John Jay Myers@ Norml in DFW

63 thoughts on “John Jay Myers@ Norml in DFW

  1. Here's a radical idea

    Will the stoners get off the couch and actually VOTE for pro-legalization candidates and initiatives?

  2. Robert Capozzi

    while I would and do support Ls like Myers would call for taxing pot, I trust that those who don’t support that don’t call for purging Myers. Looks to me like the man is doing his best to advance liberty.

  3. LibertarianGirl

    will the stoners get off the couch ?? I dontknow perhaps you should ask Steve Kubby who skis everyday , runs a business , raises children , runs , etc etc

  4. LibertarianGirl

    Yep , RC purges are wrong, period.. even when they say its to get abetter , more cohesive message or whatever bull it was the LPNevada offered. purges are wrong, period.

  5. Robert Capozzi

    I would think that “hard core” Ls would at least denounce Myers as a “statist” for this woeful and obvious plumb line violation.

    If not, why not?

    To be clear, I don’t.

  6. Michael H. Wilson

    If it was legal the price would drop like a rock and the only tax that would be effective is probably a sales tax, which most likely every thing else is subject to.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    mhw, yes, but shouldn’t a principled plumbliner take EVERY opportunity to make the impassioned case that TAXATION IS THEFT! Why would a good plumbliner pass up the opportunity to discipline, castigate, and disown any “libertarian” who accepts coercion in ANY form?

  8. Michael H. Wilson

    Well Mr. C I suppose one should, but sometimes getting the vessel to shore requires changing course from port to starboard depending on the shift of the winds, tide and currents.

    Being an absolutist myself I sometime find myself with this problem, but I almost always mention the goal up front and then try to spell out the options from there. Getting there may take decades, perhaps a century, or two.

  9. Michael H. Wilson

    btw allow me to point out the Mr. Myers was not sitting on his ass typing on a keyboard. He was out in public getting the message out and we should applaud him for that effort, which I do.

    Thanks John!

  10. Robert Capozzi

    Mhw, oh, I do applaud Myers, Root, and other plumb line deviationists. I just don’t understand the selective enforcement standards of pure NAP violations.

  11. John Jay Myers

    Robert, it seems you are very determined to divide the group into two sides, if so, let me explain the two sides as I see it.

    There are those who want to advance their own interest, who want power, they want the Libertarian Party to become much less edgy so that they can have a larger base for a limited time, let’s call them the “48 Laws of Power gang”. Unfortunately there are some people who aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed who believe these guys are actually helping.

    So that leaves the rest of us, anarchists, minarchists, libertarians, who simply want to spread a libertarian message and hope that when people see our principles they want to join in and help. And we can all be a happy bunch riding the train to no governmentville, until some care to get off.

    This means that some will be activists, some will work in elections, but we can all work together.

    But we need to get rid of the “48 Laws of Power Gang” in order to keep them from making us appear unprincipled.

    Ron Paul is screaming the libertarian message, when he does not win the primaries someone needs to be there not only set up as a political party, but proving we believe the message, and that our leaders don’t have a long history of saying (or doing) very unlibertarian things.

    We can not afford another 2008, and we can’t afford to be divided into imaginary groups.

  12. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Someone sent me a message this morning that the LP page is deleting pro-RP comments, and encouraging anti-RP comments. I’m not able to access the comments on the LP site. Has anyone else noticed a problem?

  13. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’m a radical Libertarian, and would certainly like to see marijuana legalized with no taxes or limitations, but even I understand that we’ll need to take baby steps with this issue. Judge Jim Gray and Steve Kubby are hard at work on a new Proposition for California. I’ll post on it as soon as there’s a press release or something specific I can post on it.

  14. John Jay Myers

    Oh and about the taxing, they tax Cheetohs, they can tax marijuana if they like. At this point I will definitely like to start with just being able to have the thing in my possession without being arrested for it.

    Like Cheetohs.

    For the record, I have never smoked Cheetohs.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    As I understand the Rothbardian sense of “principled” L-ism, “real Ls” must hold high the banner of total non-aggression, meaning zero taxes. The Rothbardian will accept half measures as a transition, but it’s imperative to advocate the pure solution.

    I find this divisive, as Rothbardians and other similarly absolutist often castigate and write off other Ls who don’t toe their plumb line.

    Taxing but legalizing pot makes sense to me. Plumbb line-ism doesn’t.

  16. John Jay Myers

    Robert, even when I run into huge fans of Rothbard, for the most part they are all still willing to work with minarchists towards less government.
    The idea that the people “just can’t get along” is nonsense. Mary Ruwart is an excellent example, her and Lee have eaten at my house, I enjoy them a lot, but we are different. I am a minarchist, Mary is for a stateless society completely.
    We are both heading the same direction, and I think we get along fine, I am willing to stand up for and defend libertarians who believe in a stateless society…. because under the right conditions, for instance actually having a very limited government that only protected our life, liberty and property, we might actually be ready to have a conversation about taking the next step.

    Right now, I think our focus should be ending all the wars, ending our empire around the world, ending corporatism and living our life as we see fit.
    If you are into that, you are plenty libertarian enough for me.

  17. Robert Capozzi

    21 jjm: The idea that the people “just can’t get along” is nonsense. …If you are into that, you are plenty libertarian enough for me.

    me: Oh, as Co-Chair of the Rodney King Caucus with Paulie, I certainly agree we can all get along. And I’m supportive of constitutionalists, other minarchists, anarchists, and other lessarchists such as myself as being the L tent.

    I do find it corrosive and presumptuous that some Ls consider themselves the “real” Ls, and the rest of us are mere fellow travelers, as leading “radicals” have deemed me and others to be. I’m somewhat surprised that no “radical” has disowned your “endorsement” of taxation.

    I guess somehow some plumbline deviations are somehow worse than others in their minds.

  18. Robert Capozzi

    23 mhw, all I can say is I assure you that I never intend to waste anything and what is is never a waste. It just is what it is.

    I would also say that denial is never useful. It may be what it is, but as soon as some view themselves as superior and others as inferior, that conflict will lead away from peace.

    The only way I know of to radically address and undo conflict is to bring it to light. If you know of another way, please do share.

  19. Michael H. Wilson

    Robert somewhere in Oklahoma Patricia Spottedcrow is doing ten years for selling $31 worth of cannabis. I think it would have been better if she had been compelled to pay a 20% sales tax. I do think a 20% sales tax is way too high.

  20. Tom Blanton

    I would think that “hard core” Ls would at least denounce Myers as a “statist” for this woeful and obvious plumb line violation.

    If not, why not?

    I’ll attempt to explain.

    First, There is no need to denounce Mr. Myers as a statist. He freely admits he is a minarchist. It is also obvious that he favors much less government than the typical mainstream statist. So, his minimal statism is not a huge issue. It’s not like he’s running around claiming other libertarians are socialists like that one guy we know.

    The legalization, regulation and taxation of marihuana (as they call it in Texas) is more than just one little baby step in the right direction. That’s a huge step away from what now exists.

    I would personally favor that any reference to marihuana be stricken from all state and federal codes, as long as these codes must exist. At least the tax and regulation gambit treats reefer the same as alcohol is currently treated.

    The tax and regulation rhetoric appeals to both liberals and conservatives – not just one group of delusional rubes. Liberals become sexually aroused when they hear the words “tax” and “regulate” – they are enveloped in a feeling of warmth and protection. Conservatives love sin taxes and they would certainly want the weed regulated so that their teenage daughters can’t smoke it and then have sex with swarthy boys.

    On a political level, even though not perfect, the tax and regulate style of legalization is palatable to most hard core libertarians – at least transitionally.

    On a more personal level, evil, dishonest, hate-mongering hyphenated “libertarian” assholes that pander to right-wingers will always be attacked by hardcore libertarians for any reason that presents itself.

    Myers seems to be honest and straight forward. He doesn’t claim to be some bizarre kind of libertarian, such as a McCain-Libertarian. He doesn’t attack the hardcore libertarians with pejoratives. He isn’t pretentious and arrogant. All in all, a pretty decent guy.

    So, those libertarians that cringe when hearing the words “tax” and “regulate” are willing to give Mr. Myers a break because of who he is on a personal level as well as on a political level.

    I hope that answers your question, Mr. Capozzi. Anyway, I think you already knew the answer.

  21. Capozzi Is Divisive

    Capozzi likes to label all Root critics as intolerant “plumbliners/absolutists/Rothbardians” — then accuse them of not being intolerant enough when they fail to live up to Capozzi’s accusation.

    The truth is, people hate Root because Root is a dishonest egomaniac. It has nothing to do with “plumbline,” and I don’t know that anyone ever said it did.

    But it’s easier for Capozzi to defend against his own strawmen arguments, than to defend Root for the real reasons people hate him.

  22. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Here’s the new video for the new marijuana initiative in CA.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    29 tb, thanks for clarifying. So, near as I can tell, some plumb line violations are more tolerable than others. Myers violation (which I personally share, too) is acceptable, even though it is “statist” to the plumb liner.

    Other non-plumb-line-Gospel positions might lead to outright denunciation. Has the line for toleration vs. denunciation been codified?

    The truth is I really don’t understand plumb line-ism. I think I pretty much get the ideology, I think I get the strategy (having read MNR’s seminal essay on the subject), but I don’t get the tactics.

  24. Robert Capozzi

    30 Divisive: Capozzi likes to label all Root critics as intolerant “plumbliners/absolutists/Rothbardians” — then accuse them of not being intolerant enough when they fail to live up to Capozzi’s accusation.

    me: Sorry, I don’t recall labeling “all” Root critics as intolerant. That would be a problematic hypocrisy, since I myself criticize some of Root’s positions! It’s not my job to criticize people, and I’d suggest it’s not anyone’s job to do so.

    I’m simply trying to understand the tactics of plumb liners. Brother Blanton has begun to explain it…that there are “minor” plumb line violations that do not deserve personal attacks, and some plumb line violations (or possibly some aggregation of violations) that trigger full-on character assassination.

    Apparently, Myers gets a pass for being a minarchist “statist” who wants to tax pot.

    Got it.

  25. Robert Capozzi

    28 dwp: If we work toward the goal of NO GOVERNMENT, we may actually achieve the goal of MINUTE GOVERNMENT

    me: True. Possible. Also possible that working to the goal of no government is completely inconsequential. Also possible that is actually counter-productive, alienating and dividing the broader lessarchist community, and damaging the lessarchist brand.

    It’s not provable which stance is most likely to move the prevailing ideology and State/citizenry relationship. Personally, I think a lessarchist approach would most likely work best. Apparently, you think advocating statelessness is persuasive.

  26. Capozzi's Obsession

    Capozzi, you don’t really criticize Root. You may give him some gentle pokes, to create the false impression that you’re some independent voice of moderation, but the weight of your posts lean heavily in favor of Root.

    Then there’s your obsession with the “plumbliners” and “absolutists” under your bed, who (you imagine) unfairly persecute Root.

  27. Robert Capozzi

    37 obsession, that’s a fair point. My critiques of Root are restricted to the positions I don’t agree with him on, and sometimes his style.

    My critiques of plumb line absolutism is deeper and more fundamental. I challenge the theory.

    My critiques of plumb liners mostly involves the notion that they believe they can determine who is L and who isn’t. I don’t see Root doing this to self-identified Ls…claiming that they are not really Ls. If he does so, he does it less frequently…at least as I perceive it.

    I see this charge frequently on LRC, where they dis Ls as “libertarian.” I see this sometimes in LP circles, too.

    I consider that judgmentalism highly corrosive in an elemental way. I consider Root’s approach less so.

    I point to this dysfunction for others to consider. You don’t have to agree with my opinion!!! I certainly have no monopoly on truth in this regard. Perhaps plumbline-ism is the optimal path to liberty.

    I remain, however, unconvinced.

  28. Tom Blanton

    I’m simply trying to understand the tactics of plumb liners. Brother Blanton has begun to explain it…that there are “minor” plumb line violations that do not deserve personal attacks, and some plumb line violations (or possibly some aggregation of violations) that trigger full-on character assassination.

    Apparently, Myers gets a pass for being a minarchist “statist” who wants to tax pot.

    Got it.

    No, Capozzi, you don’t get it.

    Go back to # 29 and read it again. Then, re-read it again. Stop concentrating on what your clever rejoinder will be and attempt to comprehend the words as they are written. There are no secret messages written between the lines and there are no code words that have secret alternative meanings. I don’t address what you regard as “minor plumb line violations” and I do address my disagreements with Myers.

    Personally, I don’t see why you have such a problem with personal attacks as you seem to engage in them frequently yourself. You toss about labels that are obviously intended to be pejorative in nature quite often. Posturing as a reasonable moderate doesn’t change that or make it any more acceptable. In the end, it may come down to your own inability to discern between decent people and arrogant deceitful assholes. Most ordinary people will tend to be more critical of arrogant deceitful assholes, in spite of your penchant for defending them.

  29. Steven R Linnabary

    My critiques of plumb liners mostly involves the notion that they believe they can determine who is L and who isn’t. I don’t see Root doing this to self-identified Ls…claiming that they are not really Ls.

    Ummm…Root DOES regularly accuse others of “sounding like Marxists” or “leftists”, which he believes turns people off to the libertarian message. Of course, these are rather general statements that are never backed up with specifics.

    PEACE

  30. Robert Capozzi

    41 srl, Root may do some of that. I see “expressing concern that a message will turn people off to a L message” as quite different from “you are not L because you deviate from the plumb line.”

    If Root said “you sound like a Marxist, therefore you are not L,” I’d challenge him as I challenge plumb liners.

  31. Robert Capozzi

    40 tb: In the end, it may come down to your own inability to discern between decent people and arrogant deceitful assholes.

    me: Please respect that I am a spiritual person, and it’s my practice to see others as brothers and sisters, even those I disagree with. I have no interest in developing an ability to discern that which is false.

  32. Tom Blanton

    By the way, Capozzi. People have explained to you repeatedly on IPR why they criticize Root. Probably hundreds of times. His exaggerations, deceptive statements, incorrect facts, bombastic rhetoric, and arrogance have been pointed out and documented over and over and over. The claims of all he does for the LP have been refuted by the lack of any quantifiable results.

    And yet, Capozzi, you continue with this dissembling commentary where you pretend that you can’t understand why people are critical of Root. You somehow seem to believe it is unfair and unwarranted. With a wave of your hand, you dismiss every complaint about Root, except for a few minor criticisms you have of him yourself.

    Just the other day, Root called Knapp a socialist. We all know how Root defines socialism – Obama. How silly. Root attacks all libertarians when he goes off the rails with his uber-conservative attacks on libertarians for being too liberal, or too socialist, or not adhering to the plumb line of tea party dogma (the rhetoric that his adoring fans love to hear).

    My question to Capozzi is this. When are going to stop pretending that you don’t understand what all the criticisms regarding Root are about?

    Even if you don’t agree with the criticisms, you should, by now, understand what they are and why they are being voiced. If you don’t get it by now, you must be the most dense human on earth.

    Rather than attacking those criticizing Root as radical absolutists that are preventing the advance of liberty, why not refute the criticisms with actual arguments that go beyond sophomoric statements about what is truth, what is reality, or the ambiguity of morality.

    At the very least, you must acknowledge that Root is the most divisive thing that has affected the LP since Neal Boortz or the reformers (where are they now?) simply by the number and intensity of Root’s detractors. Perhaps you can explain how this is a good thing for the LP.

    All I can say is that these media whores that call themselves libertarians (Root, Beck, Boortz, et al) combined with major GOP supporters that call themselves libertarian (Koch boys) have given many in the general public with genuine libertarian leanings a nasty taste in their mouth.

  33. Tom Blanton

    I have no interest in developing an ability to discern that which is false.

    And that’s your problem, Capozzi. Especially when you comment on what is prudent and what is optimal and what is contra-indicated.

    Apparently your spirituality is not leading you down the path of enlightenment but into the dark hole of politics and subterfuge. People seeking enlightenment generally are truth seekers.

    The petty lies and manipulative distortions of politicians have little place in the realm of spirituality.

    You’re not trying to pull an Elmer Gantry on us, are you Capozzi?

  34. Robert Capozzi

    tb 44: At the very least, you must acknowledge that Root is the most divisive thing that has affected the LP since Neal Boortz or the reformers (where are they now?) simply by the number and intensity of Root’s detractors. Perhaps you can explain how this is a good thing for the LP.

    me: Could be, if there’s a way to measure “divisiveness” in a tiny group like the LP. It doesn’t surprise me that some object to Root’s opinions and style. Barr was divisive, too. Both are doing their best and got/getting some exposure to L ideas. That may be threatening to those who have a narrow view of what it means to be L. I don’t find it threatening, even when I disagree with Root and Barr.

    I’m noticing that the major media interviews that Paul is getting on his prez candidacy, they call him “the L congressman from TX.” The L word is used often throughout the interviews. Then he’s asked about the CRA of 64, heroin and prostitution. I cringe when this happens, but on balance I trust Paul 2012 will be a step forward for liberty.

    Advocating peace in high profile places is likely to draw fire from all sides.

    I would say that those who have a problem with Root as a person are necessarily projecting. As I’m sure you know, anger is never justified.

    45 tb: People seeking enlightenment generally are truth seekers. The petty lies and manipulative distortions of politicians have little place in the realm of spirituality.

    me: In my case, I’ll settle for choosing against falseness. I’d say “petty lies and manipulative distortions” show up in all parts of this holographic universe, not just politics. I just seem interested in politics, as so much peace is blotted out in the political process. Lao Tzu was especially articulate on the subject.

    But thank you for your concern, Brother.

  35. Tom Blanton

    As I’m sure you know, anger is never justified.

    Actually, anger is a human emotion that is quite often justified. If criticism was indicative of anger, that would mean you are a very angry person, Capozzi.

    You know, there are healthy ways to express anger. Being in denial of your repressed anger because you feel it is a sign of spiritual weakness or defective character is not so healthy.

    But anger isn’t the issue here. That is simply another rhetorical wave of your hand to dismiss the valid concerns of others by attempting to marginalize them by suggesting they are unenlightened and angry.

    The real issue here is honesty.

  36. whatever

    I have no interest in developing an ability to discern that which is false.

    In that case, you should consider just locking yourself in your Fantasy Pod and leaving the reality-based community alone.

  37. JT

    Blanton: “Actually, anger is a human emotion that is quite often justified.”

    I agree, Tom. If anger was never justified, humans wouldn’t have evolved to be capable of it. What an odd thing to say that as though it’s obvious–and as an ABSOLUTE statement!

  38. Robert Capozzi

    jt 49: If anger was never justified, humans wouldn’t have evolved to be capable of it. What an odd thing to say that as though it’s obvious–and as an ABSOLUTE statement!

    me: Interesting perspective. Are you saying that BECA– USE humans experience anger that therefore it’s justified? Hmm. Humans think, do and feel a lot of things that I suspect you’d say are NOT justified, yet you seem to carve out anger as an evolutionary success. Interesting. I’d like to hear more.

    As for absolutes, you may have missed my explanation to Brother Blanton that I am an absolutist on one emotion: Love. Other emotions — ultimately all forms of fear — are not justified emotions, anger being one.

  39. Robert Capozzi

    47 tb: If criticism was indicative of anger, that would mean you are a very angry person, Capozzi.

    me: Oh, I get angry now and then, yes. Very angry? Nope. Mostly, though, I share what is intended to be constructive criticism and feedback. How you take my feedback is up to you.

  40. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, I don’t think criticism is indicative of anger. It is you that seems to equate criticism of Root with anger and feeling threatened.

    I merely suggested that if criticism does flow from anger, then you must be a very angry person.

    My theory is that most criticism of Mr. Wonderful is inspired by his confusion over conservatism and libertarianism, his bombastic rhetoric, his bloated ego, his disregard for factual arguments, his agenda to change libertarianism, and his exclusive outreach to hardcore right-wingers (like Michael Savage fans).

    I’m surprised there his been no mention of Root’s angry white man schtick about Obama being a Marxist and Root being a victim of reverse racism because of Obama’s grades. Why does Root escape the criticism from the spiritually enlightened absolutists of love when it comes to his anger and hatred of Obama?

    Have the absolutists of love codified some sort of guidelines to give certain angry white men a pass when they express their rage resulting from unjustified anger?

    Are Reagan-Libertarians exempt from criticism while libertarians lacking hyphens are not exempt?

  41. Robert Capozzi

    52 tb: I don’t think criticism is indicative of anger. It is you that seems to equate criticism of Root with anger and feeling threatened. I merely suggested that if criticism does flow from anger, then you must be a very angry person.

    me: Yes, criticism can present as “anger.” It can also be offered to another as feedback, with the intent to offer another information and perceptions that the other might find helpful.

    Criticism can also present as attack, an attempt to humiliate or discipline. It’s all a matter of intepretation and intention.

    When attacks on Root appear to me to get personal, my perception is that that’s coming from a sense of the critic’s feeling threatened, and lashing out angrily. I’ve done this myself, although it’s not my practice. My sense is that Root critics often angrily attack him, but I fully admit that they may not be angry with him. They could be expressing their love for him.

    Is that what you’re doing?

    tb: Have the absolutists of love codified some sort of guidelines to give certain angry white men a pass when they express their rage resulting from unjustified anger?

    me: No. Love is an abstract, non-quantifiable notion. It cannot be codified.

    In my case, my practice is to provide feedback to “angry white men” when it feels appropriate to do so.

    I have fedback that I do not prefer the Reagan-L positioning, though I do sense it has some value.

    As for Ls “lacking hypens,” I don’t know any. We all have a slightly different take on what liberty means and which strategies and tactics will advance liberty. Do you disagree? If so, which L espouses a “pure” form of Lism? And if a “pure” L-ism exists, who labeled it as such, and by what authority did he or she do so?

  42. Eric Sundwall

    Having to advance liberty with strategy and tactics is different than running for public office.

    Certainly there are strategies and tactics in a campaign, but there are certainly more options for liberty in the open market.

    The humor of any politico is found in their ability to create consensus. Libertarians of all strains and ability have that trouble.

    Thus one tactic from a theoretical ‘plunbliner’ if you will, is compromise when engaged in political theater.

    So maybe I can convince a candidate that taxation is theft, even if he obsesses with a librarian’s salary in his public musings.

    Liberty is in your heart, easily followed by the mind. If others are not arriving, keep inviting them.

  43. Eric Sundwall

    Many old school libertarians in the LPNY tell me that Murray Rothbard was a nice guy and great thinker, but he wasn’t much of a real politico. ” Go read a book” is the oft used phrase with Murry when action was required. Did Murray ever collect a signature or get his candidate in a debate or poll?

    I’m happy to quote him, but I might have avoided any in the trenches sequences with him.

  44. Robert Capozzi

    54 es: Thus one tactic from a theoretical ‘plunbliner’ if you will, is compromise when engaged in political theater. So maybe I can convince a candidate that taxation is theft, even if he obsesses with a librarian’s salary in his public musings.

    me: “Compromise in the political theater” sounds reasonable. I prefer the term “acceptance” in the political theater AND the theoretical one, too. Whether one is engaged in theorizing or politics, it seems obvious to me that people who share a general proposition will sometimes disagree on several specific issues. I accept that. I sometimes wonder if others do, perhaps esp. Ls, who often find “compromise” to be a dirty word.

  45. JT

    Robert: “Are you saying that BECA– USE humans experience anger that therefore it’s justified?”

    I’m saying if the emotion per se weren’t advantageous in some contexts, it would have been weeded out through the evolutionary process. I don’t think any emotion is inherently wrong. That doesn’t mean the experience is justified in all contexts though.

    Robert: “As for absolutes, you may have missed my explanation to Brother Blanton that I am an absolutist on one emotion: Love. Other emotions — ultimately all forms of fear — are not justified emotions, anger being one.”

    I did miss that. But you’re contradicting your relativism. Maybe some of those emotions work for some people, no? How do you know they don’t? Maybe you’re a mind reader.

  46. Robert Capozzi

    57 jt: I’m saying if the emotion per se weren’t advantageous in some contexts, it would have been weeded out through the evolutionary process.

    me: Could be. I’d say fight or flight may be doing us more harm than good, even now in our more “evolved” state. These are generally fearful reactions to a perceived threat. This is not to say that there may be times when the loving thing to do is fight or flee, btw. It depends on what’s indicated at the time. IMO.

    jt: But you’re contradicting your relativism. Maybe some of those emotions work for some people, no? How do you know they don’t? Maybe you’re a mind reader.

    me: I see your point. One way to consider this as non-contradictory is to accept that love is the only eternal “thing” that exists, but in time and space, relativism is the MO. My metaphysical notion of what might be labeled “universal love” does seem to show up in the material world, but most often the material world seems to be driven by relative forms of fear.

    Metaphysically, I find non-dualism to be the preferred concept. Experientially, we seem to be in a world full of relative dualities.

    As a practical matter, my comments on the perceptual world are necessarily relativistic. I do my best to align with a loving/forgiving attitude when confronted with a worldly situation. But, at the most abstract metaphysical level, love is all there is. Some might call that “faith.” I call it my “initial assumption,” or my premise, if you will.

    It’s not all worked out in my head, either, and just because it seems to work for me doesn’t mean I think it should work for you. It’s all good!

    I understand the Love Revolution somewhat differently than the Paulistas, but I do think they’re onto something!

  47. Andy

    John Jay Meyers said: “Ron Paul is screaming the libertarian message, when he does not win the primaries someone needs to be there not only set up as a political party, but proving we believe the message, and that our leaders don’t have a long history of saying (or doing) very unlibertarian things.

    We can not afford another 2008, and we can’t afford to be divided into imaginary groups.”

    John Jay Meyers hit the nail on the head! You and I are on a very similiar wave length.

    The Libertarian Party had a HUGE opportunity to have its biggest year ever in 2008 and this opportunity was squandered. We can’t afford another failure like we had in 2008.

    The Libertarian Party must have a Presidential ticket that does not alienate the Ron Paul r3VOLution.

    The Libertarian Party must actively reach out to the Ron Paul r3VOLution, don’t just expect them to come to us without us working for their support. The overwellming majority of these people are already open to the Libertarian Party (even though some of them haven’t even heard of the party yet), they just need to know that we are out there and that we are not irrelavent and that we aren’t going to nominate a candidate for President whom they do not trust (like Bob Barr).

    The Libertarian Party must achieve 50 state plus DC ballot access for 2012. The fact of the matter is that in oder to be most effective as a national political party, our party must be on every ballot so that every American who votes has a chance to vote for our candidates.

    The Libertarian Party must have some strong candidates running in races where they can actually win. Our party isn’t going to elect the next President unless some sort of miracle happens, and the same thing goes for any race for Governor or US Senate in the next election. I think that there’s a small chance that we could elect somebody to the US House IF we had the right candidate in the right district and that candidate ran an intelligent campaign, but this is not likely to happen either. So realistically speaking, our most attainable goals are to elect more Libertarians to local offices, although I think that a seat in a state legislature is within the realm of possibility (of course this is contigent upon having a strong candidate and an intelligent, well run campaign).

    Every Libertarian Party candidate ought to make jury nullification a major talking point in their campaigns. It’s one thing to talk about why drugs should be legalized and why gun control laws should be repealed and why their should be no victimless “crimes” in general and why there should be no income tax, but what do we propose that people do about these things in the meantime? Sit around and wait until enough libertarians get elected to repeal these so called “laws” and release pardon everyone who has been convicted under them? Electing enough libertarians to do these things is a worthy goal, but it is obviously far easier said than done. Jury nullification is something that people can implement on their own immediately (by either serving on a jury or spreading the word about jury nullification to others ( http://www.FIJA.org )) even if libertarians do not get elected to any office. Jury nullification should be a flagship issue for the Libertarian Party. If the general public knew about jury nullification the government would have a far more difficult time convicting people for marijuana offenses or gun control offenses or for other bogus non-crimes that they put people in prison for right now.

    If the Libertarian Party does all of the above – and does it well, not half assed – I believe that we can have a successful 2012. If not, there’s always 2016, but I just hope that the amount of damage done by not doing what I listed above does not damage the party beyond the point of repair.

  48. Michael H. Wilson

    I agree that the LP needs to be there when Paul campaign is stopped by the big boys of the GOP. However, I would suggest that we be careful. Paul is missing the Libertarian boat when he stumps for gold. Going on a gold standard probably will cause problems. More diversity is needed in currency and the LP should be promoting free banking with adequate laws to protect consumers. Additionally his stand on immigration is not Libertarian and the free flow of labor is essential to a free market. We should also be pointing out that investors can move their capital around the globe in an instant, but a farm hand whose capital is in their hands and back has to walk to move their capital and these borders are anti-poor.

  49. Andy

    “Paul is missing the Libertarian boat when he stumps for gold. Going on a gold standard probably will cause problems. More diversity is needed in currency and the LP should be promoting free banking with adequate laws to protect consumers.”

    Ron Paul has stumped for a gold standard for years (which is certainly far better than what we’ve got now), but he also favors eliminating legal tender laws. People would be free to expirement with different forms of money. Historically gold & silver have worked best for money, but people should certainly be free to try whatever else they want to use for money just as long as they don’t initiate force and fraud in the process.

    “Additionally his stand on immigration is not Libertarian and the free flow of labor is essential to a free market”

    Ron Paul has said that there can be increased immigration as welfare programs decrease. Also, keep in mind that Ron Paul voted to INCREASE HB1 visas for foreign workers.

    I’ve talked to many people who consider stopping immigration to be their biggest issue and they do not like Ron Paul. They’ve told me that they consider him to be too “liberal” on that issue. Many of these people were supporters of Tom Tancredo.

  50. Michael H. Wilson

    Well Andy you and I will have to disagree on Ron Paul with these two issues. And I know he has stumped for gold for years. I have a copy of the book The Case for Gold that Murray Rothbard ghostwrote for Paul some years ago.

  51. JT

    Michael, how exactly do you think a gold standard could be worse than paper currency backed by nothing that can be (and is) inflated at will by the federal government? I don’t realistically see how that’s possible.

    Also, I didn’t know that Paul voted to increase foreign worker visas, Andy. That’s good. I’m shocked to hear that some people think Paul is too liberal on immigration. Are these people who think all immigrants should be deported or something?

Leave a Reply

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