Open Thread for Election Results

Feel free to leave any on-going results and commentary about such in this thread and please confine it to this thread. Our writers will be checking this thread for results to be posted, too, so this is the right place to leave news tips tonight (and maybe tomorrow).

180 thoughts on “Open Thread for Election Results

  1. Fred Church Ortiz

    Puerto Rico New Progressive Party’s website currently claiming a majority for changing the territorial status and overwhelming mandate for statehood. They’re also claiming to have totals for about 500 precincts still unreported by the Election Commission.

  2. Tom Blanton

    Based on rumors of one exit poll, I feel I can safely predict that the republicrat asshole candidate will win the election.

    Everyone else loses and that includes me and you.

  3. Stewart Flood

    @7,

    If that’s the case, it will cost BILLIONS of dollars to buy all new flags, not to mention the cost of trying to add seats in the capitol.

    And the confusion for the pundits who worked so hard to learn to count to 50, and would now have to count to 51 states!

  4. Steve M

    I think the seats in Congress should be the same ones and packed at the same density that US airlines use.

  5. Mark Axinn

    Having spent a mere 100 minutes to vote this afternoon in Moscow on the Hudson gave me lots of time to talk to people and get some insight into how people in Manhattan are voting. Here’s my highly informal analysis:

    90% Obama, 9.75% Romney, and .25% Green or Libertarian. No one ever heard of the Constitution Party.

  6. john c jackson

    By adding up ( very fast and rounding a little) what I’ve seen on the Politico map so far, I had Gary Johnson at around 266,000 for far.

    They have O at 15.9 and R at 16.6 million. So whatever the % is based on that.

  7. john c jackson

    I was looking at the map and going up and down it, not the table. So I may have skipped a state or double counted somewhere. looks like they have a table you can look at and just go down the list and add em up.

  8. Roger Roots

    Libertarians should also pay close attention to certain ballot initiatives around the country. California has a dreadful, NON-libertarian initiative called Proposition 37, which would require government-imposed labeling of all “GMO” (genetic modified) food. It is sad that many “liberty”-oriented sources (such as Alex Jones Infowars.com) are heavily promoting Prop 37. It shows that libertarians need to do a lot more work educating people about how the market works better than government regulations.

  9. Gene Berkman

    California has a very important initiative to end the death penalty, which has been endorsed by the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Peace & Freedom Party, and the Democratic Party.

    The Republican Liberty Caucus has also endorsed Proposition 34 to end the Death Penalty.

    Colorado, Oregon and Washington State all have initiatives to legalize marijuana. Polls have shown both the Colorado and Washington initiatives winning.

  10. Trent Hill Post author

    Roger—dead on. There’s also same sex legalization in Maine and 6 marijuana initiatives nationwide.

  11. Tom Blanton

    Roger @ 23 – I tend to agree that the market works better than government regulations. That said, the government is not allowing the market to work regarding GMO foods as the FDA makes it difficult for food producers to label their products “GMO-Free”. So, libertarians should be aware that the free market rhetoric falls flat when in reality, there is no free market.

    Where are all the “liberty” oriented folks when the FDA censors producers of GMO-Free products?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091803520_2.html

    I think libertarians need to do a lot more work on their own thinking. Like if you really want free markets, fighting battles over regulations one by one is like pissing into an electric fan.

    The leviathan won’t allow free markets as that does not benefit the elite. If you want free markets, you’ll need to reduce the size, scope and power of government by at least 95%.

  12. Melty

    I got no electricity out here.
    Is Netenyahu winning in the swing states or is Netenyahu winning in the swing states?

  13. Andy

    “California has a dreadful, NON-libertarian initiative called Proposition 37, which would require government-imposed labeling of all ‘GMO’ (genetic modified) food. It is sad that many “liberty”-oriented sources (such as Alex Jones Infowars.com) are heavily promoting Prop 37. It shows that libertarians need to do a lot more work educating people about how the market works better than government regulations.”

    I’m generally opposed to regulations myself, however, I think that the other side has some strong arguments on their side as well. The companies which are putting out the GMO’s are all politically connected corporations which have received tax payer funding, and I’d be willing to bet that if one researches this through the CAFR’s (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) they’d find that these corporations are in fact part owed by government entities (local, state, and federal government entities have billions invested in the stock market, and they in fact own stock in all of the big, publicly traded corporations). The funds used to purchase these stocks were seized via taxes, fines, and fees on the American people.

    So, there are politically connected corporations which us tax payer funding, and that are in part owed by government entities, that essentially engage in fraud and put people’s health at risk by putting out GMO products and concealing this information from the consumer (much of whom are the same people who pay taxes from which they receive benefits).

    Are GMO’s dangerous? Some would say yes, others would say that the threat is exaggerated.

    Ideally, consumers should be able to chose whether or not to purchase GMO products or not.

    What is the best way to achieve this?

    The ideal ways would be through boycotts or just not purchasing products that did not disclose whether or not they contained GMO’s, or perhaps independent organizations could investigate different food products and then give their recommendations as to which ones to purchase and what not to purchase, however, given the reality that we live in this is far easier said than done.

    I’m not saying that one side or the other is right here, I’m just pointing out that I think that both sides have some merit to their arguments.

  14. hf

    TX: no one is going to win, but 3 Libt statewide candidates are at 800K with 65% of vote counted so will probably break 1M. One is winning 6-7 counties.

  15. Stewart Flood

    With less than half of the state’s votes reported, South Carolina has already surpassed our previous highest vote total for a Libertarian candidate.

    Charleston County’s results are completed, with 2.2 times the number of votes from four years ago and an increase from .49% to 1.36% of the votes cast. Turnout overall was down 20%, while our vote more than doubled!

  16. Roger Roots

    Andy:

    There is no way Prop 37 could be construed as a libertarian ballot initiative. It adds more regulation and increases the number of state bureaucrats monitoring food sales. Even if GMOs are really dangerous, they probably aren’t as dangerous as cigarettes and cigarettes are plastered with labels.

    Even if GMOs are some kind of New World Order plot (as Alex Jones argues), any imposition of GMO labeling would only give more power to the NWO establishment. Small suppliers wouldn’t be able to afford the litigation and testing to compete with big companies. I could go on . . .

  17. Glenn

    MO Libertarian US Senate Jonathan Dine is now over 100,000 votes at 6.6% with 2038 of 3387 Precincts Reported. He will break the all time record for libertarian votes in Missouri.

    All our other candidates are doing much better than in recent elections getting 2-4% of vote in 3 and 4 way races.

    Missouri will maintain ballot access for another 4 years. Missouri will then have 24 consecutive years with ballot access.

  18. Roger Roots

    Amazing results in Montana. Libertarian Dan Cox has drawn almost 6 percent in the nationally watched “battleground” U.S. Senate race with Dennis Rehberg (R) versus Jon Tester (D). This almost certainly impacted the race. (Tester won reelection and Rehberg is down below 40 percent). Republicans went all out insulting libertarians and begging us to drop out of statewide races. (I myself was running for Secretary of State (drawing almost 3 %) and was approached more than once by Republicans asking me to drop out of the race).

  19. Tom Blanton

    Even if GMOs are really dangerous, they probably aren’t as dangerous as cigarettes and cigarettes are plastered with labels.

    Huh? That’s a weird argument to make.

    Obviously Prop 37 can’t be construed as a libertarian initiative. It is people using a state ballot initiative to fight Big Agra that has bought the FDA.

    If the FDA allowed food producers that market GMO-Free products to label these products as such, then this issue would have no traction. It is almost certainly the case that this FDA policy was lobbied for by Big Agra.

    It is most likely that the folks that got Prop 37 on the ballot don’t have the cash to bribe Congress on the federal level to push FDA policy in their direction. Natural food freaks can’t compete with Big Agra. So, I can understand why the people doing this are doing so. And there is a valid argument to make that if anything remotely resembling a free market existed in America, Prop 37 would be unnecessary.

    Libertarians shouldn’t promote the idea that free markets are where big businesses have the freedom to spend big bucks to buy the legislation it wants to create profits for themselves.

  20. JamesT

    Some of the Google math is weird…but he got the highest total ever. Hopefully he’ll edge out the %. Jill Stein did way better than any non-Nader GP ticket.

  21. Roger Roots

    GMOs can’t be as dangerous as cigarettes. Cigarettes are plastered with labeling, yet people still smoke them. My point is that everyone already “knows” and that government-imposed labeling won’t solve the “problem” even if GMOs are that big of a problem.

    This constant claim that evil companies (the dreaded Monsanto) are “in control” of the government and that we must strike back by inviting government regulation to rig the market against the evil companies doesn’t even pass the smell test. If GMO foods were really causing serious harms, at least one person should be able to prove such damages by winning a lawsuit. Yet I know of no such successful case. (There were many against tobacco companies).

  22. Trent Hill Post author

    Goode REALLY suffered from missing CA and PA, also from just a generally lackluster effort. No fundraising, few events, and very little media. Missing out on tons of states they normally got (Oregon, Kansas, Alaska due to uncooperative “affiliates” and KY, ME, and NB due to no ballot access efforts) also really hurt them. But making NY definitely didn’t make up for missing PA and CA. I suspect there are a couple thousand write-ins to come in, but I’d be surprised right now to see Goode hit 125k.

  23. Concerned Citizen

    Screw all you people that didn’t vote for Romney. America may be lost forever.

  24. JamesT

    Even if every 3rd party ballot was cast for Romney he still would have lost the electoral college..got nobody to blame but Romney.

  25. Kleptocracy And You

    Well the puppet show is winding down with Council on Foreign Relation (CFR) talking heads on EVERY major TV station telling the mushrooms what to THINK about this election.

    Of course they said if was TOO CLOSE TO CALL , before the voting started in most places, but now as B.O.’s EC vote is streching out to LANDSLIDE proportions it matters not that they LIED to everyone before hand.

    Could it be to scare votes away from alternative Party candidates ? LOL-nah can’t be that can it?

    Congrats to GARY JOHNSON on breaking Clark’s vote totals. A long overdue occurance !!! L’s should REJOICE we DESERVE to celebrate this MAJOR accomplishment and for ALL Ballot Access retained by our downticket successes ! I have a feeling this is the ALL-TIMER since ’80 in record setting vote totals for the LP in dozens upon dozens of states. Johnson led us as a very Moderate L, but one Tidbit I picked up from exit polling is 40% of Americans now consider themselves Moderates. Overall BRAVO LP a very good cycle INDEED !!!

    The Greens and Constitution Party aren’t doing so well. It maybe time to reconsider your options. The LP has become a BIG Tent and there might be room for you within the LP as we continue our march!

    News to ponder – the duopoly spent 6 billion dollars to retain their power, but well over a million people (and growing) has seen through their BS! Someday that million could grow into a MAJORITY!

    CARPE DIEM

    Oh yeah, some of you who can write a good LTE should write those papers that endorsed GJ and THANK them. Afterall they did the correct thing even if 100 million are still in the DARK……..

    There is Nothing to loose and Everything to gain.

    1) Realization that Obama = Romney http://youtu.be/qEdj4nfefIo
    …2) Get to know Gary Johnson http://youtu.be/ViC6wUJd2PM
    3) Validate that this all makes sense http://www.iSideWith.com/

    It’s that simple because it is so obvious. Ever wondered why a Gary Johnson voter has such a resolve in his decision? Now you know.

  26. Tom Blanton

    Bogard’s argument against Prop 37 linked @55 is very weak – much like arguments about the suffering of the wealthy and Christians being persecuted.

    Here, small natural food farmers are the evil “special interest” victimizing Big Agra. But what about Big Agra getting special favors from FDA that make it difficult for their much smaller competitors to label the food they produce “GMO-Free”?

    By golly it just ain’t Merikun when some little fly by night outfit peddling some kind of organic popcorn to a bunch of commie tree-huggers can bring a great Merikun corporation like Monsanto to it’s knees. It just ain’t liburterrorin.

    Gawd dammit, every big corporation that’s got the cash oughta be able to get the gummint to prevent some crappy little business from advertising their junk as GMO-Free when they know it hurts big cumpnies that makes lots of jobs.

  27. Trent Hill Post author

    Johnson eclipsed 1m and Goode is over 100k.

    Terrible result for Goode. Lowest vote totals for the CP were 2000 and then 1992. After that, it’s 2012.

  28. Trent Hill Post author

    In 1992 the party had just started, in 2000, Pat Buchanan sucked all of the right-wing votes out of the elections. 2012 really had no excuse, considering this was their most qualified candidate ever.

    Mostly, it’s just the shrinking of the party, fading out of the ideology, Ron Paul sucking up the enthusiasm of right-wingers, and poor planning. No campaign, really. Bad ballot access plan, no fundraising, and inexperienced staffers.

  29. Andy

    “Trent Hill // Nov 7, 2012 at 1:41 am

    Johnson eclipsed 1m and Goode is over 100k.”

    I don’t expect that Goode will get much more than 100,000.

    Also, keep in mind that all of the 3rd party candidates are being helped by the fact that this is the first time since 1988 that there hasn’t been a higher profile 3rd party or independent candidate in the race. Since then there has been Ralph Nader several times, Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, and Pat Buchanan in 2000, and of course in 1980 there was John Anderson.

    I’d be willing to bet money that if there was somebody like Nader, Perot, Buchanan, or Anderson in the race this year, that Johnson, Stein, and Goode would have less votes right now.

  30. Andy

    “Bad ballot access plan,”

    The ballot access planning for the Goode campaign was absolutely dreadful. They are actually damn lucky that they didn’t fail in more states. I can tell you that they came close to failing in South Dakota, Iowa, and New York, and this is just what I know about.

    Also, they could have made it in Arkansas, Vermont, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania. Those were all screw ups that could have been avoided, especially Arkansas and Vermont.

  31. David Colborne

    Gary Johnson pulling in over 1% now that the western states are reporting in. This isn’t too surprising, since his strength gets stronger the closer you get to New Mexico. Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Maine all reported over 2% for him, and New Mexico is currently reporting 3.5%. The Deep South, conversely, was less enamored with him; Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Tennessee all reported less than 1%.

  32. Trent Hill

    “I don’t expect that Goode will get much more than 100,000. ”

    I expect 105k reported or so. Write-ins will likely account for 10-15k. So, a total of 115-120k. I can’t see him getting past 125k.

  33. Jill Pyeatt

    Prop 33 in California is winning. Good news for me, bad for everyone else. I’ll get a raise (in commissions) when everyone’s auto insurance rates go up.

  34. Brian Holtz

    Actually, Prop 33 is losing. It would have ended the prohibition on insurance companies setting prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. I can’t agree with Jill that government should outlaw certain price discounts.

    Here in Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley), both Libertarian office-holders are being re-elected. With 14 of 33 precincts reporting, John Inks is currently 2nd of 6 people running for 4 city council seats in Mountain View (home of Google). With 8 of 10 precincts reporting, I’m 1st of 4 running for 3 seats on the Purissima Hills Water District board.

    Google has GJ back at 0.9% as he approaches 1.1M votes.

  35. Roger Roots

    Update on the amazing Montana results:
    Libertarian Dan Cox has 6.45% in the nationally-watched “battleground” U.S. Senate race with Jon Tester (D) and Dennis Rehberg (R). Tester is winning reelection with 48 % while Rehberg has 44.75%.

    Republicans had become so rabid at the end that they were openly begging and demanding that Cox withdraw to help Rehberg. Cox courageously announced he had taken an oath to defend America from all enemies, and that Rehberg was a domestic enemy. Rehberg–a self-styled ‘libertarian caucus’ Republican–had voted for Patriot Act (several times), the NDAA, etc.

  36. Roger Roots

    Also, in Montana, Libertarian Mike Fellows has drawn 42 % of the vote for Clerk of the State Supreme Court. This is a partisan race and Mike was facing only a democrat (no Republican). Montana has easily secured ballot access for next election (which required a showing of at least 5% in any statewide race)!

  37. Brian Holtz

    With all precincts now reporting, John Inks and I have both finished first in our respective races.

    Bob, I held the banner as high as the government would allow. They deleted the phrase “As a libertarian” from my voter guide statement on the grounds that water board is a non-partisan race. However, I emphasized libertarian principles in my statement, smartvoter entry, and campaign site:

    http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/11/06/ca/scl/vote/holtz_b/

    Inks was more stealth:

    http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/11/06/ca/scl/vote/inks_j/

    Google has GJ at 1.14M votes and 1.0%. Sweet!

  38. Tom Blanton

    If the government prevents anybody from truthfully marketing a product as GMO-free, then the libertarian solution to that problem is NOT to mandate labeling, but rather to repeal the prevention.

    Exactly. But libertarians don’t. Which is my whole point.

    But according to wisegeek: In the United States, however, GMO free labeling is purely voluntary and not regulated by any governmental body or organization.

    But, according to Washington Post, and other sources I’ve read, this isn’t entirely the case:

    SEE link @ 27

    FDA Regs ARE the problem!

    Excerpt:

    Terms that are frequently mentioned in discussions about labeling foods with respect to bioengineering include “GMO free” and “GM free.” “GMO” is an acronym for “genetically modified organism” and “GM” means “genetically modified.” Consumer focus group data indicate that consumers do not understand the acronyms “GMO” and ” GM” and prefer label statements with spelled out words that mean bioengineering (Ref. 1).

    Terms like “not genetically modified” and “GMO free,” that include the word “modified” are not technically accurate unless they are clearly in a context that refers to bioengineering technology. “Genetic modification” means the alteration of the genotype of a plant using any technique, new or traditional. “Modification” has a broad context that means the alteration in the composition of food that results from adding, deleting, or changing hereditary traits, irrespective of the method. Modifications may be minor, such as a single mutation that affects one gene, or major alterations of genetic material that affect many genes. Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified. Data indicate that consumers do not have a good understanding that essentially all food crops have been genetically modified and that bioengineering technology is only one of a number of technologies used to genetically modify crops. Thus, while it is accurate to say that a bioengineered food was “genetically modified,” it likely would be inaccurate to state that a food that had not been produced using biotechnology was “not genetically modified” without clearly providing a context so that the consumer can understand that the statement applies to bioengineering.

    The term “GMO free” may be misleading on most foods, because most foods do not contain organisms (seeds and foods like yogurt that contain microorganisms are exceptions). It would likely be misleading to suggest that a food that ordinarily would not contain entire “organisms” is “organism free.”

    http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidancedocuments/foodlabelingnutrition/ucm059098.htm

  39. We lost our country

    We are sodom and Gomorra as a country, behold, the Lord is watching. May the Lord help us all.
    Those who live in sin are like the ones who never entered Noah ark. The non-believers it will be too late.

  40. Be Rational

    @75 Religious nut cases are taking the Republican party down to the bottom of the political sea. Whatever you do, please don’t abandon your sinking ark.

  41. Alan Pyeatt

    Also, I would like to point out that not only was WAR wrong about predicting Romney’s landslide victory, but despite WAR’s advice that we should ignore civil liberties issues and focus only on the economy, in these two states civil liberties issues were successful.

    To a lesser extent, one might say the same thing about California, where a revision to the Three Strikes law passed (although the death penalty ban failed), and 2 out of 3 tax measures were passed. So, at least in California, civil liberties issues were more successful than economic issues.

  42. Andy

    “but despite WAR’s advice that we should ignore civil liberties issues and focus only on the economy, in these two states civil liberties issues were successful.”

    I think the fact that Gary Johnson and Jim Gray DID focus just as much on civil liberties as they did on economic issues is one of the reasons that they were so much more successful than the Bob Barr/Wayne Root ticket (the memory of which really makes me want to gag).

  43. Laine

    The Greens seem pretty dead on a national level. Although Stein did better than McKinney it still seems to be a dismal result. Why don’t they focus on state campaigns as well as House and Senate elections? When the presidency is on the line it seems like people are too fearful to break from the Dems.

  44. Darryl W. Perry

    When I first decided to run for Cheshire County Register of Deeds, I had one goal: unseat a 19-term incumbent. I sought and received endorsements from both libertarians and progressives. After realizing there would not be any candidates forums, I put together an event and invited 27 candidates for various offices – video of that event can be seen here.
    After Anna Tilton entered the race, I realized that my chances of winning diminished greatly and I added a second goal: receive more votes than the margin of victory.
    I can happily say that both goals were met. The Keene Sentinel reports Anna Tilton won with 17,826 votes (48.2%), Evelyn Hubal 16,239 votes (43.9%) and I got 2,906 votes (7.9%).
    I’d like to thank everyone who supported me, donated time and/or money to my campaign and to those who decided to vote for me on election day.

  45. Gene Berkman

    Two seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission were up for election.

    District 3, Brad Ploeger (Lib) 169,225 5%
    (a 3 way race won by the Republican)

    District 5, David Staples (Lib) 1,080,076 34%
    (two way race won by Republican)

    Both Libertarian candidates were endorsed by Atlanta Progressive News.

  46. paulie

    The Greens seem pretty dead on a national level. Although Stein did better than McKinney it still seems to be a dismal result.

    By what standard? She did very well for a Green candidate who is not a household name.

    Why don’t they focus on state campaigns as well as House and Senate elections?

    What makes you think they don’t?

  47. paulie

    I think the fact that Gary Johnson and Jim Gray DID focus just as much on civil liberties as they did on economic issues is one of the reasons that they were so much more successful than the Bob Barr/Wayne Root ticket

    Agreed.

    Also the reason why I like this ticket and want to see them run again, despite disagreeing with their tax policy and some other things.

  48. paulie

    Cigarettes are plastered with labeling, yet people still smoke them. My point is that everyone already “knows” and that government-imposed labeling won’t solve the “problem” even if GMOs are that big of a problem.

    The issue here is that people may want to know if there are GMOs in their food and the government is preventing them from knowing it even while subsidizing Monsanto and even ruling that farmers who don’t want GMOs are infringing on Monsanto’s patents when their seeds get contaminated.

    Sure, some people think GMOs are great or don’t care, and they can ignore the labels or even use them to select for food with GMOs in it. This is different from warning labels, because no one is in doubt that a cigarette is a cigarette.

    This constant claim that evil companies (the dreaded Monsanto) are “in control” of the government and that we must strike back by inviting government regulation to rig the market against the evil companies doesn’t even pass the smell test.

    There’s an incestuous regulatory capture – the same individuals move in and out of companies like Monsanto, positions as lobbyists for them, positions as regulators of them and sometimes as legislators.

    If GMO foods were really causing serious harms, at least one person should be able to prove such damages by winning a lawsuit.

    It may be hard to prove what the source of some health problems may be, or the harm may be long term and may manifest years from now. These GMOs are new and there may be cumulative or long term effects in the future.

    Letting people make the choice for themselves should be obvious.

  49. Andy

    “Also the reason why I like this ticket and want to see them run again, despite disagreeing with their tax policy and some other things.”

    Whoah, I wouldn’t go this far. I’m hoping that something better comes along by 2016.

  50. Andy

    Look, I’ve been a critic of the Gary Johnson / Jim Gray ticket, however, I will say that there are a lot of things that they did right, and that this was a much better campaign than the Barr / Root disaster in 2008.

    Having said this, keep in mind that there are three big reasons for the increase in votes that have little to do with the campaign.

    1) There was no higher profile candidate in the race. Throw in a Ralph Nader or a Ross Perot and Gary Johnson’s vote total would have been lower than it was this year. The LP is very lucky that Americans Elect failed to recruit a high profile candidate and dropped out of the race.

    2) Ballot access. Yeah, Gary Johnson wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan or Oklahoma, but he was on more ballots than Bob Barr in 2008, and he was also on more ballots than Ron Paul in 1988, David Bergland in 1984, Roger McBride in 1976, and of course John Hospers in 1972. Most of the ballot access was because of LP National and/or state LP affiliates and not because of the Gary Johnson campaign.

    3) Ron Paul’s campaigns for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2007-2008 and in 2011-2012 have made libertarian ideas more popular.

  51. paulie

    Better seems unlikely, worse far more likely.

    Building all the momentum from scratch would be a disadvantage.

    Having worked on the campaign more actively this time than in the past, I am seeing how the lack of time to organize and coalesce support really works against us big time .

    Many things did not come together until the last few days of the campaign. If the election was a few months away and we could keep building, I bet we would have done much better.

    Well, now it’s 4 years away and we should just keep building and building.

    The alternative is to start from scratch again with a candidate no one has heard of and try to build name recognition and organize campaign support, funding, operations, etc.

    Or, to start with some other crossover celebrity/politician and work on their issue positioning with little time.

    Or both.

    With Johnson, we have already done much of this work and have four years to do more.

  52. paulie

    1) There was no higher profile candidate in the race. Throw in a Ralph Nader or a Ross Perot and Gary Johnson’s vote total would have been lower than it was this year. The LP is very lucky that Americans Elect failed to recruit a high profile candidate and dropped out of the race.

    Not necessarily true. The LP’s other banner year 1980 was when Anderson also ran. On the other hand, in 1984 the LP came in third …with 224k votes at 0.3%.

    In 1988 Ron Paul did not do very well in overall votes, although he came in third.

    Harry Browne was up against Perot once, and against both Nader and Buchanan the second time (in a truly close contest between Democrats and Republicans, too) yet still did fairly well.

    Maybe the LP ticket rises and falls on its own merits regardless of who else is or is not running. It seems counterintuitive, but how else do you explain the actual record (before this year)?


    2) Ballot access. Yeah, Gary Johnson wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan or Oklahoma, but he was on more ballots than Bob Barr in 2008, and he was also on more ballots than Ron Paul in 1988, David Bergland in 1984, Roger McBride in 1976, and of course John Hospers in 1972. Most of the ballot access was because of LP National and/or state LP affiliates and not because of the Gary Johnson campaign.

    That’s true. However, national LP may be taking a dump on ballot access now, and Johnson may be needed to step up and get us to total ballot access for next time. Otherwise we could be looking at another 1984 followup to 1980.


    3) Ron Paul’s campaigns for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2007-2008 and in 2011-2012 have made libertarian ideas more popular.

    That will only increase.

  53. George Phillies

    @99 ‘building organization’ and ‘keeping the same candidate’ are independent issues. Many of the people who supported Johnson might be available again, though in practice you will find that most of the 2012 campaign volunteers are one with the snows of yesteryear when it comes time to do 2012 campaign organization. How do I know this? I was the Badnarik National Volunteer coordinator, I ran myself in 2008, and in 2012 I tried to help the Wrights campaign.

    Let me take an alternative tack. We have now tried other party’s politicians as candidates twice in a row, and not a great deal happened relative to what happened in other campaigns.

    One might propose that there is another nail in the coffin of claims that you can buy your way to victory, namely 1980 spent way more money but got nearly the same outcome.. Much of what did happen took place because the Republicans and Democrats had candidates that many people disliked.

  54. paulie

    building organization’ and ‘keeping the same candidate’ are independent issues.

    Not entirely.

    How do I know this? I was the Badnarik National Volunteer coordinator, I ran myself in 2008, and in 2012 I tried to help the Wrights campaign.

    You had a different candidate every time.

  55. NotGood

    George Phillies said: “One might propose that there is another nail in the coffin of claims that you can buy your way to victory, namely 1980 spent way more money but got nearly the same outcome..”

    The 1980 LP candidate Ed Clark had to compete for votes against a higher profile 3rd party/independent candidate in John Anderson. Gary Johnson did not have any competition for 3rd place like John Anderson.

  56. Gene Trosper

    Glad to see a discussion of Prop 37 here. GMOs are a huge issue of concern in my household and I am one of many small “l” libertarians who supported this measure — and would do so again. It’s my opinion that while libertarians have formulated a damn good approach to civil liberties, non-interventionism, and free market economics, I don’t think the overall libertarian approach considers issues like GMO foods. It’s quite simplistic to say “the market will solve the problem”, but you first need a free (or somewhat free) market to allow for an actual market solution. Agriculture does not even begin to resemble a free market. When 90% of all soybeans are GMO and this situation is brought about by subsidies, heavy regulations, and well-placed big-ag executives and lobbyists (former executives and lobbysits) in FDA and USDA positions, you have some gigantic hurdles to overcome. Add into the mix food libel laws and an extreme reluctance of food manufacturers to reveal whether their products contain GMOs, the usual “let the market work” response falls flat. Again, there is no free market.

    Thing is: this issue goes well beyond merely providing a label on food packaging: it directly confronts the corporatist/government collusion in agriculture and food manufacturing.

  57. Thane Eichenauer

    @104
    The arguments above in favor of mandatory labeling remind me of those offered in favor of additional bank regulation. If the problem of GMO food is subsidies, the solution is to eliminate the subsidies, not add labeling mandates. As for “heavy regulation” (the nature of which I am not clear on) the solution is to abolish said “heavy regulation” not add more. If the problem also involves former private pro-GMO company officials working for the FDA and USDA the solution would be to abolish the FDA and the USDA. If food manufacturers are reluctant to disclose GMO ingredients maybe the real problem is that companies and the people that purchase goods from those companies don’t want or don’t care whether they sell GMO contaminated products or not.
    I believe that I would prefer food products (in a free market) that are labelled GMO free or GMO adverse but I might not pay a higher price for such products.
    “The issue” of mandatory labeling may well claim to directly address the corporatist/government collusion but the proffered solution certainly does not. Increasing government power and regulation doesn’t solve the inherent problem caused by excessive power held by government.

  58. paulie

    Which things?

    Much of the volunteer effort was only coming together at the very end. Support from Ron Paul grassroots was slow in coming together. The campus tour had only been happening for a couple of months and the crowds were just starting to grow at the end. The ads on TV only actually got placed in the last 10 days or so of the campaign. If we had a few more months right now it would be a whole different world right now. Well, we do – 48 of them, in fact, but only if we don’t stop.

    It took a lot of work to get to over 100,000 followers on twitter and over 350,000 likes on facebook, however many views the various youtubes have had, etc. That has built a certain level of support and name recognition that would either have to be built from scratch or built upon. There’s far from universal name recognition, but there is some – and not an easy amount for an LP candidate to acquire. Starting with that already in the bag is a good thing.

    Campaigning builds experience – among the staff and for the candidate. Having done various things a whole bunch of times makes you better at doing them.

  59. paulie

    If food manufacturers are reluctant to disclose GMO ingredients maybe the real problem is that companies and the people that purchase goods from those companies don’t want or don’t care whether they sell GMO contaminated products or not.

    There are food manufacturers that want to label their food as GMO free, and the federal government is not allowing them to.

    There’s not much that voters in a state can do about it except to have labeling at the state level.

    Among the many impositions of government, requiring disclosure of information for the benefit of consumers – especially information that numerous people said they would like to have about what they eat – is far from the worst.

    Given that California voters are not empowered to change all of the things you talk about at the federal level, the initiative made sense. Unfortunately, the proponents were outspent by Monsanto et al.

  60. Darryl W. Perry

    The plebiscite in Puerto Rico was non-binding – any change must come from Congress. However, Congress will likely act if the results show overwhelming support.

  61. Darryl W. Perry

    Interesting tidbit:
    The Keene Sentinel numbers reported for my race are different from the numbers reported by the SOS.
    The Sentinel shows me with 955 MORE votes than shown by the SOS. The winner (Anna Tilton) is listed with 955 FEWER by the Sentinel than listed by the SOS.
    The numbers by the SOS put me at approx 5.3% and Anna Tilton at 50.8%

    Trying to figure out how the Sentinel was off by so many votes for 2 people.

  62. Andy

    Paulie said: “Among the many impositions of government, requiring disclosure of information for the benefit of consumers – especially information that numerous people said they would like to have about what they eat – is far from the worst.

    Given that California voters are not empowered to change all of the things you talk about at the federal level, the initiative made sense. Unfortunately, the proponents were outspent by Monsanto et al.”

    Given that there are libertarian arguments on both sides of this issue, I don’t think that it was a wise move for the Libertarian Party to take a stand against this issue. It probably would have been better to put out a stance of Mixed or Neutral.

  63. paulie

    perhaps the better solution is to put the power in the hands of the people (and their iPhone/Android device).
    http://truefoodnow.org/shoppers-guide/

    Not everyone has one of those, you know. I personally prefer “dumb” phones. Mine is about ten years old.

    Given that there are libertarian arguments on both sides of this issue, I don’t think that it was a wise move for the Libertarian Party to take a stand against this issue. It probably would have been better to put out a stance of Mixed or Neutral.

    Agreed. I would have voted yes, but I understand the libertarian argument for the no side.

  64. Thane Eichenauer

    @116
    They also make a 17 page PDF version of their smart phone program so presumably you could print yourself a less breakable, non-electronic version if you wanted to.

  65. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy @ 116: “Given that there are libertarian arguments on both sides of this issue, I don’t think that it was a wise move for the Libertarian Party to take a stand against this issue. It probably would have been better to put out a stance of Mixed or Neutral.”

    I agree here with Gene, Paulie, and Andy and took an early stand for Proposition 37. I’m fully aware that forced labeling is not a Libertarian notion, but I believe the free market is not able to work for reasons discussed on this thread, and I also think our window of time to keep much of the food supply unmodified (is that a word?) is very short. I argued with people about it for a few weeks, and then decided that everyone just needs to do their own research into GMO foods. If someone does, and they become as alarmed as I did–and as Gene and his wife Shannon did, along with many other libertarian-minded people–perhaps we can figure out a libertarian solution.

  66. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt said: “I agree here with Gene, Paulie, and Andy and took an early stand for Proposition 37. I’m fully aware that forced labeling is not a Libertarian notion, but I believe the free market is not able to work for reasons discussed on this thread, and I also think our window of time to keep much of the food supply unmodified (is that a word?) is very short. I argued with people about it for a few weeks,”

    I think that the Libertarian Party taking a No stance on this issue feeds into the notion in a lot of people’s minds that Libertarians are corporatist who don’t give a damn about the average person.

    Sometimes it is better to not take a stance on an issue than to take one, particularly in a vote recomendation.

  67. Libertarian voter

    @83 — Most of Congressman Barr’s media appearances focused on Fourth Amendment issues, an area of his expertise. I don’t recall much of his talk about economic issues.

    re: GMOs — Both Gov. Johnson and Judge Gray expressed support for GMO labeling during the campaign this year.

  68. Andy

    “Libertarian voter // Nov 8, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    @83 — Most of Congressman Barr’s media appearances focused on Fourth Amendment issues, an area of his expertise. I don’t recall much of his talk about economic issues.”

    Well, I know that Wayne Root made a big deal about focusing on economic issues and down playing civil liberties issues.

    “re: GMOs — Both Gov. Johnson and Judge Gray expressed support for GMO labeling during the campaign this year.”

    I’m aware of this.

  69. Thane Eichenauer

    @120
    “I think that the Libertarian Party taking a No stance on this issue feeds into the notion in a lot of people’s minds that Libertarians are corporatist who don’t give a damn about the average person.”

    Just because some people might make the claim doesn’t make it true.

  70. paulie

    GMO labelling. Riddle: Is mandatory labeling “product contains peanuts” acceptable?

    Issue: The nut allergy kills.

    Full liability would handle this, as well. I doubt insurance companies would want clients who would not provide such labels.

    They also make a 17 page PDF version of their smart phone program so presumably you could print yourself a less breakable, non-electronic version if you wanted to.

    Sounds complicated.

    Sometimes it is better to not take a stance on an issue than to take one, particularly in a vote recomendation.

    Agreed.

    Just because some people might make the claim doesn’t make it true.

    Just because we all too often ignore public perception, it doesn’t disappear.

    I am a GMO.

    You are an organism whose genetic material has been altered through the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using biotechnology? That explains a lot 🙂

  71. Larry West

    Getting back to the original topic, I’ve been creating an Excel spreadsheet also.
    So far, I have:
    Johnson: 1,167,667 — .968%
    Stein: 408,905 — .339%
    Goode: 115,263 — .096%
    Barr: 49,582 — .041%
    Anderson: 36,631 — .030%
    Hoefling: 28,682 — .024%

    By the way, Johnson, by my calculations, is 38,244.76 votes short of 1% of the electorate.

  72. Brian Holtz

    direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using biotechnology

    Nucleic acid bases have no memory of what kind of selection — natural, sexual, technological — chose them.

  73. Gene Trosper

    @120:

    Andy said: “I think that the Libertarian Party taking a No stance on this issue feeds into the notion in a lot of people’s minds that Libertarians are corporatist who don’t give a damn about the average person.”

    This has been an ongoing concern of mine in the last few years I participated in the LP. There is a reason why there have been those who insist libertarianism’s defense of corporations harbors a sort of crypto-fascism. I’m not making the allegation, just stating what others have said.

    I renewed my membership in the national LP a couple of days ago, so I am pretty much coming to the end of my 3 year vacation for all things LP. I hope to connect with other Libertarians who are concerned about GMOs and corporatism. Let’s talk and see what we can do.

  74. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Full liability does nothing for you after you are dead.”

    Neither does government regulation.

    But government regulation is far more likely to kill you or facilitate your death than full liability is.

  75. Robert Capozzi

    135 tk: But government regulation is far more likely to kill you or facilitate your death than full liability is.

    me: Possibly so. Is there proof this is the case, and is the proof universal?

    There was a time I’d jerk my knee along with your assertion. But as I’ve observed the jurisprudential process, I am now skeptical. My lean is to not oppose labeling requirements, even though I’m open to completely stateless solutions to narrowing information gaps in the marketplace. Today, at least.

  76. Be Rational

    When faced with the possibility of dramatic cost, such as full liability, honest market participants will comply readily – that means they will label their products to avoid damage suits and awards.

    When faced with the possibility of additional regulatory compliance and expense, many honest market participants will at first refuse to comply and seek a regulatory compromise, a legislative solution, a political solution at the polls and a legal solution through the court system prior to compliance. Legally mandated labeling will be spotty in its application, extent of coverage, efficacy and benefit.

    As for consumers: In the absence of a regulatory pacifier, consumers tend to exercise greater care in assessing quality and safety, damanding more of both and obtaining independent evaluation as well as personal inspection of products before and after purchase.

    However, when provided with the socialistic assurance of the regulatory pacifier, the typical consumer resorts to infantile acceptance of the word of the governmental god figure, and in reliance on that worthless promise (since a regulatory environment actually provides less quality and safety) the typical infantile consumer becomes more vulnerable to risk and more prone to suffer damage, injury or death.

    Attempts to impose regulatory and government mandated solutions to any problem, such as labeling, constitutes a simple minded and completely wrongheaded view of the nature of progress and improvement in how product improvement and safety is actually achieved in the real world.

  77. Robert Capozzi

    137 br: …consumers tend to exercise greater care in assessing quality and safety…

    me: Yes, they may TEND TO, that makes sense. Then, again, if the snakeoil salesperson’s product kills someone, the estate may or may not be able to collect damages, given the highly imperfect discovery process that the legal system relies on, yes?

  78. paulie

    I renewed my membership in the national LP a couple of days ago, so I am pretty much coming to the end of my 3 year vacation for all things LP. I hope to connect with other Libertarians who are concerned about GMOs and corporatism. Let’s talk and see what we can do.

    Glad to hear you are back. I fall in that category (Libertarians who are concerned about GMOs and corporatism) so fire away.

  79. paulie

    Full liability does nothing for you after you are dead

    Well, if you ran a company that made food products and couldn’t get insurance unless you labelled products that contain peanuts, which would mean that the first lawsuit could eat up all your profits, put you out of business and leave you in debt, would you label them? I think I would. Which would mean that the products would get labelled and the deaths would not occur.

  80. paulie

    Then, again, if the snakeoil salesperson’s product kills someone, the estate may or may not be able to collect damages, given the highly imperfect discovery process that the legal system relies on, yes?

    Which might cause people to be wary of snake oil salesmen. It could also lead to secondary markets in, say, tracking down snake oil salesmen on the lam from default judgments in wrongful death suits and negligent homicides. New technology makes it easier to find them, with the help of the public or professional investigators. Or to discover who they are before you do business with them.

  81. Robert Capozzi

    p 142, yes, it “might” and it “could.” But you are avoiding my main point: Jurisprudence’s discovery process is weak. Since property rights rest on the rule of law, and since the rule of law is buyable (only for some, as a practical matter) and imperfect, banking on the market solving this dilemma seems more like prayer and less like justice.

  82. Be Rational

    @138 Snakeoil salesmen are already willing to operate illegally and fraudulently. They will be among the first to place a “required” label on their products – although the content of the label will just be more fraudulent promotional material.

    As a result, those gullible, infantile consumers who rely on government regulatory protection will become even more vulnerable from the snakeoil salesmen in a regulatory environment.

  83. Be Rational

    Consider the Ponzi scheme: already illegal because it’s obviously fraud. In a regulatory environment it is much easier to run a successful Ponzi scheme, take in billions of dollars and operate for years without being discovered.

    Why?

    In a regulatory environment, your customers rely on the government. So, you only have to fool the occasional government auditor, if any, on a very infrequent basis.

    In a non-regulatory environment you will have to face tough questions from skeptical customers on a daily basis. You will not be able to fool enough of them to grow to a significant size or to continue to opreate on a long term basis.

    And this we’ve seen played out recently. Laws, regulations and regulators increase the likelyhood of fraud and decrease consumer safety.

  84. paulie

    buyable (only for some, as a practical matter) and imperfect, banking on the market solving this dilemma seems more like prayer and less like justice.

    And government is better in this respect? No, I think worse.

  85. Robert Capozzi

    144 br: Snakeoil salesmen are already willing to operate illegally and fraudulently.

    me: And that’s NOT the case in Nonarchopia?

    147 P: And government is better in this respect? No, I think worse.

    me: You may, and I might. But that matters not. What matters is what is. If there’s a desire to change what is, then the case needs to be compelling and strong to the masses. Holding high the banner that requiring labeling is an abomination, a vicious, cruel statist violation of all that is good and pure? Seems weak. Seems counterproductive, even.

  86. Be Rational

    @148

    144 br: Snakeoil salesmen are already willing to operate illegally and fraudulently.

    148 RC: And that’s NOT the case in Nonarchopia?

    It’s always the case that those who are already criminals are likely to ignore the regulatory environment, except to the extent that it helps them.

    This is why, in 137, I refered to “honest” market participants.

    However, since you brought up the illegal element with your reference to snake oil salesmen, I pointed out that they are already operating illegally so your example was obviously not a positive factor in supporting regulation.

    Then I took advantage of this opportunity to show how clever snakeoil salesmen, Ponzi scheme operators and others willing to operate illegally can actually profit and operate easier under the protective umbrella of the regulatory environment.

    Bernie Madoff never got caught. He turned himself in. Regulators, even collectively, are not as smart or efficient as the marketplace. The regulators were easliy fooled and gave him the credibility he needed to fend off nosy clients.

    Without government regulation, it is quite likely that Bernie Madoff would have been caught early on while operating on a small scale and arrested for fraud due to increased vigilance by his clients.

    However, you are correct that the regulatory issue is little understood by the general public. Even some Libertarian commentators here have been fooled into thinking that government regulation can work in some cases or has some value.

    Labeling is not a major issue compared to others and is not worth the expense of our limited resources or distracting our efforts from other much more vital, current and easily understood issues.

  87. paulie

    Holding high the banner that requiring labeling is an abomination, a vicious, cruel statist violation of all that is good and pure? Seems weak. Seems counterproductive, even.

    As I said earlier, among all the bad things that government does, requiring labeling seems to me to be a very minor trespass. I like having consumers be as informed as possible. I believe the market can provide better solutions for this than the state, but the cost of disclosing information is not that high. It seems to me that what some businesses are more afraid of is what informed consumers will do with that information, so they actually use state force to keep other businesses from disclosing information that many consumers want to have readily available. Since it’s done at the federal level I’m not sure what people at the state level can do about it, other than solutions such as the information sites available to smart phone users and initiatives such as Prop 37 – both flawed solutions, in different ways.

    We can also lobby the feds, but it’s difficult to compete against large multinational corporations with their tentacles deeply intertwined with government’s when it comes to lobbying.

  88. Robert Capozzi

    149 br: Labeling is not a major issue compared to others and is not worth the expense of our limited resources or distracting our efforts from other much more vital, current and easily understood issues.

    me: Well, yes, agreed. My main point, actually. Although, again, I’m also OK with labelling requirements for the time being since jurisprudence is highly limited. A point you and P have yet to challenge that I can see.

    You are smoking some GOOD stuff if you think there’ve not been fraudsters caught by the state. Just ask Ebbers, Sullivan, Nacchio, Skilling, Fastow, etc.

    Can we just wait for torts in all cases? I’d say, Oh, maybe, some day. Tomorrow? Not seein’ it, and I don’t necessarily care abolish all government as a test of your theory, and, btw, I’m highly sympathetic to your cause! I see no evidence that most are persuaded that the evenly rotating construct is all the even in its rotation!

  89. Be Rational

    @151 Actually, I have ignored the jurisprudence aspect, although I do believe that the threat of paying the eventual costs of tort awards would be enough to persuade honest market participants to label or avoid fraud.

    Rather, I have stressed my contention that the market players on the consumption side would exercise more influence and oversight than current and proposed regulators and that they would be more effective in bringing about improved quality, labeling, information etc and that this would lessen the need for legal solutions and tort suits after the fact.

    Not only do regulators reduce the incentive for producers to do the right thing in advance, and therefore lower quality and improvement (including labeling) in the marketplace, but regulation tends to provide a shield after the fact, redering legal remedies after the fact less effective as well.

    A regulatory environment acts as a double shield for criminals and for defective, low quality or faulty products from honest producers. Regulation reduces the incentive to do better in advance and reduces the likelyhood of paying damages after. Regulation makes it easier to fool consumers and creates a more vulnerable mass of available victims for criminals.

    Finally, those of us who are aware that government regulation makes things worse are also left more vulnerable since the regulatory zombification of society reduces the number of aware consumers who act as allies in the information sharing process.

  90. Be Rational

    @151

    “You are smoking some GOOD stuff if you think there’ve not been fraudsters caught by the state. Just ask Ebbers, Sullivan, Nacchio, Skilling, Fastow, etc.”

    While these men were arrested and prosecuted by the state, that doesn’t mean they were caught by government agents or regulators. Rather, after they were exposed by market failure, customers, co-workers and other informers, the state was able to investigate and charge them. Although it’s commonly done by politicians and government officials, it’s not honest to take credit for discovering things after they’ve been pointed out by someone else …

    … but hey, Al Gore invented the Internet … soon he’ll invent the wheel.

  91. Brian Holtz

    It’s amusing to watch all these so-called radical Libertarians advocating new government intervention B to correct alleged government intervention A.

    Nucleic acid bases have no memory of what kind of selection — natural, sexual, technological — chose them.

    What I meant is that it doesn’t matter what process wrote the genetic sequence, it just matters what the sequence spells.

    The GMOs to worry about are antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prop 37 was aimed at a pseudo-problem with an obvious market solution: don’t buy products that you worry aren’t safe for you. But overuse of antibiotics is causing a massive negative externality of super-germs, and torts have no hope of addressing this problem.

    It may turn out that we are living in the brief dreamtime between 1) the discovery of germ theory and the first use of antibiotics and 2) super-germs that have evolved resistance to antibiotics. In the arms race between bacteria and antibiotics, bet on the side whose cycle time is measured in hours, and against the side whose cycles take years.

    Humanity’s only real hope against super-germs is genetic engineering. Unfortunately, neophobes want our species to unilaterally disarm against our greatest health threat — all in the name of health.

  92. Robert Capozzi

    br: I have ignored the jurisprudence aspect, although I do believe that the threat of paying the eventual costs of tort awards would be enough to persuade honest market participants to label or avoid fraud.

    me: Ignore the flaws of jurisprudence at your own peril. The entire edifice is of “property rights” is built on it, and surely you’ve heard what happens when you build your foundation on sand? 😉

    In my personal process of recovery from simplistic, Randian/Rothbardianism, where there are the “honest” and the “dishonest,” I notice that the world is not NEARLY that simple. (Old cowboy movies with white and black hats come to mind!) My research indicates that the Ebbers and Skillings of the world didn’t start as as “bad actors.” Rather, corruption in the marketplace starts out as small, little lies, ones that grow into outright fraud. It’s just not nearly as simple as you paint it in your “be rational” mind, I’d suggest.

    The combination – flawed discovery and creeping corruption in the marketplace – allow me to recognize that my bias for liberty and voluntaryism is NOT the be all and end all for all social ills. This doesn’t mean that I’m a “statist,” it just means that I play it as it lays, and I consider market failure along with government failure. Which is least bad (dysfunctional) is a question of discernment, not the false precision of maladaptive application of the NAP in all circumstances.

    You might inquire as to why you bring up Al Gore in this conversation, since I haven’t, and I find his approach outright frightening. Could you be deflecting?

  93. Gene Trosper

    @139: Thanks, Paulie. Sinve we are “friends” on facebook, we can connect there. I plan on creating a FB group to focus on things such as GMOs in a few days — maybe this weekend. I’ll let you know.

    @145: Jill, having discsussions with my wife about GMOs and interacting with other concerned Libertarians about this issue sort of convinced me to renew my membership.

  94. Gene Trosper

    @156 “In my personal process of recovery from simplistic, Randian/Rothbardianism, where there are the “honest” and the “dishonest,” I notice that the world is not NEARLY that simple. ”

    I am influenced by Rand and moreso by Rothbard, but I believe that libertarian thought is perhaps a bit narrow in that it focuses on human interaction. But what about the interaction of man to what sustains his life? Not to get all “Earth First!” or Greenpeace on everyone but we *are* part of nature. Lately, I’ve been starting to explore how that all fits within libertarian thought. I haven’t any definite ideas, but GMOs and the mulling that relationship. Green libertarianism? Maybe.

  95. Gene Trosper

    There doesn’t happen to be an editing function on IPR? I perhaps should focus better on reading my posts (with my reading glasses on!) before pressing submit. Still, I would be nice to be able to edit, or at least delete one’s posts.

  96. paulie

    Gene, if you are a registered user and comment while logged in, you should be able to edit/delete your comments.

    As far as I know only IPR editors can do this. I don’t know how to fix this other than signing someone up to post articles.

  97. paulie

    It’s amusing to watch all these so-called radical Libertarians advocating new government intervention B to correct alleged government intervention A.

    I don’t think it’s an ideal solution, as I’ve said.

    Obviously, as an anarchist, I’m not ultimately for government GMO labeling since monopoly government would not exist. In the short term, yes, I support some government actions to correct other government actions.

    I don’t like government taxation and regulation of any kind but I believe “regulate and tax marijuana” is better than medical marijuana which is better than jail and criminal records for marijuana users. My ultimate goal is legal marijuana (and other drugs) with no taxes and no regulations, but I have short term goals that fall short of that.

    I think the ultimate solution for marriage is to get government out of it, but in the meantime I oppose government discriminating in its marriage licensing by so-called race or by sexual orientation.

    Etc.

    it doesn’t matter what process wrote the genetic sequence, it just matters what the sequence spells.

    It does matter that we are monkeying around with things we do not fully understand, nor do we understand the long term impacts on human health or the ecosystem.

    Of course, natural mutation occurs, but we vastly increase the rate with genetic modification techniques and have no idea what the consequences may be.

    Sort of like allowing blind monkeys on acid to operate on you with surgical tools. Maybe not that bad, but maybe even worse.

    Prop 37 was aimed at a pseudo-problem with an obvious market solution: don’t buy products that you worry aren’t safe for you.

    How do I do that when I’m not allowed to know which things I may buy contain those things? And when companies aren’t even allowed to tell me that their products don’t have them?

    But overuse of antibiotics is causing a massive negative externality of super-germs

    As far as I know, this problem wasn’t foreseen when antibiotics became popular.

    GMOs may have similar long term unforeseen side effects that could be very dangerous. Or not.

    Humanity’s only real hope against super-germs is genetic engineering

    You may be right.

    On the other hand, genetic engineering could go horribly wrong and create something or a chain reaction that leads to something that could make us wish that supergerms were our worst problem — that is, if there is anything that can be remotely recognized as “us” to do this wishing.

    Even if you are correct that genetic engineering is the solution to supergerms, it may be an entirely different matter when it comes to the food supply.

    And even if it isn’t that either, it should be someone’s choice whether they want to be a guinea pig for biochemical experimentation.

    Full liability is my first preference to create that choice.

    Voluntary labeling as well.

    Prop 37, as I said, is a suboptimal solution. But so is what we have now.

  98. libertypeaceandlove

    Here are the 3rd party candidates in NJ with at least 1%. Num by Cong Dist.
    http://nj.gov/state/elections/2012-results/2012-unofficial-general-results-house-of-representatives.pdf

    1. REITTER
    4,059
    1.4582%
    GREEN PARTY

    4. MARSHALL
    2,894
    1.0397%
    NO SLOGAN

    5. PATRICIA ALESSANDRINI
    6,029
    2.1659%
    GREEN PARTY

    7. BREEN
    4,052
    1.4557%
    INDEPENDENT REFORM CANDIDATE

    7. MCKNIGHT
    3,554
    1.2768%
    LIBERTARIAN PARTY

    11. BERLIN
    3,168
    1.1381%
    OPPOSING CONGRESSIONAL GRIDLOCK

    I was surprised to see 2 3rd party candidates in NJ Dist 7 with >1%.

    Also, CD5 ALESSANDRINI had the highest total for 3rd party in NJ.

    None of the 3rd party candidates reached 1% for Senate.

  99. Seebeck

    If I were still in California and still the LPCA Legislative Analyst, I would have recommended a “Support” position for Prop 37. My reasoning is thus:

    We have the inalienable right to life. We own our own bodies. We have the inalienable right to liberty. We have the right to choose what we put in our bodies. We also have with the right to life the derivative right to health, because health is a part of life; that is, the state of health is part of the state of life, and one must have health in order to exercise the inalienable right to pursue happiness, acquire, own and use property, etc.

    (As an aside, health care is a responsibility that comes with the right of health. But that is an entirely different discussion.)

    However, that health cannot be achieved if we are not informed about our choices of what we put into our bodies. Yes, consumers should be responsible in doing their own research. However, the GMO industry has worked long and hard at suppressing the nature of their products, including the health and environmental effects. If you find fresh GMO produce with a 5-digit code beginning with an 8, for example, it is by pure accident, because the GMO producers lobbied the USDA to make that label optional (and ignored). GMO producers run and hide from the GMO label and assert their products’ safety without proving it.

    Then scientific studies came out that showed the toxins in GMOs transfer to people through the food, slowly poisoning the people. Yet they claimed it was safe. That was several years ago.

    Then in September of this year the lid got blown off, directly linking GMO products, allegedly safe, with cancer. This link was not correlative; it was CAUSAL. See http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm. Note the study itself was published three years ago and only this year got noticed. That means that for at least three years the direct link was known, yet the GMO producers continued to say their products are safe. More on that below.

    This is mere confirmation of what we’ve suspected for over 15 years, which is about as long as we’ve been studying and researching GMOs in my family, since my wife’s grad school days when she almost became a plant geneticist, aka GMO gene jockey. It was the experience and exposure to the methods and activities than turned her away from it, fortunately.

    Unfortunately, libertarians more often than not have a large political blind spot when it comes to agriculture and rural issues, so when we talked about it, few listened–unless the crop happened to be cannabis. That’s unfortunate because growing one’s own food in a safe, healthy, and responsible manner is a basic tenet of the self-sufficiency and personal responsibility we advocate for–not to mention a very tasty exercise of property rights!

    Back to the study, that means that the claims of safety were demonstrably false, and the GMO producers have been perpetuating a fraud on consumers. As libertarians we oppose fraud, and we’re supposed to be okay with using force in defense against it, and exposing GMOs by labeling is simply defending against that fraud by dragging their products into the open for public inspection. Prop 37 banned nothing but it did put GMOs into the spotlight that their producers wish to avoid, hence their mammoth opposition. Yes, it instituted a regulation on businesses, but when those businesses are faced with a regulation that removes and exposes a fraud, is that not a good thing? An alleged right to privacy is not a shield to violate the rights of others by committing fraud, after all.

    Had Prop 37 proposed to ban GMOs I would have instantly recommended opposing it for rather obvious reasons: GMOs, like all products, should be allowed in principle to stand or fail on their own merits in the marketplace.

    However, in reality, the GMO producers have manipulated the marketplace to make such a consumer judgment difficult to impossible. Prop 37 would counteract some of that manipulation by simply putting the GMO label into the spotlight and consumers can then make their own decisions with at least a little more information than they had before. Some would ignore it, as Californians tend to do with Prop 65 labels. Some would stop and research. But it was the exposure to consumer choice the GMO producers fear and fought against.

    As for the whole reputation of GMOs, based on our own family’s 15+ years of continuing research, we are convinced that they are not safe at worst and inconclusive on safety at best. GMO producers claim safety but do not produce the evidence to back it up, claiming proprietary information would be exposed. GMOs are also an environmental risk due to the excessive pesticides getting into the water supply and the excessive leaching of nutrients from the soil, which leads to additional petrochemical fertilizer use, which increases CO2 greenhouse gas production. If GMOs are as good as they claim to be, then their producers should confidently stand by their products and back up their claims instead of hiding from them. The negative connotation of GMOs is almost entirely a self-inflicted wound, and instead of fixing their own reputation the GMO producers have chosen instead to hide and corrupt the state for their own ends, at the expense of both the free market and consumer health and informed choice.

    Whether the LPCA would have gone with that recommendation or not, I have no idea, and I am not a party to whatever deliberations they undertook. But that’s my informed opinion.

  100. Robert Capozzi

    152 br: Finally, those of us who are aware that government regulation makes things worse are also left more vulnerable since the regulatory zombification of society reduces the number of aware consumers who act as allies in the information sharing process.

    me: I used to believe this, but now I wonder. If anything, there’s MORE information available to more people than ever before. If anything, the challenge is sorting all the information into a serviceable rule of thumb. I, for ex., have NO opinion on GMOs, other than it sounds possibly helpful and possibly very hurtful.

    We might be zombified not so much because we defer to government “experts” but because there’s just too much information.

  101. paulie

    We might be zombified not so much because we defer to government “experts” but because there’s just too much information.

    The issue at hand is quality, and flow, not quantity. There’s no contradiction between what you said and what you replied to.

  102. Robert Capozzi

    P, yes, it’s not so much a contradiction, but rather a problem of knowing what is “quality” information and what is not. Who’s to say? Today’s health craze is tomorrow’s toxic brew. Sometimes the government promotes one, sometimes the other. Ditto for elements in the voluntary sector. There is no monopoly on virtue.

  103. Gene Trosper

    @164: “We have the inalienable right to life. We own our own bodies. We have the inalienable right to liberty. We have the right to choose what we put in our bodies. We also have with the right to life the derivative right to health, because health is a part of life; that is, the state of health is part of the state of life, and one must have health in order to exercise the inalienable right to pursue happiness, acquire, own and use property, etc.”

    Indeed. I was about to write something similar yesterday, but tapping out a long screed on my smart phone at work was not exactly an optimal choice. I thank you for clearly stating what should be obvious to our Libertarian friends and acquaintances.

    “Unfortunately, libertarians more often than not have a large political blind spot when it comes to agriculture and rural issues…”

    That is something I have discovered the past couple of years since the self-sufficiency/food freedom movement really took off. Libertarianism tends to focus on the economy, civil liberties, and foreign policy. The libertarian analysis on those issues are spot on, but when approaching issues such as agriculture and rural issues, the analysis falls woefully short — assuming the issue is addressed at all. Kind of ironic, since it’s been said that libertarianism tends to appeal more to the rural folk than the city folk.

  104. Gene Trosper

    @27: “Where are all the “liberty” oriented folks when the FDA censors producers of GMO-Free products?”

    There are some of us out there, doing what we can. Are you familiar with the agri-fascist Monsanto and FDA assault on voluntary labelling of rBGH-free milk? http://www.purefood.org/rbgh/oakhurst101003.cfm

    YES: The federal government and a major corporation has been FIGHTING a voluntary, “market-based” solution — one which Libertarians would support. Once again, I say that there is no free market in agriculture and you cannot have a self-regulating market if it’s not a free market.

    “I think libertarians need to do a lot more work on their own thinking. Like if you really want free markets, fighting battles over regulations one by one is like pissing into an electric fan.”

    You are correct. Like I mentioned in my previous post, the libertarian analysis and approach to such issues like GMOs falls woefully short. I am hoping a bunch of us can get together and start to rectify that.

    “The leviathan won’t allow free markets as that does not benefit the elite. If you want free markets, you’ll need to reduce the size, scope and power of government by at least 95%.”

    Indeed. You cannot have a free market alongside a BIG government. They are not compatible. This is why I have to laugh when I see other libertarians call for “letting the market work” when the government is so large, it won’t allow a free market flourish, let alone barely limp along.

    I think it is entirely appropriate and ethical to use a state government (California) against the federal government using a tool such as Prop 37 if the goal is to confront the agri-fascist corporatist/government collusion with the end goal of food freedom (which includes GMOs, agriculture subsidies, food libel laws, etc.).

  105. Thomas L. Knapp

    On the one hand, I don’t support the state requiring anything (like “GMO labeling”), because I don’t support the existence of the state.

    On the other hand, I don’t support the state prohibiting anything (as they have in some cases at the behest of the corporati, e.g. forbidding dairies to note on their labels that their milk comes from cows that haven’t been pumped full of hormones and antibiotics).

    But the GMO thing is a tangled mess.

    Companies like Monsanto create new life forms, patent them, sell them, then sue farmers whose existing crops get contaminated by them for “theft” of the patented stuff. If anything, it should be the other way around.

  106. Gene Trosper

    Tom: have you watched “Food, Inc”? It has an excellent section on Monsanto’s war against seed savers.

  107. paulie

    If anything, it should be the other way around.

    It should.

    But it’s Monsanto, not independent farmers, that has its thumb on the levers of power.

  108. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gene,

    I’ll check out “Food, Inc.”

    Several years ago, I attended a Green Party event featuring Percy Schmeisser, a farmer whose canola crops had been contaminated by Monsanto’s “roundup ready” gene. THEY sued HIM … and they won.

    If I closed my eyes at that event, I could easily have mistakenly thought I was at a Cato forum on property rights.

    The problem with food labeling is one of regulatory capture. The big players can game the process to not have to tell us any more than they want us to know — and to keep their smaller competitors from telling us anything the big players DON’T want us to know.

    As far as real solutions go, I don’t know of any that are risk-free, and I don’t know of any that are likely to solve capture problems, short of abolishing state regulation (which means abolishing the state).

  109. Jill Pyeatt

    This topic of “Green Libertarianism” is a fascinating concept, and deserves to be explored and expanded. Has anyone ever done this? This is really the first I’ve heard of it. A statement from an organized group like this might have prompted more Libertarians in this state to look beyond the labeling into seeing the full issue of GMOs.

  110. Darryl W. Perry

    Not specifically related to the general election; however, I’d like to let everyone know that I have been “elected” (by default of being 1 of 2 candidates for 2 seats) to the Board of Directors of Cheshire TV (the local community access TV channel)

  111. Brian Holtz

    Has anyone ever done this?

    The EcoLibertarianism link I gave above is a portal to resources on green libertarianism.

    The first article I would recommend to an LP activist is this Dan Sullivan classic from 1992: Greens and Libertarians: The yin and yang of our political future.

    To a Green activist I would recommend this green-libertarian version of the Ten Key Green Values.

    Green Libertarians tend to be very skeptical of “intellectual property” in general, and of patenting genes in particular.

  112. paulie

    Sorry to repeat myself but:

    There are other varieties of green libertarianism in addition to Georgism.

    One good place to start exploring the different kinds:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_libertarianism

    Lots of people have “ever done this” in a variety of different ways.

    You can find links to a variety of different groups and approaches starting from that wikipedia article.

  113. paulie

    Not specifically related to the general election; however, I’d like to let everyone know that I have been “elected” (by default of being 1 of 2 candidates for 2 seats) to the Board of Directors of Cheshire TV (the local community access TV channel)

    Congrats!

    Didn’t occur to me that would be an elected position.

Leave a Reply

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