Several Candidates Seeking Libertarian Presidential Nomination Removed From Party’s Official Listing

As of today, I have noticed (h/t George Phillies in IPR comments) that the Libertarian Party’s Official Listing of Candidates Seeking the Libertarian Presidential Nomination has been winnowed to remove quite a few names, including at least one candidate who has participated in debates among the presidential contenders this year, run for public office as a Libertarian before, and shown other signs of being competitive in various ways, Carl Person. Person’s site is currently down for redesign, with only a splash screen available to the general public. UPDATE: Person has now been added back with a new website.

A large number of names has been removed from the listing of candidates. Among the candidates I remember being listed until yesterday are Jim Burns, Miss Joy Waymire, James Ogle, Robert Milnes, Dave Redick, Mosheh Thezion, Scott Keller as well as others I am not remembering at the moment. I’m willing to publish another article if these candidates want to issue statements about being excluded.

The question of listing “fringe” candidates that might embarrass the LP has been brought up in past cycles. In the 2008 election, then executive director Shane Cory solved this problem by only listing the candidates that paid to be listed. This program, called Liberty Decides, was the first and biggest thing on the LP website for months, and included at various times Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Robert Jackson, Michael Jingozian and Daniel Imperato. This time, the link to the listing of candidates is a subheading under the elections tab at the top of the page, plus one small link at the bottom of LP.org.

Here is how the page reads at this time:


[Updated January 19, 2012]

Disclaimer: The Libertarian Party does not necessarily endorse or agree with the candidates or the contents of their web pages listed below.

Roger Gary

R. J. Harris

Gary Johnson

Bill Still

Lee Wrights

The Libertarian Party nominee will be chosen by delegates to the 2012 Libertarian National Convention which will be held in Las Vegas, Nevada on May 4-6, 2012.

The above candidates have met the following criteria as presidential candidates for the Libertarian Party nomination:

Please send corrections or additions to campaigns@lp.org.

 

226 thoughts on “Several Candidates Seeking Libertarian Presidential Nomination Removed From Party’s Official Listing

  1. Jeremy C. Young

    I guess their argument is that Ogle and Keller aren’t really libertarians (pretty much true), Milnes, Person, Waymire, and Thezion damage the party’s reputation, and Redick and Burns aren’t serious about running. At any rate, I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s quite possible that Person, Burns, Thezion, and/or Waymire might get speaking slots at the debate; I’d be willing to bet that Person will. To de-list candidates who might be in the debate is just stupid.

  2. paulie Post author

    George Phillies says it was Carla Howell, though I’ve not yet seen the evidence. It will be in his February newsletter.

    Possible rationales for the decision:

    1) Too many candidates

    2) Embarrassing the LP

    The stated criteria for being included now are too meet all of the conditions:

    Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian
    Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
    Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
    Campaign website is current with contact information

    Burns does not file with the FEC out of principle (and because he hasn’t raised enough money to where he would have to), and Milnes can’t find anyone to help him as Campaign Treasurer. Several of the candidates are simultaneously seeking nominations of multiple parties, such as Milnes who also wants the Green Party nomination and Ogle who wants all parties to nominate him and a woman in some odd fashion where all men can vote for the woman on top and vice versa.

    Person’s site is currently down for redesign, other than a splash screen, so that may be why he is not listed right now. If so, he will be listed again once his site is back up.

  3. paulie Post author

    Person, Burns, Thezion, and/or Waymire might get speaking slots at the debate

    If the debate token system is used again this year, I don’t think they will make the debate. Person might, but that’s about it.

    They might also tighten up the token system to come up with a way to make it impossible for candidates to trade tokens like what we were doing last time.

  4. paulie Post author

    From Stevens link above:

    Carl Person was de-listed because his website is currently unavailable. Sam Sloan was taken down because his F.E.C. filings have not yet been posted and because he has not yet put up a website. Mosheh Thezion’s F.E.C. filings are also not visible due to a week’s delay in the F.E.C. processing submissions and because, according to Robert Kraus at LP National Headquarters, because he still has a picture of an “elephant” on his website.

    Mr. Kraus assured me that all declared candidates for the Libertarian Presidential Nomination who meet the above stated criteria will be listed as candidates at lp.org

  5. Jose C

    Why? Why? Why? Why would the National Party do this? What are they thinking? This is wrong!!! This looks petty and is ridicules. I know the Party establishment wants Ron Paul I mean Gary Johnson to be the nominee for President of the Party but the delegates decide who the nominee is not the Party establishment.

    I urge everyone who is a member to get yourself elected delegate to the Party convention in Las Vegas so we can make the changes needed to grow the Party and to stop this foolishness.
    Ask yourself is the Party better off than it was four years ago? Is the Party better off than it was eight years ago? Or twelve years ago? If your answer is yes than by all means vote for the Party establishment. If your answer is no then lets clean house and vote the Party establishment out of office!

  6. 1 1/2 cents worth

    When the Libertarian nominee for President this year isn’t included in any of the Presidential debates with the R and D nominees, they should look back at this action, and realize they are the pot calling the kettle black.

  7. JT

    Paulie: “They might also tighten up the token system to come up with a way to make it impossible for candidates to trade tokens like what we were doing last time.”

    I hope so.

  8. Brian Holtz

    These criteria don’t seem unreasonable.

    Note that one of the de-listed candidates advocates free education and free health insurance for all Americans and a moratorium on all debt collection.

    Another says it very important that all men vote for a female for President while all women vote for a male.

    Another has a campaign site that talks about stigmata that appeared on the candidate’s hands in the 1980s.

    And another discusses on his campaign site his conviction for stalking a female news anchor, his theory that the FBI framed him for his political views, his history of mental illness, his SSI disability, and his efforts to avoid homelessness.

    I don’t think that promoting such candidates on lp.org is a good way to grow the party. By constrast, Liberty Decides struck me as innovative and market-oriented. Check it out: http://old.lp.org/libertydecides/

  9. paulie Post author

    I hope so

    Why?

    It would have kept Kubby among other people out of the debate, which many people thought he won.

    If a campaign has extra tokens and deems another candidate worthy of them, why shouldn’t they be able to trade?

  10. Robert Capozzi

    11 bh: Another says it very important that all men vote for a female for President while all women vote for a male. Another has a campaign site that talks about stigmata that appeared on the candidate’s hands in the 1980s.

    me: colorful stuff. I’m disappointed that we don’t apparently have a Mayan high priestess reincarnated to warn us of what lies ahead… Do I see a raise of hands…

  11. Dr. Tom Stevens

    Re: 8 & 13

    Carl Person’s new website is truly fantastic. It is very organized, clear and crisp and completely devoid of any of Carl’s past Press Releases and socialist leaning positions on issues previously discussed.

    Since Carl refused to listen to me about focusing only on libertarian issues, I imagine Chris Doscher, Carl’s new Campaign Manager, has Carl tied up in a dungeon while he tries to turn around the sinking sink. Unfortunately Chris, you will have to let him out to speak at debates (unless you speak for him) and this Saturday, the Manhattan LP Convention’s Presidential Poll (in Carl’s backyard) will provide some evidence as to how well you have done in painting over all the green and red hues he often gives off.

  12. paulie Post author

    Ask yourself is the Party better off than it was four years ago? Is the Party better off than it was eight years ago? Or twelve years ago? If your answer is yes than by all means vote for the Party establishment. If your answer is no then lets clean house and vote the Party establishment out of office!

    I don’t think the party is worse off than it was four years ago.

    I do think it’s worse off than 8 or especially 12 years ago.

    I’m not sure that automatically leads me to the conclusion that anyone other than the current officers will make it better. They could make it better or they could make it worse.

    I’d like to see the specifics of their proposed plans and other criteria (endorsements, accomplishments, etc).

  13. Stewart Flood

    @12,

    re: tokens

    Delegates give tokens to the candidate of their choice because they believe in that candidate. The candidate should not have the right to decide that another candidate should get some of them. That is not fair to the delegate who gave the token (I know because only a minute or so after I had given my token, I watched as a person working for the candidate that I had just handed my token to turned to give it to another candidate. I tried to get it back, but was unsuccessful)

    Tokens should not be able to be given away to other campaigns.

  14. paulie Post author

    Stewart,

    Many delegates want to see more than one candidate in the debates.

    If tokens are not allowed to be traded, delegates should have more than one token to give to one candidate.

    How about a system where delegates rank which candidates they think should be allowed in the debate, with either a cutoff for inclusion or X number of candidates who will be allowed in with the highest vote getters getting the spots?

    Many of Ruwart’s supporters wanted Kubby in the debate and vice versa. I imagine the same was true of Barr and Root.

  15. Bill Blair

    If I was a member, I would strongly agree with this move. There has to be some way to weed out the crackpots/weirdos/embarrasments if the LP is ever going to be taken seriously by the voting public.

  16. Richard Winger

    Ballot access-wise, for president, the Libertarian Party is definitely better off now than it was four years ago at this time. Four years ago the party was still not on in Ohio, nor North Carolina, nor Nebraska. Although 4 years ago it was on in North Dakota.

    Also four years ago there was no serious attempt to get on in Oklahoma, and there is now. Also four years ago the New Hampshire party was not even trying to get the party per se on the ballot, and this year that process is mostly finished.

  17. johncjackson

    If Kubby wasn’t even going to make the debates last time, there is almost no way any of the mentioned excluded candidates could make it. Milnes couldn’t even get a single vote for BTP against a completely unknown person with a ( still) fabricated biography, and he lives in a van that will likely not make it to the convention. “Miss Joy Waymire”? Who? Animal-loving Person? Where’s that bus driver guy with the contract insurance plan- is he running this time? Some of the handful listed arent even serious candidates.

  18. Catholic Trotskyist

    I just spoke with James Ogle, and he protests his exclusion from the LP website list of presidential candidates. He notes that he is the only candidate on the ballot for the LP primary in Missouri. Gary Johnson is still on the Republican primary ballot in Missouri, and possibly other states. Therefore, Johnson is still technically running as a Republican. While Ogle’s advocacy of the all-party system may deviate from anarchist libertarianism, his deviations from the LP platform are no greater than Root’s, Johnson’s or Gravel’s. Also, it is unlibertarian for a party establishment to be able to make decisions about who is a serious candidate. It shouldn’t damage the LP’s electoral prospects to have these candidates on the site; 90% of voters probably would not support Wrights even if they knew what he truly stands for. The Catholic Trotskyist Party officially protests and disendorses the Libertarian Party’s decision in this matter, and demands the reenstatement of James Ogle, Miss Joy Waymire, Robert Milnes, and the other removed candidates to the website.

  19. paulie Post author

    Where’s that bus driver guy with the contract insurance plan- is he running this time?

    Sen Bernardino. That’s close to Vegas, so he’ll probably run.

    Person should be listed, though.

    He is now listed, if you missed my previous comment about that.

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@14,

    I’m pretty sure that the Mayan thing is part of Waymire’s agenda.

    Regarding tokens: If candidates aren’t allowed to trade tokens once they receive those tokens, then they’ll just work up a new process for convincing delegates to apportion tokens instead of throwing twice as many in one hat as are needed.

    In 2008, several candidates gave their “excess” tokens to Kubby, and one (Smith) gave enough to Kubby to get him over the top, on the agreement that his volunteers would try to help her up too, which we did.

    If that had not been allowed, I am confident we could have got those other candidates to just TELL the people offering them tokens “I’ve got mine, but I hope you’ll help Candidate X over there out, because he should be in the debate.”

  21. langa

    Am I the only one who sees the irony in “libertarians” arguing that once Person A gives something to Person B, then Person B should have to get Person A’s permission to give it to Person C?

  22. Hugh Mungus Fungus

    Johnson has no choice in being listed in Missouri.

    His website, media interviews etc clearly state he is now a candidate for the LP and only the LP

    Ogle doesn’t meet the criteria

    Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian
    Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
    Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
    Campaign website is current with contact information

  23. Kevin Knedler

    @ # 7
    Answer?
    FAR FAR better organized, more candidates, more money than ever! Yes, in Ohio we are far better off.

  24. Kevin Knedler

    @ # 12
    When a person gives a candidate their token, it is for that candidate. It is a message of support. I would be insulted to know the token I gave a candidate was then given to another candidate. If I wanted that other candidate, I would have given them my token to start with.

  25. George Phillies

    The LNC delegate registration process, I am advised by my own state chair, is requiring a phone number for each delegate.

    Why is the LNC violating its own Bylaws?

    The registration requirement for delegates to the national convention is specified in the bylaws, once directly, once by inference:


    On 1/19/2012 8:15 PM, David E. Blau, Esq. wrote:
    > Thanks. Registration site requires a phone number.

    Why is the LNC violating its own Bylaws?

    “c. A list of the names and addresses of all delegates and alternates chosen by each affiliate party shall be sent to the Credentials Committee no later than one month prior to start of the first general session of the Regular Convention.

    6. Delegate List:
    Any Party member shall be provided, upon request and payment of copying and mailing costs, a list of the names and addresses of all delegates selected to attend and those who actually attended the most recent two Conventions, with those who attended clearly identified, and all delegates / alternates selected to the upcoming convention, if available.”

  26. Hugh Mungus Fungus

    #31 What if I want more than one candidate to be in the debates and I don’t know which one needs my token more?

  27. Hugh Mungus Fungus

    Am I the only one who sees the irony in “libertarians” arguing that once Person A gives something to Person B, then Person B should have to get Person A’s permission to give it to Person C?

    No, you are not.

  28. Steven R Linnabary

    I really don’t have a problem with keeping what I consider to be nut cases (such as Daniel Imperato, Charles O. Collins, Robert Milnes, Harry Glenn, et al) out of our debates.

    But this new policy won’t do that, Imperato and Collins both had filed with the FEC.

    And I have to wonder if the LP would be better off had Russell Means, Jim Lewis, Irwin Schiff, Michael Badnarik and others not been allowed to speak. These candidates refused to file with the FEC on principle. Libertarian principles.

    I am the Ohio LP Convention Chair this year. I have been contacted directly by only one candidate so far about attending our convention, and he has not filed with the FEC on principle. Thus far, I am inclined to allow him to participate in our debate (in spite of his idiosyncrasies).

    Why is the LP of all organizations, using the FEC compliance (something that we abhor and want to abolish) as a standard for our candidates?

    PEACE

  29. JT

    Paulie: “If a campaign has extra tokens and deems another candidate worthy of them, why shouldn’t they be able to trade?”

    See Kevin’s answer at post 31.

  30. paulie Post author

    I’ve seen it, and I’m more inclined to agree with langa, in addition to the point I made earlier in response to Stewart saying the same thing.

  31. paulie Post author

    But this new policy won’t do that, Imperato and Collins both had filed with the FEC.

    Collins was not running for the LP nomination exclusively, and I’m not sure if Imperato was at any point or not – I know he sought other nominations before and after the LP.

    Far from excluding Imperato, Liberty Decides made him one of the most prominent faces of the LP for months.

    And I have to wonder if the LP would be better off had Russell Means, Jim Lewis, Irwin Schiff, Michael Badnarik and others not been allowed to speak. These candidates refused to file with the FEC on principle. Libertarian principles.

    Good point. I also wonder whether any of them would have been kept out of the debate with the token system?

    I think Badnarik would never have won without his debate performance, but he was a distant third going in.

  32. Hugh Mungus Fungus

    “I really don’t have a problem with keeping what I consider to be nut cases (such as Daniel Imperato, Charles O. Collins, Robert Milnes, Harry Glenn, et al) out of our debates.

    But this new policy won’t do that, Imperato and Collins both had filed with the FEC.”

    What policy would you suggest instead that would be objective, fair and even handed and achieve the stated goal?

  33. matt cholko

    As far as I am concerned, if a candidate can get more than 1 token (presumably he/she would get his/her own token) he/she should be allowed to speak at the convention and should be on the ballot.

    I realize that this could create a nightmare scenario where 20+ people would have to be allowed to address the convention, But, what kind of libertarians are we if we deny anyone the right to make their case to us?

  34. Steven R Linnabary

    What policy would you suggest instead that would be objective, fair and even handed and achieve the stated goal?

    Well, we COULD demand that any candidate support the LP Platform 100%. But that would prevent the current front runner from participating.

    😉

    PEACE

  35. JT

    Paulie: “I’ve seen it, and I’m more inclined to agree with langa…”

    That’s fine. I think langa misses the mark. If I give my token to a particular candidate, I’m doing so as a sign of support for that particular candidate. I don’t want my token given to someone else whom I may not want to see in the debate.

    Paulie: “…in addition to the point I made earlier in response to Stewart saying the same thing.”

    In that post, you said in part: “Many delegates want to see more than one candidate in the debates.”

    So? You pick the one you want the most and hope enough other people want your next choice the most. If I support X most but I’m also interested in Y, yet hardly any of my fellow delegates is a Y supporter, then I don’t see why Y should be included just because I happen to have an interest in him or her.

    Moreover, it’s tedious to me to have to go through many rounds of balloting just to weed out the weak candidates. It would’ve been fine with me if only Ruwart, Barr, and Root had been the debaters in 2008–those were the candidates who were far ahead of the rest of the pack as delegate favorites. It makes no difference to me if many Libertarians think Steve Kubby “won the debate,” as you say. If that’s true, it just further demonstrates that he had no shot to win the nomination anyway.

  36. Kevin Knedler

    Yes Steve you are the Ohio Convention Chair. But we are not living in 1984, 1988, or even 2004 any longer. We must push harder, work harder, raise the bar of performance. It is what businesses do EVERY SINGLE year, if not quarter, or week, or day. The changes I see in the LP are great and it is coming from NEWBIES in the party– especially those far younger than me. They want change. They want higher profile candidates. They want to look at things based on performance. I say, “let me help you build for the future. Then I will step back and watch the youth in the party take the LP to the next level.”

    You either stand with me for that or you don’t.

  37. paulie Post author

    “Many delegates want to see more than one candidate in the debates.”

    So? You pick the one you want the most and hope enough other people want your next choice the most. If I support X most but I’m also interested in Y, yet hardly any of my fellow delegates is a Y supporter, then I don’t see why Y should be included just because I happen to have an interest in him or her.

    What if I don’t know which one I support most until the debate? Or what if I change my mind as a result of the debate?

    Moreover, it’s tedious to me to have to go through many rounds of balloting just to weed out the weak candidates.

    So make it a one round ranked choice vote. The same could be done with debate access.

    Or: There’s no reason we can’t pick the debate field with a convention vote using the same rules used to pick At Large reps on the LNC.

    It would’ve been fine with me if only Ruwart, Barr, and Root had been the debaters in 2008

    I heard second hand that Root needed help from Barr to get in the debate. If that’s true it would have only been Ruwart and Barr.

  38. paulie Post author

    The purpose of the debate is to let delegates determine which candidates they support. Until the debate many may have no idea.

    What if Badnarik had been unable to get enough tokens in 2004 – would you have been OK with that too?

  39. Steven R Linnabary

    Kevin, did you bother to read what I posted above?

    I am well aware of what year it is, and it is irrelevant to the discussion.

    You claim to want higher profile candidates, but you would not want to allow a Russell Means or a Irwin Schiff to participate while allowing nut jobs such as Imperato. And make no mistake, Schiff and Means are pretty high profile.

    I am NOT opposed to objective standards. But I have yet to hear one young person (let alone anyone) demand that our candidates be FEC compliant! Quite the opposite, few young people believe that any shadowy government organization such as the FEC is objective.

    And adherence to this arbitrary standard will not do what you claim you want. Either you understand that or you don’t. But I’ll say it again, Imperato and Collins are nut jobs that you would allow while Means, Schiff and Badnarik are stalwart libertarians that you would not allow. And Schiff and Means were both rather high profile candidates.

    PEACE

  40. paulie Post author

    Steve,

    You claim to want higher profile candidates, but you would not want to allow a Russell Means or a Irwin Schiff to participate while allowing nut jobs such as Imperato. And make no mistake, Schiff and Means are pretty high profile.

    I’m on your side here but you’re mixing apples and oranges. Imperato did not, and could not, get enough debate tokens.

    The FEC listing is a criterion for the listing of candidates at LP.org, not for participating in convention debates.

    As far as I know, not filing with the FEC does not at this point disqualify anyone from the convention debate if they can get enough tokens (or qualify under whatever system they use this year).

  41. Steven R Linnabary

    Paulie-

    This is a running disagreement in the Ohio LP. Many folks want to use the FEC requirement to keep certain candidates out of our debate to be held on April 1st.

    My position is that it will not only keep out some bonafide candidates, but will still allow the crackpots.

    PEACE

  42. paulie Post author

    Since it’s on April 1st, maybe you can propose a rule than only candidates who don’t file with the FEC should be allowed in the debate.

  43. paulie Post author

    JT,

    Also, Kubby came within a very few votes of beating Root for VP. I don’t think that would have happened if he was kept out of the debate.

    And I don’t think Badnarik could have won the 2004 nomination if he hadn’t been in the debate. I think it’s entirely plausible if a non-transferable token system had been in place that year that he would have failed to qualify.

  44. NewFederalist

    This entire thread is rather amusing in view of the complaint that the LP has with most states’ ballot access laws! Many posters here are sounding more like a typical Secretary of State than a potential LP convention delegate.

  45. Eric Sundwall

    Still, once you fill out the right paperwork, you’re free to be as carzy as you like . . . ain’t the LP grand?

  46. ATBAFT

    In what way would a “debate” be meaningful, in the time allowed at the Convention, if there are, say, fifteen candidates (ten just for the ego trips) in the debate? I, for one, am not going to sit there for two hours listening to prattle from those with no chance to get the nomination.
    Perhaps the Convention needs a series of
    “playoff” debates – say a maximum of five with
    those delegates who wish to attend sending no more than two to the final debate?

  47. Kevin Knedler

    @ 55
    You have an invite to stand with me before the Judge in Federal Court, the next time Ohio LP has to sue for ballot access. It is so much fun.

  48. NewFederalist

    @57
    Isn’t that the same rationale used by the Commission on Presidential Debates to exclude everyone except Ds and Rs? I am not taking issue with your quite correct position that allowing every person who has expressed an interest into a convention debate will extend the time needed for the convention to conclude its business. My point is that the LP must be VERY careful as to just how they go about excluding potential nominees. Otherwise the hypocrisy of it all is just too ironic.

  49. LibertarianGirl

    a Pres. run w/o Jim Burns just dont seem right, its tradition and shit….

    plus I hope we can trade tokens , the way i remember it working at least for me was i asked who had made quota and gave mine to someone who wa close as to ensure the largest # of people…

    anyways see you all in Vegas , its gonna be a battle and a missing man formation:(

    peace

  50. Wayne Root

    @48 paulie,

    i’ve never heard such a ridiculous comment or rumor coming from you. you always deal in facts.

    i was tied with barr for the most tokens at the entire convention…his team was in shock when the judge certified my count.

    then a tardy person handed me one more token at last second and my campaign manager and i walked back into the main convention room while the judge was verifying token counts…and proudly handed in one moretoken…putting me in first place over all other presidential candidates.

    barr’s mouth dropped open.

    no one had any idea that i had that kind of support that day.

    shows you how utterly ridiculous rumors are.

    they have no relation to facts. people make up rumors in order to support what they’d like to be the truth.

    i believe root, barr and ruwart were all within 1 token- right at 100.

    everyone else was far far down the list.

  51. paulie Post author

    Wayne,

    I said I heard it second hand.

    I had no direct knowledge other than what someone else told me who was there. I believe it was someone I know who was supporting Barr and may have been working on Barr’s campaign.

    If they lied it’s on them and I was careful not to claim it was a fact.

    If I claim something as a fact, I say it is a fact. If I heard it as a rumor, I say it’s a rumor.

    If my memory is wrong about something and someone gives me evidence that I was wrong, I say I was wrong.

    I’ll take your word for it that I was wrong, so my apologies if I didn’t make it clear that I had no first hand knowledge whether the claim was true.

    That being said, do you think Kubby should have been in the debate?

  52. Dr. Tom Stevens

    For being listed on the LP website as a declared candidate for President, why should the LP care if a candidate is also seeking the nomination of another party?

    Are they saying that if Ron Paul announced he is also seeking the LP nod, he wouldn’t be listed?

  53. Darryl W. Perry

    Maybe the LP could open Presidential nominations at the beginning of the convention and close nominations just before the debate and include (in the debate) the candidates who have been nominated, seconded & affirm support for the LP Platform and willingness to be a candidate.

  54. Brian Holtz

    You have to register with the FEC if you plan to raise or spend more than $5K. The LP should not take seriously any POTUS campaign with no such plan.

    The LPUS should only give web/debate space to candidates who achieve X% market share on a dimension like:

    • funds raised or spent by all LP POTUS candidates
    • funds raised/contributed for LP ballot access by all LP POTUS candidates
    • support declared by convention delegates
    • support declared by LP state chairs
    • support declared by LNC members

    X should be somewhere between 5 and 10.

  55. Jill Pyeatt

    I kind of agree with Brian @ 67. At this point (our convention is less than 4 months away), if someone hasn’t filed with the FEC, I’m not sure they’re serious about running. That criteria alone should do it for the LP website.

  56. NewFederalist

    “You have to register with the FEC if you plan to raise or spend more than $5K. The LP should not take seriously any POTUS campaign with no such plan.”

    Ralph Nader did it in 1996 and still polled half again as many votes as Harry Browne.

  57. D. Lou Shenoll

    If a candidate is unable to acquire the required tokens on their own , seems to be the evidence they don’t have the required support on the floor to be included. The candidates sharing tokens are the ones causing the “unwanted” to take up the space and time delaying the outcome. The LP needs to “recommend” that no tokens be shared under any circumstance among candidates. iirc 15% was the needed amount to be included. If a candidate is unable to collect 15% on their own from willing delegates should they be included ?

    BRAVO LG ! Let BIG Jim LIBERTARIAN Burns COMPETE !!!

    The pre-official debate, debates allow candidates the opportunity to collect tokens if the delegates deem them worthy.

    Libertarians! What’s happening in your area? Send stories, photos, videos to publish in Libertarian News Examiner. greededitor@aol.com
    Garry Reed Libertarian News Examiner.Garry Reed is a longtime freewheeling freelance libertarian opinionizer. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, River Cities Reader and several assorted…

    (Can’t you spare a dollar a day for liberty!?) LP Membership Center- https://www.lp.org/membership

    Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other. – Oscar Ameringer -> http://www.lp.org/

  58. langa

    Perhaps people who don’t want their tokens to be traded to someone they don’t support should make sure they give them to a candidate that they trust.

    It’s somewhat bizarre to argue that a candidate should be trusted to represent the party, but not to use their tokens wisely.

  59. George Phillies

    In 2008, I had someone give me his token, write his name in the wrong place, line it out, write his name and my name in the right places — and the woman running the count refused to accept the token.

  60. Thomas L. Knapp

    DLS@70,

    “If a candidate is unable to acquire the required tokens on their own , seems to be the evidence they don’t have the required support on the floor to be included.”

    So if Ron Paul walks into the convention venue five minutes before the token deadline and says “I’m running,” you’d oppose the other candidates sharing their excess tokens with him, right?

  61. George Phillies

    @70 or if other candidates get together, work hard, and suddenly there are not enough tokens left for Gary Johnson or whoever you support, you would not complain?

  62. paulie Post author

    If a candidate is unable to acquire the required tokens on their own , seems to be the evidence they don’t have the required support on the floor to be included. The candidates sharing tokens are the ones causing the “unwanted” to take up the space and time delaying the outcome. The LP needs to “recommend” that no tokens be shared under any circumstance among candidates. iirc 15% was the needed amount to be included. If a candidate is unable to collect 15% on their own from willing delegates should they be included ?

    BRAVO LG ! Let BIG Jim LIBERTARIAN Burns COMPETE !!!

    You do realize those two paragraphs contradict each other, right?

  63. NewFederalist

    Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian
    Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
    Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
    Campaign website is current with contact information

    Are these the correct criteria?

  64. NewFederalist

    I read it as the criteria for for being listed as a candidate for the LP nomination. Are we saying the same thing?

  65. paulie Post author

    No,

    Candidates for the nomination are those nominated and seconded by at least two delegates and accepting the nomination.

    There is a higher bar for making a speech to the convention, and a higher bar than that to participate in the official convention CSPAN televised debate.

    As of the last convention those two additional bars were based on the number of tokens awarded to each candidate by delegates. As far as I know there were no other requirements.

    Before that, it was based on a number of signatures, but delegates could sign for multiple candidates (at least in practice) and I’m not sure whether the signatures were verified.

    In addition to the official debate, at the last convention there were several unofficial debates. All the candidates except Barr participated in at least one of those and most participated in more than one.

    Various states also have debates at their state conventions, and each state decides its own rules on who is invited to those.

    The criteria listed above are to be listed on the current list of candidates on the party’s website (LP.org) and to my knowledge is separate from the rules for being a choice for delegates at the convention.

  66. Erik Viker

    The new expectations for being listed on the LP website as a LP presidential candidate are not unreasonable.

  67. NewFederalist

    I guess I am really confused. If Ron Paul were to decide tomorrow that he wanted the LP nomination as well as the CP nomination and that of Americans Elect… he would NOT be listed? Is that correct? He would violate rule #2.

  68. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    I heard that Barr gave some of his tokens to Gravel, because Barr wanted some serious people in the debate.

    It may be that Barr had more tokens overall, but then gave some away.

    The claim that Root had more tokens than Barr doesn’t pass the smell test. They were both going after the same constituency (conservatives who wanted a “famous” candidate), yet Barr beat Root in the voting, so Barr clearly had more support.

  69. paulie Post author

    If Barr gave tokens to Gravel and Root kept all his that would account for the difference.

    Root may have also been more aggressive about collecting them.

    Barr was probably not worried about not getting enough, so his people didn’t really have to hustle for them like others did – they just sat back and collected.

    That’s just speculation though, I was really not hanging around very much with the Barr or Root people.

    Except Steve Gordon, and he and I were both pretty busy running around doing a lot of different things so we didn’t really discuss their token situation to my recollection.

  70. Erik Viker

    Not every Libertarian is interested in rubbing Ron Paul’s bunions. He believes state governments are empowered to intrude on the individual liberty of peaceful people if enough voters want the government to do so. Ron Paul endorsed for president Chuck Baldwin, a religious extremist who ran with the ironically-named Constitution Party, a theocratic organization that wants to cede our nation’s government to a religious figure under Biblical law. Ron Paul would support a state government denying women the right to control their own bodies. His version of state “rights” would allow state governments to decide to intrude on the family lives and medical lives of peaceful citizens, rather than support the Libertarian Party platform positions that don’t support government at any level to do that sort of intrusion. And his immigration positions include working restrict citizenship and support of government meddling in peaceful people’s private housing and employment arrangements, which isn’t very Libertarian.

  71. ATBAFT

    Have at it- the more candidates the merrier.
    Meanwhile, I’ll be in the casino. Call me when the voting begins.

  72. Daniel Wiener

    Brian Holtz @ 67 has the right idea. There’s no reason why the LP should publicize any random person who happens to announce that he or she is running for the LP’s Presidential nomination. That doesn’t stop the person from being nominated. It just doesn’t provide that person a soapbox on the LP’s web site.

    The criteria which Carla Howell came up with are pretty minimal, and in fact they may be added to later on if further filtering is needed. The FEC filing criterion is actually watered-down from the original requirement that the candidate had received at least $5,000 in contributions. Someone who can’t raise even $5,000 for a Presidential campaign (which is going to require hundreds of thousands of dollars) is simply not a serious candidate in my opinion. And candidates who do raise $5,000 are required to file with the FEC, which is an easy way of verifying that the threshold has been met. However, candidates can file with the FEC before they reach $5,000, which is why the present criterion is very weak. Instead of requiring the $5,000, it just requires a stamp and filling out some paperwork. Oh well, I suppose it’s slightly better than nothing, and there are three other (also weak) criteria.

  73. Rob Banks

    It takes hundreds of millions, not hundreds of thousands of dollars to credibly run for president. No LP candidate will come even close to that, unless maybe Ron Paul runs Libertarian, and even he probably will not raise hundreds of millions as an LP candidate.

    As for running a race on the level of LP candidates, Nader ran one in 1996 while purposely raising less than 5k, and Badnarik may have been below 5k prior to the nomination.

  74. langa

    Congratulations to #87 for a very comprehensive collection of straw man arguments. For the record, RP does not support state governments (or local governments) “intruding on the individual liberty of peaceful people” at all. This is a (most likely deliberate) misunderstanding of his position. There are 3 reasons why he so often talks about leaving things up to the states.

    1. He is running for federal office, not for state office, so the question of what the states should do is irrelevant.

    2. As a federal official, he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, which, like it or not, gives considerable discretion to the states.

    3. No matter how tyrannical the state governments may be, he does not believe that the solution is to give more power to the federal government to protect us from the tyrannical state government. Do you? And if so, do you also believe that we need a powerful world government to protect us from the tyrannical federal government? If so, then who will protect us from the world government?

  75. paulie Post author

    He is running for federal office, not for state office, so the question of what the states should do is irrelevant.

    In many ways, congress and the president are the de facto legislature and governor of DC.

    No matter how tyrannical the state governments may be, he does not believe that the solution is to give more power to the federal government to protect us from the tyrannical state government. Do you?

    Generally speaking usually not, but “no matter how tyrannical” is taking things too far. Suppose a state rounded up and executed all Muslims and people of middle eastern heritage?

    And if so, do you also believe that we need a powerful world government to protect us from the tyrannical federal government? If so, then who will protect us from the world government?

  76. langa

    Suppose a state rounded up and executed all Muslims and people of middle eastern heritage?

    I would hope that the people of that state would revolt. Unfortunately, they probably wouldn’t , but I would still have more faith in them than in the feds, who demonstrate every day just how much they care about Muslims and other Arabs.

    Also, while the rounding up of the Japanese in internment camps was obviously a terrible atrocity, and the Holocaust was obviously even worse, I don’t think the possibility of those types of things happening again (in the U.S. or Germany or anywhere else) provides sufficient justification for a world government. Do you?

  77. paulie Post author

    I would hope that the people of that state would revolt. Unfortunately, they probably wouldn’t , but I would still have more faith in them than in the feds, who demonstrate every day just how much they care about Muslims and other Arabs.

    OK. Would you expel a state like that from the union?

    Also, while the rounding up of the Japanese in internment camps was obviously a terrible atrocity, and the Holocaust was obviously even worse, I don’t think the possibility of those types of things happening again (in the U.S. or Germany or anywhere else) provides sufficient justification for a world government. Do you?

    Flip answer: I for one welcome the benevolent dictatorship of our new space alien overlords.

    Serious answer: No. But I don’t think the opposite opinion is necessarily contradictory to libertarianism.

    My own read on history is that centralization of power leads to less liberty on balance, but there are certainly historical examples of states/nations working together to stop states/nations from abusing their own people.

    Taking it on a case by case basis and allying with whichever level of government is protecting the rights of individuals against the other level of government, whether lower or higher, is a reasonable position many libertarians can and do take.

  78. Brian Holtz

    lp.org gets a non-trivial amount of traffic, and people are interested in who the LP nominee might be. The LNC would be derelict either to list no candidates, or to list every kook the same as the serious contenders.

    My idea @67 was to let LNC members get candidates IN, but I don’t think an LNC majority should have the power to keep candidates OUT.

    Badnarik raised/spent about $1M in 2004, so any “principle” he had against FEC filing was wisely set aside when he won the LP nomination.

    Nader was wise enough not to repeat his 1996 no-FEC stunt in 2000, when he happily accepted $700K in matching funds. No conceivable LP nominee has enough name recognition to make such a stunt advisable in 2012 — not even Clint Eastwood.

  79. Rob Banks

    Badnarik raised/spent about $1M in 2004, so any “principle” he had against FEC filing was wisely set aside when he won the LP nomination.

    How much did Badnarik raise pre-nomination though?

    The question here is not whether LP.org will list the candidate after he or she is nominated (although I seem to recall that they took several months to list Badnarik’s nomination, I admit I don’t remember this with any certainty); it’s which candidates will be listed before the nomination takes place.

    Maybe Badnarik raised more than 5k before Atlanta, but if so probably it was not much more would be my guess.

    If so, the standards some are proposing here as to who may or may not be a serious contender for the nomination may be too stringent.

  80. Rob Banks

    Also, was Badnarik the first choice of more than 15% of the delegates before the debate?

    If not then again, by the standards some have proposed here, he would not have been in the debate.

    Would those same people be OK with that?

  81. langa

    OK. Would you expel a state like that from the union?

    Ideally, I’d like to see the entire union dissolved. Short of that, yeah, I’d say genocide would be sufficient grounds for expulsion, although that could be problematic as well, since it might make it more difficult for the persecuted groups to flee. The whole situation really just demonstrates the difficulty of trying to secure justice through political means.

    My own read on history is that centralization of power leads to less liberty on balance, but there are certainly historical examples of states/nations working together to stop states/nations from abusing their own people.

    This sounds a lot like support for so-called “humanitarian” wars. If so, I vehemently disagree. Just look at the disasters that have resulted from this (the first Gulf War, Libya, just to name a couple of recent examples).

    Taking it on a case by case basis and allying with whichever level of government is protecting the rights of individuals against the other level of government, whether lower or higher, is a reasonable position many libertarians can and do take.

    Ultimately, I don’t think it’s a good idea for libertarians to “ally” themselves with any level of government, because I don’t think that governments can be trusted to fix the problems created by other governments. My opposition to centralization is based not on any faith in state governments to protect us (which is why I don’t get excited about the prospects of nullification, or even secession, to bring about some libertarian paradise). Rather, it’s based on my extreme reluctance to ever give more power to any government, for any reason, no matter how noble the justification may seem.

    As an example, look at the evil that Lincoln committed in the name of ending slavery, which is certainly a noble motive if there ever was one. But the end result, for millions of people, in the North and the South, black and white, free and slave, was anything but noble. That’s what tends to happen when you look to the government to be your savior.

  82. Thomas L. Knapp

    @99,

    “How much did Badnarik raise pre-nomination though?”

    My recollection is that he had raised — and spent — about $40k prior to the nomination. He arrived in Atlanta broke enough that he stayed at a nearby discount hotel instead of the convention venue.

    If you look at what he did with that $40k, it was well-spent. He spent the better part of the year covering tens of thousands of miles (usually by car with an assistant), speaking at every LP or libertarian event that would have him.

    When I asked him to come to St. Louis the fall before the nomination, his only request was that I find him a place to sleep — a couch would be fine, he said. I rented him a hotel room, which was apparently beyond the call of duty. He really appreciated it.

    The day he spent here included an interview with the local newspaper, a speech at Washington University (to the student libertarian club), an a local LP meet and greet at a local restaurant.

  83. Michael H. Wilson

    All this talk about which presidential candidates gets on the web site, but no effort is being made to bring the site up to date.

    Under the issues section http://www.lp.org/issues we have a listing for “Current Issues” http://www.lp.org/issues/current-issues. Now take a look at the age of that piece. That piece is out of date. Next go half way done the page and look at the section titled “LP statement on the Economy”. Each item in that section is dated from 2008. Then go to the bottom and look at the section titled “Some LP statements on civil liberties”. Again each piece is from 2008.

    I could be wrong but I don’t think material that is three years old is current.

    The section on immigration looks like it came from a CATO book for the 108th Congress which was from 2003 to 2005. The piece on Healthcare suggest we have Medical Savings Account and make them tax free and then “the Libertarian Party will work to make all healthcare expenditures 100 percent tax deductible.” I may be wrong but do we have a problem since the LP wants to do away with the income tax? Not to mention that entire section has some significant problems. The first paragraph is far from correct historically.

    So much nonsense!

  84. paulie Post author

    Ultimately, I don’t think it’s a good idea for libertarians to “ally” themselves with any level of government, because I don’t think that governments can be trusted to fix the problems created by other governments.

    I thought that was the whole point of the criticism leveled against Paul and other libertarians who take a states rights position, that they side with local and state government – which can also be quite tyrannical – in opposition to federal governmet.

  85. Michael H. Wilson

    No paulie I have not. But two members of the LNC have commented here about this issue and I have written to all the members of the LNC over the last few years about half a dozen times and have not made much progress. I am preparing another letter to the LNC and Carla Howell will be copied.

  86. langa

    I thought that was the whole point of the criticism leveled against Paul and other libertarians who take a states rights position, that they side with local and state government – which can also be quite tyrannical – in opposition to federal governmet.

    I rarely hear Paul calling for the states to do anything that they aren’t already doing, while I frequently (in fact, constantly) hear him calling for the feds to stop doing things. To me, that’s a very important distinction.

    Being against federal action is not the same as being for state action, even if the practical effect of reducing federal action would be to increase state action. Similarly, being against the War on Drugs is not the same as being in favor of drug use, even if ending the War on Drugs would have the practical effect of increasing drug use.

    On a more general level, I think that regardless of what level of government you’re talking about, libertarians should almost always support anything that reduces the power of any particular level of government, and should almost never support anything that increases the power of any particular level of government. It seems to me that Paul’s positions generally meet that criteria.

  87. Starchild

    I’m sympathetic to the desire not to have kook/vanity candidates like Daniel Imperato, Robert Milnes, et. al., touted on the party’s website or allowed to take part in presidential debates strictly on the basis of declaring themselves candidates for our nomination.

    However, “solutions” to this problem have the potential to be a lot worse than the problem itself.

    “New Federalist” @59 and @69 makes very good points about the unreliability of FEC filing or funds raised as a measure of a candidate’s viability, and about the exclusion of candidates seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination undermining the party’s own arguments for less restrictive ballot access laws, and making us look like hypocrites.

    Rob Banks @100 also points out that our 2004 presidential candidate Michael Badnarik might have been excluded based on criteria being proposed.

    But these specific issues are not my main concern. My main concern is that what we are seeing here is one more manifestation of a disturbing trend within the Libertarian Party toward centralization of power and control.

    In a Libertarian Party that was solidly committed to bottom-up governance and the decentralization of power within our organization, proposals to screen and exclude candidates based on “viability” criteria would be less problematic.

    But in a Libertarian Party that has trended toward more top-down control, more “professionalism” (read: the devaluation and implicit if not explicit disparagement of activists, volunteers, and people who don’t look, talk, act, etc., like they just stepped out of a corporate office), less focus on libertarian ideas and more focus on generic “winning” without careful consideration of how a “win” will help spread freedom or advance the libertarian movement, etc., any proposal that limits or restricts the power or participation of grassroots party members in the name of efficiency, weeding out the non-serious, and so on, should be viewed with deep suspicion.

    The people who get most worked up about someone or something harming the “image” or detracting from the “seriousness” of the party are often the same people most closely associated with the anti-democratic, top-down agenda that I believe is slowly destroying our party.

    If what I’ve written here makes sense to you, you may be interested in the Grassroots Libertarians Caucus — http://www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/grassrootslibertarians

  88. Robert Capozzi

    108 L: Similarly, being against the War on Drugs is not the same as being in favor of drug use, even if ending the War on Drugs would have the practical effect of increasing drug use.

    me: Right. (Or the practical effect of DECREASING drug use.) And this is why positioning and calibration is integral to doing politics. Just taking an extreme position in a soundbite communication environment is more likely to alienate rather than attract.

  89. Brian Holtz

    Pre-nomination Badnarik would have probably have qualified under several of the criteria I gave @67 — all but one of which are decentralized / bottom-up.

    When the subject of the LP comes up, the first thing that Joe Sixpack asks during primary season is “Who’s running for your team?”. It would be insane for the LP to suppress per-nomination publicity for its serious candidates.

  90. langa

    Just taking an extreme position in a soundbite communication environment is more likely to alienate rather than attract.

    Well, that depends on the issue, as well as the nature of the target audience. “Totally legalize all drugs” would probably work well in front of a far left crowd. “Absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership” would probably work well in front of a far right crowd. And, as RP has demonstrated, “End the income tax and replace it with nothing” works well with most crowds.

  91. langa

    My “evidence” (admittedly anecdotal) is that every time I’ve heard him say it, whether in a debate or a speech, the audience has erupted with applause. If you’re looking for something more concrete, a simple Google search should lead you to poll results showing that most Americans hate the income tax and want to get rid of it, at least when asked about it in the abstract.

  92. Robert Capozzi

    114 L, with the rate of income tax payors falling as much as they have, my sense is that the income tax’s power as an issue has crested…

  93. Eric Sundwall

    I’m with Starchild. I want the whole array and spectacle of candidates who want to be Prez under the the LP label. How anyone who can be considered serious in such a pursuit worries me more.

  94. C. Al Currier

    “..vanity candidates like Daniel Imperato..” –Starchild

    I’d take the Knight-from-Malta (Danny) any day of the week over Bob Barr.

    If I were writing a dictionary, for kook and vanity, I’d put pictures of B. Barr and W. A. Root

    —former LP– C. Al Currier

  95. Brian Holtz

    Of course “end the income tax and replace it with nothing” is popular — when you don’t say what government spending you would cut.

    Does Ron Paul say explicitly how he would balance the federal budget after eliminating the income tax? It would take about a $2 trillion spending cut to do so.

    For an upcoming IPR article, IPR staff has asked each LP POTUS candidate to preview the 2013 federal budget they would submit to Congress if elected. Their responses (or lack thereof) will be available at http://www.editgrid.com/user/brianholtz/Federal_Budget. Prospective LP NatCon delegates are also welcome to enter their own budgets on the interactive spreadsheet.

    It’s easy to say who you’ll stop taking money from. It’s a lot harder to say who you’ll stop giving money to.

  96. langa

    Of course “end the income tax and replace it with nothing” is popular — when you don’t say what government spending you would cut.

    Actually his “Restore America Plan” (available in PDF) details all of his specific budget proposals for each year of his term (2013-2016). Googling “Ron Paul Plan To Restore America” should give you plenty of specific info.

    However, my original point was not that most people actually favor eliminating the income tax. Rather, I was arguing that most people will react positively to such a suggestion when presented in soundbite form, without all the specific details (which is why I added the caveat “when asked about it in the abstract”).

  97. Robert Capozzi

    120 bh, yes, RP is, in a sense, boxed in by his longstanding soundbite, which is inconsistent with his current plan.

    A L candidate has the advantage of their “plans” being mere signals, since they are so unlikely to be elected. Still, it seems wise to propose edgily plausible plans. Otherwise, the campaign could be conducted on a sidewalk soap box.

  98. langa

    Yes, most people react positively to soundbites about giving them more or taking less from them. Such soundbites aren’t so much “extreme” as they are magical.

    I’m not sure what your point is. I brought up the point about eliminating the income tax in response to RC’s claim that “extreme” soundbites don’t appeal to voters. You then pointed out that such soundbites ignore the details that might cause people to be less receptive to them. Not only was this response irrelevant to my claim, but I had already anticipated as much and specifically included a caveat addressing this objection.

    As a side note, I mentioned that RP has provided plenty of details about his proposed budget plans. I did so on the off chance that you were actually curious, and not simply asking rhetorical questions in an attempt to obliterate the straw man position that you have been attempting to saddle me with.

    You now respond by engaging in semantic quibbling over the meaning of the word “extreme” and by criticizing the details of Paul’s plan, while ignoring the fact that I never endorsed the specifics of Paul’s plan, nor was the feasibility of said plan ever relevant to my original point.

    If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were just looking for an argument (sometimes known as “trolling”, though I’m not interested in a semantic debate over the precise meaning of that term either).

  99. Brian Holtz

    My point is that “nobody has to pay any income taxes” isn’t an example of “extreme” libertarianism until it’s coupled with corresponding cuts in government spending. Otherwise, it’s just an example of “extreme” pandering, and is not really equivalent to the other two examples of extremism that you gave @112. And since it was the only one of the three that you certified as “works well with most crowds”, this negates your rebuttal to Bob’s thesis that extremism “is more likely to alienate rather than attract”.

    I mentioned that RP has provided plenty of details about his proposed budget plans. I did so on the off chance that you were actually curious

    Your “actually” comment @119 suggested that Paul’s plan would explain how Paul would cut spending to make up for repealing the income tax. I was very curious how Paul would pull this off, and was very disappointed to see that he doesn’t even try.

  100. langa

    Again, I’m not interested in debating the precise definition of the word “extreme” (which is probably subjective anyway), but if it helps you to sleep better at night, then substitute that particular soundbite with “Cut a trillion dollars in year 1”, which is not only thoroughly explained as to the details, but which has been called extreme by virtually every member of the mainstream media, yet still draws thunderous applause every time it’s uttered.

    Heck, Paul’s entire platform (particularly the parts dealing with foreign policy) is frequently referred to as “extreme”, and yet, despite this widespread perception of extremity, his poll numbers have risen steadily, without the wild fluctuations that have accompanied all the other candidates (except Romney). If that doesn’t constitute an adequate rebuttal of the notion that “extremism inherently alienates voters”, then what exactly would be required to convince you? An admitted anarchist winning the Presidency in a landslide?

  101. C. Al Currier

    “What happened to Imperato anyway? Is he running for anything this year?” …Catholic Trotskyist

    I’m a big fan of Mr. Imperato. A few years back the LP POTUS race was pretty much between Jingozian (sp?), Phillies (sp?), Christine Smith(sp?) and Imperato. At that time, Mr. Imperato was the only one with a decent website. I was impressed with his photos of himself at a Florida immigration rally. Mr. Imperato don’ need no stinkin’ body guards to go to a demonstration and mingle with the masses. Unfortunately, the other candidates (at that time) were unsafe and uncomfortable unless they are surrounded by fellow libertarians who can understand their bizarre usuage of the English language (libertarian-speak). The other candidates needed protection from the masses.

    With the exception of Dr. Ruwart, Mr. Imperato was the most qualified candidate.

  102. Brian Holtz

    The spending cuts that Paul actually advocates just don’t qualify as “extreme” in LP circles, regardless of what the MSM may say. Paul’s plan would cut federal spending only 23% in the first year, and spending would henceforth grow after that — with no hint of cutting entitlements.

    Paul’s positions in 2012 are the same as in 2008, and I’ve already documented how they weren’t very extreme: http://libertarianmajority.net/2008

  103. langa

    The spending cuts that Paul actually advocates just don’t qualify as “extreme” in LP circles, regardless of what the MSM may say.

    Whether the cuts are actually “extreme” is not relevant to my argument, and neither is the question of whether the average member of the LP would consider them to be “extreme”. The only thing that matters is whether they are perceived to be “extreme” by the general public. Since the public gets most of their info from the MSM, and since the MSM constantly tells them that Paul’s ideas and positions are “extreme”, there is no logical reason to assume that they believe otherwise. Yet in spite of this perception, his popularity continues to rise. Again, if that fact does not constitute an adequate rebuttal of the “extremism alienates voters” hypothesis, then what would?

  104. Brian Holtz

    1. Paul’s advocacy of slashing “discretionary” spending, while leaving entitlements untouched, is called “extreme” by the MSM.

    2. Paul’s popularity continues to rise.

    3. Therefore, any extreme libertarian position is unlikely to alienate voters.

    I find this argument unpersuasive.

    What would falsify the “libertarian extremism doesn’t alienate voters” hypothesis? I would be convinced if Paul’s popularity continued to rise even after he were to reverse his stated positions that:

    • Paul would not abolish Medicare
    • Paul would not not abolish public schools
    • Paul would not abolish welfare
    • Paul would not abolish Social Security
    • Paul would allow states to conduct their own separate wars on drugs
  105. langa

    I’m starting to get tired of trying to defend my actual claim, as opposed to the absurd caricatures of it that you continue to attack, such as:

    …any extreme libertarian position is unlikely to alienate voters.

    Nowhere in this thread have I said or implied anything close to that. Rather, I disputed the claim that extreme positions (as expressed in soundbites) automatically alienate voters. In order to disprove that claim, I do not need to prove that “any extreme libertarian position is unlikely to alienate voters”; I simply need to prove that there are one or more positions that are perceived as “extreme” by most voters, yet do not alienate those same voters.

    Not only have I done this, I have actually provided multiple examples (including RP’s foreign policy positions, as well as his budget proposals). If this is not sufficient to convince you, then I fear that I’m wasting my time, as you are obviously in no mood to be convinced.

  106. Kevin Knedler

    # 105

    I am equally concerned about states rights.
    1950’s deep south didn’t work so well for minorities did it? The last thing I want is direct democracy which is a fancy name for “mob rule”.

  107. Robert Capozzi

    129 l, I agree that Paul is reported to be “extreme.” There are, however, shades of extreme-ness. And there is also the totality of what the candidates advocates and says. The MSM say he’s “extreme” not just for his $1T cut but also for his ending all foreign aid, bring all troops home, NewsletterGate, etc.

    It’s important to recognize that we live in an era of increasing information disintermediation. News and opinion is not just from the Big 3 networks and major dailies. Part of Paul power is the ability to sidestep the old ways. And, of course, he gets in high-profile debates where he can communicate in an unfiltered manner.

    It strikes me that it’s clear that Paul IS outside the GOP center of gravity, especially on foreign policy.

    BTW, I’m pretty sure I’ve been RP saying recently that he wants the income tax to be as low as possible. I think he’s evolved away from the zero replace with nothing bumpersticker position.

  108. Brian Holtz

    I disputed the claim that extreme positions (as expressed in soundbites) automatically alienate voters.

    Strawman. Bob’s actual claim was:

    Just taking an extreme position in a soundbite communication environment is more likely to alienate rather than attract.

    If your position is merely that some libertarian positions labeled “extreme” by the MSM are not inconsistent with RP-level popularity, then we are in violent agreement.

    As for your original 3 examples of extremist soundbites @112, I agree with your original assessment that legalize-all-drugs and end-all-gun-laws have narrow appeal, and I stand by my claim that end-all-income-taxes has broader appeal only because it more about pandering than about actually shrinking government.

  109. langa

    I’m pretty sure I’ve been RP saying recently that he wants the income tax to be as low as possible. I think he’s evolved away from the zero replace with nothing bumpersticker position.

    I still hear him use that line fairly often, although he’s usually careful to note that such a goal is probably not possible in the short term, as it would require a fundamental change in the public’s mind as to what the proper role of government should be. But he still says that he would eventually like to totally eliminate the income tax.

  110. langa

    BH@135,

    I assure you I was not attempting to construct any sort of straw man. Apparently your interpretation of RC’s claim varied greatly from mine.

  111. Brian Holtz

    I interpreted Bob’s warning @110 about “extreme positions in a soundbite” in the IPR context of LP radical-vs-moderate outreach strategy, rather than the GOP context in which Paul’s lukewarm libertarianism gets labeled as “extreme”. Many libertarian radicals claim that Paul’s popularity means that the LP’s outreach should emphasize the positions of the LP’s radicals. When I hear that, I point out that Ron Paul’s campaign has not been nearly as radical as they’d like to think. See e.g. http://libertarianmajority.net/2008 and http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2007/12/teflon-libertarian-moderate.html

  112. paulie Post author

    I’m a big fan of Mr. Imperato. A few years back the LP POTUS race was pretty much between Jingozian (sp?), Phillies (sp?), Christine Smith(sp?) and Imperato.

    ROFL…that was the funniest joke I heard all day.

  113. Dr. Tom Stevens

    I am very concerned with some declared LP Presidential Candidates being labeled “serious” while others are called “kooks” and/or “wackadooles”.

    I personally treat all declared candidates with respect. I think all should be listed on the LP website since they should be neutral in such a contest and I agree with Starchild about the growing trend towards centralization and control.

    I would give every candidate who can get twenty delegates to give them a token 5 minutes to address the convention.

  114. Brian Holtz

    LP.org should list the stigmata candidate, and the convicted-stalker candidate, and the vote-for-the-opposite-gender candidate, and the free-health-insurance-for-all candidate?

    These aren’t the criteria by which they should be excluded. Rather, these are the criteria which I trust LP delegates, donors, state chairs, and LNC officers to use when they decide in a decentralized bottom-up way which candidates they find worthy of supporting. A threshold of such support should be the criterion for inclusion.

    Let the market decide, rather than imposing an equal outcome regardless of merit.

  115. Sic Rantorum

    What is the evidence that the Paul end all taxes message is broadly popular — cheering crowds at Paul speeches?

  116. Sic Rantorum

    3/4 majority could de-list a candidate.

    Given the current LNC they would probably de-list everyone except Johnson.

  117. Starchild

    Brian @111 – I have to disagree with your characterization of the criteria you listed @67 as being all bottom-up save one.

    • funds raised or spent by all LP POTUS candidates
    • funds raised/contributed for LP ballot access by all LP POTUS candidates

    I would not consider fundraising prowess to be a bottom-up criterion unless only small donations from individuals were being counted.

    • support declared by convention delegates
    • support declared by LP state chairs
    • support declared by LNC members

    Only one of those three criteria really deserves to be called bottom-up, imho, that being support from the delegates.

    It should also be taken into consideration that any restrictions on who can participate in party forums or receive equal treatment or attention in official party organs are inherently somewhat top-down by their nature.

    This is not to say that mechanisms to filter candidates are always automatically bad. I personally would like to see a standard in place that gave more favorable treatment to candidates with more libertarian views, for instance by means of an official questionnaire asking questions like those often used with the Nolan Chart and ranking candidates according to their responses.

    That would also be a top-down, leadership-enforced rule, but unlike the bulk of the top-down trend we’ve seen in the Libertarian Party, its purpose and effect would be to strengthen the party’s commitment to libertarianism, not weaken or undermine it.

  118. Starchild

    C. Al Currier @117 – I might agree with you, only because I think clever and opportunistic candidates like Barr and Root, by virtue of being taken more seriously by some than more “obviously” ego-driven and kooky candidates like Imperato who fool virtually no one, have the potential to do more harm to our cause.

  119. Starchild

    Brian @120 – I’m hoping our Libertarian candidates will do better too (certainly they can do better). If Ron Paul were to decide he wanted to run on the Libertarian ticket, I would want to see significant improvement in his positions before supporting him for the nomination.

    To uphold the integrity and credibility of our party, as well as advance the long-term goal of continuing to educate the public, it’s vital that people who run for office as Libertarians, also run as libertarians.

    However, calling for the elimination of the income tax without specifying what government spending would be cut is acceptable to me, albeit not ideal, so long as the proposal is coming from someone I think we can trust to attempt to fulfill the promise, and I do feel that Dr. Paul has earned that trust.

    The main problem with calls to eliminate the income tax that do not include details about what spending would be cut is not that tax cuts must be “paid for”.

    That is statist language which has no relation to reality. The money doesn’t belong to government in the first place, and letting people keep their own money costs nothing.

    The question of how government will spend the money it takes in next year, should that amount happen to be significantly less than what it takes in this year, is a separate debate that should happen independently of the debate over what means of collecting money are legitimate.

    Notice also that no one ever asks how tax increases are going to be “paid for” (i.e. how individuals and families will make up for the loss in revenue resulting from having to give more of their earnings to government).

    The main problem with proposals to eliminate the income tax which do not include proposals to cut government spending by amounts equal to or greater than the amount of money collected by government in income taxes is that we have less assurance that such proposals are sincere. In other words, we have less assurance that those making such proposals without getting into specifics will attempt to carry them out even in the face of vociferous opposition based on the government spending cuts they would be presumed to require.

  120. Brian Holtz

    I agree that Ron Paul has solid — though far from impeccable — libertarian instincts. And I too welcome it when politicians question the morality of income taxation. But there is a word for politicians who propose tax cuts without proposing any changes to the laws that mandate continued entitlement spending, and that will in the absence of such changes just shift the taxes to future generations (through debt) or to holders of dollar-denominated-assets (through inflation).

    That word is “Republican”.

  121. Dr. Tom Stevens

    Some candidates don’t feel it is worth the time to fundraise so they lend money to their own campaign committee. Carl Person is doing this. I suspect Sam Sloan will do the same. Should self-financed candidates be excluded because they haven’t spent time fundraising and chose instead to spend that time campaigning? I don’t think so. I would include them.

  122. Robert Capozzi

    147 sc: The main problem with calls to eliminate the income tax that do not include details about what spending would be cut is not that tax cuts must be “paid for”. That is statist language which has no relation to reality. The money doesn’t belong to government in the first place, and letting people keep their own money costs nothing.

    me: Whether it’s “statist language,” “reality,” or who “the money” belongs to, I’d say it all depends. For this L, there is a State. It takes a lot of my and my fellow citizens money. I’d like to see it do a lot less of that. The money itself is of questionable integrity, given that the standard of measure is being manipulated by the State (or State-enabled institutions like the Fed) continuously.

    When I look through that prism, I’d surely want Ls to be advocates for addressing the State’s impact on the people in a universal way. Advocating tax cuts in isolation without reference to the context (funding the State, in this case) is at best pandering. I’d want Ls to raise the level of discourse in the public square by hammering home the point that we’d all be better off if we reduce the State in a sustainable, robust, and – yes – responsible manner.

    Tripling down on R gimmicks of advocating tax cuts with no reference to offsetting spending cuts just makes Ls look like wacky Rs.

    I wouldn’t think that’s what you’d be going for, Starchild.

  123. Starchild

    Robert @152 – My position is that unless you owe some legitimate debt, the money you justly earn belongs to you, period. Not to the State. Your “it depends” gives me the impression that you want to avoid that principle or water it down.

    Now everything governments do affects people in some way, so to “address the State’s impact on people in a universal way”, you’d have to come up with proposals to change everything. Short of that impossible ideal, candidates will always be addressing some aspects of public policy and not others.

    Calling for the elimination of the income tax is only a “gimmick” if you don’t mean it, and it is perfectly possible to mean it without simultaneously advancing a specific spending proposal. You categorized doing the former without the latter as “pandering”. What makes it “pandering” and not simply “picking your battles”? I thought anti-radicals like yourself were in favor of picking one’s battles. Clearly the battle to cut spending will be easier later on if the revenue isn’t there, than if it is! Doesn’t that appeal to your “pragmatic” and incrementalist sensibilities? But maybe I just didn’t look deep enough, and what you really mean is that you are in favor of picking when you pick your battles and when you don’t pick your battles. 🙂

    Perhaps your insistence that the linkage between eliminating the income tax and cutting government spending be maintained is less about avoiding pandering or raising the level of discourse in the public square, than it is about your belief that systematic theft by government is sometimes legitimate and that any debate about eliminating a tax therefore needs to take into consideration how badly a government may “need” the money it is stealing?

  124. Starchild

    Matt @151 – I’m flattered, but do you really think people are ready for it? I’ve been assuming I was born too soon to be useful in that particular capacity. Perhaps in the future, after culture has reached the point where the top celebrities in humanspace are erotic service providers, the relative sexual desire for men and women has reached equilibrium or changing one’s gender has become as easy as changing one’s clothes, and the presidency has become more a literal matter of giving the people what they want, with the technological capacity to deliver that to many people simultaneously, the libertarians of that day can regrow me from DNA and make such a campaign a more desirable (pun intended) possibility. 😉

  125. Robert Capozzi

    153 sc: My position is that unless you owe some legitimate debt, the money you justly earn belongs to you, period.

    me: Nice sentiment. I agree with the sentiment. Let’s test it. Has Lloyd Blankfein, Chairman & CEO of Goldman Sachs, “justly earned” his benjies? I have a hard time saying yes, given that his source of income is a pretty darned poisoned tree, given TARP, etc., you? How about Newt Gingrich, who’s presumably shopping at Tiffany’s with gwap from Freddie Mac?

    IOW, who has “justly” earned what in this context becomes a rather murky thing. So, while I agree with the general statement, the specifics on the merry-go-round — where things are jumbled and ever-evolving — are open to some interpretation and judgment.

    In your mind, you label my take on reality as “watering it down.” I, OTOH, see my take as being clear-eyed and realistic.

    sc: Now everything governments do affects people in some way, so to “address the State’s impact on people in a universal way”, you’d have to come up with proposals to change everything.

    me: Ah, no, sorry, but I simply cannot agree. The model I’m operating under is to say, “OK, we’re in a big mess. The ship is sailing into the rocks. All things considered, what are the most consequential levers that we can pull that begins to turn the ship away from the rocks. Changing out the handles in the galley doesn’t seem consequential to me.” Indeed, I’d say discussing “everything” — including the galley handles — is counter-productive, since it chews up valuable bandwidth.

    sc: What makes [eliminating the Y tax and replacing it with nothing] “pandering” and not simply “picking your battles”?

    me: As a non-violent Taoist, I really don’t do “battles,” but I take your point. Yes, one could view income tax elimination as a form of prioritization. I, however, view it as pandering because I have a basic working knowledge of public finance, and I believe that the accumulated federal debt is the bigger risk than even high taxation. Starving the beast failed as a strategy. Ls sometimes don’t like to get their hands dirty with weighing and calibrating (at least in a rudimentary way) taxes, spending and debt. If we want to be taken seriously in the public square, though, I’d prefer to see Ls having serious ideas about how to right the nation’s direction.

    sc: I thought anti-radicals like yourself were in favor of picking one’s battles.

    me: Have I ever suggested that I’m “anti-radical”? I don’t recall doing so. Indeed, I consider myself the most radical L that I know! My radical inquiry suggests that charting a more edgy course is more likely to produce more satisfying results, that’s all. I’m all about love and peace, so I oppose nothing. I do, however, reserve the right to ask questions!

    sc: Clearly the battle to cut spending will be easier later on if the revenue isn’t there, than if it is! Doesn’t that appeal to your “pragmatic” and incrementalist sensibilities?

    me: No, that’s not at all clear to me. Please make the case. At the moment, I’d say there is no battle. Right now and for QUITE some time, the action has all been between two teams that favor growing government, albeit with SLIGHTLY different agendas. Ls are not in the game. While the “Giants” and the “Yankees” are running the country, we Ls are still playing in the sandlots. If we want a shot at playing at AT&T Park or Yankee Stadium, we need to learn how to pitch, hit and field like big leaguers.

    sc: Perhaps your insistence that the linkage between eliminating the income tax and cutting government spending be maintained is less about avoiding pandering or raising the level of discourse in the public square, than it is about your belief that systematic theft by government is sometimes legitimate and that any debate about eliminating a tax therefore needs to take into consideration how badly a government may “need” the money it is stealing?

    me: No, I don’t know whether “government is sometimes legitimate” or not. I don’t know how someone could make that assessment. Has someone invented a “legitimacy detector” that I’ve not heard about? I’m all over the idea of minimizing coercion and maximizing freedom. I’m also all over the idea that the world is an emergent order, ever evolving. I’m for charting a course away from the current configuration and toward less government, certainly. Mine is likely not the optimal path, but it is A path. Now, if you find a wormhole that gets us from here to libertopia, do let us know. I am open to that being the optimal path, but I would like to see if it actually can transport us in one piece! 😉

  126. Sic Rantorum

    Starchild,

    You could be a useful niche candidate.

    Your slogan could be “Government always fucks you. Here’s your chance to fuck government!”

  127. Sic Rantorum

    Starchild

    So long as government is spending, it is taxing. If it does not collect taxes, it pays for that spending through debt or inflation. The actions of government can’t occur at zero cost.

    That doesn’t mean that it is any way legitimate.

    Therefore spending does have to be addressed, not just taxes.

  128. Be Rational

    @157 Government can spend money without inflation, debt or taxation. They can raise money, for example, through voluntary donations and bake sales. Now, you can argue that we cannot pay for the government that you think we need through the collection of volutary revenues, but you cannot say that there can be no government spending without taxation, debt or inflation. It may not be enough to suit your taste, but it is possible.

  129. Robert Capozzi

    159 br, yes, like perpetual motion machines, anything is possible when considering what might be.

  130. C. Al Currier

    “…Mr. Imperato…” ROFL…that was the funniest joke I heard all day. …..paulie

    Paulie, I’m serious. Mr. Imperato (’07) had a great website. Just reading it gave a person a mental image of the Statue of Liberty.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_liberty
    “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” was not on the website, but the entire theme of the website brought this out.

    The other candidates had websites that bring out more mental images sorta like this:
    http://www.seattlepi.com/default/photo/The-myopic-selfishness-of-libertarians-979259.php
    —that’s providing that you could make sense of the webiste. George Phillies had the most confusing website with rants about ‘radicals’, ‘extremists’ and ‘moderates’. I spent a fortune of time expaining to people that GP didn’t actually mean what he said on the website, but meant different things than what the website said.

    When you add it all up, the libertarians couldn’t put on simple basic websites (POTUS) that have a freedom/liberty theme. Even Dr. Ruwart’s website didn’t meet the high standards of the Knight-from-Malta (Danny).

  131. Dr. Tom Stevens

    Re: 154

    I for one would definitely encourage you to work to bring about the change you seek by running for the LP Presidential Nomination in 2016, or perhaps even now in 2012.

    You shouldn’t just hope for a new future world. Educate people, run for office and announce your arrival!

  132. C. Al Currier

    @161 “Thank you for lying about me.” …George Phillies

    Your ’07 website was the most confusing website that I dealt with. Non-libertarians reading it got the impression that you are the only moderate left on the planet earth, here to save us from the attack of the ‘radicals and extremists’. I had to sort through it and then verbally expain that what you meant to say is that amoung the small, tiny group of L’s running for (POTUS), and amoung that group who are actually viable with enough support, you are the only moderate.

    Most people who visit websites aren’t going to do a whole bunch of research to figure out what someone actually means vs. what they say.

    I appreciate your work for libertarianism Mr. Phillies, but your ’07 POTUS website got an F- from me.

    Note: F- is about par for the other ’07 LP POTUS websites, so no problem?

  133. paulie Post author

    Government can spend money without inflation, debt or taxation. They can raise money, for example, through voluntary donations and bake sales. Now, you can argue that we cannot pay for the government that you think we need through the collection of volutary revenues, but you cannot say that there can be no government spending without taxation, debt or inflation. It may not be enough to suit your taste, but it is possible.

    That would require cutting current spending drastically, obviously.

    In case you missed some of the conversation, the claim being advanced was that the income tax can be eliminated, replaced with nothing, and spending issues would not have to be addressed at the same time.

  134. paulie Post author

    Paulie, I’m serious.

    I don’t believe you could possibly be serious, but just in case you are, the race was never, ever between the people you mentioned, and certainly Imperato was never in it at all. Just to give you an idea, he got the vote of one convention delegate and the word is that he had to pay that guy.

    Imperato was far from libertarian and far from, well, sane.

    I was going around to state conventions at the time and spending a lot of time on boards like this. Imperato had no support whatsoever anywhere.

    The candidate I was working with, Kubby, has a very small amount of support, as did George Phillies, and Wayne Root had maybe just a little more. Christine Smith, somewhat less even than that. I don’t think the rest of the candidates at the time had any support worth talking about, certainly Imperato least of all. Really none of them were connecting, as LP members were mostly supporting Ron Paul. When Ruwart and Barr got in the race they got more support than the candidates that had been in there for longer. Gravel brought some people over from the Democrats.

  135. Bill Still Supporter

    Don’t give up Billy! Yesterday wasn’t your best day, but people will soon learn of the unquenchable greatness of our favorite libertarian sex god, Bill Still, the true king of all finance knowledge, the man whose kisses turn to gold in your mouth. We will follow you Billy to every libertarian convention and on to the national convention in Las Vegas, where surely your handsome visage and irresistable dreamy intelligence will finally take all the other candidates and delegates off their tracks. The only reason we didn’t go to the Manhattan convention is we thought you would win with no real competition. We realize we were wrong unfortunately; please forgive us.

  136. Be Rational

    @165 No, Paulie, I didn’t miss the conversation about the need to cut spending when eliminating the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

    I was addressing the absolute comment in 157 that said “So long as government is spending, it is taxing.”

    This comment is just wrong because it implies that there is no way to have any government without taxation. There are many voluntary alternatives to coercive taxation that could provide enough government revenues at a level adequate to support what little government we may actually need in a minarchist world – let alone the lack of a need for any government at all in an anarchist world.

    I suggest donations and bake sales as a humorous example of things that would bring in some revenues, meaning that the amount of voluntary funding available would be a positive non-zero amount.

    However, after abolition of all taxation, a better way might be to change the electoral system. Increase the membership of the US House to 5,000 or so (other legislative bodies at the state and local level could also be increased in size) and then hold fundraising elections for all offices. (Elected officials would be unpaid, donating their services being part of their donation to the government.)

    Every candidate who declares for an office will raise money – through voluntary donations, garage sales, whatever – that is collected by the campaign and the net proceeds are forwarded to the government. All money raised in the “electoral” process is used to fund the government. The candidate who raises the most money is the winner for that office.

  137. paulie Post author

    I think the comment should be read in the context pf the conversation it was part of. IE:

    If we don’t cut current excessive government spending first or at the same time, cutting/eliminating taxes just shifts the way in which government spending is paid for.

  138. Be Rational

    Yes, Paulie, I understand your point. However, when such comments are allowed to stand, unchallenged, because they are correct in light of one discussion point, people may fail to discern that they are not correct in the absolute that they were written in and therefore no longer be able to discern that the comment is not correct in another situation.

    A government can be funded without coercive taxation, and the aforementioned comment could cause some individuals to foreclose that insight based on an incorrect statement that is only true in context of the discussion.

    There are posters on this site who are so convinced that we must have some kind of coercive taxation to fund government that they have concocted a perverse and economically diasterous belief in the foolish notion of a land tax – a tax that is the worst of all forms of taxation, causes the greatest loss of liberty and causes more economic distortion per dollar raised than any other form of taxation.

    The land tax is the worst and most evil of all forms of taxation. We should focus our efforts on its abolition along with all taxes on income. And yes, we should reduce the size of government accordingly.

    We should never relinquish the goal of reducing the size of government to that which can be voluntarily funded through non-coercive means.

  139. Sic Rantorum

    Thanks Be Rational.

    Rest assured I’m not in favor of government spending or coercive taxation at any level.

    Zero taxes and zero spending would be my ideal.

  140. Sic Rantorum

    Starchild for President offers a stimulus package that will bring home the troops and get this country moving.

    🙂

  141. Robert Capozzi

    170 br, false assumptions lead invariably to confusion. I don’t know anyone who sez that a government absolutely cannot be funded by bake sales. I do know that many, likely virtually all of humanity believe that idea is profoundly unlikely and/or unworkably unwise.

    No one here came up with the notion of land rents. The idea has been around for more than a century.

  142. Be Rational

    RC @173

    A lot of bad ideas have been around more than a century. It doesn’t mean anyone should use them as an excuse to violate individual rights, wreak havoc on the economy and completely distort all rational development of the infrastructure of the US and the entire world.

    The land tax is the worst of all forms of taxation, causes the greatest loss of liberty and causes more economic distortion per dollar raised than any other form of taxation.

  143. Be Rational

    RC @173

    A lot of bad ideas have been around more than a century. It doesn’t mean anyone should use them as an excuse to violate individual rights, wreak havoc on the economy and completely distort all rational development of the infrastructure of the US and the entire world.

    Of all forms of taxation, the land tax is the worst and most evil. It causes the greatest loss of liberty and more economic distortion per dollar raised than any other tax.

  144. Brian Holtz

    BR, meet Wikipedia:

    Most taxes distort economic decisions.[4] If labor, buildings or machinery and plants are taxed, people are dissuaded from constructive and beneficial activities, and enterprise and efficiency are penalized due to the excess burden of taxation. This does not apply to LVT, which is payable regardless of whether or how well the land is actually used. Because the supply of land is inelastic, market land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on the expenses of landlords, and so LVT cannot be directly passed on to tenants.[5] The direct beneficiaries of incremental improvements to the surrounding neighborhood by others would be the land’s occupants, and absentee landlords would benefit only by virtue of price competition amongst present and prospective tenants for those incremental benefits; the only direct effect of LVT on prices in this case is to lower the unearned increment (reduce the amount of the socially generated benefit that is privately captured as an increase in the market price of the land). Put another way, LVT is often said to be justified for economic reasons because if it is implemented properly, it will not deter production, distort market mechanisms or otherwise create deadweight losses the way other taxes do.[6] Nobel Prize winner William Vickrey believed that “removing almost all business taxes, including property taxes on improvements, excepting only taxes reflecting the marginal social cost of public services rendered to specific activities, and replacing them with taxes on site values, would substantially improve the economic efficiency of the jurisdiction.”[7] A correlation between the use of LVT at the expense of traditional property taxes and greater market efficiency is predicted by economic theory, and has been observed in practice.[8]

    And now some Nobel prize-winners:

    Milton Friedman: In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.

    William Vickrey: Economists are almost unanimous in conceding that the land tax has no adverse side effects.

    Paul Samuelson: The striking result is that a tax on rent will lead to no distortions or economic inefficiencies. Why not? Because a tax on pure economic rent does not change anyone’s economic behavior. Demanders are unaffected because their price is unchanged. The behavior of suppliers is unaffected because the supply of land is fixed and cannot react. Hence, the economy operates after the tax exactly as it did before the tax—with no distortions or inefficiencies arising as a result of the land tax.

    However, land value “taxes” should not be mandatory. Those who decline to pay them should just be denied use of the community’s streets, pipes, wires, courts, police/fire protection, etc.

    There need be no mandatory “taxes” at all. Government should be financed only by 1) fines on polluting/depleting/congesting the natural commons and 2) voluntary land value fees.

    Undo all subsidies, end all taxes, and fine all aggression.

  145. paulie Post author

    I preferred to view Imperato’s campaign as performance art

    Most likely, it was a money laundering operation.

  146. Be Rational

    Unfortunately, the wiki land tax article misses the point entierly as do you and everyone quoted.

    People make decisions every day when developing land to build the wrong buildings in the wrong places, to avoid construction of green space, to rely on subsidized or free services and infrastructure in order to minimize the tax paid and reduce expenses.

    The cost of these decisions is hundreds of times the tax collected. Because all land is taxed the cost occurs everywhere and the deleterious effects are not even considered by those misguided souls who misanalyzed the effects of land taxation.

    In short, you, Freedman and wiki are all wrong.

  147. Brian Holtz

    LVT would in fact help reverse the urban sprawl that government policies currently encourage. By taxing both improvements and land value, property taxes currently push development away from urban centers, where property taxes are highest. A land value tax would only tax land value, and so would encourage density and infill by taxing developed sites the same as sites that are underdeveloped or held for speculation.

    Landholders have their site values increased by local government services: roads, transit, ports, pipes, wires, schools, parks, firefighting, police, libraries, flood control, etc. Whenever those services are financed by taxes on anything other than site value, then land use decisions are distorted in favor of sprawl.

    Sprawl is also encouraged by

    • not charging automobile drivers for the pollution and congestion they cause, or for the full costs of the roads and parking space they use;
    • government lending subsidies that favor single-family suburban dwellings over multi-family urban units; and
    • mortgage interest deductions that favor suburban homeowners over urban renters.
  148. Be Rational

    “Landholders have their site values increased by local government services: roads, transit, ports, pipes, wires, schools, parks, firefighting, police, libraries, flood control, etc.”

    The above is completely wrong and backwards.

    Since the provision of all of those items is substandard and in most cases the wrong thing is provided, those items REDUCE the value of land.

    In a free market, the infrastructure and services would be far superior. There would be few if any roads for example. Schools would focus on the needs of each student in a variety of educational programs. Having these items furnished by government precludes the development of alternatives that would make living in a particular location more beneficial.

    Government infrastructure and services reduces land value.

  149. Be Rational

    Land taxation causes landowners to avoid development of needed infrastructure alernatives to the faulty fascist-socialist services because they have to pay the land tax on land that may produce no direct income to pay the additional tax and they have to pay for the substandard competitive service.

  150. Robert Capozzi

    BR, @ 170 you claimed that posters here “concocted…a belief” in assessing land rents, so I took that to mean something like “devised the theory of.” That’s false. I’d certainly agree that lots of old, as well as new, ideas are dysfunctional. You are entitled to believe in and advance your theory of public finance by bake sale, considering it functional and rational, but stating it over and over
    again doesn’t make it dogma for others.

  151. Be Rational

    Land taxes cause landowners to develop land quickly with the wrong development plan – the wrong buildings, in the wrong places without the necessary alternative infrastructure.

    Land taxes inhibit landowners from accumulating and holding the large parcels that are needed for proper community development.

    The provision of roads, schools, wires and pipes built by government in the wrong places and in the wrong form makes these effects even worse. Especially those things, such as roads, that are not only not needed but are actually inheritly detrimential beyond the anti-competitive effects that destroy alternatives.

  152. Be Rational

    The damage to the economy from land taxation is HUNDREDS OF TIMES the value of the tax collected. This damage increase as the level of taxation increases. The damage persists for hundreds of years even after the repeal of the tax.

    All taxation of land and property must be repealed and ended forever. Besides war, there is no greater economic damage to the human race than the taxation of land and property.

    In fact, if one could develop a weapon and only remove the buildings and infrastructure in many cities and leave the people and their personal property unharmed, a total destruction of the wrongly built infrastructure and buildings would increase land values and leave the people free in the absence of future government meddling to build a far better, more efficient urban habitat that would increase living standards, end pollution, eliminate long commutes and provide green space available to all where they live and where they need it instead of in some distant local where the government has provided it.

  153. Brian Holtz

    BR: Roads, transit, ports, pipes, wires, schools, parks, firefighting, police, libraries, flood control, etc. REDUCE the value of land.

    And here I thought that land near such things was more valuable than land that is untainted by proximity to any such government service. I hope it’s not too late to trade my value-depressed million-dollar acre in Silicon Valley for a little campsite out in some wilderness unencumbered by government roads/pipes/wires.

    The damage to the economy from land taxation is HUNDREDS OF TIMES the value of the tax collected.

    Gosh, not just hundreds, but CAPITAL HUNDREDS. People who advocate site taxation as the least bad way to finance government services for sites sure do look foolish when confronted with this quantitative data.

    There would be few if any roads for example.

    Who needs markets when we have Be Rational to tell us in advance the optimal mix of infrastructure? And if BR gets hit by a bus, we can replace BR’s oracular guidance with the 2004 Green Party platform: “consolidating housing into such structures as ecolonies, to free open space, and to move about by bicycle, train, bus and on foot so that roadways may be converted to parkland and agriculture.”

  154. Brian Holtz

    From Geoanarchism by Libertarian economist Fred Foldvary:

    In a libertarian or anarchist world, some people might be unaffiliated anarcho-capitalists, contracting with various firms for services. But if we look at markets today, we see instead contractual communities. We see condominiums, homeowner associations, cooperatives, and neighborhood associations. For temporary lodging, folks stay in hotels, and stores get lumped into shopping centers. Historically, human beings have preferred to live and work in communities. Competition induces efficiency, and private communities tend to be financed from the rentals of sites and facilities, since this is the most efficient source of funding. Henry George recognized that site rents are the most efficient way to finance community goods because it is a fee paid for benefits, paying back that value added by those benefits. Private communities today such as hotels and condominiums use geoist financing. Unfortunately, governments do not.

    Geoist communities would join together in leagues and associations to provide services that are more efficient on a large scale, such as defense, if needed. The voting and financing would be bottom up. The local communities would elect representatives, and provide finances, and would be able to secede when they felt association was no longer in their interest.

    Imposed governments, as all are today, mainly tax income and the sale of goods. These taxes get added to the costs of production, making labor and goods more expensive, while reducing net wages and profits. Such taxes reduce employment, production, and investment. They create a deadweight loss or excess burden on the economy beyond the taxes paid.

    Given that states exist and impose taxation, what would be the way to minimize the oppression and burden? There is a lower excess burden on the economy if the public revenue comes from land rent than if it falls on labor, capital, or goods. The land does not diminish when taxed, so there is no reduction in production. There are also no audits or complicated records to keep. The use of rent is based on benefit: landowners benefit from civic works, and they pay back the increased rents and land values generated by them. While libertarians would prefer that civic works be privatized, so long as they are run by government, the least intrusive way to finance them is from rent.

  155. Robert Capozzi

    188 br: In fact, if one could develop a weapon and only remove the buildings and infrastructure in many cities and leave the people…

    me: Wow! Are you sure you’re not a Gingrich supporter? There was a rich moment in the R debates when RS said that NG is “grandiose.” Interestingly, NG agreed!

    Newt’s a piker in the grandiosity scales, IMO, compared with Be Rational.

    I get the sense that you’re on the young side, maybe read a few Rothbard books, possibly Hoppe, and now you’re all full of piss, vinegar and zealotry. It’s been explained to you that LVT isn’t the same as the property tax, yet, being outside your apparent comfort zone, you keep making the same mistake, over and over again.

    Sorry to be personal and speculative, but you’re not providing your colleagues with any other clues….

  156. paulie Post author

    Most likely, it was a money laundering operation.

    Coincidentally just had this long standing suspicion confirmed.

    A source who may or may not wish to be anonymous sends this along:

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/west-palm-beach-man-conned-investors-out-of-2098590.html

    A West Palm Beach businessman defrauded investors of $2.5 million and used some of the cash to pay for his presidential campaign, the Securities and Exchange Commission said this week.

    The SEC’s civil suit says Daniel Imperato, 53, schemed to portray his company, Imperiali of West Palm Beach, as a thriving organization “when in fact it was nothing more than a shell corporation.”

    Imperato hired telephone salesmen and found 60 investors to buy stock in his company. The pitch sounded promising: Imperiali claimed to own a stable of television and telecommunications companies poised to generate $350 million in profits on $500 million in revenue in 2009.

    “In reality, Imperiali’s portfolio companies had no operations, no products or services, and no revenue,” the SEC’s suit says.

    Imperato and his chief financial officer, Charles Fiscina of Palm Beach Gardens, filed at least 16 bogus documents with the SEC, federal regulators say.

    The campaigns (he also ran as an independent for Governor of Florida in 2010) may have also laid the groundwork for an insanity defense.

  157. Be Rational

    189 Funny BH that you think the government through a political process has provided anywhere near an optimal mix of infrastructure. That’s beyond naive into the deliberately stupid.

    When, as you point out, even the Greens can recognize that the current mix is wrong, you’ve got to start wondering whether it’s time to turn on the grey cells again.

    The pols have built the world for roads and not for people. Everything built inside the road network has been misdisigned, mislocated … The roads create negative value for the land owners vs. an optimal infrastructure.

    When things are as bad as they are it is easy to see – except to those who are so commited to finding a source of fascist-socialist taxation that they can pretend to justify that they will deny reality.

  158. Be Rational

    In 189 BH you expose yourself and your illogic even more.

    You are comparing apples and oranges.

    You need to compare the same land in the same place but with and without government.

    So, let’s guess which one would be worth more to a buyer.

    One square mile of totally vacant land in the center of Manhatten Island where the purchaser will pay taxes like everyone else and the government will impose a road system, and all the other city services from day one and the developer will have to pay for them from day one while the city installs and provides them. The developer will have to build within the grid over which he gets no say.

    One square mile of totally vacant land in the center of Manhatten Island where the developer will pay no taxes whatsoever forever and can build whatever he wants and will provide for his own infrastructure without regulation.

    or

    You can compare the same two sites and conditions but in the middle of nowhere.

    In each case, you will find that the land value will be far higher for the free market plot than the fascist-socialist plot.

    Developers pay great premiums now to gain access to land that has all the buildings and roads removed or to buy up such land and remove the roads and buildings. They pay extra to get rid of the mistakes of the past fascist-socialist political system that has foisted the wrong infrastructure on the people.

    Individuals will in many cases work together to help deliver their neighborhoods to such developers and sell off all the buildings at higher than the usual market price. The developer has to pay to rip out the buildings and roads – and it is worth it even though he is only partially relieved from the burdens of the wrongly developed infrastructure.

    He would pay far more if the mistakes had never been made and the taxes did not exist.

    There is no question that you are deluded about the land tax.

    And yes, RC, I understand that there is a minor difference between the Land Value Tax and the current system of property taxes that allows some people the comfort of beleiving they have found a justifiable way to tax and rob people and still pretend to believe in Liberty.

    However, the foolish attempt by Foldvary and others to do so ignores the fact that the damage caused by such a system is hundreds of times the tax collected. But BH doesn’t want to get it. He is looking at the wrong distortions.

    It is the fact that this LVT system causes the wrong infrastructure to be developed and that the government makes its decisions politically instead of rationally so that this defect is impossible to avoid. Developers who have to pay the LVT will not choose the optimum form of development but will use the existing infrastructure in order to minimize taxation and will defer creation of the infrastructure to the public sector – where we have already seen total failure.

    An LVT will discourage developers from holding land unused – which is a necessary process in accumulation of the sizable sites needed for proper infrastruction and community development.

    In fact, BH brags that the LVT will encourage infill – which is the opposite of what is needed. Empty land and lots need to be expanded until optimum size for development is reached.

    We need to rip out the current infrastructure and many, and in some cases all, of the current structures and start over – rationally – in a tax free, distortion free environment.

    The current system of infrastructure and taxation and a new one of LVT taxation and infrastructure both have negative value.

    The reason BH is confused is that the presence of a large population of individuals engaged in commerce and community in a small area adds value that offsets the negative value provided by the government – property tax or LVT.

    However, in a free market we can have the same people, the same commerce and community and a system of infrastructure that adds value instead of destroying it.

    To build the optimum infrastructure requires that decisions be made by engineers and investors – not politicians – free from all regulation and taxation.

  159. Brian Holtz

    I’ve never said that the current mix of infrastructure is anywhere near optimal. On the contrary, I’ve identified the way that specific government policies systematically distort land use decisions. I’ve said that removing those distortions will likely move land use in particular directions — e.g. towards less sprawl — but unlike you, I don’t pretend to know that e.g. “there would be few if any roads”.

    The infrastructure we have isn’t going to be erased as in your scorched-earth fantasy. The way forward is to give ownership of local infrastructure to the residents who use it, and require that it be operated without taxes on income or sales or site improvements. Communities would quickly gravitate to financing public goods in the way that is typical of malls, business parks, hotels, condominiums, and homeowners associations: through fees that are assessed by site value (for which site area is often a good proxy).

    If malls, business parks, and hotels are financed through “fascist-socialist taxation”, then I guess that’s the new name for what I’m advocating.

  160. Brian Holtz

    “The middle of nowhere” is already unencumbered by “fascist-socialist” infrastructure that would otherwise need to be ripped out. Feel free to go build a community there and show us how it’s done. Somalia beckons.

    Here in the real world, the value of a parcel of real estate is not so much determined by what lies inside its boundaries, but rather by what lies outside those boundaries but nearby. Your vacant square mile in Manhattan would be worth almost nothing if it were transplanted somewhere with the same soil/climate/water-table/minerals but with no urban community nearby. The extra value of that square mile in Manhattan is defined in economics textbooks as its ground rent, and that value is not the creation of the landholder. Ground rent is created by the surrounding community and its services, and ground rent is the ideal revenue source for those services.

    This is just as true of Manhattan as it is of a mall or a business park or a hotel.

  161. Be Rational

    When you advocate turning over the roads and other infrastructure to local residents – that is, you advocate privatizing the infrastructure and elimination of all land taxes – then, yes you can eventually, after hundreds and in some cases thousands of years, erase the malinvestment in the wrong infrastructure – if all property taxes, land taxes and regulation of future use and development are eliminated.

    This is a far cry from the system of LVT that you advocate with government provision of infrastructure and local services.

    As to knowing that there would be few if any roads, I’m aware that you do not have the educational background to know that, but I do.

  162. C. Al Currier

    “I don’t believe you could possibly be serious”
    …paulie

    RE: POTUS websites
    Mr. Imperato had the best website going. I wouldn’t vote for him, but his website was the gold-standard for how to put together a simple and effective website. I was super impressed in how he had advertising in sync and complementing the site. I think that’s great to use advertising from capitalism/corporate america to enhance a website. I don’t think it should that difficult for libertarians to put a little bit of time into their websites to get the advertising working for them instead of against them. Mr. Imperato might have had a ‘tweaked’ site with intentional words to get complimentary advertising.

    What kind of advertising comes to most LP POTUS sites? In ’07 it was mostly insurance agent trying to sell life insurance.

    How about throwing key words into a website like
    1) Cato
    2) Mises
    3) Reason Magazine
    4) Lewyell Rockwell

    Wouldn’t it be better to have advertising working for you instead of against you?

    Note: Those key words do not have to be in the actual visable text. They can be ‘tweaked’ (hidden by the web designer).

    RE: my vote
    I was a ’07 Ruwart supporter. Unfortunately her website drew advertising from Amtrak and travel agents trying to sell train tickets. Unfortunately those advertisements included obnoxious pop-ups that pretty much ‘drown-out’ the message from the website. Pretty much everyone that I gave the Ruwart website to concluded that Mary Ruwart is pro Amtrak, pro gov’t subsidy for rail (such as HSR), the exact opposite of what the site intended.

    RE: Time spent looking a POTUS websites

    I know lots and lots of people who have oodles of time to stare of websites. Unfortunately they don’t write checks very often. The ones that can write checks are real busy doing important stuff and they only have about 15 to 30 seconds to look at a website and decide yes or no. The websites have to be super simple and convincing. Unfortunately, I think the theme of this entire thread is that all LP candidates have to put together extremely confusing sites that are hard to read and likely to draw advertising from CPA’s and income tax lawyers.

  163. Brian Holtz

    As to knowing that there would be few if any roads, I’m aware that you do not have the educational background to know that, but I do.

    Invocation of one’s academic background from somebody who waves away citations to economics textbooks and Nobel laureates: amusing.

    Invocation of one’s academic background from somebody who’s anonymous: priceless.

  164. paulie Post author

    This conversation could use its own thread.

    “The utility of roads” comes to mind.

    I’m willing to consider an open thread on the Land Value Tax/Georgism.

    Do other people here think it needs one?

  165. Thomas L. Knapp

    It’s a discussion I always find interesting, but it probably needs a hook to hang on.

    For example, is there a geoist caucus in the LP or Green Party or whatever, and if so do they have a 2012 program or candidate endorsement?

  166. Brian Holtz

    Would an open thread on land taxes stop people from injecting it into other threads (as BR did above @170, and MW did here, and BR did here, and Woof/BR did here, and GoodIdea/BR did here, etc.)?

    Geolibertarians seem to have less strength in numbers than they do strength in their geoist mind-virus. (I held out for several years before succumbing.) When I hear of another geoist sympathizer in the LP I add them to my list, but I’m not sure a geoist caucus within the LP could do with its numbers what geolibs aren’t already doing with their ideas.

  167. paulie Post author

    I don’t know that the mere existence of an open thread would prevent instances of threadjacking.

    However, we could then ask people who want to follow up on that tangent to do so in the open thread.

    If some people persist in ignoring such requests, then eventually they may have posts taken down with the request that they post in them in the appropriate thread.

    I don’t know if the geo discussion has reached the level where an open thread is needed. IPR discussions often get jacked, and only the most persistent subjects of threadjacking earn their own threads.

    Since Phillies brought it up, I’m gauging what other people think.

  168. paulie Post author

    FWIW, I’m sympathetic to the geoanarchist libertarian position as explained by Starchild in the other thread this morning and quoted by you on that list.

    The Lockean concept of mixing labor with land has a fundamental problem – how much labor with how much land – and all or virtually all real estate worth anything on the planet has been stolen, and most of it stolen multiple times.

  169. Brian Holtz

    Geoist landholding is more about using/occupying than about the sort of labor-mixing involved in picking up a gold nugget. That is why land title history would be less of an issue under geoism. If landholders can no longer appropriate ground rent, then the only point of landholding would be to use/occupy the land. It would be very expensive to hold land without using/occupying it, because the ground rent you pay for a site would be determined by the highest bidder for that site. Much of the current value of a site is the net present value of the stream of all of that site’s future ground rent. If we decide that ground rent instead belongs to the community, then that would instantly undo much of history’s land theft. Any thieves (or recipients of stolen property) among current landowners would see much of their loot vanish.

    Unfortunately, there would be a one-time dispossession of people (like me) who have invested most of their saved income into land purchases in hopes of continuing to appropriate future ground rents. I see this as somewhat analogous to those who invested heavily in slaves right before emancipation, so I don’t have much sympathy for current landowners. Their land values have been increasing due to local public services financed by taxes on income/sales/improvements, and it is right to undo these accumulated subsidies.

  170. Fun K. Chicken

    “If landholders can no longer appropriate ground rent, then the only point of landholding would be to use/occupy the land. It would be very expensive to hold land without using/occupying it, because the ground rent you pay for a site would be determined by the highest bidder for that site. ”

    What about preserving undeveloped land for environmental or aesthetic reason – could that be the highest value?

  171. Brian Holtz

    If keeping some land undeveloped would mitigate the pollution/depletion of some natural resource (surface or ground water, air, wildlife), then the community might decide that paying the necessary ground rent could be a good use of the local fines/taxes on such pollution/depletion.

    If open space is desired for aesthetic or recreational reasons, then those that so desire it should pay for it. Localities could finance the ground rent of open space out of the increased ground rents of nearby developed land. If they are wrong that the open space is worth the rent needed to keep it open, then the rent of the developed land will tend not to sustain keeping the space open. This is a way for people to vote with their feet and their land-rental bids on whether the locality provides the right amount of open space.

    One possible way to provide open space is with Vickrey-Clarke-Groves “demand revelation” voting. The basic idea is that your vote on a prospective government project is how much you’d be willing to pay to see it happen. Strategic voting to disguise your preference is discouraged by the way in which a charge is levied on the subset of voters who tip the outcome. I haven’t read up on all the technicalities in the literature on demand revelation, but it seems promising. Vickrey’s work in this area was one of the things that earned him his 1996 Nobel prize.

  172. Catholic Trotskyist

    Yes, the Georgist/land tax discussion does need its own thread. In fact, maybe the Flat tax and fair tax debates need their own threads too.

  173. paulie Post author

    The “fair” tax is pertinent since it is a part of the platform of the leading candidate for the nomination of the largest previously existing alt party (we don’t know for sure what AE will do this year, although the indications are it will be big).

    I don’t think flat tax discussions have been much of a factor here.

  174. C. Al Currier

    “CAC @201 did you read @194?” …paulie
    Yes I read it.

    This will be my last post here for a long while.

    Simple points I wish to make:
    1) POTUS websites should be assets, not liabilaties
    2) Regardless of what Mr. Imperato did or who he was, I used and abused his site for months and consider myself indebt to him for his great website, particulary the awesome corporate advertising with super-great user-friendly links to places from Spain to Syria, Israel to Morroco, with browsing features better than any site I have ever used for science, religion, politics and news. His site was the gold-standard for great corporate advertising coming free for anyone wanting to take advantage of it. I am now his fan. (Even if he’s nuts).

  175. George Phillies

    As we have LNC member inquiries as to where this requirement applied against Sloan came from, it appears to me to be unlikely that there has been agreement from LNC members to list any of the other people.

  176. paulie Post author

    Interesting development.

    I’ll post at least one more article about it tomorrow if computer problems don’t prevent me from doing so, or if someone else doesn’t get to it first, as I hope they do.

  177. Pingback: LP.org Presidential Candidate Listing Requirements Revised Again | Independent Political Report

  178. News Hound

    News Hound // Feb 7, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/vote-should-the-libertarian-party-list-presidential-candidates-at-its-web-site

    Vote: Should the Libertarian Party list presidential candidates at its web site?
    posted by Staff on Feb 07, 2012

    Dear fellow Libertarians,
    Members of the Libertarian National Committee have been debating whether or not to list presidential candidates at our web site, and if we do, whether to qualify those who are posted.
    There are good arguments for all sides.
    Examples of reasons for listing Libertarian presidential candidates:

    To inform members and, in particular, delegates who must choose our nominee.
    To inform the media and the general voting public, some of whom will vote in primaries.
    To offset the lack of institutional and media support for Libertarian Party candidates.

    Examples of reasons not to list presidential candidates:

    To screen out candidates who are not dedicated to advancing our libertarian agenda, or who actually oppose it.
    To exclude individuals who appear to be disingenuously using the LP.
    To disqualify candidates who are running for the nomination of more than one party.
    To avoid publicizing candidates whose presentation is viewed by most Libertarians as embarrassing or inappropriate for a presidential candidate and who could reflect badly on the party.

    Many Libertarian National Committee members have struggled with the right approach to balancing these issues. Despite several attempts to come up with objective criteria, no ideal approach has yet been found. Some argue that the disclaimer now posted at LP.org is sufficient to demonstrate that listed candidates do not necessarily meet with the approval of the party and its members. (Note that candidates can still run for the Presidential nomination whether or not they are listed.)

    An LNC motion to decide whether to entirely remove the list of candidates is currently pending.
    What’s your view? Vote today on how you think this delicate matter should be handled.
    In Liberty,
    Carla Howell
    Executive Director
    Libertarian National Committee
    P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party with a mission to give voters a choice for much less Big Government, much lower taxes, and much lower government spending. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.

    3 News Hound // Feb 7, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    http://www.lp.org/poll/should-the-libertarian-party-list-presidential-candidates-at-its-web-site

    Polls

    Feb 07, 2012

    Should the Libertarian Party list presidential candidates at its web site?

    Yes. List every Libertarian presidential candidate that we know of without qualification.
    21% (91 votes)

    Limited: List every candidate who is a dues-paying member of the LP and has a functioning web site.
    25% (108 votes)

    Limited: List every candidate who meets the above criteria, plus meets the approval of at least 5 LNC members.
    15% (66 votes)

    Limited: List every candidate who meets the criteria and is not disqualified by at least 12 (2/3rds) of LNC members.
    16% (70 votes)

    Limited: List every candidate who petitions LP members and gets at least 100 to approve their being listed.
    13% (57 votes)

    Use other limits, or do something else: Go to our Facebook page and post your ideas!
    3% (14 votes)

    No. Candidates should generate their own publicity and makes themselves known to LP members.
    6% (27 votes)

    Total votes: 433

  179. Pingback: Open Letter to the Democratic Party | American Third Party Report

Leave a Reply

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