, exploration, pure science, environmental protection, broad-based education and even a rudimentary safety net would be devilishly difficult without public dollars.”
Unfortunately, he allows both of these assertions to go unsupported. How can one honestly claim that societies have found it “nearly impossible” to achieve these goals without systematically robbing the public via taxation, when the aggression-free approach to public policy has never been tried in the modern era?
Libertarianism wasn’t even given a real opportunity to prove its viability in the period following the American Revolution. Despite being tiny in size by today’s standards, the U.S. government of that era maintained a number of highly statist institutions like slavery, tariffs, denial of basic civil and legal rights to women, etc.
In the modern era, with our much larger total accumulated wealth, vastly improved technology, and greater appreciation for the rights and needs of all people, the prospects for a society to achieve important public priorities like environmental protection, defense, and scientific research while meeting the needs of its members through a system based entirely on voluntary cooperation are stronger than ever.
The main reason humans don’t try Non-Aggression is not because it wouldn’t work. It’s because the people who have the most power in society, the people who run governments and those who manipulate them from behind the scenes, tend to like having the ability to control other people’s lives by force, and are resistant to giving it up.
And my final (so far) comment:
The Huckster
To say that Wayne Allyn Root “remains politically ambitious” is a gross understatement. His pronouncements often give the impression that he views himself as the personal savior of the Libertarian Party. His ego may be exceeded only by his need for winning, which he pursues with all the rectitude of a TV pitchman or a used car salesman (no offense to the more forthright members of those professions).
It dismays me that I feel obliged to publicly talk this way about someone who is nominally a member of my own party, but as Miller observes, W.A.R. (as Root used to call himself before he unconvincingly adopted a more politically convenient stance on the U.S. government’s extra-national military interventions) is about promoting W.A.R. I don’t believe he ultimately gives a fig about the LP or the ideas for which it stands.
But while Root has done real damage to the Libertarian Party in his drive to mold it into a mini-GOP, the only place he is recreating libertarianism is in his own mind. “Ronald Reagan libertarian” is an oxymoron. Despite the late Republican president’s sometimes libertarian-sounding rhetoric, the size, scope and power of government grew significantly under his watch. Among other statist actions, he ramped up the Constitution-violating Prohibition of banned substances with his “War on Drugs” and ushered in the era of massive federal debt by essentially cutting a deal with congressional Democrats in which they got the social spending they wanted and he got the military spending he wanted.
Root isn’t stupid, but he’s hardly an intellectual giant like Murray Rothbard, despite his laughable claim elsewhere to be a “leading libertarian thinker”. When he argued that “States can do just as terrible things as a country can, but the difference is you can move with your feet,” I suspect it didn’t occur to him that he was making the case for the moral failure of his own xenophobic stance on immigration. The self-described “Reagan libertarian’s” unlibertarian opposition to freedom of movement would enable government oppression by preventing people from voting with their feet to get away from it.
I think that growing numbers of Libertarians rue the day that Wayne Allyn Root decided to use our party as a vehicle for his political opportunism, and wish he would just go away.
Starchild, thanks for the comments, although personally I would have gone without the attack on Wayne…I find it more useful to engage his ideas in a sympathetic and friendly way, and it seems to me that in many cases he sounds a lot better than he used to, for example in this interview:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/11/wayne-root-profiled-by-aol-news-today-as-2012-presidential-contender/
You make a lot of good points.
“societies have found it nearly impossible to achieve certain goals without pooled money, public priorities and political force. Infrastructure, defense, exploration, pure science, environmental protection, broad-based education and even a rudimentary safety net would be devilishly difficult without public dollars.”
I think it may also be useful to point out here that there are voluntary approaches to addressing all of these very real issues that are entirely consistent with the non-initiation of force principle, that is, without the “political force” part. Many of these have been tried in the real world; many are commonly used all the time.
BTW, have you read….
http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2010/11/crafting-new-alliance.html#more
Thanks, Paulie. No, I don’t think I’ve read the Storey Institute article you link. I’ll try to check it out.
Regarding Root supposedly getting better — really? What he said in this article is as bad as just about anything I can recall hearing him say:
““I’m kind of re-creating libertarianism,” says Wayne Allyn Root. “I’m not just going to follow the traditional roots. I’m a Ronald Reagan libertarian. Traditional libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal. That’s why it doesn’t work. It needs to blend with conservatism… I’ve been trying to bring this party along, and it’s beginning to happen.”
Regarding Root supposedly getting better — really?
It’s still mixed, but some interviews are coming off better, like the one on AOL News that I linked.
No, I don?t think I?ve read the Storey Institute article you link. I?ll try to check it out.
I’m trying to gets some discussion of that going at
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/10/libertarians-left-right-or-neither/
“re-creating libertarianism”…. “libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal…. It needs to blend with conservatism”
Attempting to redefine the term until it becomes meaningless is not “re-creating libertarianism”!
“libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal…. It needs to blend with conservatism”
I don’t agree with that. But I do agree with this:
http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2010/11/crafting-new-alliance.html#more
Paulie, will do!
Not sure how late I’ll be up. My natural inclination this time of year is to hibernate.
Tried calling you.. left you a message
Hmmm, didn’t hear it ring, must have been during dinner. I see it now, I’ll call you.
alright
At least Wayne is finally starting to be honest about his “libertarianism.” He’s not a libertarian, but a hard-right conservative who wants to bring the “Libertarian” Party brand in to stand for the Tea Party’s God, Guns and Gays issues, rather than the libertarian “classical liberal” issues of personal liberty.
Incidentally, he was a big booster of Sharron Angle in his home state. Angle was so insanely extreme (despite Wayne’s ebullient endorsement) that she handed a two-way race to Harry Reid, despite an electoral climate that favored “anybody but Reid.”
That should provide some insights into how popular Wayne’s “Teatard libertarianism” will prove with the general electorate.
“This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
As an aside, some
Interesting history…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorfield_Storey
“Traditional Libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal”.
The problem is that those issues are key to the Libertarian party–primarily they are anti-war and equal rights for gays. This statement in itself should make him ineligible to represent our party.
NO BRIAN Sharron was not insanely extreme. Obviously you don’t know the constitution for which she was following. Aside from her personal views on which people differ which from what I got she would not imposed as she was following what the majority of the people wanted. THE CONSTITUTION.
The lefties, radical, = communist step on the constitution.
We’re starting a new TEA party. Wanna join us?
http://hammeroftruth.com/2010/terrorized-enough-already/
A lot of people may have forgotten but the TEA parties (before becoming cheer squads for the usual conservative mixing of church and state and the military/industrial/domestic espionage complex) stood for Taxed Enough Already. We need a new TEA party: Terrorized Enough Already. Enough already with the terrorizing us with terror of terrible terrorists. Enough already with terrorizing us with the terroristic TSA. http://wewontfly.com and http://flywithdignity.org can be the start of a new TEA party which will say “enough already” to the terrorizing, terror-obsessed Homeland Security State, much as the TEA parties were meant to say Enough Already to overtaxation. Can we get the Terrorized Enough meme out there, and if we do, can we keep it from, being co-opted by big government “butter vs. guns” false choices? (Yes to both, and no to either one being provided by the government, btw, kthx).
Reaching out to voters on the “left” or “liberal” side of the spectrum and on the “right” or “conservative” side of the spectrum is essential to help build the LP. So, as Wayne Root does so, this is helpful for the LP. It would also be helpful, and is in fact essential to have a spokesperson, another popular, self-promoting media hound, to do the same on the left as Root is doing on the right.
It would be even better, however, to have a similar spokesperson who could reach out to the Libertarian middle. The more the better, so having one of each would be just the beginning.
Reaching out to one side or the other does not mean that we should abandon our principles. In most cases, we don’t need anyone to “re-create” libertarian principles. Repackaging for better marketing is urgently needed. Hopefully, Wayne Root will grow to understand this difference or he will not prove an effective spokesman for the LP to grow over the long-term.
As to the abortion issue that George Phillies keeps hounding on, this may be a case where libertarian principles need some clarification and repackaging, if not actual recreating. IMO, the libertarian position should point out and show respect for both the rights of the woman and the unborn child. We should follow neither the “pro-abortion/pro-choice” side nor the “anti-abortion/pro-life” side. The LP should be Pro-Liberty on this issue and take up the cause of the rights of all human beings from conception, including the unborn child and the woman whose rights include deciding whether or not she wants to bear a child. We need to articulate a position that respects the rights of both.
And in case of the abortion, as well as numerous other issues, if we present our balanced “neither left nor right” libertarian viewpoint, we will find ourselves in the mainstream.
Murray Rothbard was a great libertarian thinker, but a terrible salesman. Wayne Root is a great salesman, but he needs some guidance and better advisers on what his “product” – libertarianism – actually is. But we have to have attractive, articulate, reasonable, seasoned, unabashed self-promoting media hounds to present these well-packaged views in a reasonable, rational, peaceful, interesting and convincing manner and style.
@ 45 Re: Wrong Angle
see
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/10/angle-pulls-out-racist-card.html
As for her “love of the constitution” I wonder whether that includes the 21st amendment? All of the Bill of Rights?
It would also be helpful, and is in fact essential to have a spokesperson, another popular, self-promoting media hound, to do the same on the left as Root is doing on the right.
It would be even better, however, to have a similar spokesperson who could reach out to the Libertarian middle.
Working w/ a couple of people on that. Had a chat with Darryl Perry earlier this evening, hopefully it will get the ball rolling on some of that…also have been talking to one recent LP US House candidate by email…we may see some movement on this…
Yes, Paulie, it’s good to hear that you’re going to try to promote another spokesperson. This person will need some position for credibility, some hook to garner attention, some personality to be draw viewership, and be physically attractive, articulate and interesting. Good luck with this project.
Also, you’ve said you’re going traveling again, working I presume … where to?
I wish we could get Dr Pamela Brown some media attention. She’s smart, pretty, articulate, funny–and best of all, a principled Libertarian. She was California’s candidate for Lt Governor. She got over half a million votes, which was almost 6 %.
Does she have any plans for 2012 elections?
We discussed media hooks. The rest will either work or it won’t, we’ll see. If it starts taking off you’ll see more posts about it here, and I’ll try to do the same with several people in the future.
I’m not going to say it on here just yet, it’s a small project and the person bringing me in does not want me blabbing it to the competition, some of who also follow our conversation here. I’ll be posting about it later though. I’ll be headed out some time in the next coming week, so
hopefully the other IPR writers will keep everyone informed and entertained.
Does Dr Pamela Brown have a website and media links or videos of her speaking etc
rc: Hmm, I s’pose. It’s heavy on MNR, not my preference…surprise, surprise.
me: an innocuous comment that leads to a back handed accusation ? Is there any room to just accept the thinker without pointing a finger and crying “stinker” ! ?
automatic vilification seems contraindicated, IMHO
@54 http://www.cawantsfreedom.com/
If government regulations did not stifle and retard the natural growth of innovation and technology, embryonic transfer into artificial wombs at any point from conception to birth would probably be a reality already.
I consider Pam a friend. I’ll call her sometime this week and report back what she says.
I wonder if Pamela Brown’s position on immigration helped her with her vote totals.
On her website, she writes:
“BORDER CONTROL
> Controlling California’s border to prevent illegals from committing violent crimes or terrorist acts against our citizens and siphoning billions in state services must be a top priority.”
TCWFoC@45,
If Sharron Angle wanted to stand up for the Constitution, she should have considered reading it first.
The Constitution gives the federal government ZERO power over immigration. Yet her position on immigration, per the issues section of her campaign web site, was that that federal government should “enforce the [unconstitutional] laws that are already on the books.”
The Constitution doesn’t empower the federal government to run a mandatory retirement plan. Yet her position on Social Security, per the issues section of her campaign web site, was that the federal government should “keep the promise of Social Security.”
The Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution requires Nevada to honor marriages licensed by and solemnized in other states. Yet she brags on her campaign web site that as a Nevada legislator, she “worked to pass the Constitutional Protection of Marriage Act,” a law which places Nevada in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause. If she couldn’t be trusted not to attempt to overthrow the Constitution from the state legislature, why would anyone believe she wouldn’t attempt to do so in the US Senate?
The Constitution says nothing about the federal government limiting, or requiring disclosure of, political contributions. Yet in the issues section of her campaign web site, she says she wants to “close the loopholes in the campaign finance system while requiring immediate disclosure of large contributions.” In what respect is she any different from John McCain or Russ Feingold on the issue of “incumbency protection through campaign finance restrictions?”
She’s about as much of a “constitutionalist” as Barack Obama. And that ain’t saying much.
I almost agree with this view of Root’s (assuming it is described accurately):
“Root personally favors broad social tolerance, but he recognizes that communities have different values, and that it’s bad politics to push a state beyond where it’s ready to go. Liberty might be a natural right, but it’s an acquired taste. The libertarian movement won’t get much of anywhere if its strategy is to call upon every community in the country to zero out public spending, renounce community standards and permit everything. ”
Except instead of going from there to states’ rights I (and most libertarians really since they are not opposed to secession) go to individual rights to choose/form independent communities choosing the values they prefer for members. These network and confederate regionally, continentally, worldwide as they see fit. Secession is a strategy and should be retained as an option. Radical political decentralization is just inevitable in a libertarian world, whether or not Wayne Root becomes king of the world… 🙂
br47: Murray Rothbard was a great libertarian thinker, but a terrible salesman. Wayne Root is a great salesman, but he needs some guidance and better advisers on what his “product” – libertarianism – actually is.
me: I sort of agree. MNR was “A” great L thinker who TRIED to be a salesperson, too, and IMO was highly ineffective at sales. He did not have a monopoly on truth, but given his Leninist strategies, he gave the impression that he DID have a monopoly on truth…he and his cadre in their minds had corralled the truth and were beginning the process of putting his truth into effect. Those who called themselves L but had a different approach or a different paradigm for what liberty is and how it can be advanced were to be pilloried until they acceded to MNR’s plumbline.
So, while MNR was a great thinker, his thinking had a fatal flaw that rendered him confused in both his thinking and his salespersonship.
Root strikes me as a salesperson first, thinker second. He probably knows he’s a reasonably deep thinker, but his focus is on people pleasing. He surely recognizes that politics is a numbers game, so if liberty is to be advanced, he’s and the cause of liberty needs to please a lot of people fast in order to attain some level of influence. This makes him impatient, which has been an asset for him in the business world, where his ability to make quick decisions has generally worked out for him.
He looked at the headlines about the LP, and said to himself, Hey, that sounds pretty good. But when he encounters resistance from left Ls, he quickly associates that mode of thinking with failure, something to be worked around. Through this iterative process, Root has made adjustments, becoming less hawkish than he was a few years ago, for ex.
I’m still hopeful that Root will evolve into a first-tier pundit. My overarching feedback to him is to stop paying so much attention to the right-wing noise machine. Just because, say, Limbaugh is VERY effective and sometimes says things that sound kinda L, he is often way off base. Pick and choose your battles. Just because Cordoba House seemed like a good wedge issue, have some patience on the matter. People pleasing does not trump contemplation.
es55: an innocuous comment that leads to a back handed accusation ? Is there any room to just accept the thinker without pointing a finger and crying “stinker” ! ? automatic vilification seems contraindicated, IMHO
me: Hmm, good point. There I go again recoiling at the sight of MNR! Yes, a bit too automatic and reactive on my part, mea culpa. I’m sure MNR thought he was doing what needed to be done, and yes I’d like to see his influence (even today) dramatically decline, but there’s a time and place for myth demystification, but this thread wasn’t it. (Or maybe it was…one can never be sure of such things!)
tk 60: [Angle]’s about as much of a “constitutionalist” as Barack Obama. And that ain’t saying much.
me: No Angle fan here, either, but I have no way of assessing who is more or less in line with the Constitution. Article 1 does say:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
and
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Are immigration laws, for ex., covered in this language? Possibly. If Congress determines that the words “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” means that Congress can decide what threatens the common defense and general welfare, then they can, for ex., enact “Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers….”
This is one of the many reasons I am not a constitutionalist. If the Constitution and constitutionalism advances liberty and peace, I’m for it. Otherwise, not so much.
cm61: These network and confederate regionally, continentally, worldwide as they see fit.
me: Maybe. For most Americans, the one secession experiment that is close to home — US 1861-65 — didn’t work out too well. In part it didn’t work out because of your “they” term. Who are “they”? In 1861, the “they” were elite slaveowners who they it was in their interest to secede, in part to maintain their plantation economy.
IMO, that one ex. is why the LP platform no longer uses the word “secession.” It says “self determination,” which has very different associations for most Americans…WITH GOOD REASON.
All IMO!
@60 re Sharron Angle and the Constitution…bingo
This is one of the many reasons I am not a constitutionalist. If the Constitution and constitutionalism advances liberty and peace, I’m for it. Otherwise, not so much.
That’s a valid point as well. The constitution is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
I kinda doubt it. She is hardly the first Libertarian to take that unfortunate, misguided position, but if someone really considers that issue a priority and is willing to vote alt party, they would probably most likely vote AIP.
Robert: “This is one of the many reasons I am not a constitutionalist. If the Constitution and constitutionalism advances liberty and peace, I’m for it. Otherwise, not so much.”
I wouldn’t call myself a Constitutionalist either. But I do think strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution would overwhelmingly advance liberty with few exceptions, given that the federal government doesn’t have any explicit authority under the Constitution to do most of what it already does.
Of course, it does have explicit authority to establish armed forces and declare war, with the president as (political legacy-seeking) commander in chief. So I don’t know how much effect even strict adherence to the Constitution would have on advancing peace. Maybe in indirect ways, such as raising less revenue to fund wars and overseas bases and foreign regimes? Of course the federal government does have the power to tax and borrow and coin money, so maybe not.
Well, according to the Constitution, armies were only supposed to be raised in times of war, and there were not supposed to be undeclared wars.
jt: But I do think strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution would overwhelmingly advance liberty with few exceptions, given that the federal government doesn’t have any explicit authority under the Constitution to do most of what it already does.
me: Yes, I agree. A narrow interpretation of the Constitution’s a pretty good means toward the end of peace and liberty (when I use the word “peace,” I’m not referring just to an absence of foreign wars, but to reasonable levels of domestic tranquility AND war as a last resort).
“Strict” is not a word I’d use….I prefer “narrow.” Narrow is less precise, and the problem with precision is it depends on who’s doing the interpreting, and which clause one is using to make one’s case.
Open-borders Ls often point to the word “naturalization” and the LACK of the word “immigration” in the C and conclude: Ya see, it only specifies “naturalization,” not “immigration.” I find that strictness to be a weak approach. It’s more serviceable to ask more “radical” questions. Here’s my logic stream:
Are there states? Yes. Do states maintain peace? Yes, more or less, although they often don’t. Is it peaceful for existent states to maintain control of their borders? Yes, since the alternative — no borders — would allow anyone (communicably ill, terrorists, or otherwise violent criminals) to enter in any number. Do I endorse a Berlin Wall approach to border control? No, that’s too extreme. Do I think immigrants are “the problem”? No. Should immigration be blocked? As a default position, no. A nation should allow immigration up to the point that it endangers the current population, which is a matter of judgment, not a carved-in-stone principle. Where is the right balance? I dunno. Isn’t your view too relativistic? Hmm, no, I’d say the extreme poles are too absolutistic!
IMO.
Is it peaceful for existent states to maintain control of their borders? Yes, since the alternative — no borders — would allow anyone (communicably ill, terrorists, or otherwise violent criminals) to enter in any number.
Do you apply that to US states? Cities? Counties? They all have borders, too.
pc: Do you apply that to US states? Cities? Counties? They all have borders, too.
me: No. I view the US as a “state.” I view states, cities and counties as subdivisions of the US. Federal law applies in this case, using my narrow interpretation of the C.
Mexico has states within it, too, and I don’t know how Mexican states handle immigration, but my guess is they handle that issue at the federal level. If they don’t — if they handle at a lower jurisdiction — that’s up to Mexican law, and that too would be appropriate.
I also understand Pamela to be ‘pro-defense’ and ‘pro-Israel’.
These are things folks like Jill Pyatt have always found beyond the pale and not permissable.
Pamela also is in favor of kicking Jill Pyatt’s ‘close and dear friend’ M.Bar.nes out of the LP and LPCA, something Jill lambested me publicly for.
Hey Jill!
Do I smell another double-standard on your part?
This may be a separate article here later.
http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-west-palm-beach/the-libertarian-party-of-floria-takes-steps-to-remove-wayne-root-from-lnc
Libertarian Party of Florida takes steps to remove Wayne Root from LNC by Karl Dickey
During a regular meeting of the Libertarian Party of Florida’s Executive Committee last night, they created a resolution (found below) to repudiate recent comments made by Libertarian National Congressional Committee chairman Wayne Allyn Root and suggested his removal from any leadership position within the Libertarian Party.
While the Libertarian Party of Florida is glad to see the membership growth both on the state and national level, it feels strongly, as per the wording of their resolution, those in leadership positions should be held by a higher standard of libertarianism then the membership or those registered to vote Libertarian.
The resolution came about after an article appeared recently in the weekly magazine Vegas Seven where Mr. Root was quoted as saying, “I’m kind of re-creating libertarianism. I’m just not going to follow the traditional roots. I’m a Ronald Reagan libertarian. Traditional libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal.” The statement along with Mr. Roots support of Republican candidates has Libertarians upset with Mr. Root and his attempts to manipulate the Libertarian message thereby confusing the general public as to what a Libertarian stands for. Mr. Root has made similar comments in the media which distorts the Libertarian message.
Here is the resolution as passed at last night’s LPF EC meeting:
WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Florida Executive Committee is committed to the platform of the Libertarian Party; and
WHEREAS, Libertarian National Congressional Committee chairman, Wayne Allyn Root made the undisputed quote in the November 11-17, 2010 issue of weekly magazine Vegas Seven, “I’m kind of re-creating libertarianism. I’m just not going to
follow the traditional roots. I’m a Ronald Reagan libertarian. Traditional libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal”; and
WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Florida Executive Committee finds Mr. Roots comments found above will confuse the general public as to what the Libertarian Party’s official positions are; and
WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Florida Executive Committee finds Mr. Roots comments highly offensive and in direct contrast to the Libertarian Party’s message and platform; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Root has supported Republican candidates for public office while in his position on the Libertarian National Congressional Committee; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Root has made similar and consistent comments noted above.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Libertarian Party of Florida fully repudiates Mr. Roots comments as described above and strongly feels Mr. Root should be replaced and removed from his position in any official capacity with the
Libertarian National Committee, inclusive of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee.
ADOPTED November 14, 2010
Libertarian Party of Florida
Vicki Kirkland, Chair
I guess some find this resolution productive. I don’t.
I also wonder what “partially repudiates” might look like. 😉
so much for the “big tent” of ideas and ideals.
Jezz guys, how about another flame war on internal b.s.?
The barbarians (R’s and D’s) are at the gates and you are worrying about this?
How about focusing on winning some elections in Florida, other states, and the nation?
It is far far easier to “eat our own” than it is to “whip” the major party candidates in an election.
I haven’t heard of any other states besides Florida making a big deal over that, at least yet.
Is the Florida LP gaining or losing national LP sustaining membership?
#1 CA
#2 TX
#3 FL
Paulie: “Well, according to the Constitution, armies were only supposed to be raised in times of war, and there were not supposed to be undeclared wars.”
I don’t know if the first part is accurate. The sentence in the Constitution says, “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years…” Unless I’m missing something, there’s no phrase to the effect of “only in times of war” or “except in times of peace,” so even a literal reading of the Constitution wouldn’t necessarily constrain the federal government in that way. I think there was a push to include that language by some state delegates and it didn’t make it. Am I missing a phrase like that somewhere?
So Root is going to “re-create” libertarianism? We can just throw out more than two centuries of work by great minds ranging from Mill and Bastiat to the present day, and let a sports handicapper in Las Vegas “re-create” our whole philosophy? How delightful!
Root has some good points, now and then, but the idea that libertarianism is somehow contaminated with liberal elements is ass-backwards. Libertarianism is essentially classical liberalism; modern days so-called “liberals” have abandoned the free-market aspects of that philosophy, and Root’s solution is to abandon the personal freedom aspects too.
That said, Wayne could boost his credibility with libertarians by about 50% if he’d just train himself to say “Bush and Obama” instead of “Obama” whenever he criticizes the growth of government and its increasing intrusion into our lives.
JT,
I believe that is the reason why it is limited to two years. That doesn’t mean automatically renewed every two years, else why bother to include it?
And if the president can just send troops from the automatically-renewed army anywhere in the world any time, why even bother to have a process for declaring war in there?
It seems we have gotten a long way from the constitutional view of war, peace and military appropriation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_army
“In Great Britain, and the British Colonies in America, there was a sentiment of distrust of a standing army not in civilian control. In England, this led to the Bill of Rights 1689 which reserves authority over a standing army to Parliament, not the King, and more nuanced in the United States, led to the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8 ) which reserves by virtue of “power of the purse” similar authority to Congress, instead of to the President.”
Wills, Garry (1999). A Necessary Evil, A History of American Distrust of Government New York, NY; Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684844893
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1480.htm
A standing army has always been used by despots to enforce their rule and to keep their people under subjection. Its existence was therefore considered a great threat to peace and stability in a republic and a danger to the rights of the nation. (numerous quotes fro Jefferson in support of that thesis at above URL).
http://stason.org/TULARC/society/lawful-arrest/1-3-What-is-a-Standing-Army.html
“What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to
prevent the establishment of a standing army,
the bane of liberty.” Rep. Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August
17, 1789)
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1495
“The second way to cope with the peril to liberty of a standing army is to counter its existence with an armed citizen’s militia which stands outside of the control of the government. That was the constant theme of the Whig pamphleteers from the 1690s on, as they sought to check the power of government. Indeed, one of the important grievances that produced the Glorious Revolution had been the King’s attempt to disarm the Protestants; the subsequent English Bill of Rights, forced on King William, had specifically guaranteed their right to arms. And, as Bernard Bailyn has shown in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, those Whig pamphleteers, such as John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, were among the foremost intellectual influences on the Americans. The latter writers, particularly in their Cato’s Letters, a series widely reprinted in the colonies, argued that the defense of the realm was best entrusted to the armed body of the citizenry, rather than a standing army. They argued both that this was a superior form of national defense and that it was the best means of protecting the people’s liberties against the state’s usurpation”
I just can’t believe that Libertarians are criticizing Wayne Root – especially considering his new look.
He has brought tens of thousands of new members to the LP, raised millions of dollars for the LP, and help elect hundreds of LP candidates! He has converted all of the Tea Party supporters to libertarianism! He alone has changed the entire landscape of American politics forever!
There is no question that he will be the next President of the United States – even if doesn’t keep wearing his new threads!
Instead of criticizing Wayne Root, Libertarians should place him upon a 900 foot pedestal and speak of his name with reverence! Send him money, place posters of his likeness in your homes and on your cars! There would probably not even be a Libertarian Party if Wayne Root had not saved it!
Cool, only one reference to “used car salesman”
(#29 Starchild). Without in any way implying specific endorsement of W.A.R., note that more than 40 million used cars are sold in the U.S.
every year to people who need or want another vehicle. Of the 330 million Americans, how many need or want more liberty? We regularly only get around a million of them to vote Libertarian. Maybe we can learn something from the marketing of used cars?
Perhap
Bruce Cohen wrote: “I also understand Pamela to be ‘pro-defense’ and ‘pro-Israel’.” So she wants a 700 billion a year defense budget, US to bomb Iran (and stay in Iraq and Afghanistan) to protest Israel, and encourage Israel to keep threatening to use its Samson Option against Arab, European and Russian cities, even if Israel nuking Russia would mean Russia nukes America? Please, Bruce, define your terms!!!
OOPS – I meant to PROTECT Israel…
dfn: So Root is going to “re-create” libertarianism? We can just throw out more than two centuries of work by great minds ranging from Mill and Bastiat to the present day, and let a sports handicapper in Las Vegas “re-create” our whole philosophy?
me: Hmm, the quote was “I’m kind of re-creating libertarianism.” I’m sure The Nolan didn’t omit “kind of” out of a sense of malice. Like Brutus, Nolan is an honorable man.
L-ism, near as I can tell, is not “settled law.” In 1973 and now, there were different strains of L-ism. Root represents one strain reasonably well and certainly energetically. Co-Founder Nolan represents another, reasonably well and not as energetically as Root. Ron Paul another, very well and very energetically. etc. etc.
If it IS settled law, I trust Co-Founder Nolan will share what it is, and how and when it was settled.
And if there is a tolerance for deviation from a theoretical plumb line, I’d like to understand those parameters, too, e.g., one CAN be L if one mentions Goldwater but not Reagan OR one CAN be L if one supported some form of intervention in Afghanistan but not Germany. It’d be helpful to know upfront what the litmus tests are…it’d take all the guess work out of the equation as to one is certified L or not!
it’d take all the guess work out of the equation as to one is certified L or not
For certification purposes, consult DSM-IV
WHEREAS, we are not able to produce peace enough in our party to act as friends and allies, and
WHEREAS, our petty jealousies, repressed fears, and incapacity for social interaction render us unable to allow charismatic people to leverage their skills for our benefit, and,
WHEREAS, we are unwilling to promote our ideals to the public because, well, we don’t know how to talk to the public, and,
WHEREAS, we are fearful of engaging the enemy and find others circled in the wagons with us much easier targets with which to prove our marksmanship, and,
WHEREAS, socializing others whose understandings are less than optimal is not nearly as fun as using our position in coalition trust to make sport out of destroying others good works, and,
WHEREAS, political activism that is effective is too much work compared to getting together and writing acerbic declarations, and,
WHEREAS, libertarian ethics are easy to corrupt and ignore when a contrived Machiavellian game, or juicy rumor of personal pain piques our appetite for unattained personal power:
NOW LET IT BE THEREFORE RESOLVED, the mote in our eye is nothing compared to the splinter in _____.
Personally, I think that Mr. Root would be better off reaching out and unifying Libertarians. I do not think that any attempt at “redefining” libertarianism is going to work out except to turn into another factional battle leveraging violence and fraud.
I think that the tactic of publicly “redefining” the cause, is in itself an attack on the party. There is no social construct that defines Libertarians that needs adjustment. Most people are simply not exposed to it so to introduce it as needing redefining is a tactical decision to exclude those who hold those tenets dear.
For people to look at this piece and to use it to demonstrate that Mr. Root has an agenda to cut out a large part of the Libertarian ethic for his own will is well put. But, the just actions that are certain to work against that extremely undesirable effect are recruiting, and educating.
Calling for purges and the ousting of elected representatives will only ever shrink the party. It will necessarily and as is shown in our history, inevitably involve force and fraud through the blinders of unrecognized emotion. Worst of all it will shrink the party as both sides take heavy attrition damage.
This sort of internal maneuvering on both sides is irresponsible and if we are going to fight any battles on this issue as members, I would suggest that the focus be on educating divisive people on the etiquette of coalition building, the skills needed to make friends and the natural consequences of internal sabotage.
@87 yep…
gains: I think that the tactic of publicly “redefining” the cause, is in itself an attack on the party.
me: Yes, agreed. Poor word choice on Root’s part, although mitigated by his “kind of redefining.”
If he’d said “I want to move the LP in a new direction,” for ex., that would have been a less caustic phrasing.
Capozzi @85 – I fail to see how including the words “kind of” substantially changes the meaning of WAR’s comments. He comes right out and says we should jettison all those icky “liberal” aspects of our philosophy that are so off-putting to FOX-watching conservatives. And he’s perfectly comfortable cozying up to the revolting social Neanderthal Sharon Angle; that should tell you a lot about how he would “re-create” or “redefine” libertarianism.
I admire Wayne’s energy and enthusiasm. I just wish he use it to promote a consistent libertarian vision, rather than trying to pull the LP to the right.
RC @89
I think that Root’s poor word choice is a symptom of unhealthy competition and the resolution yet another salvo. Maybe he is a Republican mole. I think it more likely that he is just getting pushed into a mold of his detractors making.
This presents a terrible gestalt for everyone involved and attached:
Mr. Root himself becomes less empowered as he adopts the definitions made by those that oppose him and is hindered from exploring their points for adopting in his own efforts.
His detractors heighten the profile of that which they don’t like by reinforcing it as the only path available for Mr. Root to take.
Everyone else loses as the Party and the movement is fettered by their narcissistic games.
dfn, believe me, if I were advising Root, I would counsel him to stop picking fights (consciously or unconsciously) with left Ls. It doesn’t do him, left Ls, the LP, or the LM any good that I can see.
However, I do see the words “kind of” substantially softening his desire to “redefine,” so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I don’t find Root a threat to myself, L-ism, or the LP, so the idea of “fully repudiating” him is severely contra-indicated from where I sit. I suspect in his mind he IS promoting a “consistent” L vision, as I’m sure you believe your views do, too. My vision differs slightly from both of yours, yet I don’t choose to repudiate you or Root.
I do believe Root sometimes makes mistakes, doesn’t phrase things well, goes overboard, etc. I just don’t happen to see repudiation as appropriate in this case.
Now, if he advocated private nukes, fetuses as parasites and baby selling in this article, I might change my mind on the whole repudiation thing. 😉
gains91, wow, yes. Have we invited you to join the Rodney King Caucus as yet? And who the heck are you, any way?
“Unhealthy competition” — the desire make others “wrong” and oneself “right” — seems to under gird this particular spastic ballet. Attack begets recriminations begets counter-attack. In the process, no one wins; all lose.
Root is not “wrong” to tack right, anymore than The Keaton is “wrong” to tack left. Both are simply doing the best they can to advance liberty. I am not “right” when I advocate moderation and centrism, I simply offer it as the flow toward where the numbers are, which are necessary IMO to garner a seat at the table of influence.
Capozzi @92 – I did not call for “repudiation” of Root, although others have. I consider myself a centrist libertarian, somewhere between Knapp and Keaton on the “left,” and Root and Hospers on the “right.” And I as I said, if he’d just ran himself to say “Bush and Obama” instead of “Obama” when decrying the excesses of the Federal government, he’d draw a lot less fire.
above should read TRAIN himself
tb: [Root] has brought tens of thousands of new members to the LP, raised millions of dollars for the LP, and help elect hundreds of LP candidates! He has converted all of the Tea Party supporters to libertarianism! He alone has changed the entire landscape of American politics forever!
me: I’m curious whether your tendency toward absolutism does not allow you to recognize a straw-man argument. While I suspect Root would LOVE for these things to happen, mocking him for something he’s not claimed he could do — or can be done in a few short years — would seem to undercut your critique of Root.
Just sayin’…
Please don’t call radical or hardcore libertarians who want to maximize compliance with the non-initiation of force principle “left” libertarians. The phrase “left libertarian” is properly applied to either anti-property leftist anarchist socialists or communists OR pro-property libertarians who have some minor differences on copyright or natural resources or strategy and have consciously adopted that phrase. Using it to smear libertarians who are not states rights people is just dishonest and demogagocal.
Remember, libertarians are neither right nor left but ahead, so we should avoid that terminology unless we are very consciously comparing ourselves to the original “French Legislative Assembly after the revolution of 1789. In that context those who sat on the right side of the assembly were steadfast supporters of the dethroned monarchy and aristocracy — the ancien régime — (and hence were conservatives) while those who sat on the left opposed its reinstatement (and hence were radicals). It should follow from this that libertarians, or classical liberals, would sit on the left. ” Per Sheldon Richman.
dfn94, agree in spades! I really liked one of Travis Irvine’s campaign ads where he compared and contrasted himself and the LP with BOTH the Rs and Ds.
Root seems to only be playing to (disaffected) right wing Rs, which I don’t see how that works. If I were a R who liked Root’s message, my response to him would be Join the GOP and help us fix it.
I’m sure Starr could point us to instances where Root critiques the Rs, but I suspect he and Root recognize that imagemaking is all about headline positioning. Footnotes don’t count for much. The Root headline sounds too much like Rush Limbaugh for my tastes; more importantly, I don’t think it’ll work. Your Bush/Obama point would be a helpful adjustment, I think.
btw, yes, my feedback is that you ARE more of a centrist figure, near as I can tell.
Keep up the good work. All indications are that Root will be doing so as well, regardless of who might repudiate his words and call for his ouster.
cm97-98, when I use the term left Ls, I refer to Ls who emphasize anti-war or personal liberties matters. I use the term right Ls for those who emphasize economics and are sometimes hawkish.
If there’s a better shorthand, I’m all ears.
While I’m familiar with the French history, I don’t find it rhetorically useful. Others may.
Not suprised that Florida libertarians want to get rid of Wayne, they live in a commie state, so they are use to all the commie stuff happening over there.
Starchild insults to Wayne, why of course. Who the hell is Starchild, a prostitute ho. Who lives in a state that is talking about making it illegal to do circumcisions. I am sure those of you who do not believe that there is a G-d. Keep believing that. I am not going to explain something that I have come across which is fact and it has even convince me because it is beyond some of your little pea brains. But yes keep living a Soddem and Gommorah life Starchild. And those of you radicals life doesn’t end on this planet. I won’t have to convince you. There is the almighty you will have to deal with.
Starchild for President!
French Legislative Assembly after the revolution of 1789. In that context those who sat on the right side of the assembly were steadfast supporters of the dethroned monarchy and aristocracy ? the ancien r?gime ? (and hence were conservatives) while those who sat on the left opposed its reinstatement (and hence were radicals). It should follow from this that libertarians, or classical liberals, would sit on the left.
Exactly. Remember, Bastiat sat on the left.
http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2010/11/crafting-new-alliance.html
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/10/libertarians-left-right-or-neither/
Who cares about any of this dross, what are you doing to save the white race from extinction?
Re: Bruce Cohen @ 71:
Pay no attention to him. He makes stuff up.
“In that context those who sat on the… ”
Yes, in THAT context. THAT was a substantially different context to THIS context.
paulie @ 72: I hope Florida’s resolution does become an article on its own.
Yes, in THAT context. THAT was a substantially different context to THIS context.
Everything old is new again…
http://mises.org/daily/2099
Paulie: “I believe that is the reason why it is limited to two years. That doesn’t mean automatically renewed every two years, else why bother to include it?”
I read it as Congress must reconsider the appropriations it wants to give the military at least every two years. There are good reasons why Congress might want to raise or lower military funds on a regular basis (right now I think Congress should lower it by a lot). But that doesn’t mean in itself that the U.S. government is barred from having a military unless the U.S. is at war.
Paulie: “And if the president can just send troops from the automatically-renewed army anywhere in the world any time, why even bother to have a process for declaring war in there?”
Whoa, wait a minute: I never said the president can legally declare war. I only said the Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid the U.S. government from having a military when it wants in Article 1 Section 8; it only forbids the U.S. government from taking longer than every 2 years to decide on how much to appropriate to it and do so.
Wikipedia: “In Great Britain, and the British Colonies in America, there was a sentiment of distrust of a standing army not in civilian control. In England, this led to the Bill of Rights 1689 which reserves authority over a standing army to Parliament, not the King, and more nuanced in the United States, led to the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8 ) which reserves by virtue of “power of the purse” similar authority to Congress, instead of to the President.”
Yes, that’s all true. There was a sentiment of distrust for a standing army and Congress has the power of the purse. That proves Article 1 Section 8 forbids having a military except at a time of war?
Ditto for all the language about a citizens’ militia. Cato’s Letters did oppose a standing army–but Cato’s Letters isn’t the Constitution.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1480.htm:
“I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387″
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy2.html:
“On September 5th, Gerry renewed his concerns about the standing army, and suggested that the two year limit upon appropriations be reduced to one year.[132] That proposal was debated and reacted. On September 10th Edmond Randolph objected to the lack of a prohibition against a standing army.[133] On September 14th George Mason renewed his concerns.[134] Mason did not want an absolute prohibition on standing armies, but wanted some stronger language about their dangers. His efforts to get such language, however, failed. On September 16th Gerry again objected to the lack of limits upon the general power to raise and support standing armies.[135] When the Convention adjourned on September 17th, Mason, Gerry, and Randolph refused to sign the draft document.”
What American statesmen personally believed about a standing military–one that Congress still must to decide appropriations for at least every 2 years–isn’t in the Constitution. And that’s what lays out the powers of the federal government. If there’s a phrase in the Constitution that authorizes a military and there’s no specific qualifier as to WHEN the federal government can have one or not, then it can’t be that the Constitution itself forbids having a military unless its a time of war, even if Congress must reconsider the funding levels for it at least every 2 years.
Whether there SHOULD be a standing military is a different question (just as whether the federal government should have a post office). But the issue here is only about its Constitutionality.
NO BRIAN Sharron was not insanely extreme. Obviously you don’t know the constitution for which she was following.
Wayne, if you believe that “produce your papers” and government regulation of personal sexual conduct and substance consumption is “the constitution,” I encourage you to campaign on this idea for your future presidential run.
I will be most amused in observing.
Whoa, wait a minute: I never said the president can legally declare war. I only said the Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid the U.S. government from having a military when it wants in Article 1 Section 8; it only forbids the U.S. government from taking longer than every 2 years to decide on how much to appropriate to it and do so.
Well, yeah, the president doesn’t legally declare wars – he just does so in everything but name, since he sends troops around the world whenever he wants, and the appropriations are always in place.
The US government always decides every year how much to appropriate for what. It seems to me there is a special reason why appropriations for armies are limited to two years, and reading the history of what the colonists and their British compatriots thought of standing armies confirms that.
I don’t know whether it can be read as literally a prohibition on armies being raised for more than two years at a time – after all, wars can last longer than that, as the American Revolution did – but read in historical context, it’s pretty clear that the present situation, where we have a large standing army that is constantly sent around the world without any formal declarations of war – is exactly what they wanted to avoid.
Americans should “refudiate” the constitution that Sharron Angle spoke of during the campaign, but apparently never read — you know, the make believe document that’s apparently also embraced by Wayne Allyn Root.
By the way, is the Las Vegas handicapper related to the late Lar Daly, the fringe candidate from Chicago who used to dress up in an Uncle Sam outfit and make a clown of himself while running for office?
It’s little wonder why people don’t take third parties seriously…
Paulie: “Well, yeah, the president doesn’t legally declare wars – he just does so in everything but name, since he sends troops around the world whenever he wants, and the appropriations are always in place.”
That’s true. But that’s not what was being argued. You said,“And if the president can just send troops from the automatically-renewed army anywhere in the world any time, why even bother to have a process for declaring war in there?” The president can’t LEGALLY “send troops anywhere in the world any time.” When he does send troops to fight around the world without any declaration from Congress, he’s violating the Constitution. That does NOT mean armies can only be raised in times of war, which was the original claim you made.
Paulie: “It seems to me there is a special reason why appropriations for armies are limited to two years, and reading the history of what the colonists and their British compatriots thought of standing armies confirms that.”
Did you read the quotes I included showing that some American statesmen were very perturbed there was no Constitutional prohibition on standing armies? I think TJ and the others know whether there actually was or not.
Paulie: “but read in historical context, it’s pretty clear that the present situation, where we have a large standing army that is constantly sent around the world without any formal declarations of war – is exactly what they wanted to avoid.”
From what I’ve read of their comments, I think they were mostly concerned about the U.S. military oppressing U.S. citizens, as was common in England and other countries. But that’s a finer point irrelevant to the original argument.
The president can’t LEGALLY “send troops anywhere in the world any time.” When he does send troops to fight around the world without any declaration from Congress, he’s violating the Constitution.
It’s done all the time right now. The original statement you made which led to this discussion tangent was So I don’t know how much effect even strict adherence to the Constitution would have on advancing peace.
While I could pursue this tangent further, I’ve already spent far more time on it than I meant to.
Capozzi 100: “when I use the term left Ls, I refer to Ls who emphasize anti-war or personal liberties matters. I use the term right Ls for those who emphasize economics and are sometimes hawkish. If there’s a better shorthand, I’m all ears.”
There’s libertarians who are libertarian on ALL three issues and there’s libertarian conservatives (if they are at least mostly antiwar/pro-civil liberties). The latter tend to have more faith in the US Constitution than the former who often are more interested in new experiments. If they are only (usually quasi) libertarian on economics and bad on the other two issues they are conservatives.
Do I have to put it on a t-shirt?
Someone already did:
LIBERTARIAN
Antiwar, pro-personal and economic liberty, for right to alter or abolish government and/or secede.
Everyone else is confused.
Starchild, I’d like to repost your comments – with your permission, of course.
Paulie: “It’s done all the time right now.”
Right. That’s obviously true.
Paulie: “The original statement you made which led to this discussion tangent was So I don’t know how much effect even strict adherence to the Constitution would have on advancing peace.”
Right. It was an honest musing…I said I didn’t know, and I threw out a couple of ideas about how that might have a real effect. I was still considering it. If you’re saying it would keep the president from sending troops to fight elsewhere in the world without a declaration of war from Congress, which is often hard to get, that’s a good point.
But that wasn’t how you answered my original comment. You said, “Well, according to the Constitution, armies were only supposed to be raised in times of war…” And then I said that’s false; the Constitution doesn’t say that. TJ was disturbed the Constitution didn’t prohibit a standing army. Other statesmen kept trying to change that in the Constitution and failed. Obviously, they wouldn’t be upset about or try to change something they wanted and already had. You skipped right over that.
Paulie: “While I could pursue this tangent further, I’ve already spent far more time on it than I meant to.”
That’s the second time you’ve called it a “tangent,” which has a negative connotation. If you’re saying it’s too long, I’m puzzled because you’ve had much longer discussions here. If you’re saying it’s scattered, all I can say is that I haven’t been.
I’ve just had one point since your response here to me: the Constitution doesn’t state in Article 1 Section 8 that the U.S. government can’t have a military except in war time, as you said, but new appropriations have to be made at least every two years. And those other guys agreed, to their dismay.
Obviously, you don’t have to respond since you don’t want to. I don’t think I need to support this point better anyway. I don’t even know how I could. Onward.
Or you could just mean it was off the original posted topic, which it was. That happens a lot.
I meant that I spent much longer on it than I meant to. I don’t always have the same amount of other things I need to be doing. I made the original point I meant to make, and as for overstating my case, I long since acknowledged that as well.
There was certainly strong sentiment against standing armies at the time, and the anti-feds were correct that the constitution should have made it more explicit. That was a failing. Still, I think it’s clear, even the federalists would have opposed the present approach, where we have a large standing army that is constantly sent around the world without any formal declarations of war.
At this point, I really do think it’s well past time for both of us to move on. We both agreed to each other’s main points, everything else is secondary and I have other things to do.
Starchild’s comments #29 has been reposted as an article at
http://www.freepatriot-press.com/2010/11/wayne-root-is-huckster.html
Paulie: “I made the original point I meant to make, and as for overstating my case, I long since acknowledged that as well.”
I don’t think you acknowledged you overstated your case?? If you did and I saw that, I would have said okay and wouldn’t have continued; I’m not looking to browbeat anyone. But if someone keeps arguing a claim I can disprove, I’ll keep probably keep arguing it also until I get bored.
But you’re acknowledging it now, so that’s fine by me.
Paulie: “At this point, I really do think it’s well past time for both of us to move on. We both agreed to each other’s main points, everything else is secondary and I have other things to do.”
Paulie, you can move on whenever you want and do other things. That’s your right, and I’m not forcing you to keep responding to me. I liked discussing this and had no problem continuing.
And I didn’t agree to your main points. I agreed to the point that presidents shouldn’t be sending troops around the world (when they do a lot) and obeying the Constitution wouldn’t enable them to do that on their own. That wasn’t the issue we’ve been debating though, which was what the Constitution says about a standing army.
Now, if you want to move on, go right ahead. But don’t respond to me with an argument and then tell me it’s well past time for me to move on. I can decide that for myself.
JT, LOL, seems you have lastworditis as bad as me. It’s not your fault I have bad impulse control when it comes to responding to everything even when I have other things to do.
I said at 111 “I don’t know whether it can be read as literally a prohibition on armies being raised for more than two years at a time – after all, wars can last longer than that, as the American Revolution did – but read in historical context, it’s pretty clear that the present situation, where we have a large standing army that is constantly sent around the world without any formal declarations of war – is exactly what they wanted to avoid.”
So, I overstated the case that it was a complete prohibition against standing armies.
But that was not my main point to begin with. My main point was to address your statement “So I don’t know how much effect even strict adherence to the Constitution would have on advancing peace.”
You’ve agreed with my point on that. I agreed with your point on standing armies being let in through a a loophole, which I consider unfortunate.
If you think there is still something to discuss on this point, I don’t see why, but obviously it’s your right.
If I had a lot more time right now, I might want to delve deeper into that. as it stands, I have a bunch of things to wrap up before I hit the road and some stories I need to post. So, maybe another time.
Bruce @ 71: Once again, if you ever had a shred of credibility, you have destroyed it here. You were not in the executive session when this subject was considered, so once again, you are talking out of your ass. “Close and dear friend?” Horse s***.
Unlike you, I was there when the subject was considered, and know that Jill conducted herself as any mother would be expected to do. But also unlike you, Jill and I know when we’ve won a fight, and when it’s time to stop fighting. Are you advising Obama on foreign policy, too? Sounds like you might be, because you don’t know when to declare victory and stop.
Or maybe you just haven’t progressed beyond 7th grade. For the record, I think it’s totally despicable of you to try and mislead people about Jill’s actions in the convention and on the Executive Committee, especially when YOU WEREN’T EVEN THERE when the subject was considered, to know what happened. But then, you already knew that.
So, why would anybody ever believe a single word you say, ever again?
“Left-libertarian” is redundant. The only reason I use it is to distinguish myself from libertarians who mistakenly think they’re on the Right, and from Rightists who mistakenly or fraudulently claim to be libertarians.
cm and tk, as I indicated @100, it’s a matter of emphasis. It could be that Roots or the Hospers of the world are “confused,” “mistaken,” or “fraudulent,” I cannot say. Ditto for Georgists, many of whom claim to be L and yet often support something tantamount to a citizens dividend.
I am convinced that Root, Hospers, Georgists and myself DO wish to see the net incidence of liberty increased and for state coercion to decrease, making them supportable and on the same team in my book.
I find Moore’s def. (“Antiwar, pro-personal and economic liberty, for right to alter or abolish government and/or secede”) insufficient. I for ex. am certainly squarely in the pro-PL and EL sector, I’m generally “anti-war,” but I don’t consider that a principle, but rather a default position. And of course while I in theory agree that there’s a right to alter or abolish a state or for a people to secede, I would think that clear thinkers would want conditions put on such a right. For ex., I would not support the Mafia’s right to wrest control of the city of Providence, RI, and then claim they’ve seceded from RI and the US. I don’t think an al Qaeda cell in the US has the right to alter the US Constitution, either.
I would agree that the human condition is one marked by confusion. If so, a humble person learns that harsh judgments (full repudiation) of others is often incorrect.
tk: “Left-libertarian” is redundant.
me: Yes, if L means something like “anti-establishment,” as it did in 19th c. France. In THIS context, I suspect “left” means people who want larger government and government-manipulation of income distribution, first and foremost. It also generally connotes war aversion except in cases of genocide and perhaps a more liberal stance on personal liberty matters.
Most left Ls I know are not for government-imposed income redistribution; nor, of course, do right Ls align with that concept.
Subdividing the L universe into camps gets complex and rather impossible, IMO. For me, though, the most interesting analyzing the degree of lessarchistic steps one advocates in the here and now. You are probably a 9 or 10, advocating rapid reductions in the State’s size. I’d be a 1. My guess is most self-IDed Ls are between us on that scale.
To the extent we engage is LT thinking, as a self-IDed anarchist and proponent of a stateless society, you’d be a 10. I’m probably a 9, and I’ll reassess if we ever get to 9 prior to the inevitable pushing-up-daisies state!
If pressed, I’d say Root is a ST 3, LT 7. That makes him my fellow traveler until we get to 7. The Nolan: ST 5, LT 9.
Since things are going in the contra-indicated direction, one would hope that fellow travelers can get along.
“left” means people who want larger government and government-manipulation of income distribution
That’s actually using rightist means allegedly to achieve leftist goals (and if the person who claims to be doing so is honest, it doesn’t work).
Time to reorient the terms left and right to what they originally meant. The currently popular disorientation is confusing people and working as a saw to prevent freedom.
Those leftists who have bought into the idea that rightist (statist) means work to achieve leftist goals are sawing away at the tree of liberty from one direction. The rightists who have bought into that same myth are sawing away at it from another direction, lending their support to destroying personal freedoms while allegedly they are working for smaller government, all because they want to fight this (fake) left.
They both saw away at liberty in a race towards the bottom of the Nolan chart, or towards the top of the pyramid of power that rests on our backs, depending what angle you want to look at it from.
pc: That’s actually using rightist means allegedly to achieve leftist goals (and if the person who claims to be doing so is honest, it doesn’t work). Time to reorient the terms left and right to what they originally meant.
me: Changing conventions and language like you suggest is IMO more ambitious that Root! So much deprogramming, so little time!
It requires a deep understanding of economic theory to understand that the State works at cross purposes…programs like AFDC don’t help the poor, it hurts them. On its face, I’d suggest it’s actually false. Today, poor family gets government check. Tomorrow, no check.
Explain to a “leftist” (progressive) how that’s a good thing, and I’d bet big they’d not agree with you 99% of the time.
Time preferences tend to be short, and if anything are getting shorter.
As a ST1, I prefer to start with the low-hanging fruit, the places where almost no one thinks government spending is useful.
All good, though.
Robert: “I am convinced that Root, Hospers, Georgists and myself DO wish to see the net incidence of liberty increased…”
Wanting a net increase in liberty does not necessarily make one a libertarian — not if one also supports liberty shifting.
For example, let’s say a person wants to abolish 90% of all taxes and business regulations, and legalize marijuana — but wants to severely curtain the rights of a small, unpopular minority group.
There would be a great in increase in liberty for a large majority of Americans, with a great decrease in liberty for a small number of Americans, resulting in a net increase in liberty.
Yet I would not call a person who advocated such policies as “libertarian.”
Brian Holtz has called the Iraq War liberty maximizing, but I said that the resulting loss of liberty (to use one’s eyesight, limbs, or even life) made the war unjustifiable even if more people benefited than were harmed (not necessarily true).
130 BC
Have you read
http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2010/11/crafting-new-alliance.html
yet?
OK, let’s get libertarian here. Don’t use left or right and cause even more confusion among libertarians, not to mention the rest of the world. Use STATIST. Either their positions are MORE statist than a very minimal state position (not to mention an anarchist one) or they are not.
Now when it gets into definitions of WHAT property rights actually are (as in copyright or original rights in natural resources) people should avoid use of right and left and just call it what it is – a disagreement over definitions and principles.
tms: Wanting a net increase in liberty does not necessarily make one a libertarian — not if one also supports liberty shifting.
me: Yes, I wish there were a simplistic formula that allowed one to assess whether someone else is on my team or not. I could, for ex., say that anyone who ever disagrees with me on anything is NOT on my team…that would be easy, and I don’t know about you, Thomas, but I don’t think ANYONE would be on my team using that standard. Near as I can tell, no 2 people agree on every single thing.
Pro-life Ls also believe their position is liberty maximizing, as do pro-private nuke Ls.
I advocate shifting the tax base from working, saving and investing to pollution. At least in the short term, heavy polluters would see their tax burden increase. (I also support overall tax revenues to decline.) Whether that’s “liberty shifting,” I can’t say…it depends on how one views the act of polluting, what one’s assessment of pollution is, how pollution damages others, etc. Some might say yes, Capozzi’s a liberty shifter! So, in that case, we disagree.
While we sometimes disagree, I consider Holtz, private nuke enthusiasts, and pro-lifers Ls to be on my team if they want less government. If they advocate something way over the line, I might distance myself from a team member…like in the case of aggressive advocates for private nukes. I’ve voted for pro-lifers, and I’d vote for Holtz if I lived in his district, despite my strong disagreement with him on Iraq.
That seems to be a serviceable and healthy approach, but you may have a better alternative in assessing who’s on your team, who you distance yourself from, and who you openly oppose. If so, we’d like to hear it, or some other useful paradigm.
cm: Don’t use left or right and cause even more confusion among libertarians, not to mention the rest of the world. Use STATIST.
me: I like the sentiment, but I don’t always use the word “statist,” as its meaning is not universally understood.
Here’s another way to look at this question: Probably something like 99% of the population could be viewed as “statists” to the extent they have political views. However, there seem to be different sorts of statists, some with L-leaning ideas.
Some Ls believe that as a tactical/marketing question, our best target market are L-leaning rightists…Tea Partiers, for ex. This is Root’s contention, I believe.
Some Ls believe our best target market are L-leaning leftists/progressives/young people. This is Chartier/Paulie/Knapp/Starchild’s contention, I believe.
Both make a good case. Neither tactic is optimal, IMO, certainly not by themselves. My hypothesis is that “regular” folks are our best target market, non-extremist, middle class, suburban, not happy with the current state of affairs, perhaps somewhat TP associated; perhaps somewhat progressive associated.
Am I absolutely, undeniably correct? Hell no. It’s simply my take, all things considered. My strongest case for centrist-oriented-marketing is that the profile I’m pointing to is the largest market, and that politics is a numbers game.
Some Ls believe that as a tactical/marketing question, our best target market are L-leaning rightists…Tea Partiers, for ex. This is Root’s contention, I believe.
Some Ls believe our best target market are L-leaning leftists/progressives/young people. This is Chartier/Paulie/Knapp/Starchild’s contention, I believe.
Both make a good case. Neither tactic is optimal, IMO, certainly not by themselves. My hypothesis is that “regular” folks are our best target market, non-extremist, middle class, suburban, not happy with the current state of affairs
Actually…All of the above.
However, given how much more likely young people are to switch parties than middle aged and older people, and the testing results I observed with OPH booths on college campuses, I think that is the most promising, least explored opportunity.
Other groups, too: immigrants (least likely among adults over a certain age to be already entrenched with a US political party), gay people, marijuana users, anyone whose lifestyle choice or non-chosen demographic factors cause them to be more targeted for government oppression than the average person.
My strongest case for centrist-oriented-marketing is that the profile I’m pointing to is the largest market, and that politics is a numbers game.
Not all people are equally available. Being over 30 makes someone about 10 times less likely to switch their political party, to take just one example.
By the way, one demographic we sorely need to learn to speak to is the attention-challenged.
Websites should prominently place a row of icons which link to more details about each issue, right at the top: Peace symbol, marijuana leaf, gold dollar sign, rainbow, and pistol all in a row makes an interesting visual statement that might make people want to know more.
pc, don’t disagree. Marketing with limited resources using mostly volunteers is a highly imprecise business. I’d suggest that candidates are the single-most prominent resource, and I’d prefer they focus on the demo/psycho-graphic I’ve IDed while including messaging that appeals to Root’s and your audiences, too. I do believe that could be done.
Savaging those who take the “right” or “left” path is contra-indicated, IMO.
Saga @ 104
“Race” is a pseudoscientific social contstruct. There’s only one race, the human race. And to the extent that the “white race” even exists (which is to the extent that some people choose to believe it does), why should anyone care whether it goes extinct?
There’s nothing wrong with racial pride, so I don’t understand the fuss.
Just take a look at the Niggers and Muds, they are even worse than us.
Some say it’s wrong to be proud of being white, they say we’re all the same.
So why were we born as different races, was it nature playing a game?
I’m proud of what I am, judge me all you want, I don’t give a damn.
I’m a white European, true Skinhead.
Loyal to my race until I’m dead.
I’m proud of my bloodline, of my white ancestry.
Well if that makes me a racist, then I’m proud to be.
Some say all men are equal, I can tell you that ain’t right.
Pakis, Niggers, Muds and Spics: They sure as hell ain’t white.
We all know that Niggers are lazy, while greed reflects the Jew.
These stigmas didn’t invent themselves, they exist perhaps they are true.
I’m proud of what I am, judge me all you want, I don’t give a damn.
I’m a white European, true Skinhead.
Loyal to my race until I’m dead.
I’m proud of my bloodline, of my white ancestry.
Well if that makes me a racist, then I’m proud to be.
If racism means admitting that’s there racial diversity, then you can call me racist and I’m fucking proud to be.
It ain’t about hating the other races, it’s about loving your own.
So you see, there’s nothing wrong at all, when racial pride is shown.
I’m proud of what I am, judge me all you want, I don’t give a damn.
I’m a white European, true Skinhead.
Loyal to my race until I’m dead.
I’m proud of my bloodline, of my white ancestry.
Well if that makes me a racist, then…
I’m proud of what I am, judge me all you want, I don’t give a damn.
I’m a white European, true Skinhead.
Loyal to my race until I’m dead.
I’m proud of my bloodline, of my white ancestry.
Well if that makes me a racist, then I’m proud to be.
@141
……..for being an ass so as to avoid Republican taint
Capozzi @96
I’m not mocking Root, Bubby. I’m mocking his supporters @ 81.
His supporters have in fact made fabulous claims in the past as to what Root would do for the LP – my whole fucking point is that he hasn’t shit except stir up a lot of it in the LP. But, you don’t get a lot of stuff, Bubby, so I won’t hold it against you.
uh oh, a typo
“he hasn’t DONE shit”
Although the LNCC did bring in some money under Root’s watch for the last election, I have yet to se that he’s brought new members or contributioins to the Libertarian party.
Incidentally, the bonehead who wrote that charming little song @ 141 finally did himself and the world a favor and killed himself earlier this year.
The brave nazi peckerhead warrior could not live with losing out on a career as a school teacher after being sentenced to a term in a Belgian prison.
And what did the bonerhead do to merit said sentence? Why, he beat an African immigrant into a month long coma, followed by death a year later. No doubt for the “crime” of being an African man on European soil.
Well, at least we now know he really meant it when he wrote “it ain’t about hating the other races.” Funny way of showing that…
(Bone(r)heads have been a research interest of mine for some time. I spent some time getting into street fights with them on the NYC hardcore rock scene back in the 1980s…)
Of course, it was only a matter of time before this hit outside media…
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/florida-libertarians-take-wayne-allyn-root
This thread is hysterical, and why I’m no longer a “libertarian” but an autarchist.
Didn’t Badnarik give the eulogy? Did you fail to listen or did you miss his point?
While you were arguing with each other, serious activists have created new vehicles to *ensure* our sovereignty (“liberty” is what soldiers and slaves are sometimes allowed); you folks would do well to look at the larger world around you and recognize the systems coming online that make minarchism irrelevant.