Latest activities of the candidates for the Libertarian Presidential nomination

Here’s what I know about the latest activities of the candidates seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination:

Campaigns filed with FEC:

RJ Harris has a “third quarter money play” which is geared to increase his donation totals before the end of the third quarter of the year (at the end of this month). Campaigns issue quarterly reports which are looked at by many observers to assess how serious they are. Harris is assisting with Oklahoma LP ballot access and has spoken at LibertyFest. His website, which many commenters have said is the best looking of the current declared LP presidential candidates, lists a number of interviews with the candidate. Here is the latest.

Lee Wrights has been running longer than the other FEC-filing candidates. He publishes a regular opinion column and has been attending a number of state LP conventions. The next stop listed on his schedule is Illinois on October 21.

Carl Person has been issuing a flurry of releases on a daily basis. Some of his opinions, such as a recent call for state banks in every state, are unusual for a Libertarian candidate. He has been campaigning outside of events in NYC such as Liberty Fest and a Republican presidential debate, passing out flyers and talking to attendees as they enter and leave. He has not done any campaign appearances that I know of outside NYC except for the Future of the Libertarian Political Movement conference in Manchester, New Hampshire on June 19, 2011. UPDATE: Person has been and will continue to campaign at events in different states; his schedule is at http://carlperson.org/node/38 and his next stop is Wisconsin on October 1.

Roger Gary appears to be the least active of the FEC-filing candidates. His latest release was a piece on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. As far as I know, he has not been doing campaign appearances as a candidate, except for the Future of the Libertarian Political Movement conference in Manchester, New Hampshire on June 19, 2011. UPDATE: In the comments, Roger Gary reminded me that he also campaigned at the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance meeting in Columbus, Ohio last month. Thanks to George Phillies and Roger Gary for corrections on this article; additional corrections would be appreciated. UPDATE: Steven Wilson in the comments says that Gary was also at the Missouri convention; if there have been others, I don’t know about it yet.UPDATE: I found an events listing on Gary’s site in a non-obvious place. It shows he also campaigned at Florida, Iowa and Tennessee LP conventions, all in May.

All of the FEC-filing candidates have at least some campaign staff, unlike the

Campaigns not filed with FEC:

Robert Milnes has turned the front page of his site into a running commentary/blog, with updates posted almost every day. Some of the updates are posted at the top of the page and some are posted at the bottom. Many of them deal with IPR and yours truly (Paulie). Conspiracy theories are a frequent topic; among these, that I am a government plant, that David Nolan was murdered, and that the FBI and TV anchorwomen are watching him masturbate through his TV. A recent update: “I have emailed Emergency Request for Assistance. I have a court hearing 9/27. Charges include debris in yard, exxtension cords in yard, cat hoarding etc. I have become more than the usual depressed. I need some help.” With his frequent updates, Milnes is currently apparently doing more lately than the other non-FEC filers.

Jim Burns has updated his website fairly recently, but apart from that has been pretty quiet lately. Earlier this year, he was sending IPR frequent opinion pieces and had been planning a national tour, but had to cancel it due to lack of gas money.

As far as I can tell, Dave Redick and Miss Joy Waymire have no campaign news.

May or may not be candidates:

Jim Duensing had been an announced candidate for the nomination, but may have withdrawn. He has not been listed on the LP blog list of candidates, and did not respond to a recent query as to what if anything his campaign is doing. In IPR comments George Phillies wrote “At one point he had suspended his campaign in order to support a Republican, but I may be out of date on that.” If anyone knows for sure, please let us know.

Wayne Root is frequently considered by others to be a candidate, but he himself says he has not made up his mind. Interestingly, his copyright 2011 website features a header picturing Root in front of the White House. He frequently appears in media outlets and is the chair of the LNCC (not to be confused with the LNC, of which he is an at large member). He also publishes frequent opinion pieces. The LNCC recently raised $25,000 in one day and rolled out a professional new website.

Gary Johnson was recently let back into Republican presidential debates after being excluded from all but the first one and, more recently, from polls. Johnson was a dues paying member of the LP in 1993-4, spoke at the Libertarian national convention and at least one LP state convention in 2002, and was the target of a previous unsuccessful attempt to recruit him for the LP presidential nomination in 2004. Several LP members, including current and former members of the LNC, are publicly trying to recruit Johnson to switch to the LP race. Johnson’s campaign has officially denied that he has any interest.

96 thoughts on “Latest activities of the candidates for the Libertarian Presidential nomination

  1. Pingback: Libertarian Party: None Of The Above for President? | Independent Political Report

  2. George Phillies

    @1 NOTA – A brain dead idea if there ever was one.

    If you do not like the candidates now, wait until the geniuses who gave us Barr gave us NOTA.

    And if the candidates do not appear stronger, well, ask yourself how much money or time you have donated to their campaigns. If you are not supporting them, they will not look very strong.

    Contrary to the above Roger Gary appeared at the Massachusetts-led National Conference in June. You can see him and his two opponents on YouTube, the full debate with me moderating, by searching on “libpartyma national conference”.

  3. George Phillies

    Readers might also consider that the last election cycle tended to demonstrate that campaigning for the nomination is a waste of time. Instead of supporting candidates who had campaigned, who had campaign organizations, and whose records had had extensive vetting, people jumped for two candidates who had just declared, who had next to no supporting organization, and whose records had interesting bits appearing as the convention approached.

    Why would someone chose to start running a year+ early get an organization up, etc., if the delegates don’t care about that sort of feature.

    The delegates chose Bob Barr, and got about what any reasonable person would expect of someone who declared at the last moment, a massively feeble campaign.

    Perhaps states should start sending delegates whose response to someone claiming “candidate Y might raise tens of millions of dollars” is the accurate and loud “you’re a f***ing moron, and I’m not voting for you, either, s***head”, but until we have delegates who don’t fall for nonsense like that, we are going to have more feeble campaigns from feeble candidates.

    If you want the real candidates to have strong campaigns, start supporting them.

  4. paulie Post author

    Please post opinions about NOTA at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/libertarian-party-none-of-the-above-for-president/

    I put up that thread specifically so that idea can be discussed.

    Contrary to the above Roger Gary appeared at the Massachusetts-led National Conference in June. You can see him and his two opponents on YouTube, the full debate with me moderating, by searching on ?libpartyma national conference?.

    Thanks, I forgot about that.

    For some reason I am not able to access the admin dashboard this second.

    When/if I do I will update the post with that information.

  5. George Phillies

    And in my 2008 concession speech, I carefully pointed out the two and only two candidates still standing who had campaigned and who deserved anyone’s support, namely Senator Gravel and Wayne Root.

    When delegates support losers who jumped in at the last minute, they should not be surprised at the 2012 consequences that they personally created, namely the candidates who are running as hard as they can this time are finding it very hard to get any support.

    And in saying the campaigns are feeble, I am not faulting the candidates, all three of whom in Manchester having been good people who would be worth supporting if they got the nomination, but when you have no support, you do not go very far.

  6. George Phillies

    @4 Apologies happily accepted. It’s hard to keep track of these things, given the limited coverage out monthly national newsletter — oh right, it used to be monthly until about the time the fellow who boasted of recruiting Barr became National Chair, as a result of which, if you didn’t attend the 2008 National, and waited to find out who our Presidential nominee was from our newsletter, you waited until August.

    Of course, there will be some internut advocate saying that everyone found out in June on the Internut. Ummh, Internet. Internut is the Republican conservative tubes version.

    My state party just did a fundraising mailing to 500 national party members and recent expirees in my state. I also did an emailing; there seemed to be under 300 people with primary email addresses on that list. On the other hand, as opposed to what happened under our 2006-2008 National Chair, when more than half the email addresses were no good, this time there were almost no bounces.

  7. paulie Post author

    Finally updated.

    I don’t know why the dashboard is loading slow, the rest of the IPR seems to be loading at normal speed.

  8. Michael H. Wilson

    George Phillies writes; “My state party just did a fundraising mailing to 500 national party members and recent expirees in my state. I also did an emailing; there seemed to be under 300 people with primary email addresses on that list. On the other hand, as opposed to what happened under our 2006-2008 National Chair, when more than half the email addresses were no good, this time there were almost no bounces.

    George will you give us some idea what the results are when they come in for both the snail mail and email efforts? Be nice to see how one compares to the other.
    Thanks,
    MW

  9. Kleptocracy And You

    Campaigns not filed with FEC:

    Robert Milnes has turned the front page of his site into a running commentary/blog, with updates posted almost every day. Some of the updates are posted at the top of the page and some are posted at the bottom. Many of them deal with IPR and yours truly (Paulie). Conspiracy theories are a frequent topic; among these, that I am a government plant, that David Nolan was murdered, and that the FBI and TV anchorwomen are watching him masturbate through his TV. A recent update: “I have emailed Emergency Request for Assistance. I have a court hearing 9/27. Charges include debris in yard, exxtension cords in yard, cat hoarding etc. I have become more than the usual depressed. I need some help.” With his frequent updates, Milnes is currently apparently doing more lately than the other non-FEC filers

    me – The Insanity is closing in on our “favorite” Teddy Roosevelt fan. With the current fascist local gov’ts if he doesn’t clean up his act quickly, he will be masturbating under a bridge somewhere because that will be his new “home” ! I doubt Jersey has the funds to place him in a ward.

  10. Steven Wilson

    I would like to point out that Lee Wrights did attend the Arkansas convention and it should also be noted that Arkansas now has ballot access.

    Roger Gary was in Missouri as well during the state convention.

    I have never met Carl Person. RJ Harris is known by some of the tea partiers in the Rolla area.

  11. NewFederalist

    @18… you mentioned the “M” word and didn’t get scolded or asked to place your comments on a thread time forgot! Is a healing in progress?

  12. Kleptocracy And You

    NF, p used the M word not me I used TR fan ! I actually clicked the site and he does have all that on his “official POTUS” site. He actually thinks a female newsanchor and the FBI are watching him through his TV masturbate. They exclude him from here and the guy has completely lost it. (of course “it” with him was never very clear, was it?

    sad, sad, sad………

  13. paulie Post author

    I would like to point out that Lee Wrights did attend the Arkansas convention

    True, I was there. I did say that Wrights was going around to state conventions.

    and it should also be noted that Arkansas now has ballot access.

    We collected about 16,000 signatures at a cost of $37k (or $61k with the fundraiser’s commission). The Wrights campaigns contribution is appreciated – IIRC it was $250.

    Roger Gary was in Missouri as well during the state convention.

    Didn’t know that. I’ll have to update the entry again. I wonder why he did not say that when he commented. Any other states?

  14. paulie Post author

    M word

    Milnes? Masturbation? Milnes used the other M word on his site.

    I report, you decide.

    They exclude him from here and the guy has completely lost it. (

    Yes, although not in that order.

  15. paulie Post author

    Sounds like there’s a story in that phrase. And not necessarily a happy one.

    It worked out OK in the end, with a few bumps along the way – mostly at the start.

  16. Steven Wilson

    @paulie 23

    I don’t follow Roger Gary so I can’t help with his tour or schedule. I live in Missouri. No one else running for the nomination spoke at the convention.

    Wish I could help with the information, but I don’t even know people who are working for him.

    Right now I try and keep up with Wrights on his facebook page, at least weekly.

  17. Kleptocracy And You

    In case you missed it Johnson got the biggest laugh of the debate and hence a massive google search (it was the FoxNews-Google debate)which led hundred of thousands to his campaign website. It may help him jump start his campaign. Wish someone would convince him to DROP the consumption tax CRAP !

    The line (which he looked like he was reading) was – “My neighbors two dogs have produced more shovel ready jobs than this administration has produced” !

    Even stiff ol Romney had a big laugh…

    And thx NF, the radio part gave me the first “belly” laugh I’ve had in weeks! But when you turn the TV off it allows them to see you better (no outside interference) don’t you know…

    lol

  18. Robert Capozzi

    30 klep, for GJ to walk back his FAIR Tax stance is probably not super difficult. He’s not wedded to it like Cain and his 9-9-9 plan.

    Narrative might go something like: Not only do we need to cut spending by as much as 43%, our tax system is horribly broken. The FAIR Tax has much to commend it. So does a dramatically simplified flat tax. The bottom line is that government spends too much and Americans are taxed too much.

    If he gets pressed on why he seems to be backpedalling from the FAIR Tax, he could say:

    Look, a President is not a one-man band. He has an Administration, Congress and, sometimes, the Supreme Court to contend with. My job if elected would first and foremost to cut needless spending. Next, to simplify and lower all Americans taxes. We need to get this ship righted so that people can get back to work, and the best way to do that is to get Washington out of the way, bring the troops home, stop the meddling here and abroad.

    Like RP in 08, GJ need not worry too much about specifics. Odds are extremely low that he’ll get the GOP nomination. But he CAN create a national brand for himself, building on the RP brand while centering it. He possibly could even do so as the LP’s standardbearer, although that’s a much smaller canvas.

  19. Dr. Tom Stevens

    Carl Person responded to claims he hasn’t campaigned out of New York with the following:

    Your description of my campaign is not accurate because it suggests I haven’t been campaigning outside of NYS. The description now reads:

    Carl Person has been issuing a flurry of releases on a daily basis. Some of his opinions, such as a recent call for state banks in every state, are unusual for a Libertarian candidate. He has been campaigning outside of events in NYC such as Liberty Fest and a Republican presidential debate, passing out flyers and talking to attendees as they enter and leave. He has not done any campaign appearances that I know of outside NYC except for the Future of the Libertarian Political Movement conference in Manchester, New Hampshire on June 19, 2011.

    ================
    Actually, my out-of-state campaigning is being documented by my website appearance calendar, at carlperson.org/node/38

    Here are details about my campaign outside of NYS:

    (a) I spoke at the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party State Board of Directors Meeting in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania on July 23, 2011, and attended a Libertarian party at the home of Libertarian Jim Babb later in the day.

    (b) I attended a Libertarian function in Dina’s Restaurant, Wilton, Connecticut on July 15, 2011.

    (c) During August, I sent out an email request to all Libertarian state parties to be invited to speak before any Libertarian groups anywhere in the United States.

    (d) I spoke before the LP in Rhode Island (Warwick Public Library) on August 13, 2011, and about a week before that event I was a guest on LPRI Treasurer Tony Jone’s radio show.

    (e) I attended (for all 3 days) the Columbus, Ohio Libertarian State Leadership Alliance on August 19, 2011 (Columbus Hyatt) and the two following days for the Libertarian National Committee meetings on the 20th and 21st.

    (f) I was a featured guest speaker before a Libertarian Party (Hillsborough County) gathering in Tampa, Florida (Dunderbak’s Restaurant) on August 24, 2011.

    (g) On September 9, 2011, I did a mailing of individually typed letters (about 900 in all) to everyone who attended the Libertarian Party convention during 2008 or 2010 (except where I had an email address).

    (h) I was a featured guest speaker before a Libertarian Party/Patriot group gathering in Texarkana, Arkansas (Big Jake’s BBQ) on September 20, 2011.

    (i) I am a featured speaker before the Wisconsin LP this coming Saturday, October 1, 2011 (Dalles Restaurant – French Room) together with Wes Benedict.

    (j) I am attending the debate conducted by the Massachusetts LP at its annual convention on Saturday, October 8, 2011.

    (k) I am scheduled to appear live on Tony Jones’ radio show on Saturday, October 8, 2011, in Providence, Rhode Island.

    Here are additional out-of-state functions I’m planning or committed to attend:

    October 22, 2011, Saturday, 2:30pm, LPIL, Presidential Debate, Bloomington, Illinois

    November 12, 2011, Saturday (candidates debate in evening), at LPSC (South Carolina) Convention, in Columbia SC

    February 11, 2012, Saturday, probably 3-5pm, LPFL (Florida) Presidential Candidate Debate

    February 24-25, 2012, Friday-Saturday, LPGA (Georgia), possible Presidential Candidate debate or appearance and meet LPGA delegates in Athens GA at The Georgia Center, 1197 South Lumpkin Street, Athens, GA 30602

    March 2-4, 2012, Friday-Sunday, LPCA (California), possible Presidential Candidates debate or appearance and meet LPCA delegates in Ventura Beach, CA, Crowne Plaza Ventura Beach – no details yet, see website http://ca.lp.org/2011-convention

    March 10, 2012, Saturday, LPPA (Pennsylvania), Presidential Candidates Debate, in Pittsburgh, PA

    April 13-15, 2012, Friday-Sunday, LPIN (Indiana), Presidential Candidates Debate

    April 14 or 21, 2012, Saturday, LPNM (New Mexico), Presidential Candidates Debate

    And, of course, the Libertarian Party convention in Las Vegas to be held during May 4-6, 2012.

    Carl E. Person
    325 W. 45th St. – Suite 201
    New York NY 10036-3803
    212-307-4444

  20. Paulie

    I also responded to his email.

    Your description of my campaign is not accurate because it suggests I haven’t been campaigning outside of NYS.

    The claim was that *to my knowledge*…. which was accurate because it reflected my state of knowledge at the time. Since I have now learned more, I have amended the post to reflect my improved state of knowledge.

    I have now done that several times due to learning more as a result of putting this post up.

    The fact that there were facts which I did not know was never intended to slight anyone, and I’m glad I have learned more through this discussion.

    If I may make a suggestion, you should list the events at the top of the site along with
    ABOUT
    BLOG
    MEDIA
    STAFF
    CONTACT

    Where you have it now, although better placed than where it is on Roger Gary’s site, escaped my attention until it was pointed out to me in the email last night.

  21. Erik VikerViker

    The Gary Johnson flirtation seems to be the product of a small but well-placed and vocal group within the Libertarian Party, not a groundswell of support throughout the party. Many LP activists have a skeptical “fool me once…” attitude on this subject. If Gary Johnson a delivers a very clear and definitive statement that his move to the LP is based on principles and not political expediency, and if he publicly promises to remain a member and registered LP voter for five years after being nominated, then I will consider supporting him. The word on the street is pretty clear: If a faction of the LNC tries to railroad through a Johnson nomination without such assurances from the candidate, a post-Barr sort of bad morale reaction will occur in the LP, regardless of the differences between the two men. Johnson’s campaign continues to publicly deny any interest. If this changes, any Johnson seduction must be handled very carefully, on both sides, or the benefits some envision coming from his celebrity status will be unfortunately offset by widespread LP member dissatisfaction.

    Personally, based on over two decades of Libertarian Party activism of varying intensity, I have decided that the Republican Party as an organization cannot be trusted. I therefore will approach with extraordinary skepticism ANY former Republicans interested in a Libertarian Party nomination who recently joined the LP. I don’t care if he or she is wearing a halo and holding a gilded recommendation letter from the party founders. I will be very, very careful with my support. Republican Party operatives have again convinced some Libertarian Party members that the LP cannot possibly accomplish anything good without a Republican. The Republicans have squashed citizen liberty, bloated the government and schemed to deny us ballot access in every state. But like an abused spouse, some LP members go back for more: “This time it’ll be different, this time he’s being nice to me, if only we show how much we love him, he won’t harm us.” As a long-time Libertarian Party activist, elected Libertarian public official and state board member, and county LP committee chair, I believe we do not need a Republican Party politician to work toward our Libertarian Party goals.

  22. Robert Capozzi

    35 e: If this changes, any Johnson seduction must be handled very carefully, on both sides, or the benefits some envision coming from his celebrity status will be unfortunately offset by widespread LP member dissatisfaction.

    me: True. I’d say the Ron Paul seduction of 87 has worked out pretty OK. We asked that he tone down the pro-life stuff and he did. The 88 campaign didn’t go so well. Paul seemed to’ve gotten lost in the 90s, going along with his associates desires to take things in a “paleo” direction. He dusted that off, and has spent the past decade or so being the most highly visible libertarian on the scene, again as an R.

    GJ was briefly a L in the 90s. He went on to become guv of NM as a R. He’s been dormant for nearly a decade, and now he’s back in the game as a R seeking nomination. I don’t see his crossing back to the LP to be a non-starter at all. We should encourage this sort of thing.

    RP and GJ are not “typical” Rs. I’d share your concern if they were. This would not be anything like, say, the Murkowski gambit, simply an expedient move to get on the ballot.

    Instead, RP and GJ are Ls who happen to be in the GOP for pretty good reason.

  23. Pingback: Latest activities of the candidates for the Libertarian Presidential nomination: updates | Independent Political Report

  24. paulie Post author

    @38 The person I thought is his girlfriend says she is not and did not know he has one. Who is his girlfriend and how do I get a hold of her?

  25. paulie Post author

    Lulz….that was a loooooooooooooooooooong time ago. I was young, in shape, and had plenty of fast money and confidence. Sooooo far from where I am now, I may as well be on the dark side of the moon as far as that goes.

    Part of my problem now is that I had it too easy then. I never really had to learn to talk to women because I could get them without having to be any good at that. Now I’m like a clueless rich kid that grew up having a lot of money, never learned any job skills and then suddenly lost all that money and connections, and has no natural talent for making any.

    Or as Mike Tyson said at the roast of Charlie Sheen…when the money goes, so does the hos.

    Anyway, just in case there is any confusion, I didn’t mean that kind of hold.

  26. LibertarianGirl

    angela mckinster IS his girlfriend , if by girlfriend you mean female thats so obsessd with him it pains her , does what ever he says , and pines over him but to him is just a sidekick and booty call to left for the 1st better thing to come along

  27. paulie Post author

    Jim Duensing is a registered republican and quite active with the RP movement locally

    So does that mean he has dropped out of the LP race?

  28. paulie Post author

    angela mckinster IS his girlfriend , if by girlfriend you mean female thats so obsessd with him it pains her , does what ever he says , and pines over him but to him is just a sidekick and booty call to left for the 1st better thing to come along

    I honestly don’t care.

    @38 said I should ask his girlfriend, so I followed the lead as best I could.

    Whatever games are being played…..well, “whatever.”

  29. George Phillies

    Liberty for America, November 2011 issue with two supplements, is now up at

    http://libertyforamerica.com/lfamagazine.htm

    The table of contents is
    Oregon
    LNC Votes to Reject JudComm Decision.
    Hinkle Procures Legal Opinion Supporting Reeves Faction Hinkle Says Wagner Must Go
    51 Oregon Libertarians Call for Disaffiliation
    Hinkle Capitulates
    The Oregon Regional Rep on Oregon
    New Wiener motion to call Judicial Committee names
    LNC receives letter critiquing LNCC
    New Building
    LNC approves motion to buy building
    Goldstein insists on honest answers
    Hinkle offers new building motion
    Mattson opposes Hinkle motion
    LNC Credentials Committee members appointed
    Do Politics: Lark urges LNC discuss goals for rest of term
    electronic editions: Massachusetts OCPF Findings
    Law firm on LP-Oregon

    And today I had an interesting bit of correspondence about the magazine, which I will clean up.

    LfA had been planned as an electronic-circulation magazine, using paper copies as advertising.

    It stood for a movement, and had a PAC, and one fine day a friend who will remain nameless said “I would like to say I am a dues-paying member. What does it cost?” So I set a modest fee — this was a ‘you pay once, and forevermore can say you are a member’ rate — and advertised it, saying ‘if you pay, you can say you are a member’.

    Alas, I missed the obvious, namely that there would be people who assumed that these were actually yearly dues, and you paid and got a papermail subscription for the year. Finally, one of these people was kind enough to write, asking where his issue was, and all I could do is thank him for his suggestion that we should have the alternative model of yearly dues and a year papermail subscription.

    So we will now be doing this, and I will be contacting our hordes of members to see who else had the same idea and wants their issues by papermail, which they will be getting over the next year. We could have done this sooner, but the parts assembled in backward order, and it simply didn’t occur to me that their were people who though I was planning on yearly dues and a papermail monthly magazine being mailed to members who cannot take their issue by email.

  30. Jeremy C. Young

    Okay, I went ahead and pulled down the post about Person’s support for bestiality. I was under the impression that it was an official press release by Person’s campaign manager, but have since been informed that Tom Stevens is no longer Person’s campaign manager, so it is possible the post was designed to discredit him.

    I’ve e-mailed Person’s campaign and will wait for a response before I do anything further (which, depending on what I hear from the campaign, may be either an apology or a re-post of the original story).

  31. Michael H. Wilson

    Thanks Dr. Phillies. I think I need an encouragement injection after reading that. The only thing that made me feel encouraged were seeing the goals that Dr. Lark suggested.

    I may have to take up heavy liquor now.

  32. George Phillies

    @56 You may want to contrast Dr. Lark’s proposal to discuss goals for the last six months, which had almost no immediate response from the LNC, with the New Path approach of setting goals in advance of the election.

  33. Robert Capozzi

    If the goal is to self-marginalize, I might put bestiality at the top of the list, possibly even higher than private nukes…

  34. Jeremy C. Young

    George @58, I didn’t pull down Tom Stevens’ comments. I pulled down my own front-page post, which was up for about two hours, reprinting Stevens’ post. After reading early comments on that post, I simply don’t feel we have enough information to know whether the post is a hit job on Person from a disgruntled former campaign manager, or reflects Person’s true feelings. I haven’t heard from Person yet, but I want to confirm with his campaign what this thing is before I put it up on the front page.

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@60,

    Do you have any information whatsoever that any Libertarian candidate for public office has ever made “private nukes” an agenda item?

    Frankly, I think I’ve heard more about “private nukes” from you than I have from all other Libertarians (and libertarians) combined.

  36. Darryl W. Perry

    One could argue that an individual has a right to own nukes, however if said individual used the nukes it would violate the NAP – thus making private nukes a non-issue.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    One could argue that unless a nuke is kept at the center of a property large enough to, or especially configured to, entirely contain the effects of its explosion, its very possession might be an act of aggression along the lines of careless and imprudent driving, or drunkenly waving a loaded gun around.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    62 tk, yes, in 1982, an LP candidate (whose name escapes) for Congress in northern Virginia stated his support for the right to a private nuke. I know this because my now ex-wife’s sister told my ex not to date me because Libertarians are insane and believe in private nukes. He said this at a meet the candidate night, and I think it made the Washington Post.

    In 2006, I asked the future Chair of the LPVA if he believes that there’s a right to private nukes. He said Yes, there is.

    I know a staffer for Ron Paul who believes there’s a right to private nukes. He considers himself to be an anarchist, btw.

    I’m convinced there is a subset of Ls who believe in the right to private nukes. Most have the good sense not to advocate that position publicly.

    This is the first instance I’m aware of where an LP candidate is calling for the legalization of bestiality.

    Thankfully, these highly theoretical matters don’t seep into public positions of political Ls. When they DO seep into the public square, they undercut the credibility of Ls.

    IMO.

  39. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    I have read that Ron Paul explicitly does NOT believe in the right to private nukes, to be clear…

  40. Robert Capozzi

    68 mhw, there’s a world filled with danger out there. There are all sorts of theoretical pin-dancing that can be done, all in the name of “principle.” Bestiality, heroin vending machines in the school cafetaria, private nukes, etc.

    If there’s an interest in being politically relevant, the “normal” answer will have to suffice on such questions. Otherwise, don’t bother running for office.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @ 66,

    “I’m convinced there is a subset of Ls who believe in the right to private nukes.”

    That’s not what I asked, and the closest thing to a positive you bring out is that first one, which I can’t evaluate without knowing whether he was asked about it or not.

    “On the agenda” doesn’t mean you believe in or support X, it means that X is visibly part of your campaign platform.

    I have never, ever, ever, ever heard an LP candidate mention “private nukes” when asked what his priorities in office would be.

    For all I know, Herman Cain may support legalizing bestiality, but his agenda — the thing he talks about — is 9-9-9 with taxes, not 69 with llamas.

  42. Robert Capozzi

    71 mhw, great question. I’ve noticed that RP has gotten somewhat better at deflecting in 2012 than he was in 2008. Deflecting is often indicated in politics. Better yet, redirecting attack questions works better yet.

    So, off the top of my head, were I an advisor to an LP candidate, I’d suggest…bestiality? That’s the most ridiculous question I’ve ever been asked. Animals are animals, they don’t consent.

    And, no, my support for the Second Amendment does NOT include nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. Are you asking me that question to marginalize me, or just to attack me and the idea of liberty?

    And, I strongly support laws to protect children. Your question is offensive. Ask any more ridiculous questions, and I’m sorry, but I don’t have time for you. You may feel threatened by the idea of freedom, but freedom, sir, is what makes this country great. We could use a lot more of it.

    If such answers are “unprincipled” in some people’s eyes, so be it.

  43. Robert Capozzi

    72 tk, then, no, I don’t know of any L candidate who’s put private nukes on his or her agenda. While I do respect that some might think there is a right to private nukes, I would urge those persons to not run for office. They would likely find a better use for their time discussing theory with fellow theorists would be my guess….

  44. Eric Sundwall

    Ron Paul doesn’t answer the heroin question by advocating heroin vending machines in schools, he simply states the right of individuals to act in their own accordance without doing harm to others and questions whether there would be a sudden outbreak in usage. Legitimate libertarian answers can be proffered without being consigned to political irrelevance.

    I might turn around the personal nukes question with whether anyone or anything had a right to nuclear weapons. Or perhaps something about whether that ‘right’ was considered ‘natural’ or simply legal. That could open a very interesting dialogue that obscures the original question if the reporter was bright enough to continue. The candidate for that matter too.

    After WWII there was some question about whether to make nukes a primarily military or civil basis, in terms of control. There was even consideration about ‘international’ control (See Greg Herken’s ‘Brotherhood of the Bomb p. 155-165).

    Are ‘normal’ candidates subject to such questions? Once a series of positions are staked out by a candidate, they ought to focus all or most inquiries in those directions and evade the gotcha style lynching.

    The personal nukes thing with RC makes more sense now that he describes his personal relationship to it. As a two time candidate and campaign manager it’s never been a question or consideration that I can recall.

    Tom Stevens is still listed as the campaign manager on carlperson.org. I’m hoping that Carl has seen the light and doubt very much that Mr. Merck was the true source of the statements issued in his name.

  45. Jeremy C. Young

    I have made another attempt to contact Mr. Person using an e-mail address which I believe he controls. I expect to have some sort of story published here by tomorrow, but I want to make sure we are not participating in a frame-up of Mr. Person by a disgruntled former employee.

  46. Dr. Tom Stevens

    Re: 55

    I am and have always been the Campaign Manager for Carl Person.

    Who informed you I was no longer his Campaign Manager? Whomever it was is misinformed.

  47. Dr. Tom Stevens

    Re: 77

    No frame-up. Carl Person decided to list bestiality as a victimless crime. I asked for a clarification as my Liberty Lion blog article indicates. Carl decides what issues he wishes to raise. I simply advise but he makes all final decisions.

  48. Jeremy C. Young

    Dr. Stevens: someone in a now-deleted thread on this issue said he’d heard you were no longer Person’s campaign manager. It was clearly rumor even to him; it was just enough that it made me want to seek clarification from the candidate himself.

    Story to go up momentarily.

  49. Dr. Tom Stevens

    From Carl Person:

    A couple of points of clarification:

    Tom Stevens is my campaign manager, and has put in a substantial amount of unpaid work in the process. He continues to be my campaign manager and I have confidence in him. He recommends and suggests, but I as the candidate decide.

    My campaign is jobs, jobs, jobs, and you might want to look into candidates from any party to see if any candidate has a better, more practical program than mine for job creation. You will find none, I assure you. So, bestiality is of little or no consequence as a campaign issue, and you might want to look into the issue that is going to carry the election – jobs, jobs, jobs.

    Tom Stevens did not change any of my words, by the way…this issue of bestiality is not being discussed, even though it has been practiced and continues to be practiced throughout the world by a not insignificant percentage of men and women and some children, with laws in various forms on the books in perhaps all 50 states making bestiality illegal in one way or the other.

    With this as a background, I attempted to apply the principles of Libertarianism to the victimless crime of bestiality, to find out how other Libertarians view the issue (from the standpoint of a victimless crime), but not from the standpoint of condoning or advocating the practice.

  50. Pingback: LP-Pres: Carl Person defends comments on legalizing bestiality | Independent Political Report

  51. Robert Capozzi

    75 es: [RP] simply states the right of individuals to act in their own accordance without doing harm to others…

    Me: Actually, he says a lot of things here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJow2ALVirk. He throws up a lot of dust, alludes to leaving it to the states, and such. Then he makes light of it.

    What he doesn’t do is a robotic recitation of NIOF. As a general proposition, NIOF makes a lot of sense on a lot of levels. What keeps Ls way out in the fringes is when NIOF is applied specifically, rigidly, absolutely in all situations…like a computer program.

    RP’s answer here works pretty well here not because he was “principled,” but because he used humor to turn the tables on Wallace’s apparent attack. Interestingly, Wallace himself makes light of RP’s jui jitsu.

    Technically, Paul’s answer was not so good. He meanders, fractures sentences, leaves many dangling thoughts. Yet, overall, it was a home run.

    ADR to the logicians in the house, but politics is not physics.

    This “politics as physics” mindset leads Person to “apply” “L principles” and he gets “legalize bestiality.” Rather than focus on the output, I challenge the mindset itself that leads to such absurd conclusions.

  52. Eric Sundwall

    @RC (83)

    He makes strong case for liberty across the board against the perception that the religious right will accept his views. Doesn’t seem like dust and allusions . . .

    What keeps L’s out is a system favoring two parties who pander to their extreme elements and then play footsie with the center once nominated.

    As a protest party our success is based on our message, not electoral tallies. If the playing field was leveled (ie parlimentary system, instant run-off etc.) then perhaps your ruminations about tweaky things might be approachable.

    I say let Libertarians be what they are and let the chips fall where they may as long as we keep some semblance of focus and unity. That’s being challenged on a lot of levels.

  53. George Phillies

    We have reached the point where voters are beginning to notice that the party of lunacy is the Republicans, the party of global warming deniers, evolution deniers, antiabortionist girl-killers, flat-earthers, and militarist lunatics.

  54. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    So the limitation of “simply” stating that there is “right of individuals to act in their own accordance without doing harm to others” is that wacky conclusions can easily flow from the idea. If you don’t view animals as “others,” then, hey, bestiality is okey dokey. Merely possessing a private nuke does no harm, so some NIOF aficionados do the “math” and conclude: a-OK. Non-aggression.

    I bring this up not get in the weeds on these issues, but to state that many, many issues are not at all simple, not reducible to yes/no calculations.

    I’ll be so bold as to say that it’s self evident that bestiality and private nukes should not be legal.

  55. Robert Capozzi

    84 es: I say let Libertarians be what they are and let the chips fall where they may as long as we keep some semblance of focus and unity.

    me: I’ve never suggested otherwise. To me, “focus” means “relevant,” even if there is virtually no chance of election.

    For this view, I have been harangued many, many times as a sell out, not L, a mere fellow traveler, etc. Some say that a person is NOT L UNLESS, for ex., they advocate AT LEAST a 50% immediate reduction in federal spending. I consider that a bad idea on a lot of levels.

  56. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @86,

    “many issues are not at all simple, not reducible to yes/no calculations”

    Well, no. Every issue ultimately reduces to a bunch of yes/no calculations.

    At some point, the issue of the federal budget reduces to whether or not the janitors at the Rayburn Office Building get new mops.

    At some point the issue of military adventurism abroad reduces to questions of whether or not DoD can get X men, with Y rounds of ammunition, into Z trucks with enough fuel to move them A miles to the place where they need to be to kill people.

    The thing about politics, though, is that in a campaign a candidate usually is usually not required to, and as a practical matter shouldn’t attempt to, address issues at anything close to that level of granularity.

    There probably aren’t 500 people in America for whom legalization of bestiality is, as a positive proposition, the most important issue.

    There probably are far more than 500 people in America for whom it is a “full stop” issue — for one reason or another, whether it’s that they think bestiality should remain illegal, or just realize that it’s a fucking stupid thing to turn into a campaign issue, or whatever, they aren’t going to vote for the guy who proposes it.

    Therefore, it is an issue that no sane and serious candidate will have anywhere in the top 1,000 on his list of policy priorities, or even consider talking about unless put in a corner with a gun to his head.

  57. Robert Capozzi

    88 tk: Well, no. Every issue ultimately reduces to a bunch of yes/no calculations.

    me: OK. The rules of discovery as currently practiced in American jurisprudence is optimally designed in establishing justice in the US, yes/no?

    The fact that there are no established property rights for the air means that the air can be used as a cost-free depository for any and all emissions, yes or no?

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @89,

    Noting that all issues ultimately reduce to yes/no calculations doesn’t mean that I care to discuss this or that yes/no calculation.

    As a matter of fact, my point was that even though all issues do ultimately reduce to yes/no calculations, such calculations tend for the most part to not be very useful in electoral politics. We arrived at the same conclusion on the ground without sharing the same premise.

  59. Nicholas Sarwark

    Therefore, it is an issue that no sane and serious candidate will have anywhere in the top 1,000 on his list of policy priorities, or even consider talking about unless put in a corner with a gun to his head.

    And Person apparently thinks it’s a good idea to put himself in the corner with that gun, a la the Sheriff in Blazing Saddles. A bold move, but a stupid one.

    Normally macho flash libertarians pick drug legalization or guns. This is the first time I’ve seen one pick bestiality.

  60. Robert Capozzi

    90 tk, I wasn’t asking you to answer those as yes or no, I was picking meta-issues that can’t be answered yes or no…at least I can’t. Maybe you can. No, take that back, I can, but someone else could take the opposite position and still be L. Even though I have a view on those issues, I fully accept that my view is not necessarily “correct,” it’s just my opinion…

  61. Robert Capozzi

    more to 90…

    And then there are matters that I truly cannot take a yes or no. IP is one. Like property rights in general, I accept the current configuration but am open to a Kinsella-type interpretation.

  62. Robert Capozzi

    91 ns, yes, although back in the day, siding with the NAMBLA worldview was a popular macho-flash positioning. For shock value, NAMBLA by a hair over bestiality.

Leave a Reply

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