This morning I received an e-mail from Gary Johnson seeking money to fund a lawsuit over presidential debates.
Debate participation is a misguided obsession of third parties, especially Libertarians and Greens. My 2010 campaign is proof that debate participation doesn’t matter. Several mainstream media figures reported favorably on my performance. This answer on government corruption was, perhaps, the highlight of a generally strong performance:
Despite my equal participation the only debate, I still only got one percent of the vote. Compared to previous LP candidates for Governor in New York, I did do well in the election. I trebled the 2006 candidates numbers and got double any previous Governor candidate.
If the debate was the reason for those numbers then we would have seen that statewide. We didn’t. My vote percentage varied dramatically by county. The best results were in counties where we had done radio and TV advertising. We focused on the Albany and Syracuse areas and our numbers there were much higher than in other parts of the state. See the breakdown by county here: 2010 New York State election results.
Third party supporters should not waste their money on debate lawsuits or other debate-related efforts. Any such money should be focused on ballot access and effective campaign advertising.
TK, thanks for clarifying. Yes, beneath the trend of increasing coercion are counter-trends that are promising. Whether the counter-trends are so powerful that they will cause state coercion to actually recede, I have no certainly or even a sense of its likelihood. For all those stars to align “at some point” to usher in statelessness still seems far-fetched. Nothing is impossible, though.
Such speculation seems inevitable, but not especially productive. We can only do our best right now, and let the future take care of itself.
In fairness, while I said I FAVOR dropping the state, that’s not the expression I used to describe what is occurring at this time. For that, I used the expression “being replaced ad hoc.”
Bitcoin may or many not end up being a de facto global non-state currency standard, but a global non-state currency standard is coming.
The same types of protocols are being harnessed for everything from government-proof alternative Internets to “smart contracts” that will likely increase the speed of adoption of arbitration versus government courts (a trend that’s been visible for a couple of decades now).
A large portion of the information, communication and economic functions that used to be walled off by, or channeled through, political borders are now increasingly ignoring those borders.
It’s not so much “dropping the state” as replacing the state with other ways of doing things, one piece at a time and without specifically anarchist intent.
State functionaries and ideological supporters of the state as such are, for very good reason, concerned about these trends and likely to get increasingly brutal in trying to suppress them. But they’re also likely to fail … and at some point the state itself will likely fall below a relevance threshold necessary to its continued survival.
tk: States always get meaner and bigger before they fall apart.
me: Yes, agreed in general.
But I see a HUGE difference between “dropping” and “fall apart.” Empires collapse but are replaced by OTHER states. You initially used the word “dropping,” but I no of no place where a state collapsed and nonarchy took its place for generations, with the possible exception of Somalia, which is in progress–results, indeterminate.
pf: It’s a technique called reductio ad absurdum which Robert Capozzi was using, parlayed back to him. Not really “funny” per se so much as an illustration of pushing things to the point of absurdity
me: Actually, the reductio is the employment of NAPsolutism. All analysis reduced to a single formula.
I merely hold a mirror up so others can view the implications of “principled NAPsolutism.”
Happy to be of service.
“You see a global, yet ad hoc, dropping of The State? Looks to me to be growing, generally.”
You seem to be assuming a mutual exclusivity which I don’t see as necessary.
States always get meaner and bigger before they fall apart. That’s both a cause of, and a reaction to, the onset of revolution.
tk: I’m in favor of dropping the form of social organization which brought us the liquidation of the kulaks, the Holocaust, the Great Leap Forward, etc.
me: Yes, that’s easy to be in favor of. Whether THOSE forms are EQUIVALENT to ANY State seems to be the more relevant question. Does Pol Pot = US ~ 1870?
I’d say no.
tk: [You are] content to watch it being replaced ad hoc, as is happening right now.
me: This makes me happy to know that you are content.
But I don’t see it. You see a global, yet ad hoc, dropping of The State? Looks to me to be growing, generally.
It’s a technique called reductio ad absurdum which Robert Capozzi was using, parlayed back to him. Not really “funny” per se so much as an illustration of pushing things to the point of absurdity.
“paulie March 13, 2014 at 6:57 pm
‘It looks like the troll is back.’
Actually it’s called irony/sarcasm.”
Yes, but it looked like it could have been the work of the troll or trolls who have been trolling here for several years now, but maybe it was somebody else just trying to be funny.
We’re very close to that right now and getting ever closer. But don’t let that keeep you from endless pursuit of how many anti-anarchy red herrings can dance on the end of a pin.
No different from your treatment of anarchy, except that Rob Banks’ scenarios seem like more plausible extrapolations of current trends.
Actually it’s called irony/sarcasm.
Rob Banks March 13, 2014 at 8:53 am said: “– Controls over petitioning the government, so petitioners can be shot on sight.”
It looks like the troll is back.
“I’d say you have posit[ed] a kind of Promised Land.”
Er, no.
I’m in favor of dropping the form of social organization which brought us the liquidation of the kulaks, the Holocaust, the Great Leap Forward, etc.
I’m agnostic on what to replace that form of social organization with, and pretty much content to watch it being replaced ad hoc, as is happening right now.
tk: looking for answers I don’t see that I have an obligation to provide.
me: 100% agreed. I’d note, though, that most would want to get a sense of HOW what you advocate might work for them to entertain adopting your position.
tk: You’ve asked what you should take for your stomach ache. My answer is “I don’t know … but probably not that cyanide pill.”
me: Not my intent. I’d say you have posit a kind of Promised Land. I’ve asked for more details on how it might work, how your PL is preferable to the current configuration, and for directions on how to get there.
You have provided more of this than most, so, again thank you! PF can only seem to muster links to articles about violating Canadian traffic laws. Andy offers YouTubes from Molyneux, Jones and Rose, which often make me cringe. And Blanton vehemently repeats the very worst of what the State has done as (somehow) proof that statelessness is the only option to avert an Orwellian nightmarish existence.
However, if you’d not seen Murphy’s clause: “And, because all contracts of this sort (except possibly in very eccentric areas frequented by people who liked to live dangerously)….”, it’s a keeper….makes me laugh every time I read it.
“The one swing at #2 that I’ve seen left me stunned, but YMMV”
I’m somewhat skeptical of the ability to handle all possible situations through explicit contract. On the other hand, we’re definitely getting closer to that ability (one new implementation of the Bitcoin-type P2P protocol allows for the construction of “smart” self-enforcing digital contract that doesn’t rely on third-party enforcement).
I don’t think that my answer to #2 “begs” any questions, but I admit that it does “raise” a number of questions.
It’s not just that you’re looking for answers I don’t have, but that you’re looking for answers I don’t see that I have an obligation to provide. You’ve asked what you should take for your stomach ache. My answer is “I don’t know … but probably not that cyanide pill.”
TK, thanks for that. My feedback is 1 is a fair, reasonable answer. 2, however, begs SO many questions, many of which I’m sure you have yourself, but even if you don’t, you can surely understand and anticipate. Determining “relevant” and “claiming” would – I guess – have to be left up to whether #1 is successful.
The one swing at #2 that I’ve seen left me stunned, but YMMV:
https://mises.org/daily/5646/Law-without-the-State
“1) Do you advocate this be instituted in the short term, say, next year?”
I advocate that it be instituted whenever and wherever possible, as soon as possible, in small or large scope.
“2) Who would make and enforce these rules that you acknowledge would be needed?”
The relevant “public” claiming to own the property.
rb: …not wearing a burka…
me: This reminds me that the tone of many abolitionist anarchists has a similar ring to neoconservatives, a form of extreme paranoia, the Boy Who Cried Wolf-ism, the sky is falling-ism.
Gee, though, I truly hope that it never comes to “allow police to do whatever they want anywhere anytime to anyone.”
That’d really suck.
tk: Because of scarcities, yes, there will need to be rules for some usages — driving on roads, for example (driving drunk on the “wrong” side would seem to violate both of my proposed constraints).
me: OK, thanks for answering.
2 very simple follow-ons:
1) Do you advocate this be instituted in the short term, say, next year?
2) Who would make and enforce these rules that you acknowledge would be needed?
How should the rules of allocation work on state property* between now and Global Tyranny sometime off in the not at all distant future?
*(that is everywhere, with some small partial exceptions, but only at first)
Here’s a few options:
a) Abolish all laws and regulations that keep police from performing summary beatings and executions; allow police to do whatever they want anywhere anytime to anyone.
b) To allow for domestic tranquility as a transition, allow the state to continue to curb more and more behaviors on public property (anywhere outside your door), such as criticizing the state, asking unapproved questions, talking to people without a permit, not wearing a burka, or possession of a pocket knife. Since the materials to build and stock your house are delivered using government roads, an “interstate commerce” extension will soon find that your personal property is not exempt and is, in fact, state property as well.
c) To allow for domestic tranquility as a transition, allow the state to continue to curb certain behaviors on public property, and stop all this subversive talk about the old and outdated patriarchal racists Constitution. e.g.:
–Controls over assembly, so protests can be held on any free speech zone far out of public view at times designated by the state.
– Controls over bearing arms, so no sharp or blunt objects. Also no shoe laces; you could strangle someone with those.
– Controls over petitioning the government, so petitioners can be shot on sight.
“I’m still waiting for you, PF, or any other abolitionist to answer the SIMPLEST of questions about how we should view those plots we conventionally refer to as ‘public property.'”
But you have no reason to wait, as that SIMPLEST of questions has been answered many different times, in many different ways, by many different people — including, but not limited to, myself and Paulie.
My view is that “public property” should be treated as a commons in which each member of the relevant “public” owns an undivided interest and is free to do anything that doesn’t violate the rights of others or deprive them of equal use rights.
Because of scarcities, yes, there will need to be rules for some usages — driving on roads, for example (driving drunk on the “wrong” side would seem to violate both of my proposed constraints).
I’m agnostic as to how those rules (and other decisions, such as allowing for parts of the commons to be homesteaded and converted to private property) should be arrived at, but four centuries of experience bias me against both the “state as owner/agent/custodian” model and the rules it has evolved.
tk, thank you, Dr. Freud! Actually, I meant it more like this quote:
“A broad section of the political class now recognises the need for change but remains unable to see the necessity of a fundamental overhaul. Instead it offers fixes and patches.”
I certainly am WIDE OPEN to changing my assumptions, and I do have radical assumptions. It does, however, seem wise and useful to be aware of other people’s assumptions and “conventional wisdom,” which is often hopelessly hosed.
But, if the word “overhaul” connotes something I didn’t intend, please share a word that works better for you.
I’m still waiting for you, PF, or any other abolitionist to answer the SIMPLEST of questions about how we should view those plots we conventionally refer to as “public property.”
Or are the continued deflections indicative of a need for an “overhaul” in your thinking? 😉
“I find the current system deeply dysfunctional and in need of serious overhaul.”
While it’s probably unintentional, the word you chose there is precisely indicative of your problem.
An “overhaul” is car parlance for an engine rebuild. When you’re done, you have a refurbished engine that operates exactly like the old engine did, only with restored efficiency.
The problem with applying it to politics is that an “overhaul” means keeping the same assumptions, i.e. the same structure and parts — “state as owner/agent/custodian” and so forth.
There’s a word for doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
tk: No. I don’t recognize gang turf lines as valid property claims.
me: Yes, that’s why I put quotes around “state property.” I get that you don’t think the road outside your house right now is “state property.” But what is it? Yours when you are on it? Could you build a wall cutting off the road? Would that be a “valid” move on your part?
An owner could do just that.
tk: You’re doing your usual shuck and jive against anything that doesn’t assume the current system in perpetuity.
me: I disappoint myself if I’ve given you that impression. All I can assure you of that that I find the current system deeply dysfunctional and in need of serious overhaul.
” I’m assuming you consider things like virtually all roads and parks to be ‘state property,’ yes?”
No. I don’t recognize gang turf lines as valid property claims.
And no, you are not “looking for … just a sentence or two so [you] can begin to understand the anarchist perspective.” You’re doing your usual shuck and jive against anything that doesn’t assume the current system in perpetuity.
tk: There have been “commonses,” i.e. “public properties,” since long before the state as we know it came into existence
me: Yes, I’ve heard about that. But when I ask: Can you name some “public property” that’s separate and distinct from “state property”? I’m assuming you consider things like virtually all roads and parks to be “state property,” yes?
All I’m trying to understand is if there is any non-state public property NOW. If there isn’t, then references to long ago or theoretical social constructs seem to me irrelevant.
This is a here-and-now exercise. Very simple. Assume a state. Assume states have property, a lot of it. That’s reality.
How should the rules of allocation work on state property between now and Global Anarchism sometime off in the distant future?
Here’s a few options:
a) Abolish all laws and regulations (including what one carries and the side of the road one’s allowed to drive on) pertaining to state property
b) To allow for domestic tranquility as a transition, allow the state to continue to curb certain behaviors on public property.
c) To allow for domestic tranquility as a transition, allow the state to continue to curb certain behaviors on public property, but unless those behaviors involve rights itemized in the Constitution. e.g.:
– No controls over assembly, so protests can be held on any state property at any time.
– No controls over bearing arms, so open carry of machine guns in the subway.
– No controls over petitioning the government, so petitioners can harass anyone in public with no limitations (as long as they are petitioning)
Are any of these close to what you advocate?
I not looking for a full-blown model, just a sentence or two so I can begin to understand the anarchist perspective.
If someone wants to keep playing have at it. I’m done with the tangent.
It’s not getting, it’s gotten, and not old but beyond old. We got to the “heart” of your tangent a long, long time ago and are now just beating the pulped remains of a dead horse. Way past time to move on.
There have been “commonses,” i.e. “public properties,” since long before the state as we know it came into existence. Different communities have come up with different rules for utilization of the commons (sometimes not very well, giving rise to the proverbial “tragedy of the commons”).
I’m not sure whom you think I “need to offer a serviceable model” to, or why, or for what purpose. My only real purpose in commenting was to point out some questionable assumptions. If I want to promulgate a fully-formed theory of the commons, I’ll write a book, not a blog comment.
tk: I just don’t consider “public property” to be the same thing as “state property.”
me: Thanks. Can you name some “public property” that’s separate and distinct from “state property”? I’m assuming you consider things like virtually all roads and parks to be “state property,” yes?
If there IS public property, what are the rules for allocation, if not majority rule?
As for the rest – state property – what SHOULD be the rules for allocation in the meantime? For ex., now, most states ban you from toting an Uzi on their state property. It seems you reject that they do so, but I wonder if you have a serviceable notion what the rules of allocation of state property should be in the meantime?
You might, for ex., feel that it’s none of the state’s fucking business if you choose to drive on the left at 100 mph drunk.
Paulie may agree with you on the Uzi, but NOT the driving, conceivably.
It strikes me you need to offer a serviceable model for how these rules of allocation are arrived at and enforced.
“I get that y’all think there shouldn’t BE public property”
Then you’re “getting” something that’s not the case.
I just don’t consider “public property” to be the same thing as “state property.”
Nor do I consider administration of “public property” to be rightly a matter of flat majority rule (direct or representative) on every possible issue.
Where there are scarcity issues, yes, there have to be rules for allocation.
But there don’t have to be rules barring conduct that neither violates anyone’s rights nor deprives anyone of equal use rights in the commons.
If I want to carry an Uzi on “public property,” I’m neither violating anyone else’s rights nor depriving anyone else of equal use rights. Therefore, it’s none of their fucking business.
tk and pf, great, so then the obvious question is: What IS public property? And who determines how it is used and what behaviors on it are considered appropriate, and what not so?
I get that y’all think there shouldn’t BE public property, and I’m largely with ya on that. But, in the meantime, the “gang” has a lot of land under its control, with no reasonable chance that they will giving it up any time soon.
Sorry it’s getting “old” for you, P, truly I am. But when we start to get to the heart of the matter, you have a tendency to deflect, is my feedback. In my experience, deflecting is done by those who have something to hide, who are unsure of themselves, who are somehow threatened, or who are in denial about something. I can’t know if that’s the case for you or not, and perhaps your experience with deflectors is different.
I’ve done all those things, btw, so it’s nothing personal.
Yep. And the back and forth on this is getting more than old.
“Now, iiuyc, you don’t believe that the owners/stewards/agents of public property have the authority to establish acceptable behavior standards on that property, like the owners of private property do. Correct?”
Probably not correct. It’s more likely that he rejects the notion that the state IS the “owner/steward/agent” of public property.
fixing:
For ex., you have the right to insist that anyone on YOUR property [HAS TO] chain smoke cigarettes WHILE ON YOUR PROPERTY.
PF: Of course. It’s the part about the commons being “like” government property that we disagree about.
me: We are still not on the same page in terms of where we disagree. Near as I can tell, the land is divided up as either “private” (owned by an individual, family or entity, like a corp.) or “public” (owned by a government). (There’s some unclaimed areas, too, but they don’t seem analytically relevant.
For this conversation, I’ll not use the terms “commons,” since its historical use seems to lead away from clarity.
Can we stipulate this so far?
Now, iiuyc, you don’t believe that the owners/stewards/agents of public property have the authority to establish acceptable behavior standards on that property, like the owners of private property do. Correct?
You seem to believe that once a person steps onto public property, the only rule is they can’t injure another (unless it’s done in defense). Driving on the left drunk is OK until you hit another car. Shooting into the air on public property is OK unless someone else is hit with a bullet.
Is that the Frankel Dicta?
pf: Which part do you disagree with – that public nudity was (or maybe still is) legal in SF, or that few people walk around naked in SF?
me: Neither. The number of observations of a behavior has NOTHING to do with whether a behavior can and should be banned that I can tell.
For ex., you have the right to insist that anyone on YOUR property can chain smoke cigarettes. I don’t know of anyone who has ever done this, but as a L and one who believes in property rights as a way of organizing things here on Earth to maintain domestic tranquility, YOU DO HAVE THAT RIGHT.
Don’t you agree?
Yep.
Of course. It’s the part about the commons being “like” government property that we disagree about.
Which part do you disagree with – that public nudity was (or maybe still is) legal in SF, or that few people walk around naked in SF?
True.
Dave Champion: Deconstructing the Fair Tax Nonsense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFSc_GSS84w
Mad As Hell about the Fair Tax of ‘Fraud Tax’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTc0Pcc0ZZg
“Dave Terry March 10, 2014 at 6:23 pm
Andy; ‘Gary Johnson’s advocacy for the Fair Tax alone is enough to say that he was NOT a great candidate, at least not for the Libertarian Party.’
Absolute non-sense! That is precisely what makes him a VIABLE candidate. He clearly is able
to think outside the dogma box! Too many libertarians, much too often quote libertarian principles as though they are religious precepts; that can not only NOT be disputed, but may not be compromised.”
I’m not opposed to incremental steps that reduce the size of government, however, this is not what the Fair Tax plan is. The supporters of the Fair Tax tout the plan as being designed to be revenue neutral, meaning that it is designed to bring in just as much in taxes as the current income tax does. Why would any Libertarian support a plan that does not reduce government, as it just rearranges the way that taxes are collected?
The people who push the so called Fair Tax disingenuously claim that it is “only” a 23% tax, but it is really a 30% tax. This means every time you go purchase a good or service, you’ll pay a 30% tax to the federal government, and this does not even include state sales tax (unless one is one of the lucky few that lives in a state that does not have a state sales tax) and local sales tax. The Fair Tax will also be more difficult to avoid than the income tax is, plus it still burdens businesses with having to collect the Fair Tax and send it to the feds.
Then there are the pre-bate checks which essentially put everyone in the nation on welfare.
The Fair Tax also does nothing to address the more serious problems of ever increasing government spending and Federal Reserve System fiat currency.
I see the Fair Tax as a tool to divert people away from the real issues of ending the income tax AND making big cuts in government spending, along with ending the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency. The Fair Tax is being pushed by phony “libertarians” and phony “fiscal conservatives,” and unfortunately, some naive but well meaning libertarians and fiscal conservatives are also being sucked in by it.
Sure, the idea of not having to fill out income tax forms is appealing, but you are not really gaining any freedom when you have to pay a 30% federal tax every time you buy something.
Libertarians ought to reject the Fair Tax, and it really is disgraceful that the Libertarian Party has not passed a resolution rejecting the Fair Tax.
Could a resolution rejecting the Fair Tax be passed at the LP National Convention in Columbus, Ohio this year? Would it even make it to a vote, or would some douchebag get up and block it from going to a vote with some procedural bullshit?
The Libertarian Party is SUPPOSED to be the most anti-tax party that there is. If one is going to propose an incremental step toward reducing government, at least propose something that actually IS an incremental step toward reducing government, unlike the Fair Tax.
“3. The is NO contact OR communication between this ‘some kind of internal revenue department ‘and individual citizens.”
Tell me that after the “Fair” Tax version of the IRS investigates you for tax evasion because it thinks you moved “new” merchandise across state lines and sold it as “used” to avoid the tax.
Right now, the IRS has 93,000 employees. My guess is that after the universal monthly welfare entitlement for every man, woman and child in the US that is part of the “Fair” Tax is implemented, that will increase substantially (the Social Security Administration “only” employees 62,000 people, but it doesn’t handle nearly as many clients as the “Fair” IRS will).
“some kind of”internal revenue department” is in NO WAY, comparable to The Federal Department of Internal Revenue!!!
1. There is NO withholding of taxes.
2. There is NO annual “Income Tax Report Form”
3. The is NO contact OR communication between this “some kind of internal revenue department and individual citizens.
4. Those 50 “new” tax agencies already exist in every state that has a sales tax.
5. Do you seriously contend that all 50 state tax agencies are remotely as powerful as the Federal Apparatus?
6. The new fragmented tax agencies are several magnitudes better than what we have now!!
pf: Weapons are useful as a deterrent, which means they can be used without employing their mechanisms.
me: Not “are,” but they certainly CAN BE.
pf: Laws against possession of weapons in various contexts prevent people from taking advantage of these deterrent uses.
me: Agreed. However, as you’ve NEVER denied iirc, some people and corporations CHOOSE TO ban some weapons from their property. Do you respect their right to do so, or not?
pf: Wouldn’t be a problem if roads were privately owned,
me: stipulated, by and large. At least property rights clarifies things.
pf: Not everything has to be a government law,
me: Stipulated, in spades.
pf: and as I pointed out in regards to public nudity being legal in SF just because something is legal doesn’t mean a lot of people will exercise that right.
me: I guess we just disagree here. There’s no “right” to be nude or engage in other behaviors on OTHER PEOPLE’S PROPERTY. This is, near as I can tell, entirely a Paulie invention.
pf: You always love to focus on the reductio ad absurdum horror scenarios of what people would allegedy do if there weren’t monopoly government edicts to prevent it, with little or no evidence that it would happen.
me: Yes, well absolutes beg to be torn down! Come up with one exception, and the absolute crumbles…generally speaking!
pf: Meanwhile we have the problems of governments routinely exceeding reductio ad absurdum scenarios in real life by overregulating everything. I am tired of discussing theoretical end states to death. Let’s focus on rolling back government and let how far we end up rolling it back work itself out.
me: Seconded. Unfortunately, the LM has historically (unfortunately) been undergirded with a strong, vocal, and I dare say deeply confused NAPsolutism that does not stand up to scrutiny, particularly by the reasonable man standards to undergird civilization.
pf: You always love to focus on the reductio ad absurdum horror scenarios of what people would allegedy do if there weren’t monopoly government edicts to prevent it, with little or no evidence that it would happen.
me: It’s just to easy, ain’t it? 😉 I have a HECKUVA lot more evidence than you do of functioning, sustainable, nonarchic (meaning NO government in a territory, especially densely populated ones) arrangements.
pf: Meanwhile we have the problems of governments routinely exceeding reductio ad absurdum scenarios in real life by overregulating everything. I am tired of discussing theoretical end states to death. Let’s focus on rolling back government and let how far we end up rolling it back work itself out.
me: Stipulated. Maybe we can convince our comrades to drop loopy, unworkable abolitionist constructs that serve to undermine the cause of lessarchism…or at least partition that thought system off for science fiction books. Drop the wacko language like CotOS, “governments, when instituted” and other counter-productive, self-marginalizing fantasies, replacing them with strategic thinking about how to roll back the semi-nipotent state!
“Does ANYONE doubt that abolishing the Internal Revenue Department would be an exciting and liberating development?”
Absolutely.
But the “Fair” Tax doesn’t do that.
Rather, it keeps some kind of existing “internal revenue department” (to administer the universal welfare program falsely called an “advance rebate,” and to investigate interstate tax avoidance) and creates 50 new ones.
It’s difficult to come up with a worse system than the existing income tax, but the “Fair” Taxers managed it.
Andy; ” “Gary Johnson’s advocacy for the Fair Tax alone is enough to say that he was NOT a great candidate, at least not for the Libertarian Party.
Absolute non-sense! That is precisely what makes him a VIABLE candidate. He clearly is able
to think outside the dogma box! Too many libertarians, much too often quote libertarian principles as though they are religious precepts; that can not only NOT be disputed, but may not be compromised.
It is as if a person suggested that a slave could not be worked more than 12 hours a day and be allowed 1 day of rest per week; with the resultant condemnation of anti-slavery proponents that “nothing short of absolute abolition of slavery is acceptable”.
The FACT is we have an extremely onerous and destructive tax system that harms EVERYONE.
Does ANYONE doubt that abolishing the Internal Revenue Department would be an exciting and liberating development? Not to mention the elimination of income taxes and payroll deductions.
OK, it isn’t eliminating cancer, obesity and all of the contagious diseases know to man, BUT IT
IS MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT WE “enjoy” TODAY. RIGHT!
I DON’T have a magic carpet OR a perpetual motion machine. NEITHER do I have a proposal
to end all taxation – INSTANTLY.
The longest journey starts with a single step and than a few more steps.
Meanwhile some libertarians are still screaming; “Scottie beam me up”
AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TK: “to use your favorite version, I can stroll up and down the subway platform strapped with an Uzi all day long without violating anyone’s rights — and that fact constrains the other people on the subway platform from demanding that I ditch the Uzi.
HALF-RIGHT! You would certainly NOT be violating anyone’s rights, BUT I guarantee you that within 10 minutes there will be a platoon of well armed “guardians of the public order” available to demand that you “ditch the Uzi”
I don’t call it a fair tax, and I agree with you about that tax being no good. In fact for a variety of additional reasons I pointed out in the past I believe we would definitely be worse off. As for Ron Paul’s position on it, he said he would vote for the same tax if it came up for a vote and he has never proposed a specific list of cuts that would allow the income tax to be eliminated and replaced with nothing. This is all old subjects we have rehashed many times, so why even bring it up again?
“Ron Paul, on the other hand, clearly and totally rejects this narrative, and that alone is enough to make him a much more desirable candidate from a libertarian perspective, at least in my opinion.”
The same thing goes with Gary Johnson’s devotion to the Fair Tax. Ron Paul’s platform stance has always been to end the income tax and replace it with nothing. Gary Johnson want to end the income tax, and replace it with the Fair Tax.
Taxes are what funds all of the government insanity. Take away the income tax and replace it with nothing and you’ll have a much more free society. Take away the income tax and replace it with the Fair Tax and you won’t really be any better off than you are right now, and you may end up being worse off, especially if the politicians pass the Fair Tax and do not end up getting rid of the income tax.
But we can’t agree on what those are.
You have a right to your opinion and I have the right to not share it.
That sounds nothing at all like the Gary Johnson I have talked to personally, observed closely as a reporter/interested observer throughout his campaign, etc. You can twist various statements from old websites etc out of context and out of recognition to arrive at such conclusions. If you take a simiarly one sided and presumptive approach you can claim that Ron Paul is a racist, neo-confederate, theocrat, migrant basher, congressional pork king and so on.
As I said we have had this conversation before and I don’t feel like having it again. Johnson and Paul are about equally libertarian from what I consider a balanced examination of their overall record, and Johnson has the advantage of potential future runs and a continual learning process. If that doesn’t work for you, Ron Paul said Gary Johnson is wonderful and from what mutual acquaintances have told me voted for Johnson as well. I have campaigned for both of them, so I see them both as a big net plus for liberty, regardless of whatever imperfections.
I guess it’s fitting that a “debate distraction” has turned into a distracting debate.
A machine gun and an amount of ammo that an individual can carry could kill at most a few hundred people. I’m not aware of any incidents of illegal use of machine guns where even a hundred people have been killed. A fire could potentially burn down an entire city and kill a lot more people than a machine gun.
Weapons ar useful as a deterrent, which means they can be used without employing their mechanisms. That is, there may be a value in simply having them and letting other people know you have them (or allow them to guess that you plausibly may). Laws against possession of weapons in various contexts prevent people from taking advantage of these deterrent uses.
Wouldn’t be a problem if roads were privately owned, but there’s also consequences such as death, injury, social sanction, prison (for killing or maiming someone else) and insurance rate hikes, among others, to deal with that as well. Not everything has to be a government law, and as I pointed out in regards to public nudity being legal in SF just because something is legal doesn’t mean a lot of people will exercise that right.
You always love to focus on the reductio ad absurdum horror scenarios of what people would allegedy do if there weren’t monopoly government edicts to prevent it, with little or no evidence that it would happen. Meanwhile we have the problems of governments routinely exceeding reductio ad absurdum scenarios in real life by overregulating everything. I am tired of discussing theoretical end states to death. Let’s focus on rolling back government and let how far we end up rolling it back work itself out.
I was thinking of some other quotes further up, but I don’t feel like hunting them down.
I think the real point is this:
You always love to focus on the reductio ad absurdum horror scenarios of what people would allegedy do if there weren’t monopoly government edicts to prevent it, with little or no evidence that it would happen. Meanwhile we have the problems of governments routinely exceeding reductio ad absurdum scenarios in real life by overregulating everything. I am tired of discussing theoretical end states to death. Let’s focus on rolling back government and let how far we end up rolling it back work itself out.
I’d say both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson deviate from purist libertarianism about equally (cue debate which I have had before and don’t really feel like going over yet again) albeit in different ways. Johnson seems more open minded and willing to learn to me. I’ve even opened his mind on at least one issue personally.
I agree that it’s pointless to debate whether Paul or Johnson would score higher on some libertarian purity test, where all issues were weighted equally, because that’s not the way the real world works. In reality, I think we can all agree that some issues are more important than others, and on the vast majority of those issues, I think Ron Paul comes out ahead.
Specifically, Gary Johnson (at least to some extent) seems to buy into the “War on Terror” narrative, by which I mean the myth that there are large hordes of Evil Islamic Terrorists, who are hell-bent on destroying us because “they hate us for our freedom” (and not for our meddling foreign policy), and that this threat justifies the maintenance of an interventionist foreign policy, as well as the erection of a domestic police state. Ron Paul, on the other hand, clearly and totally rejects this narrative, and that alone is enough to make him a much more desirable candidate from a libertarian perspective, at least in my opinion. Of course, he’s no longer seeking elective office, so the whole argument is really academic at this point.
pf: I thought you were discussing machine guns.
me: Oh, no, sorry. The greater point here that I thought was obvious, but let me make it plain. There is a range of weapons. The reasonable person would see that they are on the fists-nukes in terms of their lethality and able to do damage. I’ve made the point all along that some localities allow for more lethal weapons to be carried on public property.
Obviously, deterrence is a reason some may possess a weapon. When I say “use,” I mean a weapon’s mechanisms are employed. (I’da thunk that’d be clear.)
pf: Yes, and I don’t see that as justified carte blanche.
me: I feel your pain, I really do. On some levels, it REALLY SUCKS that there are prohibitions against driving in the wrong direction on a highway at 100 mph drunk. From the most rigid of NAPsolutist perspective, “as long as you hurt no one else,” Paulie’s Rules of the Road hold dominion.
(btw, just because some knucklehead does occasionally violate these rules of the road doesn’t mean that these rules are not valuable. They promote domestic tranquility, yes?)
pf: Scroll up. [quoting me: I just see the obvious difference between private and public property] Cool. So we agree that governments are not legitimate property owner (or “like” property owners, whatever that means) of all public places.
me: Huh? That, Superman, is QUITE the leap! 😉 No, what I – and the reasonable person – mean by this is that on your property, you are King Paulie. You can do whatever you like, so long as you hurt no one else. (Ideally, of course. The State tends to cramp our style at alarming levels.) Once you exit Castle Frankel, however, you must abide by other property owner’s rules.
If I’m understanding your theory, you seem to be saying: since public property is illegitimate, then when I am on public property, I can behave as I would on MY property.
In the past, you’ve indicated that you were once a nihilist. If public property is the individual’s when s/he is on it, how is that not nihilism? It would have to include driving in the wrong direction on a highway at 100 mph drunk as perfectly acceptable, appropriate behavior, yes?
I thought you were discussing machine guns. Now it’s nukes. Either way, both are usually used as a deterrent usually without being fired/deployed, occassionally for target practice (machine guns) or test explosions (nukes), etc. You are incorrect that the use of either one usually involves killing people.
Yes, and I don’t see that as justified carte blanche.
Scroll up.
Cool. So we agree that governments are not legitimate property owner (or “like” property owners, whatever that means) of all public places.
pf: [matches and lighters] are potential weapons of mass destruction. The same logic you use to justify banning some guns.
me: Hmm, let’s see. I’d venture to say that matches are used in non-destructive ways 99.999% of the times they are used. Occasionally, they make destructive fires. Nukes, when used, always are destructive. Do you not see the difference?
pf: Who would make the determination whether they do or don’t and how [public parks have rules similar to private parks]?
me: You ask for speculation as if the determination is not made now, and that you are unaware of how it’s made now. Legislatures and locality parks departments, by and large. Aren’t you paying attention Paulie? 😉
pf: You already agreed that in many cases government are not acting as the agent of the popular will.
me: True. Corporate bureaucrats also sometimes don’t act in the shareholders’s interests, either.
pf: You already agreed that many things which can or can’t be allowed in public property should not be up to the majority to decide.
me: Not sure I said that. Personally, I’d prefer to see maximum liberty on public property, and in society in general. I just see the obvious difference between private and public property, and I defer to the property owner’s preferences as a general rule.
Why not? They are potential weapons of mass destruction. The same logic you use to justify banning some guns.
The context you ommitted was actually the point.
Who would make the determination whether they do or don’t and how?
You already agreed that in many cases government are not acting as the agent of the popular will.
You already agreed that many things which can or can’t be allowed in public property should not be up to the majority to decide.
And that certain things that are OK for private property are not OK for government.
Dunno what more there is to argue about there.
pf: Like matches and lighters? They could start a fire, you know.
me: To my knowledge, no private park bans matches or lighters.
pf: Public nudity is really not an issue BTW. On a visit to SF, CA last year several of us went to a protest to support *keeping* public nudity legal.
me: Sounds like you contradict yourself in the space of 2 sentences. First, you say it’s “not an issue,” then you say it is!
Let’s start over. Private parks often ban nudity and guns. They do this for presumably sound business reasons. It’s only when the park is public that we seem to disagree. I view the public park as owned by the public, and so I’m not surprised that many/most of the public want the same sort of standards for their parks, ones that are similar to those employed by private businesses that run private parks.
Now, of course, depending of the locality, some publics may be OK with nudity in their parks; others may be OK with toting, although sometimes with some restrictions. This, it seems to me, seems well within a property-rights construct.
We would agree that sometimes the public’s wishes are not solicitied or followed by the regime. And sometimes an individual – like, say, Andy – feels s/he should be able to tote whatever he or she wants, perhaps because s/he doesn’t accept the notion of any public property. I feel that, in some ways, but to challenge the public’s property rights in this manner seems futile at best, counter-productive most likely. “I can do whatever I want anywhere I want to” careens to infantile places, quite frankly.
pf: The greatest sanction against it, by far, is social, not legal.
me: Largely stipulated. Laws of this nature, however, often signal the social will.
I don’t think it is unlikely. Not that I know who they may be; it could be a surprise.
I am sure some will try, but I don’t think they will succeed.
Probably true. I see a real chance that could happen, as well.
I see it as plausible. But unless he has a breakout Senate campaign and/or Johnson does not run I agree it’s unlikely. I probably believe either or both of those are more likely than you do.
I had the same thought. He also seemed to be wrestling with contradicting impulses, thinking out loud and cotradicting himself somewhat. I’ve personally heard him address the issue at other times and all he said was that he did not think it should be a high priority; he did not indicate at those times that he actually favored the NSA spying.
Me too. But I like(d) Johnson overall better than Badnarik or Barr, for different reasons.
I like Badnarik better in retrospect as well. However, the “garage sale” qualities were quite apparent.
I’d say both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson deviate from purist libertarianism about equally (cue debate which I have had before and don’t really feel like going over yet again) albeit in different ways. Johnson seems more open minded and willing to learn to me. I’ve even opened his mind on at least one issue personally.
I think he is more likely to run for president than some of the big names people keep touting, especially if he does really well for US Senate and/or Johnson does not run again. Both of which seem entirely plausibe to me.
Like matches and lighters? They could start a fire, you know.
Public nudity is really not an issue BTW. On a visit to SF, CA last year several of us went to a protest to support *keeping* public nudity legal. I’ve been to SF many other times, even lived there briefly (hence 415 phone number) and never saw any people walking around naked in public. The greatest sanction against it, by far, is social, not legal. I did see a small handful of people walk around naked in public on the streets of various cities over the years and I don’t think they cared very much whether it was legal.
BTW, I know the thread is called the debate distraction, but this is a whole tangent of debate distraction away from the debate on the debate distraction. Say that three times fast, I dare you.
clc: public property is owned by the public.
me: My point exactly. This public nudity angle seems to’ve fried and stunned the deontological absolutist mindset. Unlike toting hyper-lethal weapons with poor aiming capabilities in public, this matter of generally recognized public decency should not have the “charge” for some elements in the LM. Walking naked in a public park surely is not “aggression,” and yet it’s obviously inappropriate behavior in this culture. Most support public decency laws, I venture to say.
Is the “correct position” that laws against public nudity are illegitimate?
(Personally, I think the culture is far too prudish for its own good. Why should a bare arm be socially acceptable but not a bare female breast? It seems kinda childish, but I accept this social norm for the time being.)
“langa March 9, 2014 at 1:50 am
If it’s a choice between Johnson and Sarvis,”
I doubt that Sarvis will run for President.
“I miss the old days, when the Libertarian Party nominated real, hardcore libertarians, like Harry Browne,”
Yep, me too. It was Harry Browne’s campaign back in 1996 that got me into the Libertarian Party and movement. I’d certainly have been disappointed back then if somebody had told me that Libertarian Party candidates for President were going to go down hill after Harry Browne, and particularly in 2008 and 2012. One of the things that I really liked about Harry Browne is that he made it a big campaign talking point about he wanted to end the income tax and replace it with nothing, and that there’d be no need for an income tax if the government simply followed the Constitution. Contrast this with Gary Johnson who wants to end the income tax…….AND REPLACE IT WITH THE FAIR TAX! So Johnson wants to end paycheck extortion and replace it with point of sale extortion. The Fair Tax is designed to be revenue neutral, which means it is not even really an incremental step toward reducing government, and it is disingenuously pushed as being a 23% tax when it is really a 30% tax. Why in the HELL would any Libertarian get excited about replacing paycheck extortion with 30% point of sale extortion? Also, remember how Harry Browne TURNED down welfare for politicians?
“or even Michael Badnarik, who I wasn’t crazy about at the time, but looks a lot better in hindsight, given the candidates that have followed him.”
Yeah, Michael Badnarik came off as a little more “garage sale,” but for a guy on a “garage sale” budget I thought that he put out a pretty good campaign, as in he worked hard and did a lot on a low budget. Some people thought that he talked too much about the Constitution and not enough on philosophy, and I think that there is some truth to this, but I think that he was more libertarian than Bob Barr (who was not really libertarian at all) and more libertarian than Gary Johnson as well. If the “shit hits the fan” in this country, Michael Badnarik is a guy that I’d want by my side more than Gary Johnson.
“Heck, even Ron Paul, for all the bitching some people do about his lack of ideological purity, is a heck of a lot more libertarian than either of the LP’s last two presidential candidates. I mean, whatever his flaws, can you really imagine Ron Paul enthusiastically stumping for the Fair Tax, or wanting to keep the torture camps open, or advocating the idea of ‘humanitarian’ war?”
I totally agree. Ron Paul is more libertarian than Gary Johnson and Bob Barr (who is really not even a libertarian at all). It is rather disgraceful that the Libertarian Party ran an un-libertarian candidate in Bob Barr, and a Libertarian Lite candidate in Gary Johnson, while Ron Paul ran a more radically libertarian campaigns in the Republican primaries.
I sure do hope that a better Libertarian Party candidate for President comes around before the 2016 LP National Convention. The election season is more fun when you feel like you’ve got somebody you can enthusiastically get behind.
If it’s a choice between Johnson and Sarvis, I guess I would prefer Johnson, although I’m not crazy about either of them. I miss the old days, when the Libertarian Party nominated real, hardcore libertarians, like Harry Browne, or even Michael Badnarik, who I wasn’t crazy about at the time, but looks a lot better in hindsight, given the candidates that have followed him.
Heck, even Ron Paul, for all the bitching some people do about his lack of ideological purity, is a heck of a lot more libertarian than either of the LP’s last two presidential candidates. I mean, whatever his flaws, can you really imagine Ron Paul enthusiastically stumping for the Fair Tax, or wanting to keep the torture camps open, or advocating the idea of “humanitarian” war?
Thanks for the video, Andy.
Stossel sometimes tries to play Devil’s Advocate, and I wonder if that’s what he’s doing here. I certainly hope so, because he really sounds nothing like a libertarian. He actually sounds shocked at the idea that government can’t be trusted to wield power responsibly. I thought recognition of that basic fact was part of Libertarianism 101.
Napolitano, of course, hits the nail right on the head, as usual.
Judge Napolitano vs. John Stossel on NSA Spying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8G-olav3D4
PF – Yes, many things COULD happen. I’m not guaranteeing that no other serious candidates will emerge. But, I think its unlikely that any big names step forward to run for POTUS on our line. And, like you seem to infer, it seems unlikely that any lesser known, but otherwise legit candidate will challenge GJ for the nomination.
“Matt Cholko March 8, 2014 at 11:56 pm
Like Andy, I think Sarvis would put off fewer people than GJ. However, I doubt that he would be GJ for the nomination, if both were in the contest. ”
I think that Sarvis would have to do really well in the US Senate to have a real chance at getting the Presidential nomination. I doubt that he’s interested in running for President, so it would likely be a moot point.
Wait and see.
In the same sense as before, yes.
I wouldn’t expect Sarvis to run if Johnson runs, but he may be a good choice if Johnson does not. At least the best that springs to mind immediately and is not a pipe dream.
Not necessarily true. Another name candidate may emerge later, for example.
Like Andy, I think Sarvis would put off fewer people than GJ. However, I doubt that he would be GJ for the nomination, if both were in the contest.
If GJ seeks the nomination in 2016, I doubt any other serious candidates will emerge.
Is Masturbating Milnes still a candidate for president?
“paulie March 8, 2014 at 11:36 pm
‘Sarvis 2016?’
May be great, but many of the same people who can’t stand Johnson would complain for many of the same reasons.”
Which reasons are you talking about? Did Sarvis run up a huge campaign debt which he has not paid off? Does Sarvis support the Fair Tax plan?
May be great, but many of the same people who can’t stand Johnson would complain for many of the same reasons.
Didn’t see that. Got a cite? Video or his own article would be best if possible.
On the other hand, if he could get on FNC, that could be of significant value to the liberty movement.
I think Stossel was a lot more valuable when he was on 20/20. With his Fox Biz Network show, he’s largely preaching to the choir. And no, I don’t mean to imply that FBN is a libertarian network. I mean that relatively few people watch it unless they’re tuning in for a specific show.
Paul said: “In support? As far as I know all he has said is that it is not a priority issue for him, not that he supports it.”
He did say that he supports NSA spying, because he believes that it helps the government catch the “terrorists” and other “bad guys” who are out to get us. He later back tracked a little bit after he caught flak for it from a lot of people in the libertarian community, by claiming that he does not consider stopping NSA spying to be a high priority issue.
I totally disagree with him about NSA spying. I think that it is actually one of the most important issues, because it is a very big tool that is being used to transform this country into a domestic police state. If the government can spy on all of your phone calls and emails (and they can even listen to you through your phone when you are not on a phone call), then it means that nobody has any privacy and the 4th amendment is basically dead. I favor abolishing the NSA, and there ought to be lengthy prison sentences levied against all those who took part in the domestic spy program. Edward Snowden ought to be invited back to the USA and given a medal.
The NSA spy program is one of the biggest issues facing us today, and I think that the majority of the public is against it, which means that they are on our side on the issue.
John Stossel does some good things, but I’ve long suspected that he was a libertarian lite, and his stance on NSA spying makes me not want to support him for office.
Sarvis 2016?
Thank you Paulie. His statement on public nudity reminded me of “Masturbating Milnes”
LOL, no. I’ve met Capozzi and saw video of Milnes.
God bless you Robert Cappozi (aka Milnes?), but public property is owned by the public.
pf: Is there anything that majorities don’t get to decide once you step outside your property in your world?
me: Most things would be my preference.
pf: Is that a question? Do you think someone else should mandate that people be decently dressed at all times inside private homes? Maybe put up cameras to make sure?
me: Hmm, not sure how you arrived there, but no. From a NAPsolutist perspective, one could easily construct the Rothbardian syllogism:
Nakedness is not aggression.
No one owns public property.
Therefore, public nudity should not be infringed in any way.
Perhaps this could be added to the SoP, inserted after the cult of the omnipotent state sentence! 😉
pf: What’s a far (fair?) amount[the government does act more as “agent” than “victimizer.”]? 47%? 32%?
me: Wish a precise answer was possible, but I know of no methodology that’d give you one. My guess is that maybe 25% of what government does has super-majority support.
pf: I assume you mean victimizer. [me: yes] So ……is there anything you would allow private but not public entities to do? How about sponsor religious services…..any difference?
me: It’s not what I would or would not allow. Were it up to me, the parks’d be private, possibly the roads, too. But it’s not up to me! I think it’s a bad idea for government to engage in religious services, too. It already does, to some extent, with paid chaplains and so forth. In God We Trust on the money, etc.
I don’t engage in dreaming up the “ideal” world and then measure the current one with rigid precision against it. Rather, I acknowledge what is, and suggest changes to make it more peaceful, changes that would take time. Changes that require buy-in from those invested in the status quo, rather than shock them.
LOL, OK
Paulie, I said functional candidate not qualified candidate.
You’ll be over 35?
I don’t think Warren would beat Gary if they both run. I doubt Warren would run, but I would do what I can to help both of them be the best they can be if they do. I’d have no problem supporting either in the general election.
I highly doubt any of them are.
If you find anyone let us know. I’ll believe it when I see it. And you don’t really know their negatives yet.
In support? As far as I know all he has said is that it is not a priority issue for him, not that he supports it.
Maybe. Like I said I did not do the survey. I still hear a lot of racist comments from people. Most straights may have a problem with gays holding hands or kissing. Again haven’t done the survey. Is there anything that majorities don’t get to decide once you step outside your property in your world?
Is that a question? Do you think someone else should mandate that people be decently dressed at all times inside private homes? Maybe put up cameras to make sure?
What’s a far (fair?) amount? 47%? 32%?
I assume you mean victimizer. So ……is there anything you would allow private but not public entities to do? How about sponsor religious services…..any difference?
I won’t be a candidate, but I would be a functional candidate if I were to run. Libertarian delegates are free to write my name in though.
Maybe in 2024.
God bless you Jake Porter and thank you for running. However I don’t know your credentials.
I am the best functional candidate for 2016.
*the best choice for the Libertarian Party
God bless you Andy. Jim Burns was thse best choice in 2016. But since he’s dead, Warren Redlich is probably the best functional candidate.
“paulie March 8, 2014 at 1:38 pm
‘I don’t agree with this at all.’
That’s OK. We don’t have to agree. I gave my reasons. And yes, I do have all the same objections as other people but on balance I believe he was a big plus and would be again if he chooses to run LP.”
If anyone goes back and reads my posts on this thread about the Gary Johnson for President campaign, I think they’ll see that I gave his campaign a pretty fair assessment, as in I pointed out the good and the bad with the campaign. So it is not like I’m all negative. I’d just prefer to see somebody better next time.
Who would be a better candidate to run for the LP Presidential nomination next time? Andrew Napolitano? Glenn Jacobs? Chris Rufer? Those are all names I’d be interested in seeing run, but I don’t know that any of them are interested in doing it. There’s got to be somebody out there who could do it, and I don’t mean running a half ass garage sale version of a campaign (even by minor party standards), and I don’t mean by running as a Libertarian Lite. Whether anyone like this will step up, I don’t know. I sure hope that somebody like this does step up to the challenge.
And just in case anyone brings him up as a dream candidate, I do NOT want to see John Stossel run, because Stossel has come out in support of NSA domestic spying, and not only is he on the wrong side of this important issue philosophically, I think that popular opinion is against him as well (as in among the public, I think that more people are opposed to it than support it).
pf: How do you know? Maybe most whites don’t want blacks in their park and vice versa, for example. I don’t know since I haven’t done a survey. But I don’t think it should matter even if they don’t.
me: My sense is we’re almost entirely past that sort of segregationism. OTOH, we’re not near past the prevalent desire to not have public nudity. Being nude (in the US) is restricted to private nudist colonies and beaches. The nude person doesn’t assault the robed, yet my sense is prevalent sense is that being nude in public is generally considered inappropriate. It’s generally illegal and/or regulated.
If I’m following your logic, such super-majoritarianism is – what?- evil, yes?
Yet, OTOH, if a person’s house guests unilaterally disrobed in their presence, you would be OK with the owner throwing the guests out, yes? That’d be Rothbard 101, after all.
Point is, I don’t believe the “regime” has anything to do with imposing rules against public nudity on us. For the most part, we want it. A far amount of the time, the government does act more as “agent” than “victimizer.”
Re my point earlier, think of it this way. Private parks have regulations. Public parks do, too. Often, the regulations are similar. This tells me that, generally, the state is acting more as agent, not victimer.
a: So, depending on what type of business you are talking about, in a lot of situations I would say that they are shutting down free speech.
me: We may well have a different interpretation of free speech. Does yours mean you can say anything anywhere at any time?
That’s not mine. If it’s not yours, then maybe let’s start there: Define free speech, please.
Time for a new prescription? 🙂
How do you know? Maybe most whites don’t want blacks in their park and vice versa, for example. I don’t know since I haven’t done a survey. But I don’t think it should matter even if they don’t.
You mean public parks?
All true as well.
On the other hand they may have gotten more people to look at alternatives beyond just Obama and Romney. It would have cut both ways.
Yep. They get loads of corporate welfare too, directly and indirectly.
That’s OK. We don’t have to agree. I gave my reasons. And yes, I do have all the same objections as other people but on balance I believe he was a big plus and would be again if he chooses to run LP.
A couple of interesting points about Wal-Mart:
1) Wal-Mart donated to the Top Two Primary campaign in Arizona. Yes, that’s right, Wal-Mart was one of the financial backers of the Top Two Primary campaign that if it would have passed, it would have made it more difficult for minor party and independent candidates to be on the ballot in Arizona, and it would have basically removed minor party and independent candidates from Arizona ballot in the general elections. This shows you what the people behind Wal-Mart think about having fair elections in this country.
2) Wal-Mart sends lobbyist to Washington DC, and also to every state capital, and to many county and city governments, to lobby for more government hand outs to Wal-Mart.
Paul said: “I don’t think AE would have lowered his vote total or percentage. Ed Clark ran when Anderson was running, for example.”
If Americans Elect had not dropped out of the race, and if they had been able to recruit a high profile candidate who could spend a lot of money, then yes, it could have lowered Gary Johnson’s percent of the vote, for one reason because the Americans Elect candidate may have been able to get more people to come out to the polls to vote for them who were people who did not end up voting in the 2012 election.
“When the business does not allow petitioning, is that in your mind a ‘shut down’ of ‘free speech’? I’d say it isn’t.”
It depends on the business in question. I do not consider big corporate stores or shopping centers to be legitimate private property because they all take tax payer funding in one way or another, plus many of these stores are built on land that was seized and given to them from eminent domain, which as you probably know, was intended to be for public use. Furthermore, when you peal back the layers of corporate ownership of these stores, you’ll find that many of their stock shares are actually owned by various government entities (see government Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports – aka: CAFR’s – for more details/ http://www.CAFR1.com ), so in reality, these stores are actually public-private partnerships, and not true private venues.
Furthermore, these stores open themselves up to being open to the public, as in they are public venues, and there are multiple court rulings that say that when a property opens itself to the public that they can not deny rights which are enumerated in the Constitution.
So, depending on what type of business you are talking about, in a lot of situations I would say that they are shutting down free speech.
a: I asking somebody to sign a petition considered to be “harassment” or “dangerous behavior”? Some would say that it is, and they use it as an excuse to shut down free speech, and to prevent candidates or issues from getting enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
me: No, it’s certainly not dangerous. It might in some contexts be viewed as harassing. Some businesses – as you well know – don’t allow petitioning on their property. Some collectively owned parks and roads don’t, either, and some have iirc some regulations for such behavior.
When the business does not allow petitioning, is that in your mind a “shut down” of “free speech”? I’d say it isn’t.
I personally don’t have a position regarding all public roads and parks allowing, regulating or disallowing petitioning on the collective’s property. But it doesn’t seem unreasonable that hikers in Yosemite, say, could be in a petition-free zone.
I’d be inclined to say that public streets should be available for petitioning, but maybe not at night, for ex., as pedestrians tend to more anxious about their safety at night.
I wish I could give you a simple answer, but your question doesn’t lend itself to one.
“I asking”
Should read, “Is asking…”
Robert Capozzi March 8, 2014 at 11:48 am said: “that most would want to be able to enjoy the park, free of harassment and dangerous behavior,”
I asking somebody to sign a petition considered to be “harassment” or “dangerous behavior”? Some would say that it is, and they use it as an excuse to shut down free speech, and to prevent candidates or issues from getting enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
pf: It’s not “like” a private golf course; either something is private or not, and the regime treating public commons as the regime’s private property, while it does happen, is in no way justified.
me: This either/or thinking might work for you, but then I suggest you’re going to have a tough time winning over those who don’t share your worldview. What we call “public property” involves a LOT of territory, including roads and parks.
If you don’t see the case that these things are owned collectively, then you don’t, and that’s cool. Most do. Most see the need for some form of stewardship of these things, at least until they can be privatized.
Until they are, I don’t see a big functional difference between a public park and a private golf course. Collectively, though, most want to see the public park open to all, but with SOME steward regulating behavior there. It seems quite reasonable, for ex., that most would want to be able to enjoy the park, free of harassment and dangerous behavior, just as private parks do.
If the stewards do a poor job, and privatization is not a viable option at this time, then the owners can (and do) organize to urge better stewardship, or to change the steward.
Is that ideal? No.
Short of the ideal, though, it seems like a bad idea to say, “If it ain’t private, anything goes (as long as no one is hurt).” If that were not the case, then private parks would have no regulations, yes?
Yep. As well as any other petition.
paulie March 8, 2014 at 11:11 am said: “Yep.
But I guess according to the Capozzi theory government is “like” a private property owner and we should have to apply for a permit to petition at a specific time and location on any government property.”
If this were the case 100% of the time most Libertarian Party ballot drives would fail.
How would we determine that? Vote them out of office if they don’t? Nice theory, but we can see how well that works.
Yep.
But I guess according to the Capozzi theory government is “like” a private property owner and we should have to apply for a permit to petition at a specific time and location on any government property.
Valid point.
No, the government is not the people’s agent, and no, it should not have any authority to restrict rights recognized by the first, second, fourth or eighth amendments of the US constitution on the commons. It’s not “like” a private golf course; either something is private or not, and the regime treating public commons as the regime’s private property, while it does happen, is in no way justified.
Not to mention, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.
LOL
Also correct. It cuts both ways.
Correct.
Yep.
Agreed about 3rd place. I don’t think AE would have lowered his vote total or percentage. Ed Clark ran when Anderson was running, for example. To some extent alt candidates may split the protest vote, but to another extent they expand the “other” pie and may actually help each other. For the most part campaigns rise and fall on their own merits regardless of who the competition is (or isn’t).
Agreed.
Yep.
Paul said: “Maybe that’s why he had the best numerical vote total ever of any LP presidential candidate and the second best percentage behind Ed Clark (without nearly as much money to campaign on, especially relative to the leading contenders).”
I already pointed this out above, but part of it had to do with the fact that in 2012 there were no other minor party or independent candidates in the race who were as higher or higher profile than he was, so it was pretty much guaranteed that he’d come in 3rd place.
If say Americans Elect had not dropped out of the race, and they had been able to recruit a higher profile candidate who was able to spend a lot more money than the Gary Johnson campaign spent, then Gary Johnson probably would not have gotten as many votes, and would certainly have received a lower percent of the vote as well.
I think that another factor that helped Gary Johnson was the Ron Paul factor. Ron Paul has made the word libertarian a lot more popular than it was prior to 2007, and he did give Gary Johnson a defacto endorsement by saying that he thought Gary Johnson was “wonderful” and making other positive comments about him. Take away votes that Gary Johnson received from people who were “woken up” by Ron Paul’s campaigns in 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 and I’d bet that Gary Johnson’s vote total would drop.
I felt the same about Barr.
I was an active volunteer for Johnson – especially the last couple of weeks right before the election – and did not really actively support Badnarik, who actually surprised me positively with how well he ended up doing. Browne and Johnson were the two I gave some active support to. I did also do some volunteer and paid work for Ron Paul as well, but I never supported him in a general presidential election (unfortunately, I supported Dukakis back when Ron Paul ran as LP).
I would not presume that. From what I can tell, including talking to him personally, he has not decided and may be leaning against it. I hope he does run again.
Paul said: “I don’t agree at all. He was a great candidate”
I don’t agree with this at all. Gary Johnson’s advocacy for the Fair Tax alone is enough to say that he was NOT a great candidate, at least not for the Libertarian Party.
” – two term former governor elected in a state controlled by the opposing establishment party by a large margin;”
It is likely that Gary Johnson NEVER would have been elected Governor of New Mexico if not for the fact that during his first run there was a popular Green Party candidate who got 10% of the vote. If that Green Party candidate had not been in the race it is likely that he Democrat would have won and that Gary Johnson would just be a footnote in history.
Also, it is much easier to get elected when you are an incumbent.
I’m not trying to piss on him getting elected Governor of New Mexico twice so much as I’m pointing out facts that Gary Johnson supporters either don’t know, or they do know and they like to sweep under the rug.
All true and good points.
That would be a huge percentage of the voters.
PF, I said “some may believe,” which I believe is a correct assessment of their state of mind.
But, yes, it’s two sides of the same coin.
It’s helpful IMO to walk a mile in another’s shoes in order to at least understand his/her perspective. Consistent egocentricity suggests a narrowness of perspective, making one party seem unreasonable to the other.
And unreasonableness generally doesn’t work, in my experience.
Correct.
I don’t agree at all. He was a great candidate – two term former governor elected in a state controlled by the opposing establishment party by a large margin; vetoed more bills than all other governors combined; had already shared the stage with leading presidential contenders from an establishment party; had the most memorable one-liner of those debates despite being shut out of most of them; self-made entrepreneur who went from a one man handyman business to the state’s largest construction company with over a thousand emplyees and sold it without any jobs being eliminated; left the state with a relatively good job growth record as governor, compared to other states, and no debt; supported ending marijuana prohibition while serving in office; emphasized peace and civil liberties issues a lot in his campaign; ironman athlete, climbed 6 of the 7 highest peaks on each continent including Mt Everest.
Maybe that’s why he had the best numerical vote total ever of any LP presidential candidate and the second best percentage behind Ed Clark (without nearly as much money to campaign on, especially relative to the leading contenders).
Agreed on that part.
No, they draw energy and resources away from him/us.
Correct.
That’s only one of many problems with Joe Wendt’s comment. Like I said no single part of it was even close to correct.
more…
TK, we’d also agree that on balance (by a wide margin) the State does not act as the people’s agent. Sometimes, though, I’d say they still do. I advocate that they only do that, and nothing else, in as few functions as is possible, to be clear.
tk: To use your favorite version, I can stroll up and down the subway platform strapped with an Uzi all day long without violating anyone’s rights — and that fact constrains the other people on the subway platform from demanding that I ditch the Uzi.
me: Sure. It’s not a question of the others on the platform. If the golf course owners wish to allow toting of Uzis, that’s cool if you want to tote the Uzi onto the club. If a few members object and see you with the Uzi, they have no right to have you or your Uzi-toting blocked in any way. Similarly, if the fine citizens of Coeur d’Alene feel that strapping a bazooka on your back while frollicking in the Village Park is OK with them, then by all means exercise that right.
tk: The idea of the state as “the people’s agent” strikes me as rather controversial. Per Rasmussen’s polling as of last month, 60% of Americans say that the US government lacks the consent of the governed, and only 21% claim that it has that consent, which would seem to be a very similar question.
me: Yes. Government certainly has gotten WAY out of control, agreed. Are you taking this poll as “proof” that 60% of Americans are now anarchists?
I’m skeptical that that’s what they meant when they answered the question.
We COULD ask those same people, Does anyone have the right to tote an Uzi in the subway? I’d swag the answers in the affirmative would not top 10%.
The utility of a debate is relative to the race and the candidates involved. But, if a candidate doesn’t have the funds to travel throughout the state or domain in which they are running; then a televised debate can offer a look at another candidate that the voters may have never considered.
Promote the debate that you are in and your numbers should justify this if your message got across.
In advertising I could spend money on getting into your Sunday newspapers and your local radio stations, or, I could get you to focus on an infomercial wherein I would have your attention the whole time because you came of your own free will.
“Somebody passes by who does not like the petition, but instead of simply declining to sign the petition, as any reasonable person would do,”
I’m going to further clarify here, because I think that reasonable people would sign the petitions that I mentioned in my examples, unless they are not eligible to sign because they are not able to vote in said place, or unless they are non-voting anarchist, so to further clarify, I will add that if a person does not want to sign the petitions, the reasonable thing to do is to politely decline to sign them and to walk by and carry on with your own personal business. However, there are people out there who will not just decline to sign the petitions themselves, they will try to prevent anyone from signing them, or even hearing about them, by making a false complaint to the venue manager and/or the police and/or the security guards, with the intent of getting the petition circulator kicked out of whatever the venue is, so therefore the petition circulator will not be able to gather any signatures or even tell anyone about the petition at said location. I do not consider silencing speech to be reasonable at all.
Nicholas Sarwark said: ” I may say some crazy shit and carry a scary gun, but since those are rights, they aren’t subject to the heckler’s veto of the government.”
Nicholas brought up a very good point here. Making false complaints is a common tactic that is used by opponents of petitions to prevent people from gathering signatures. I’ve actually read it in the training manuals for organized blocking campaigns, that is when there is organized opposition against a petition drive, but it is a tactic that gets used even when there is unorganized opposition against a petition drive because it is such an easy and gutless thing to do.
Here is what I mean, say somebody is gathering signatures on a petition, it could be to place Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot, it could be to Put Spending Limits on State Government, it could be to Legalize Marijuana, it could be for whatever. Somebody passes by who does not like the petition, but instead of simply declining to sign the petition, as any reasonable person would do, they will think, “I should get this person kicked out of here so they can’t get anyone to sign the petition,” so they will go complain to the venue manager or the police or a security guard. Most venue managers, be it a librarian, a DMV manager, a state university bureaucrat, a store manager, etc…, have no strong belief in free speech, or no backbone to stand up for anyone’s rights in general, and the same goes for most cops and most security guards, so this will often times lead to the petition circulator getting run out of said location, and even when they don’t get run out, it often leads to the petitioner having their time wasted explaining what happened and trying to prove that they have a right to be at said location.
Interestingly enough, but not surprisingly, the people who make these false complaints to get petitioners thrown out of locations are usually Democrats or Republicans who don’t like the petition that is being circulated. Sometimes the complainers are “random nut” types who just don’t like anybody talking to them, and sometimes the complainers are people who think that petition circulators are doing something illegal (identity theft is the big one, although note that I am unaware of any cases anywhere in the country where a person has committed identity theft through a petition or voter registration, and I’ve been following this stuff for a long time), but more often than not the complaints are politically motivated.
I really think that it is disgusting how most cops, security guards, and venue managers automatically side with the complainers over the petition circulators. When they do this they are siding with those who want to shut down free speech and are basically kowtowing to the most authoritarian elements in our society.
No, I took that into account in my replies. Read them again.
Actually, the “liberty movement” in the NSGOP is being used as a wedge to damage Johnson and the LP.
He was at 7% before getting into debates as was Perot.
This doesn’t apply to the presidential debates.
Being better or less well organized is what parties do, so in a sense it is their achievement and fault to what extent they are well organized.
In my experience most libertarians (at least “rights-based libertarian theory” libertarians) do in fact consider “the idea of rights constraining rights” to be a serviceable construct.
However, the constraint in question as I understand it is a single constraint: Your exercise of your rights can’t violate my rights. As the popular saying goes, “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” (“my nose” being shorthand for “my right not to be assaulted”).
Since the right to defend one’s self has as its corollary a right to make, justly acquire, keep and carry the means of defending one’s self, “the public’s” right to make rules for the use of the commons ends at the point where “the public” tries to violate my right to defend myself and its corollaries.
To use your favorite version, I can stroll up and down the subway platform strapped with an Uzi all day long without violating anyone’s rights — and that fact constrains the other people on the subway platform from demanding that I ditch the Uzi.
The idea of the state as “the people’s agent” strikes me as rather controversial. Per Rasmussen’s polling as of last month, 60% of Americans say that the US government lacks the consent of the governed, and only 21% claim that it has that consent, which would seem to be a very similar question.
….let me put that a bit differently: You may realize that the idea of rights constraining rights is a serviceable construct, all things considered.
NS: The concept of rights takes certain restrictions off the table for the commons.
me: I’d say the concept of rights can be interpreted any number of ways, not just the NS way, yes?
If we public property as property held by all citizens, then that collective can set the rules for acceptable behavior on that property.
Now, being ever open-minded, if the NS interpretation of rights is 100% correct, show me the tablet where these words are etched.
bt: Well, you make it sound as if the government can do things like, oh, restrict freedom of speech from anywhere outside your own private property.
me: Umm, it does already. The people own their parks, for ex. The government, as the people’s agent, requires permits for protests.
It’s like a private golf course. The members own it, they set the rules for usage, and they hire people to maintain it.
Of course, free speech in this day and age is mostly written or digitized free speech.
But, yes, read Rothbard on the “fire in the theater” question. I actually agree with him on that one! Then think through the implications. You may come to realize that rights are constrained by rights.
Rob’t Capozzi said:
.
“DT, strikes me the commons are owned by what the law says it is.”
.
Like, if they say, Commons Field Number One is owned by the Kennedy Family or something?
.
Well, you make it sound as if the government can do things like, oh, reestrict freedom of speech from anywhere outside your own private property. No rights “denied”. Oh sure.
Bob T
The concept of rights takes certain restrictions off the table for the commons. Free speech means the government can’t stop me from setting up a soapbox in the park. The right to bear arms/self-defense means the government can’t stop me from being strapped while I speak in the park. I may say some crazy shit and carry a scary gun, but since those are rights, they aren’t subject to the heckler’s veto of the government.
I prefer that to the alternative, i.e. rights for those the government approves of.
Commons refers to the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and habitable earth.
The commons is defined in the common laws (in the English speaking world) which clearly differentiates it from “Public” Property. It is the common law (as opposed to statute law) which
defines and precludes “regulation by” either your agent or mine.
The term “no man’s land” connotes a radically different concept. The term was originally used to define a contested territory or a dumping ground for refuse. It is most commonly associated with the First World War to describe the area of land between two enemy trench systems to which neither side wished to move openly or to seize due to fear of being attacked by the enemy. see also
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png/300px-LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png
DT, strikes me the commons are owned by what the law says it is. I’d say the public owns the commons, with behavior there regulated by their agent.
The alternative is to say that the commons are no man’s land, which to me is not a serviceable concept.
If there’s yet another model, I’m all ears.
RC: “My radical position is you can keep and bear weapons for personal defense on your property, with state and local governments (when instituted! 😉 ) can set groundrules for what can be toted where on public property, just as private property owners have that right.”
Radical??? Sounds like radical fascism, to me. The commons is not “OWNED” by the state.
NS, okey dokey. What I’m not clear on whether such a position is both sincere AND in your mind good politics, from an Overton perspective. Stake out the extreme position with the hopes to pull the middle in your direction, kinda thing. I do wonder whether some positions are so alienating that center is driven away from your view. Seems likely to me.
My radical position is you can keep and bear weapons for personal defense on your property, with state and local governments (when instituted! 😉 ) can set groundrules for what can be toted where on public property, just as private property owners have that right.
I’m 100% committed to the radical position that you can tote anything you can fit into a lovely canvas tote bag received at a Libertarian National Convention. Anaheim 2000 had a particularly sturdy tote bag.
NS, love it.
You neglected to mention that next door, Zoophiliacs Anonymous, on one side, and the other, Bazookas in the Tube, advocates for toting anything anywhere.
Andy, that video was more fun than dropping a private nuke directly into a meeting of the cult of the omnipotent state.
SM: I encourage all of the above and encourage each of their proponents to keep working hard to do so… and I discourage them from putting effort into attacking the efforts of the other proponents.
They should not think of this as a zero sum game where there is only limited amounts of cash available and they are fighting each other for how those limited amounts are used instead they should be seeking to pull as much new cash and new players into the game on our side as they can.
ME: I absolutely agree. Do what you wanna do with your time and money. If you’re working towards freedom, I’m with you. But, me being “with you” in spirit does not necessarily mean that I’ll be with you at the protest, or writing a check, or whatever. I’ll be doing whatever it is that I think is best for liberty.
That’s Freedom 101 – do what ya wanna do!. 🙂
“Nicholas Sarwark March 6, 2014 at 5:29 pm
Who let Capozzi out of the anarchism thread?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkuu0Lwb5EM
Counselor AND stand-up comic….impressive!
“Nicholas Sarwark March 6, 2014 at 5:29 pm
Who let Capozzi out of the anarchism thread?”
LOL!
Who let Capozzi out of the anarchism thread?
A, yes, I agree. From the big picture perspective, RP made “L” a blip on the political screen, more than anyone else I can think of. On the ground, in terms of fundraising only, RP may have gotten some ideological dollars that might have otherwise gone to GJ.
Had there never been a RP, OTOH, GJ might have gotten fewer absolute dollars, as the ideological fundraising base might have been substantially smaller. Of course, that’s deeply speculative, therefore worth little analytically speaking.
Robert Capozzi March 6, 2014 at 4:00 pm: “OTOH, the Pauls probably DO hurt the LP and GJ to some extent. Heavily ideological donors are few, I suspect, so those who might give to lost causes for symbolic reasons may have given to the Pauls instead.”
Maybe with Sarvis campaign in Virginia, but that’s about it. The Pauls, Ron Paul in particular, has done more to popularize the word libertarian than anyone else, and Ron Paul has also done more than anyone else to build the libertarian movement. I’ve met quite a few people who are in the Libertarian Party right now because they heard about it through Ron Paul, and a lot of the newer people heard about it through Ron Paul’s runs for the Republican nomination for President in 2007-2008 and 2011-2012.
dt, re: the Pauls, I don’t really have a point. I was speculating about what others may be thinking.
My general thought on the matter is that, for politics to move in a lessarchistic direction, we’d need MORE, not less, lessarchist pols and voters. I don’t think GJ hurt or hurts Ron and Rand.
OTOH, the Pauls probably DO hurt the LP and GJ to some extent. Heavily ideological donors are few, I suspect, so those who might give to lost causes for symbolic reasons may have given to the Pauls instead.
Yes, you put it better regarding the wasted vote.
I’m not sure the winners of elections score “pyrrhic” victories. Yes, in some ways, though, we should be careful what we wish for in all walks of life.
Carpozzi: “me: Yes, they are different. The “wasted vote” presumes a voter prefers the third-party candidate more than the majors, but doesn’t vote for the third-party candidate since s/he can’t win.”
NO, that is NOT how the term is generally used. It refers to the voter who DOES vote for the third party candidate, thus “depriving” the lessor of two evils his pyrrhic victory.
Carpozzi; “I think the point is not that GJ takes shots at the Pauls. The point is that some may believe he draws energy and resources away from the Pauls.
So, what’s your point?
Like bread Ron Paul and “risen” as high as his yeast will allow and is now ‘stale. Rand on the other hand has very little yeast and (aside from the sugar coating) is as hard as three day old pancake.
L: on the basis of the “wasted vote” argument, which is what I assumed your “lost cause” statement was referring to.
me: Yes, they are different. The “wasted vote” presumes a voter prefers the third-party candidate more than the majors, but doesn’t vote for the third-party candidate since s/he can’t win.
A “lost cause” candidate might get votes despite being a lost cause if the candidate not only takes positions that resonate with a voter, but the candidate handles him/her self like a professional, and has at least a resume to suggest that s/he could do the job s/he is applying for.
In 2000, for ex., I surely agreed with Browne on far more issues than Bush or Gore. I have to admit that Bush surprised me, for his campaign seemed more lessarchist than his Dad was. Still, I wasn’t fooled by the positioning, as Bush governed as a super-morearchist.
Unfortunately, my perception was that Browne was prone to making wild, inflammatory and sometimes false statements, often put in kindly, homily-like manners, making him seem not as threatening as his program was. I didn’t care to spend the time supporting that lost cause, as I considered it – all in – damaging to the cause of lessarchism.
Construct-driven politics might feel good to the construct adherent, but it seems like a waste of time at best, counter-productive at worst.
My thoughts are that there is plenty of room on all sides for this…..
If you want to help fight this legal battle and you are spending your own funds by all means do so. If you want to help the Liberty for America and their attempts to justly cause prosecution of obvious government criminals then by all means do so. If you desire to help finance competitive election campaigns and ballot access… then by all means do so.
I encourage all of the above and encourage each of their proponents to keep working hard to do so… and I discourage them from putting effort into attacking the efforts of the other proponents.
They should not think of this as a zero sum game where there is only limited amounts of cash available and they are fighting each other for how those limited amounts are used instead they should be seeking to pull as much new cash and new players into the game on our side as they can.
I agree with George, Andy. Well said.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MJeqOoc4HmI
a: libertarians who engage in electoral politics ought to spend more time promoting things that people can do outside of electoral politics that go beyond, “Vote for me and I’ll make you more free.” I’m talking about things such as….
me: Can’t say I agree with everything on your list, but, as Lennon counseled in “Revolution,” consider adding the bit about “free your mind instead.” Everything starts and ends there, so it seems most important.
” and he got the 2nd highest percent of the vote for any Libertarian Party candidate ”
Should read, “and he got the 2nd highest percent of the vote for any Libertarian Party candidate for President.”
“George Whitfield March 5, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Andy, very thoughtful and well put. Thanks.”
Thank you as well. It is nice to get some positive feedback.
Andy, very thoughtful and well put. Thanks.
“Robert Capozzi March 5, 2014 at 10:46 am
‘L: The only reason anyone would be reluctant to vote for a “lost cause” would be if they were operating under the absurd notion that their lone vote had any meaningful chance of swinging the results of the election.’
me: Only? Are you sure?
I didn’t vote in the Marrou and Browne cycles because I couldn’t be bothered registering and taking the time to vote for fringe L-ism, as that symbolic act seemed far too conflicted for me.”
Until the day comes when a Libertarian Party candidate for President can spend or raise hundreds of millions of dollars, no Libertarian Party candidate stands anything close to a realistic chance of winning the Presidential election, and if a Libertarian Party candidate is able to spend (as in self finance) or raise hundreds of millions of dollars, the system is so corrupt that they can just rig the election anyway. I do think that Libertarians can get elected to lower level offices, and I don’t think that the “powers that be” are going to be able to or have the inclination to rig every election result, however, the higher the office, the less chance that a Libertarian has of being elected to it.
So why should anyone bother voting for any Libertarian Party candidate for President? I see two reasons:
1) To make a statement.
2) To help build a movement, and the bigger the movement the more people that hear the message.
Frankly, I doubt that electoral politics alone can save us. Maybe if enough Libertarians got elected in some locality, maybe it could save that particular locality, but maybe the rest of the country would be so screwed that it would not matter.
So why should libertarians even bother participating in electoral politics at all? Some already do not, but what is a good argument for libertarians to engage in electoral politics? I see two good arguments:
1) Most of the public that bothers to pay attention to political issues or political philosophy, does so in the context of electoral politics. So I see participating in electoral politics as a way for libertarians to reach people, as in it exposes a lot of people to the libertarian message who may not hear the libertarian message otherwise. Most people who are in the libertarian movement right now, even those who have become non-voting anarchist, got into the movement because they heard about it through a libertarian political campaign.
2) Damage control. Sometimes libertarians actually do get elected, and sometimes libertarian lobbying efforts do pay off, and sometimes libertarian ballot questions do get passed (see Colorado and Washington where marijuana legalization initiatives passed in 2012 for two examples). I see making life “less bad” for people who want more freedom through electoral politics as a good thing.
Given the reality that electoral politics alone is probably not going to be enough to save us, I have also long advocated that libertarians who engage in electoral politics ought to spend more time promoting things that people can do outside of electoral politics that go beyond, “Vote for me and I’ll make you more free.” I’m talking about things such as jury nullification of victimless crimes, the use of alternative currencies (gold, silver, Bitcoins, Litecoins, etc…), purchasing guns & ammunition (the more guns and ammo that people have, and the more people that have them, the more difficult it will be for the government to take them away, or from getting too far out of line), or anything else that people can think of that will help undermine or reverse the trend toward bigger and bigger government.
“Robert Capozzi March 5, 2014 at 7:37 am
A, I think the point is not that GJ takes shots at the Pauls. The point is that some may believe he draws energy and resources away from the Pauls.
Whether that’s true, and that GJ is being used in some kind of House-of-Cards intrigue is questionable, but possible.”
I do not know if there is any truth to this accusation that Gary Johnson is acting in, or being used in, this manner or not.
I will say that in spite of Gary Johnson’s shortcomings, I do not see his campaign, or post campaign, as being all bad. Here are a few positives I can point out (in no particular order):
1) Gary Johnson had a mostly Libertarian message. Sure, he harped on the Fair Tax, and it made me cringe every time I heard him stump for it, but he did emphasize other issues where he was clearly more libertarian.
2) Gary Johnson is a good communicator, maybe not one of the best, but still above average.
3) Gary Johnson’s campaign had a balanced outreach approach, as in he did a good job of reaching across the political spectrum, marketing to Democrats, Greens, independents, non-voters, Republicans, and Constitution Party supporters. This was a good contrast to the Barr/Root campaign which primarily reached out to Republicans, and just assumed that Libertarians and small “l” libertarians would support them.
4) Gary Johnson did a good job of handling the Ron Paul crowd (go to YouTube and check out Gary Johnson’s speech at Paulfest, it was quite good). This was a refreshing contrast compared to the disasterous manner that the Bob Barr campaign handled the Ron Paul crowd, and while Ron Paul did not outright endorse Gary Johnson, he did give him what I’d call a defacto endorsement by saying that he thought that Gary Johnson was “wonderful” and making other positive statements about Gary Johnson, and I’ve heard through the grapevine that Ron Paul actually voted for Gary Johnson in the November election. Some Ron Paul supporters would not vote for Gary Johnson for various reasons, some because of his support for the Fair Tax, some based on other issues or comments he made, while others did not vote for him because they believe that minor party or independent candidates are a waste of time, but there were other Ron Paul supporters who did vote for Gary Johnson, and Johnson clearly picked up a lot more support from Ron Paul supporters than Bob Barr did. I consider the Bob Barr campaign to have been a PR (public relations) nightmare for the Libertarian Party, particularly among Ron Paul supporters and other small “l” libertarians, so the Gary Johnson campaign was definitely better from this stand point.
5) Gary Johnson’s video advertisements were very good, some of them were among the best I’ve ever scene for any Libertarian or small “l” libertarian campaign for any candidate or issue. Now I realize that most of the ads did not make it to television, and that out of the ones that did make it to television, not that many people saw them, but still, the ads were quite good, and they are all posted online, and at least some people have watched them online.
6) Gary Johnson did end up getting the highest number of votes in terms of numbers for any Libertarian Party candidate for President, and he got the 2nd highest percent of the vote for any Libertarian Party candidate (1st place in terms of percent of the vote still goes to the 1980 ticket of Ed Clark and David Koch). It is possible that Gary Johnson may have been able to beat the Ed Clark record for percent of the vote if he had been on the ballot in Oklahoma and Michigan (Clark had ballot access in all 50 states plus DC), but we’ll never know for sure, and part of having your act together as a candidate and a party is to get on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC. Now part of Johnson’s vote success was because in the 2012 election there was no higher profile minor party or independent candidate running than Gary Johnson, whereas past LP candidates for President had to deal with higher profile minor party or independent candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), Ralph Nader (1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008), and Pat Buchanan (2000). Even so, if the Johnson campaign had been a train wreck he would not have gotten the 1.2 million plus votes that he received.
I say the above points as somebody who is not a big Gary Johnson supporter. I did end up giving Johnson some support, such as I did pass out some Gary Johnson campaign materials to the public (cards, bumper stickers, etc….), and I posted some links to his campaign videos and articles about the campaign to various websites and I emailed them to a bunch of people. I also did end up giving Gary Johnson what I’d call a passive endorsement, as in I said to people, “If you are going to vote in the Presidential race this year, then you ought to vote for Gary Johnson, because he is the best candidate on the ballot.” I did not donate any money to the Gary Johnson campaign though. Now contrast this with past candidates for President whom I did support more enthusiastically in Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and Ron Paul. I did more volunteer work for them, I actually donated money to their campaigns, plus I spent some of my own money copying outreach material to hand out for their campaigns, plus I strongly encouraged people to go to the polls to vote for them. So I gave a little bit of support to Johnson, lots of support to Browne, Badnarik, and Paul, but when it came to Bob Barr, I did give him a chance to win me over after he got the nomination (I did not support him for the nomination, and I was among those who were leery about him prior to the 2008 LP National Convention), his actions on the campaign trial just did not impress me, and in some cases they disgusted me, so I ended up not doing any volunteer work for him, and I did not give him any kind of endorsement when it came to the November vote.
I’d really like to see some better candidates emerge for the race for the LP Presidential nomination in 2016. I’d love to see a celebrity candidate like Andrew Napolitano or Glenn “Kane” Jacobs (although I’m not sure if he can run for President or not, being that he born on an American military base in Spain (his dad was in the US Air Force), and I’m actually not sure if he was born on the military base or off the military base), but neither of them have expressed an interest in running at this time. It would also be nice to see a really wealthy candidate who is not necessarily well known to the general public, but who could potentially be a good candidate, say somebody like Chris Rufer, but I don’t know if he, or anyone like him, is interested in running. It would also be nice to see somebody who is not rich or famous but who is just a kick ass Libertarian activist, and who really has their act together as a candidate, run for President, but so far I have not seen anyone who fits this description step up.
There is still time for other candidates to emerge, but right now it is looking like Gary Johnson will end up being the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President again in 2016. I’m not sure if Gary Johnson has officially announced that he is seeking the nomination for 2016, but from what I’ve seen and heard it looks like he probably is.
RC, I probably could have worded my comment a little better. I’m not denying that many people (certainly including myself) may not bother to vote at all if none of the candidates really float their boat. I just meant that if they do vote, it would be totally irrational to choose a major party candidate over a minor party candidate (that they otherwise prefer) strictly on the basis of the “wasted vote” argument, which is what I assumed your “lost cause” statement was referring to.
Knapp writes of Johnson: ” six figures in debt on his losing campaign, and proposing to use the LP nomination to erase that debt with a government welfare check (which he did … and then went right back into insolvency again”
Minor purely numerical clarifications and corrections on a sound point:
Johnson 2012:
$828,738 in debt at the end of December 2011
$1,209,758 in debt at the end of April 2012
$863,361 in debt in late November 2012
The government check did not completely erase the debt.
Johnson never went out of debt.
There is also a November 2013 FEC report, worth reading, at
http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2013/mtgdoc_13-44.pdf
L: The only reason anyone would be reluctant to vote for a “lost cause” would be if they were operating under the absurd notion that their lone vote had any meaningful chance of swinging the results of the election.
me: Only? Are you sure?
I didn’t vote in the Marrou and Browne cycles because I couldn’t be bothered registering and taking the time to vote for fringe L-ism, as that symbolic act seemed far too conflicted for me.
I suspect that some who register protest votes for a wide variety of reasons. Perhaps they don’t like the R or D choices especially in a particular cycle, for ex.
I agree, though, some are math challenged, too.
My biggest gripe against Gary Johnson is his advocacy of the dreadful Fair Tax plan.
I don’t like the Fair Tax either, but my biggest problem with Johnson is his support for “humanitarian” war, a concept which makes every bit as much sense as “humanitarian” rape.
To vote for a lost cause takes a certain amount of conviction, and conviction takes some convincing.
I disagree. The only reason anyone would be reluctant to vote for a “lost cause” would be if they were operating under the absurd notion that their lone vote had any meaningful chance of swinging the results of the election.
TK, “piss poor” would be a relative thing. Virtually all L candidates have no chance of winning, so in a sense they are ALL piss poor.
Your use of the word “insolvency” seems non-standard. Campaigns of all parties very often run deficits, with fundraising continuing after the race. Shoestring, paper campaigns with no chance for reaching a relative critical mass might be able to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, but those seem unlikely to reach beyond the cadre.
No candidate is perfect, but if the point of running as a L is to give voice to the case for lessarchism, candidate selection is necessarily opportunistic. Among those fool enough to throw his/her hat in the ring, which one nets out as the optimal choice.
The convention thought GJ was, complete with his particular set of baggage. Were they “wrong”? We really can’t know, but he by all indications did his best, which is all we can ask of another, after all.
I’d say the issue of whether or not the presidential debates are/can be an important factor in third party campaigns is mostly separable from the issue of whether or not Gary Johnson was a good candidate in 2012 or would be a good candidate in 2016.
Johnson was a piss-poor candidate in 2012 — already a loser in the same campaign cycle, associated with a different party, six figures in debt on his losing campaign, and proposing to use the LP nomination to erase that debt with a government welfare check (which he did … and then went right back into insolvency again … so much for the LP and its candidates as “fiscally responsible”).
That doesn’t mean the debates wouldn’t have help his vote totals, fundraising, etc. It also doesn’t mean that the debates couldn’t be important to the prospects of other hypothetical candidates.
A, I think the point is not that GJ takes shots at the Pauls. The point is that some may believe he draws energy and resources away from the Pauls.
Whether that’s true, and that GJ is being used in some kind of House-of-Cards intrigue is questionable, but possible.
Warren Redlich said: “Johnson is being used as a wedge to damage the liberty movement within the GOP (taking shots at both Ron Paul and Rand)”
What shots did Gary Johnson take at Ron and Rand Paul?
My biggest gripe against Gary Johnson is his advocacy of the dreadful Fair Tax plan.
media, not medium…
WR, what we can’t know is how you woulda done in Syracuse and Albany if you’d NOT done well in the debates. To vote for a lost cause takes a certain amount of conviction, and conviction takes some convincing.
Free and paid medium may not be a sum-of-the-parts exercise.
And, lets keep in mind, we’re still talking mouse-nuts numbers, with tenths of percentage point swings…which are statistically insignificant.
“But when the zombie apocalypse starts, history will reflect our protest.”
No, when the zombie apocalypse starts, we’ll be the prepared ones. We’ll defeat the zombies and restart our country with libertarian principles firmly embedded both on paper and in the hearts and minds of the survivors.
As for the back and forth on the impact of debates, those who disagree simply ignore the meaning of county differences. If the debates had been so important, we would have seen that statewide. The best free media from the debate was probably Donn Esmonde’s column, which essentially endorsed me, in the Buffalo News. So did I outperform in Erie County? No.
The Syracuse area is the real standout. I did get some media coverage from Gary Nolan but little else. I have no particular connection to that area, and my vote percentages in Onondaga and other area counties significantly outperformed elsewhere.
The only explanation for that is the radio advertising we did there.
Libertarians believe debates are valuable because we like lengthy discussions of issues. Most voters do not. They respond to short, punchy messages. That’s why mainstream candidates spend so much on that kind of advertising. Because it works.
Yes, I do hold a grudge against Gary Johnson, but not just because of Roger Stone. Stone is a sign of a deeper problem. The establishment plays games with third parties to prevent them from getting anywhere. Johnson is being used as a wedge to damage the liberty movement within the GOP (taking shots at both Ron Paul and Rand) while at the same diverting money from libertarian donors to GOP consultants.
Jesse Ventura is not a fair comparison. He was already a celebrity.
Do I think we should be included in debates? Of course. Did I enjoy the debate experience? Absolutely.
Did it raise significant money for the campaign? I don’t think so. Eric would be a better judge of that, but money that came in late was much harder to put to use effectively. The debate was about 2 weeks before the election. We had to make our media buys by then. I remember a scramble to get last minute money in to radio stations for airtime. We weren’t able to do it and had some money left over.
If you’re waiting until 2 weeks before the election to give money to a third-party candidate, you might as well keep the money in your pocket.
Jimmy McMillan? I beat him statewide and crushed him outside NYC. Kristin Davis? She got 20K. I got 48K. She had a lot more money, but they didn’t spend it on ads. They spent it on consultants and one disgusting attack mailer that didn’t get her votes.
Hawkins certainly did better, though I beat him in several counties. The Greens are better organized in many counties. That’s not a fault of the LPNY, just a practical reality.
I beat Cuomo’s Working Families line in some counties, including Albany where they’re very strong.
Joe,
With all due respect I have to fundamentally disagree. Even if Gary Johnson met the criteria for getting into the CPD Debate, they would have just raised the criteria again.
I think Austin Cassidy made the best points on this thread.
No part of Joe Wendt’s comment is even close to being accurate.
A thought: maybe if Gary Johnson had spent his campaign funds on advertising instead of his staff, he might have polled well enough to be in the debates, and given the world a cringe inducing look into what a Libertarian might be. Gary Johnson did horribly in the two GOP debates he was in, and came off as extremely unprepared, boring, and uncharismatic. This suit is ridiculous and a waste of money.
I think it was most memorable in the general public and the only thing people remember is the line, not the delivery.
Nope, did not remember (or maybe even know) that at all, so it must not have made a big dent at all.
Agreed.
es: But when the zombie apocalypse starts, history will reflect our protest.
me: Well, that’s something, I guess. 😉 Still, is anyone etching these events in stone. From what I can tell, there won’t be electricity after the ZA. Newsprint starts to crumble after a time, too.
okay . . . Golisano spent oodles of money between 94 and 2002. His highest total was 14%. It didn’t matter. Mr. Winger is always correct with the details. Should have checked before I hit enter.
When Warren and I had lunch with Howie Hawkins sometime in September of 2010, Hawkins didn’t have a plan for advertising. The debate carried Hawkins & McMillan to their high totals. Maybe Barron and Davis too. I agree with Axinn that Warren had name recognition in Albany anyway and would argue that commercial runs were not that important there.
MSNBC ran a clip of Warren after the debate. So much traffic was generated on Warren’s website that night, it went down for a few hours. Additional free media was generated. Coverage continued up to election day. You have to play the whole game and will always be subject to my either/or premise. Doesn’t matter what you do.
There were about 190K of actual third party votes in NY in 2010. You can’t count the apparatchik parties like the Independence, Conservatives & WFP. That total will be dramatically reduced this year in a race with a powerful incumbent. You won’t see an open debate again this year. Prince Andy is King now. The trickle of votes across the state can’t be blamed on the debate either way.
It’s arguable that anytime or money spent on ANY third party candidacy is a waste. Not the point. Warren’s no fan of Johnson. I get it. But to derive some theory that debates are not time or money well spent is a bit ludicrous. It’s already ludicrous before you start. But when the zombie apocalypse starts, history will reflect our protest.
WR, your vote totals were higher than historical norms, but you were a former elected official, yes? That helped you do better than usual. Also, you did better in Albany and Syracuse (did you reside in either?) counties where your campaign advertised, which is great, but did you do that much better as a percentage of YOUR vote totals in those counties than other LP guv candidates historically.
Your debate not only included the R, D and L, but others, including Jimmy McMillan, who became an Internet and TV sensation. It was more circus than debate, making it an outlier to the second degree.
You may have done better than usual, IOW, for several reasons, not just one. You were a credible candidate, with a track record. You are articulate, with a JD. You were in the debates. And you advertised. It’s hard to say what if one factor on this list was not there whether your would have done as (relatively) well as you did.
For all we know, some may have watched the debates to see Jimmy for the laugh, then saw your performance, and said, Hey that Redlich’s got game. I’m voting for him!
ADR, your “distraction” argument is weak. It might be correct ultimately. And it could be that it’s a fundraising ploy by GJ. Hard to know….
paulie @March 3, 2014 at 9:32 pm,
“He got the most memorable line of the whole string of 20 debates of all the candidates ”
A) He delivered it terribly (watch the video at the link I provided (the one above the video box) and B) I’m not sure that is true. Most memorable among libertarians, perhaps; not likely most memorable in the general public.
That said; it was a terrific line — and if you remember he got accused of stealing it without attribution from Rush Limbaugh. Bad . . . very bad . . . for his image; IMO.
Ron said Gary loved the New Mexico debates and benefitted from not rehearsing them. I remember thinking what a disaster that would be if we won the lawsuit and got into the third of the three debates.
That said, this lawsuit, to the degree it generates earned media and increased name recognition is probably a wise investment regardless of whether they win the case or not.
Warren, your debate performance motivated me to make additional donations to your campaign which enabled you to do more advertising. Debates matter.
My apologies. The page is now linked in my name.
I love you Paulie and I respect your point of view, but please reread my treatise part one linked in my name above. Gary Johnson did poorly in GOP debates because he lacks the capacity to spawn a movement.
Paulie wrote:
>Hopefully the LP can build on Warren’s total plus growing LP support nationwide and finally get retention in NY this year.
That’s the plan!
Like Richard and Steve, I have to respectfully disagree with my friend Warren on this one.
Not only is participation in a televised debate of potential value to lesser-known (and lesser covered) candidates, it was of actual value in this particular case. As much as I thought Warren’s performance in the Hofstra debate was exemplary, clearly the one candidate who benefitted the most from the free (i.e., paid for by others) publicity was the charlatan Jimmy McMillan. Being on television let him spew his entertaining nonsense to a far larger public than he ever would have otherwise, and while he too did not achieve ballot status, the name recognition for his faux-party (Rent is Too Damn High) lives on.
There is no bad type of publicity; everything helps. Being on a televised debate, getting positive press, your photo in the papers–it all matters.
The problem we face is how to allocate our limited resources. Warren concentrated in two small media markets where radio airtime was reasonably priced and did well in both of them, but they were also his and Howie Hawkins’s (Green Party candidate) hometowns and perhaps that had something to do with the LP’s and GP’s good showing in both Syracuse and Albany.
The Albany Times Union covered the Redlich campaign with far greater detail than the three New York City papers combined.
Debates played a major role in Ventura’s run for governor.
And I thought Johnson did well in Republican debates. He got the most memorable line of the whole string of 20 debates of all the candidates and he was in only one or two of them and given very little speaking time those times.
Thomas Golisano ran for Governor of New York as the Independence Party nominee three times, and each time he did better and better. In 1994 he got 4.18% and got the Independence Party its qualified status. In 1998 he got 7.69%. In 2002 he got 14.28%.
God bless you Warren Redlich. You are functional. Even though I disagree, I love you and appreciate your point of view
The either/or nature of the American winner take all system is more at fault than any other determination when it comes to electoral results. That’s poli-sci 101.
Thomas Golisano spent 60 million in 1996 and got 14% of the vote. It doesn’t matter.
You want to be in debates, period. Disagree Warren, disagree.
POTUS debates are a different animal than debates for any other office. I’ve been an interested observer of politics for my entire adult life. I’m now 33. In my 15 years of adulthood, I’ve watched exactly one, televised, non-POTUS debate. I’ve watched probably 20 POTUS debates, if you include pre-nomination debates.
Further, as Richard basically says, the experiences of two campaigns (Phillies and Redlich) do not constitute a scientific study on the matter.
With that said, I agree that too much emphasis is put on getting into debates in many cases.
I think having the second tier regularly included in debates gives the idea of more political parties and viewpoints legitimacy. Even if voters do not elect particular non-major party candidates. Opening public discussions to non-major party view points is important in itself. And then it is down to the individual party or independent candidate to make use of the debates and increased legitimacy as they may. imo
Warren – Absolutely 100% completely disagree with you on this one. To ignore the fact that your campaign for NY Governor in 2012 DID in fact benefit from the debate you participated in with the end results – that is in a field crowded with other 3rd party candidates in a State that is generally D through and through, achieved one of the best results at the polls that the NYLP has ever run – almost getting 50,000 votes needed for automatic ballot access for the LP – and did that despite a nasty smear campaign against you – is to me showing an complete lack of proper analysis. In fact my support for you in the campaign was in fact a good bit due to your debate performance. I think the fact that Roger Stone acted as a consultant for the GJ campaign for a little bit (a connection which it turns out bit them back and they then divorced themselves from without making this break public knowledge in order to avoid controversy) is clouding you from seeing the facts that debates are in fact extremely valuable tools for third parties to be able to participate in.
Anyhoo – as an Ultra-Radical Centrist – I don’t usually advocate for using the force of government and public funding – but when it comes to elections for major offices of Congress, Governors and President I strongly believe that at least one set of debates and candidate forums should not be handled as they currently are by private organizations that can choose which candidates they invite – but should be hosted publicly, have broadcasters obligated to show them, include ALL candidates that have met ballot petitioning requirements – and in fact made obligatory for the candidates to appear at or else face disqualification from the race. If candidates want the job – then they should have to show up at the main job interview – and the American people as the actual employers should be able to see all the applicants for the job before deciding who to pick. There has been too much weaseling by incumbents out of the debates in the past as far as I’m concerned.
If the 2012 election had been held the day before the first Presidential debate, I would bet that Johnson would have gotten twice or three times (or maybe 5 times) the number of votes he got on Election Day.
The moment Romney and Obama stepped out on stage, the real non-political public finally got engaged in the election. They’d been tuning it out for 18 months and now it was time to pay attention. Those people tuned into the debates and evaluated their TWO choices.
Minor party candidates get some media and voter attention in the run-up to the final weeks. But once the debates begin, it’s as if the Republican and Democratic radios are turned up to MAX volume and the whispers of minor party candidates are absolutely drowned out. If you’re not on the stage, you’re basically not in the game. And without the funds to effectively fight the noise, any third party presidential candidate who is barred from the debate is doomed to spend the last month of the campaign watching all of their soft support erode away.
Richard made the point earlier — Perot re-enters the race at 7% and scores well in the debates, winding up at 19% a little over a month later.
Four years later, no debate participation… Perot winds up at 8.4%.
CP missed the cutoff narrowly.
The Green Party candidate must be included in the debates. There are truly only four national political parties in the U.S. The larger two, the Libertarians, and the Green Party. It should be standard procedure for the Green Party candidates to be in all debates.
Hopefully the LP can build on Warren’s total plus growing LP support nationwide and finally get retention in NY this year.
Porky wrote: “Sorry, I stop reading when I see that Dave Terry allegedly said something.”
“And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:”
Yes, be careful what you read, Be VERY careful. clearly you are on the precipice of sanity!
To the degree the lawsuit or actually being in the debate generates earned media buzz, it’s worthwhile.
That said, I’m not donating money to this effort at this time.
Two reasons — first, I’m not sure it would not be diverted to other unpaid past bills or unrelated current activities; second, the worst thing that could have happened, IMO, was for Governor Johnson to have been invited into those debates at the last minute. While he was successful (apparently) in various debates for Governor of New Mexico, his performance in the Republican Primary debates made me cringe. He seemed unprepared, nervous and (as I told Ron Nielson later) “utterly lacking in the gravitas necessary to be seen as a potential Commander-in-Chief.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hYAWHpfLpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRPrZxHUqsA
I think all of the candidates benefited from their appearance in the debate in 2010.
I think they each ended up with 15,000 – 20,000 votes more than they would’ve gotten without appearing in the debate.
I think Mr. Redlich put in a fine performance, but he finished 4th because the LP really doesn’t have a significant, dedicated, partisan network throughout the State.
I support the Green Party. I think the Greens have a broader network throughout New York State. As a percentage of the overall enrollment in the State the difference may be slight, especially when compared to most of the other parties. But that slight advantage in support wound up being enough for the Greens to achieve their primary goal of retaining a slot on the voter enrollment application and facilitating ballot placement for future candidates.
The Greens have a big test this year.
Andy said Dave Terry said:
Sorry, I stop reading when I see that Dave Terry allegedly said something.
Dave Terry said: “as being a Republican being elected governor against incumbent Democrat, in a state with a 60% to 37% Democratic majority, TWICE!”
There was a Green Party candidate for Governor of New Mexico on the ballot that got 10% of the vote the first time that Gary Johnson ran for that office. I’d bet that this played a role in him getting elected.
He did get reelected, but it is easier to win when you are an incumbent.
Assumes many facts that are in dispute.
RE: George Phillies > “With respect to Gary Johnson, if he had not been paying his campaign manager $325 an hour, he might have had the money to fund this quixotic effort.
Don’t you really mean with DISRESPECT to Gary Johnson. Meaning no disrespect to you; do you seriously consider your endorsement by the Attleborough-Sun ‘rises at Cape Cod and sets in Albany’ ANYWHERE in the same category as being a Republican being elected governor against incumbent Democrat, in a state with a 60% to 37% Democratic majority, TWICE!
“Quixotic”? Do mean like the “Impeach Them Both” campaign being directed by your Liberty for America group
I agree with Richard and disagree with Warren and George on this. Johnson being in debate would have been a huge game changer, would have vastly increased his name recognition and in turn driven the funding that would have allowed for far more advertising. Presidential debates are a lot different from other debates.
Gary Johnson’s lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates is the strongest lawsuit ever filed against the CPD over exclusion.
And it doesn’t follow logically that just because Warren Redlich’s distribution of vote was concentrated in counties in which voters knew about him from other sources, therefore his participation in a single debate wasn’t important to his showing. The voters in the upstate counties that were best-informed about him still might not have voted for him, if it hadn’t been for his debate performance. One could theorize that it takes a combination of being in a debate plus other factors that results in a vote for our nominee.
Ross Perot is the best example of the importance of being in the general election presidential debates. When he re-entered the race on October 1, 1992, he was at 7% in the polls. He was in all three debates and did well in all of them; that is the reason he got 19% of the actual vote in November.
On the one hand, yes, there certainly can be “too much” focus on getting into debates.
On the other hand, no, the effect of getting into or not getting into a gubernatorial debate isn’t very similar at all to getting into a presidential debate.
67 million people tuned in to watch Romney and Obama debate, and millions more read about the debate, saw video from the debate, etc.
It’s highly unlikely that a similar per capita number (4.3 million) tune in to a New York gubernatorial debate or follow that debate in non-live media.
In 1998 I ran for Congress as a Libertarian. We had 12 debates. I was in all of them. One was rebroadcast coast to coast on national television. The Attleborough Sun-Chronicle said I was the surprise winner of their debate.
Warren Redlich is totally right.
With respect to Gary Johnson, if he had not been paying his campaign manager $325 an hour, he might have had the money to fund this quixotic effort.