Steven Rodriguez at Outright Libertarians blog:
I am not a purist libertarian. I don’t say things like “End The State”, or “Abolish (insert massively entrenched political institution here)”. This is not because I believe society won’t be better off without these overbearing agents of the state, but because this macho-flash style libertarianism does nothing to address the vast injustices inflicted upon Americans now. Issues like marriage inequality, police militarization, the war on drugs, and mass incarceration, all of which disproportionately affect minority and LGBT citizens, are in my mind the most commonly dismissed, and yet most easily fixable issues. Macho-flash libertarians like to dismiss practical solutions to these issues and will instead deliver all-or-nothing, end-the-state mantras that are beyond impractical. Their tactics have nearly driven me out of the movement, until I am reminded that practical libertarian solutions exist to make people freer.
When Gary Johnson ran for President under the Libertarian Party banner in 2012, he brought a much-needed sense of balance to a party gripped by fringe elements. Unlike his predecessor in 2008, Johnson remained consistent in his support for both social and economic freedom. When asked about his stance on the issue of marriage equality, Johnson does not do the conservative shuffle and leave the issue to the states, nor does he pull the libertarian macho-flash by insisting that the government should just get out of the marriage altogether. Rather, Johnson makes no mistake that he supports equal rights for LGBT individuals. He is also unambiguous and firm in his support for civil liberties issues such as ending the war on drugs, repealing the Patriot Act. While Johnson is far from the perfect Libertarian candidate, I would feel much better about compromising a couple percentage point increases on a tax rate, or leaving a few military bases open, but I cannot support someone who lacks the simple dignity of acknowledging equal rights for all people. This is why I cannot vote for even the most libertarian Republican within the current field of candidates running for President.
The status of liberty is determined less by the size of the state and more by society’s respect for individual rights. Of course, scaling back the state is usually the appropriate means to protect people’s rights, but the emphasis should always be on rights. While I can understand choosing a pragmatic approach over ideological purism in a high stakes election, my support for Gary Johnson is based on anything but purism. If now is any indication, I will have irreconcilable disagreements with every major-party Presidential candidate in 2016, disagreements that go against what I believe to be basic respect for the rights of the individual. Through my experience listening and speaking with Gary Johnson, I know he is the kind of libertarian who cares about individual rights, and determines his political strategy on that foundation.
Elections are an opportunity to show one’s disapproval of the status quo. It’s not always about winning. A vote for Gary Johnson sends a clear message to both major parties: Be more libertarian, or lose our vote. One might ask: Is a certain Republican Presidential candidate libertarian enough? The answer to that question depends on the values that led you to believe in liberty in the first place. If you are more concerned about the size of government than the disenfranchised individuals who have had their rights trampled by that government, then follow your instincts and vote Republican. If individual rights matter to you and you are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, vote for Gary Johnson.
Well, hopefully you can start making it out for some. Alabama’s is June 13 in Birmingham, and Orlando is not super far if you can make national next year.
No, I’ve never been to a national convention. I was planning to attend the one in Atlanta in ’04, but a family emergency came up.
Langa, have I met you? I’m opver in CA, but I’ve been to a couple national conventions.
Well, Marc, I’ve been somewhat of a hermit for the last few years, but that may change pretty soon. So, who knows? Maybe we’ll run into each other someday. 🙂
Gee, I failed the MM litmus test 🙁
@Marc Montoni I will send you a friend request on FB (my FB name is different than here, long story– will send a message with the request so you know it is me). Glad to make your acquaintance.
Langa & carynification I really hope I have a chance to sit and chat with you both one day.
Game, set, match.
There is NO WAY to square murder apologia with the libertarian philosophy.
Sigh… I really wish WordPress had a twitfilter.
L, nor do I have any idea of what JMc and LG believe. My guess is they probably are reasonably sincere when they call for more warring. They may well mask their rationale.
If non-interventionism was the default, majority position with the intellectual class, my suspicion is that hawks would be less hawkish.
In this post, L, you are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Is that a fair assessment?
No, I’m not putting forth any conspiracy theory. If you want to label me as something, “cynic” would probably be a better term. I think the vast majority of politicians, particularly at the higher levels, are motivated almost entirely by self-interest. I have no idea what McCain and Graham believe, but I am fairly certain that if they thought it was in their own self-interest, they wouldn’t hesitate to start flashing the peace sign.
dt: Try as I may, I simply cannot fathom how you can agree that, “there’s no such thing as a “good” war.” but NOT reach the conclusion “that being a soldier is a shameful occupation”. Isn’t that as
contradictory as opposing the death penalty but excusing the “executioner”???
me: Great analogy. Yes, I do in fact excuse the executioner. Like Gandhi said, “hate the sin, love the sinner.”
In both cases, the job itself is not inherently hurtful. Defending the nation and monitoring the criminally dangerous are useful occupations. The policies are where things go off the rails.
L: Most of the people who are in charge of determining our foreign policy receive large sums of money, often in the form of campaign contributions, from those who benefit financially from war. They are also frequently shareholders in companies that benefit from war. The stuff about “shadowy figures in foreign lands” is just the window dressing that is fed to the public.
me: Could be that explains it all. I doubt it, though. Are McCain and Graham super-hawks because of defense contractors contributions and stockholdings? Do they not believe the war drum beat they pound out at all? Privately, are they peaceniks?
Possible. I’d say unlikely.
In this post, L, you are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Is that a fair assessment?
DT, you can be outraged by whatever the hell you want. But if your outrage is directed toward something that does not involve aggression, then it has nothing at all to do with libertarianism.
Many self-proclaimed “libertarians” get a lot more upset over people getting their feelings hurt than over people getting their limbs blown off. It makes me wonder if they know, or even care, what libertarianism is all about.
Langa; “Rather, my point is that many libertarians seem to have extremely fucked up priorities. They seem to be far more outraged by bigotry than by war, even though the latter is much worse.”
I regret that I must inform you that YOUR priorities are NOT intrinsic, “objective” OR divine!!!
“OUTRAGE”: is, by definition, wholly SUBJECTIVE, RELATIVE, EGOCENTRIC, as well as CONDITIONAL! There is absolutely NO reason to believe that what “outrages” YOU must outrage others, or vice-versa! OR (if so) to the same degree or extent!
It is entirely reasonable for those who are subjected to daily acts of prejudice and bigotry to focus on this affront to our humanity, disproportionately to acts of war perpetrated in distant corners of the world, even when “supposedly” done so, in their names.
If libertarianism has ANY meaning it MUST include tolerance for those whose threshold of outrage lies in different areas and at different tolerances than ourselves..
Langa, I always appreciate your consistent patience with explaining the peace-lover’s view.
Thanks, Jill. 🙂
My sense is that most policymakers are not per se benefiting from war, except to the extent that their district has a base or a military contractor. Even then, I’m not sure that the economics of the war machine necessarily leads to things like the Iraq War. I suspect that it’s more about fear of shadowy figures in foreign lands, and a conventional paradigm that the US is a “super power,” whatever that means. Wars are triggered by events that are largely misperceived and reacted to, causing a frenzy of fear.
Most of the people who are in charge of determining our foreign policy receive large sums of money, often in the form of campaign contributions, from those who benefit financially from war. They are also frequently shareholders in companies that benefit from war. The stuff about “shadowy figures in foreign lands” is just the window dressing that is fed to the public.
I don’t see opposing bigotry and opposing warmongering as an either/or thing. Both bigotry and warmongering come from many of the same ugly impulses.
My point is not that opposing bigotry and opposing war are mutually exclusive. Rather, my point is that many libertarians seem to have extremely fucked up priorities. They seem to be far more outraged by bigotry than by war, even though the latter is much worse. Specifically, they criticize Ron Paul far more than Chris Kyle, even though, by any reasonable libertarian standard, what Kyle did was a thousand times worse than what Paul did. It just reinforces my belief that many people who call themselves libertarians are far more interested in fighting the culture war than they are in fighting for peace and freedom.
Langa, I always appreciate your consistent patience with explaining the peace-lover’s view. I should attempt to learn such patience.
RC: ” I guess we just disagree on the latter
Try as I may, I simply cannot fathom how you can agree that, “there’s no such thing as a “good” war.” but NOT reach the conclusion “that being a soldier is a shameful occupation”. Isn’t that as
contradictory as opposing the death penalty but excusing the “executioner”???
L: We’ll never convince the policymakers to support peace, as long as they have so much to gain from war.
me: My sense is that most policymakers are not per se benefiting from war, except to the extent that their district has a base or a military contractor. Even then, I’m not sure that the economics of the war machine necessarily leads to things like the Iraq War. I suspect that it’s more about fear of shadowy figures in foreign lands, and a conventional paradigm that the US is a “super power,” whatever that means. Wars are triggered by events that are largely misperceived and reacted to, causing a frenzy of fear.
L: Instead, we should try to convince the general public that there’s no such thing as a “good” war, and that being a soldier is a shameful occupation.
me: Maybe so on the former. I guess we just disagree on the latter.
I don’t see opposing bigotry and opposing warmongering as an either/or thing. Both bigotry and warmongering come from many of the same ugly impulses.
RC – It might, but a politician should also be mindful of such things, and prepare answers – I don’t just mean knowing what to say, but regular practice saying it in a passionate and convincing manner. The answer should be one that will not turn off voters, but that will move policy (and listeners) gently in the speaker’s direction. Sometimes, harsher responses are necessary, but, again, that should be planned. MLK told people things they didn’t want to hear, as did JFK, but they didn’t do it in a half-assed way, they prepared and figured out the best way to deliver that message.
I will say this. I recently spent some time on a semi-military base (Coast Guard.) I did not come away with the impression of reluctant warriors. I came away with the impression of a group of very young people who were frustrated every time they were assigned to a rescue boat, and were competing intensely to be on gunboats, boarding vessels, and engaged in combat. I came away with the impression of young people whose foreign policy views were shaped by a desire for adrenaline as much as anything else.
By the way, here’s a column that is very appropriate for this topic:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/04/laurence-m-vance/im-sick-of-it/
It lists 99 sickening aspects of militarism. Many (though not all) of these are things that the LP (and libertarians in general) should be speaking out against, instead of continuing to castigate people for insensitive remarks that were made decades ago.
Soldiers for the most part don’t go out on their own just to kill (or murder). They are ordered to by policy-makers.
The policies are the source of the dysfunction.
We’ll never convince the policymakers to support peace, as long as they have so much to gain from war. Instead, we should try to convince the general public that there’s no such thing as a “good” war, and that being a soldier is a shameful occupation. Maybe if those who kill for the military were shunned the same way that bigots are, people wouldn’t be so eager to join. You can’t go to war without soldiers.
More generally, change happens from the bottom up, not from the top down. Marijuana and gay marriage are two good examples. First, you have to change public opinion, and then, the policies will follow suit.
…I don’t see Kyle as a hero.
I would go much, much further than that. Not only is he not a hero, he’s a disgrace. In fact, if I had to pick one individual to represent everything that’s wrong with our society, I’d don’t know if he would be at the very top of my list, but he’d definitely be pretty damn close to it.
L: The key for libertarians is to encourage the former group to speak up, but in order to do that, we have to combat, rather than help propagate, the pro-military propaganda that is so prevalent today.
me: Actually, not necessarily. Soldiers for the most part don’t go out on their own just to kill (or murder). They are ordered to by policy-makers.
The policies are the source of the dysfunction. Strike the root, and all that!
As I said before, I don’t see Kyle as a hero. And a lot of people who have been in combat have a mix of guilt and pride in what they did. Of course, most people who join the military, even in wartime, never see combat. Police brutality/abusiveness is easier to understand since the victims are Americans. BTW, the military does take 17 year olds, although few enough that it’s basically a quibble with your point that 18 year olds are adults. Yes, they are, but age is just a number, while maturity is a process. It’s not always true, but a 25 year old is more likely to be relatively more mature than an 18 year old.
For one thing, I think a larger segment of the general public is more ready for truth about the police. Most people get nervous when they see a police car following behind them on the road, and more and more people have been, or personally know people who have been, abused by out of control police. By and large most people see the people killed or mistreated by the US military as “the other” and/or as enemies who want to destroy us. They are far less likely to be their relatives or friends, or otherwise to relate to them as people just like they are.
Well, I don’t know about that. It’s tempting to think that, since police brutality is a hot topic right now, and we have seen a lot of anti-police protests lately. But in the past, there have been some huge anti-war protests too, especially during Vietnam, and even more recently, during Bush’s wars. So, I think these things come and go, but ultimately, there are always some people who are going to be skeptical of authority and the potential for abusing it, and others who embrace authority unconditionally. The key for libertarians is to encourage the former group to speak up, but in order to do that, we have to combat, rather than help propagate, the pro-military propaganda that is so prevalent today.
For another, there’s no binding commitment for police officers to remain on the job. Once you sign up for the military, you have to complete a commitment of several years, and if you leave without permission it can be a crime, or at the very least a huge stain on your record that will follow you for life.
The problem with this argument is that the vast majority of soldiers seem to have no desire to quit. On the contrary, they seem proud of what they have done, they expect special treatment for having done it, and many of them look with pure scorn and contempt on anyone who has not “served” their country in such a “noble” manner.
Also, police officers, if I’m not mistaken, are on average older when they take that job than people are on average when they join the military. They aren’t heavily recruited by recruiters at high schools, colleges, malls, and everywhere young people hang out. They aren’t offered all the supposed perks dangled in front of people when they join the military.
I don’t see why this matters. You have to be 18 to join the military. That also makes you old enough to, for example, decide whether to get married, have children, go into debt, and make numerous other life-altering decisions. If one is old enough and responsible enough to make these kinds of decisions, then one is also old enough to understand the consequences of their actions, and to be held accountable for them.
Police officers are not widely expected by most people to kill or maim people in the normal course of duty. Most people accept that it will happen on rare occasions in self-defense, but it’s a far more normal expectation that people may “have to” commit such acts if they join the military.
This actually proves my point. These men and women (they are not “kids”) know that if they join the military, they will be asked to kill on command, and they still do it anyway. It’s hard to see how that makes them more deserving of sympathy.
If police officers decide to quit their job, aside from not having any binding indentured-servant type contract like the military has, they are at home with their family. By contrast, if a person in the military comes to realize that what they signed up for is wrong once they see combat, not only would they face severe consequences for quitting the military right then and there, but they may be stuck in a foreign country far away from home with no means to get back home.
Again, the vast majority of them apparently have no desire to quit, and no regret for what they’ve done. As for the few that do, that’s a bit of a different story. As I said on another thread recently, I certainly do not consider joining the military to be an unforgivable sin. As long as they are willing to admit that what they have done was wrong, and seem to show genuine remorse, I think we should be willing to cut them some slack. But when it comes to people like Chris Kyle, who brag about their crimes, and demand to be celebrated as heroes, we should call them out for exactly what they are — ignorant, bloodthirsty savages.
For one thing, I think a larger segment of the general public is more ready for truth about the police. Most people get nervous when they see a police car following behind them on the road, and more and more people have been, or personally know people who have been, abused by out of control police. By and large most people see the people killed or mistreated by the US military as “the other” and/or as enemies who want to destroy us. They are far less likely to be their relatives or friends, or otherwise to relate to them as people just like they are.
For another, there’s no binding commitment for police officers to remain on the job. Once you sign up for the military, you have to complete a commitment of several years, and if you leave without permission it can be a crime, or at the very least a huge stain on your record that will follow you for life.
Also, police officers, if I’m not mistaken, are on average older when they take that job than people are on average when they join the military. They aren’t heavily recruited by recruiters at high schools, colleges, malls, and everywhere young people hang out. They aren’t offered all the supposed perks dangled in front of people when they join the military.
Police officers are not widely expected by most people to kill or maim people in the normal course of duty. Most people accept that it will happen on rare occasions in self-defense, but it’s a far more normal expectation that people may “have to” commit such acts if they join the military.
If police officers decide to quit their job, aside from not having any binding indentured-servant type contract like the military has, they are at home with their family. By contrast, if a person in the military comes to realize that what they signed up for is wrong once they see combat, not only would they face severe consequences for quitting the military right then and there, but they may be stuck in a foreign country far away from home with no means to get back home.
Those are a few of the differences I can think of.
More and more people are waking up all the time, and I believe we are not too far away from critical mass. Not too far away still probably means years and quite possibly decades, though.
I hope you’re right. However, I still fail to see how whitewashing the military’s crimes is going to help the general public wake up to them.
Also, I am somewhat puzzled by the fact that you are so eager to harshly criticize the police, and yet so reluctant to do the same to the military. All the arguments you make about soldiers apply just as well to cops. They are also told by society that their career choice is acceptable, and even commendable. Yet you don’t hesitate to call them out for their crimes. What gives?
pf, that tracks for me. The truth is true, and we cover over the truth with untruth. Undoing the obstacles to truth allows it to shine through.
Whether it’s “true” that the military is filled with murderers is, for me, more obstacle than truth, though.
The problem with THIS analogy is that this ‘alleged’ crack is ALLREADY big enough to drive a convoy of trucks through!
I don’t see truth, or freedom, as a pill to swallow. A better analogy may be a crack in a sidewalk or dam, letting a few blades of grass get sunlight or a small trickle of water to flow through the crack. Pretty soon the crack gets larger and before there is no dam, or no sidewalk. It’s an escalating process, and I think it’s happening. But at this point the cracks are still relatively small, although they are getting bigger.
L, whether the pill is red or not is an open question, but it is CERTAINLY a VERY large pill. I make the case that the red pill should be smaller and easier to digest!
Instead of making the case that the military is filled with murderers, make the more sensible case that it is too large, with too expansive a mandate.
It’s true, but I’m not giving up. More and more people are waking up all the time, and I believe we are not too far away from critical mass. Not too far away still probably means years and quite possibly decades, though.
As for whether it’s true, if you don’t believe me, try talking to a couple of hundred random people out in public some time.
jk: Not all of my beliefs belong in the platform. Not all of my beliefs belong in my campaign. You campaign on that subset of your beliefs that is relevant (both to position and listener) and that stakes out your position on topics in the public mind. A campaign is not simply an opportunity to spew your beliefs all over the place.
me: That makes sense. I suspect, though, that if a candidate believes that the US military is filled with “murderers,” when the subject of the military comes up, the candidate would have a hard time masking his or her scorn. The candidate may not SAY “they are murderers,” but the attitude will in many cases shine through.
>If y’all feel SO strongly that all battlefield kills deserve the label “murder,” I encourage you to >add a plank to the LP platform, pass a resolution in convention, and get all LP candidates the >voice this issue that is so near and dear to your hearts.
Not all of my beliefs belong in the platform. Not all of my beliefs belong in my campaign. You campaign on that subset of your beliefs that is relevant (both to position and listener) and that stakes out your position on topics in the public mind. A campaign is not simply an opportunity to spew your beliefs all over the place.
>I would say that the individuals in the military were doing their jobs, behaving appropriately in >an inappropriate context not of their making.
Why does this sound familiar?
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the average person to have an accurate idea of what they are signing up for when they volunteer. Everyone tells them it’s OK, acceptable, even heroic. A few people can see through that, but most don’t, especially not before they have actually seen combat.
If that’s true, then we libertarians might as well give up, since the red pill we are asking people to swallow is considerably larger than the one required to see through the military’s crude lies.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the average person to have an accurate idea of what they are signing up for when they volunteer. Everyone tells them it’s OK, acceptable, even heroic. A few people can see through that, but most don’t, especially not before they have actually seen combat.
I would say that the individuals in the military were doing their jobs, behaving appropriately in an inappropriate context not of their making.
If they had been drafted, then I would agree with you. But since they volunteered, I think they should bear full responsibility for their decisions.
L, that’s an interesting question. I really don’t think we should just analyze Kyle’s killings, but ALL killings in ALL wars that I don’t believe were justified. I would say that wars are worse that the words you reference.
I would say that the individuals in the military were doing their jobs, behaving appropriately in an inappropriate context not of their making.
I haven’t justified Kyle killing Iraqis, I have said the kills were not murder.
Aha, now we’re getting somewhere. So, returning to my original point, we both agreed earlier in the thread that murder is worse than bigotry. Now, would you also agree with me that Kyle’s “unjustified killings” (even if you don’t feel they are “murders”) are still much worse than the old RP newsletters, or Rockwell’s L.A. Times editorial?
JP> “It’s simply a gut feeling of mine that non-psychopaths are aware when they do something wrong. I certainly can’t prove it, nor would I try to do that because it’s simply an opinion. I believe the majority of the human race is inherently good. A good person knows that killing is wrong.
This is a HUGE gray area, ripe for OVERSIMPLIFICATION!
Unless, like the legendary Romulus and Remus, one is raised by wolves, there is an inevitable
degree of “human empathy”. On the OTHER hand MANY parents (not to mention, Priests, Pastors and Witch-Doctors) aren’t a whole lot more civilized than the she-wolf who suckled R & R in infancy.
Despite the “pluralistic, multi-cultural makeup of the American populace, there is a CONSIDERABLE degree of “brain washing” (aka socialization) of the youth of this country;
to some extent both enhanced by and moderated by the public school system. Every morning, in thousands of public schools, millions of young Americans are subjected to what can ONLY be described as a “religious ritual” wherein a piece of cloth is imbued AND imbrued with all those noble and sacred notions, intelligible to very young and susceptible minds.
In ADDITION, those young men are VERY often placed into circumstances which, although they had SOME understanding of the dangers, had very LITTLE understanding of what was being demanded of them.
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”
? Voltaire
“All war is a symptom of man’s failure as a thinking animal.”
? John Steinbeck
“There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”
? Howard Zinn
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
? Albert Einstein
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
? Dwight D. Eisenhower
jp, interesting opinion. Some psychology theorists have suggested that everyone is guilty about something, often unconscious guilt.
Kyle as an example claimed he felt no remorse for his prolific kill record. We can’t know if that was so, either consciously or unconsciously.
Truth is: I don’t even know anyone who has killed another, in a justified or unjustified manner. I don’t even know any vets, actually, so I can’t ask them. My guess is that those who saw action were conflicted about what they were doing, for the most part.
I did used to know a Iraq War vet, and he missed being there, which was a sentiment I personally could not relate to on any level. Perhaps he liked warring…dunno. Seems sick to me.
It’s simply a gut feeling of mine that non-psychopaths are aware when they do something wrong. I certainly can’t prove it, nor would I try to do that because it’s simply an opinion. I believe the majority of the human race is inherently good. A good person knows that killing is wrong.
The only thing I can say is that when someone is executed by a shotgun, the way it’s set up is that there are several people shooting, so they won’t know who exactly does the deed. I assume that is so they won’t have pangs of guilt later. Anyone participating in a firing squad probably understands on an intellectual level that the person was condemned to death, and therefore deserves to dies. But–the conscience might tell him otherwise.
jp: [Military personnel] can ignore that little niggly voice of conscience that they feel, but I believe they know they’re doing wrong.
me: This, however, is quite interesting to me. Can you expand, please? What leads you to believe that everyone in the military KNOWS they are doing wrong?
jp and the rest, OK, the horse is beaten, I’d say. If y’all feel SO strongly that all battlefield kills deserve the label “murder,” I encourage you to add a plank to the LP platform, pass a resolution in convention, and get all LP candidates the voice this issue that is so near and dear to your hearts.
DT said: “Believed? By whom? The weak minded or the weak willed?”
I completely agree with this! I completely knew the Iraq war was contrived, and I wasn’t even politically active then.
RC’s entire comment from 11:46:
“L: Are you saying that if someone commits murder after being brainwashed, it is no longer murder?
me: Yes.
In the case of the Iraq War, it was believed that Hussein was an inherent threat.
Iraqis do have the right to defend themselves.
I haven’t justified Kyle killing Iraqis, I have said the kills were not murder.
Booth and especially the Manson Family were by all accounts mentally ill.
I don’t support the death penalty, but I don’t consider the executioner a “murderer.””
Wow, Dude, Wow. I don’t agree with anything you’ve said in that whole comment.
I also think ignorance isn’t an excuse for murder. It’s wrong to kill another human being. That’s just about the most basic rule there is. Self-defense makes it exusable, perhaps, but Kyle wasn’t acting in self-defense by any criteria, as I see it. I also don’t excuse current soldiers, because they signed up willingly. They have to know at some point that the current wars are wrong. They can ignore that little niggly voice of conscience that they feel, but I believe they know they’re doing wrong.
RC> “In the case of the Iraq War, it was believed that Hussein was an inherent threat.
Believed? By whom? The weak minded or the weak willed?
L: Are you saying that if someone commits murder after being brainwashed, it is no longer murder?
me: Yes.
In the case of the Iraq War, it was believed that Hussein was an inherent threat.
Iraqis do have the right to defend themselves.
I haven’t justified Kyle killing Iraqis, I have said the kills were not murder.
Booth and especially the Manson Family were by all accounts mentally ill.
I don’t support the death penalty, but I don’t consider the executioner a “murderer.”
Good Questions Langa, It would seem that “American exceptionalism” has the same roots as Royal prerogative. Perhaps Kyle wiped his eyes with the “bloody rag” and couldn’t see the truth
behind his actions
Kyle and most of the volunteers in the Iraq War did not feel — near as I can tell — that they were “aggressors.” They, and up the chain of command, felt they were doing their duty and defending the country from threats.
Why does that matter? By all accounts, when Booth assassinated Lincoln, he sincerely believed he was defending his country from tyranny. When the Manson family carried out Charlie’s orders, they sincerely believed they were paving the way for a future paradise. I could give many other examples of the same phenomenon. Are you saying that if someone commits murder after being brainwashed, it is no longer murder?
Now, I again don’t think the Iraq War was justified, but I don’t care to view Kyle and the military were “aggressors” in the way a bank robber is an aggressor, a conscious aggressor.
If they weren’t the aggressors, then who were? The Iraqis? They were trying to repel invaders from their homeland. How could that possibly constitute aggression? Are you saying that they should have just surrendered, even though you admit that the invasion wasn’t justified? Do the Iraqis not have the right to defend themselves? If they do, then how can you justify Kyle killing them for trying to exercise their right to defend themselves?
I would count the removal of a government, and its replacement by a puppet government, and the taking of assets, such as oil – to be equivalent to ‘taking over.’ This is not the age of empire; these are the ways we take places over today.
me (RC): Actually, my sense is that VW was considered a mistake by majorities by 1975 or so. I certainly still think it was…a BIG mistake. So, I’m not sure what your point is.
I THINK you are referring to Viet NAM not Volkswagen.
The ONLY thing shorter than a politician’s memory is his, err, well there is NOTHING shorter than a politicians memory.
Please remember that 1975 was FOURTY YEARS AGO!!!! And those who were not adults at that time are the majority NOW! And the POINT is that government NEVER learns from it’s past mistakes, FOR LONG!
Clearly your contrasting of Viet Nam (I don’t believe ANYONE actually thinks that the purpose of the engagement in Vietnam had ANYTHING to do with “taking over” – America’s imperialism consists of putting puppets in place, not in actually taking over (ie. incorporating the conquered land into our country. (otherwise the Philippines would be a commonwealth of the US. like P.R.
Your contrast of Bush’s policies in Iran with LBJ’s policies in Viet Nam is completely MOOT!
jp: I sincerely hope you’re wrong. Time has not helped the legacy of the Vietnam war, that’s for sure.
me: Actually, my sense is that VW was considered a mistake by majorities by 1975 or so. I certainly still think it was…a BIG mistake. So, I’m not sure what your point is.
L: …in any given situation, the aggressor is not entitled to claim self-defense, which is basically what Kyle is trying to do.
me: You are making this personal. Kyle and most of the volunteers in the Iraq War did not feel — near as I can tell — that they were “aggressors.” They, and up the chain of command, felt they were doing their duty and defending the country from threats. Now, I again don’t think the Iraq War was justified, but I don’t care to view Kyle and the military were “aggressors” in the way a bank robber is an aggressor, a conscious aggressor.
Your simile doesn’t work for me, and probably for most of our fellow citizens.
JK: entering a foreign nation with the intent of taking over, or killing or being killed in the process, is still not regarded as murder by most, you will have a proved a point about the failure of society to evolve in some way, but you will not have shown that such acts are not murder.
me: I’ve seen no evidence that the INTENT was to “take over” Iraq. Rather the intent was to suppress Hussein, root out the (never found) WMD, and very probably to secure the flow of oil. If there WAS such intent, show us your evidence.
Yes, it has neutralized its raison d’etre. I think a more reasonable response is to try to fix that – for instance, by ensuring that libertarians are elected to office, so that they can then pursue appropriate prosecutions. Extralegal action may be justified, but I don’t think it can be necessary if the predictable outcome is failure and death – and the loss of some of the veneer of civilization.
I’d compare the recent shooting in South Carolina, which was followed immediately by an arrest and no riots, to shootings where the justice system did not act (under the direction of politicians) and riots resulted. By acting correctly in that case, pursuing justice in the right way, the state managed to prevent chaos in the streets. I don’t mean that the rioters are unjustified – just that this sort of outcome works better and has less unintended victims.
JK> “If the state refuses to prosecute, it does not make the act not murder. If a crime is never prosecuted, it can still be murder. In fact, the state may not be the best way to deal with some crimes, but they remain crimes.”
Actually, “if the state refuses to prosecute (murder) it has literally neutralized its’ ;’raison d’etre’.
At this point, it becomes arguable that extralegal action is not only justified, but necessary..
,
I was speaking with an interlocutor who claimed that the killings in question were not murder (or that the statement that they’re murder is ‘true for me’) and who adduced, as evidence for that claim, the fact that it would be impossible to get the state apparatus to prosecute them, and further questioned why I didn’t push for prosecution. My answer was that all murder need not be prosecuted – the inability to get the state apparatus to prosecute state-sanctioned murder doesn’t change the fact that those killings are, in fact, murder. Do you doubt this? If a murder is committed but the murderer never apprehended, hence never prosecuted, was it still murder?
If the state refuses to prosecute, it does not make the act not murder. If a crime is never prosecuted, it can still be murder. In fact, the state may not be the best way to deal with some crimes, but they remain crimes.
JK> ” I know the definition of murder, and I believe it is perfectly acceptable to refer to state-sanctioned, premeditated, unprovoked killing as murder.
Clearly, if you understood the definition of murder, why would you posit that “murder”, as defined above, need NOT,be prosecuted as stated below.” Perhaps, we should refer to it as “elimination”
JK: “One need not take the view that all murderers should be prosecuted. In fact, it’s not logically necessary to believe that any murderers should be prosecuted”
RC, if you are right and 20 or 200 years from now, entering a foreign nation with the intent of taking over, or killing or being killed in the process, is still not regarded as murder by most, you will have a proved a point about the failure of society to evolve in some way, but you will not have shown that such acts are not murder. I don’t consider the observation that such killing is murder to be worthy of a Copernicus, although I appreciate the compliment.
DT – I’m not sure what you need a break from, and I know the definition of murder, thanks. I also regard dictionaries as descriptive, not prescriptive, and I believe it is perfectly acceptable to refer to state-sanctioned, premeditated, unprovoked killing as murder. If you want to hold fast to murder always being illegal, then call such killings murder*, so long as murder* carries the same moral implications as murder. I’m not sure where I claimed that the practical and moral are mutually exclusive, which is certainly not something I believe. I do believe that it’s quite unlikely for the legal system, owned by the state, to prosecute state-sanctioned acts of murder*, but that this has no impact on their moral status, but that doesn’t imply that the moral and the practical are mutually exclusive.
Probably so. I’m left-libertarian, but nothing like the people you probably tangled with.
Excellent! Because that’s how I entertain 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjU5xFS9xQ0
RC: “Military actions, even ill-advised ones like the Iraq War, are not bank robberies
LOL! Absolutely correct. Bank robbers do not enter the Bank with the intent of killing or being killed!
You’ll notice that RC never responds to this point:
…in any given situation, the aggressor is not entitled to claim self-defense, which is basically what Kyle is trying to do.
Instead, he falls back on some of his favorite straw men (private nukes, NAMBLA) which, in 20 years, I have never heard any libertarian seriously advocate, and of course, his familiar claim that all truth is subjective, and therefore, all viewpoints and moral judgments are equally valid.
200 years ago, the “prevailing cultural norm” was that slaves were the legitimate property of their owners. I’m sure if RC were alive then, he would be eagerly warning abolitionists of the dangers of taking such “fringy” and “extremist” positions.
JP> “I sincerely hope you’re wrong. Time has not helped the legacy of the Vietnam war, that’s for sure.”
May the powers of the universe save us from the “flag wavers”
A flag is a rag used to sop up the blood of innocents and obscure the names of the guilty!
Dave Terry: We need to use words that are appropriate. Sugar-coating the horrors in war could be why we keep having them.
Going into someone’s country to force our way of life on them, then ending the life of people trying defend their families and their propertry, is indeed murder. I will continue to call it what it is.
JK: “One need not take the view that all murderers should be prosecuted. In fact, it’s not logically necessary to believe that any murderers should be prosecuted.”
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WORDS HAVE MEANINGS!!!!!
Please don’t — USE them, if you have no idea what they mean!!!
MURDER: “The malicious, premeditated and “unlawful” killing of one human being by another.”
— “Webster’s New World Dictionary” – 1966″
FURTHER – the concepts of “PRACTICAL” AND “MORAL” are NOT mutually exclusive!
History is an eloquent demonstration of the “essential necessity” of morality in human action and “social-intercourse.”
RC said: “My guess is that 20 years from now, the prevailing cultural norm will continue to be that military vets who have killed in the line of duty will STILL not be considered “murderers” by the vast majority.”
I sincerely hope you’re wrong. Time has not helped the legacy of the Vietnam war, that’s for sure.
jk: That doesn’t stop me from believing them to be murderers (and I’m either right or wrong – it isn’t ‘my truth.’)
me: Your belief may or may not be “right” or “wrong,” I suppose, if you believe that the world boils down that simplistically. My sense is that most would say you are “wrong,” — incorrect, that is. Now, you may be a latter-day Copernicus on the optimal way that murder should be defined, and that only the very few buy into the Katzian construct…at the moment.
My guess is that 20 years from now, the prevailing cultural norm will continue to be that military vets who have killed in the line of duty will STILL not be considered “murderers” by the vast majority.
So now taking the view that killing in a premeditated, unprovoked manner is murder, and remains murder regardless of whether or not you work for a particular gang, is supposedly equivalent to defense of child abuse. Got it.
What you had asked was why not call for the prosecution of all veterans. My answer was that judgment involves more than just the acts committed, and part of the calculation is regret vs. bragging. Other parts include just how much killing a person did – so the guy who claims to have killed the most people seems a better subject for prosecution. However, prosecution is ultimately a practical question, not a moral one, and the real answer is you can’t prosecute any of them. That doesn’t stop me from believing them to be murderers (and I’m either right or wrong – it isn’t ‘my truth.’) One need not take the view that all murderers should be prosecuted. In fact, it’s not logically necessary to believe that any murderers should be prosecuted.
JK, if you believe that only bragging makes war kills “murder,” that too seems contorted. Might well be uncool to brag in such a manner, but for that to trigger a felony test is, um, unique.
L and JK, of course you CAN view it that all military veterans who’ve killed are “murderers.” It may well be YOUR truths.
It ranks up there as among the fringiest ideas in the LM…right there with private nuke rights, NAMBLA apologism, and a few other jaw-dropping viewpoints.
Yes, I don’t tend to use IPR as a place for honing arguments most likely to be successful in debates. I tailor my remarks to the context. But I agree with L – a foreign invasion is not a bank robbery, it is far worse.
As to what makes Kyle special – he claims to be special. He braged about the number he’s killed. If I were in some position to sit in judgment, I’d certainly view someone who feels pangs of guilt differently from a person who treated his murders as things worth bragging about publicly.
Imagine as High Expectations Asian Father Meme:
Facebook?
Yes. You must face book and study.
[btw I am not a feminist….. not because I don’t believe in equal rights because quite obviously I do… but because I have a visceral reaction to grouping people in a way that divides them by gender or race or whatever, I am a humanist….. and also because the vast majority of feminists are rank statists, and I don’t want that association]
Hi Andy,
It’s earlier today on this same thread, beginning with Mark’s comment at 7:04 a.m. New Federalist is a riot.
Joshua Katz:
>>I don’t have much use for the brutalist label, outside of those who use it for self-description. >>
I use it for self-description in an ironic fashion because all I could think when I first had it lobbed at me was that is THE MOST METAL POLITICAL DESCRIPTION EVER! One my friends has “brutalist shitlord” in for my name in their phone which just gives me endless amusement. I am cheaply and easily entertained.
(big death metal fan in the day)
I get it when you say you take offense at the “trendy” accusation sometimes lobbed….. but….. I know some left libertarians that I say that fits quite nicely. And I know some “purists” that are basically just fapping over causing shock and awe and controversy …. and I know some “right libertarians” that are just disgruntled republicans. Usually there are labels because there are some people that deserve them…. the problem is when they are just hurled discriminately at the opposition.
I am likely much more hostile out the gate with many left libertarians than is prudent due to some really bad experiences with ones making claims such as “you can’t be a libertarian unless you are a feminist” or “you can’t be a libertarian and believe [insert conservative position with nonstatist solution such as…. extramarital sex is wrong or whatever]. Which can be followed by “gtf out of our movement you brutualist shitlord.”
Scroll up.
“Darcy G Richardson
April 25, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The short and witty exchange about Facebook between Mark, Jake and New Federalist concluding with NF’s remark that he thought it’s “what happens when you fall asleep in bed while reading” made my day — or evening, I should say. Great stuff!”
Where can this exchange be read?
The short and witty exchange about Facebook between Mark, Jake and New Federalist concluding with NF’s remark that he thought it’s “what happens when you fall asleep in bed while reading” made my day — or evening, I should say. Great stuff!
Military actions, even ill-advised ones like the Iraq War, are not bank robberies.
You’re right — they’re worse. Every war that I’m aware of has caused far more death and destruction than any bank robbery possibly could. But that’s beside the point, which is that in any given situation, the aggressor is not entitled to claim self-defense, which is basically what Kyle is trying to do.
L: If it helps, try imagining that Kyle did what he did without wearing a government costume. For example, imagine that he and a couple of his friends decided to rob a bank. While in the process, he saw that the security guard was about to shoot one of his friends, so he shot the security guard instead. He then claims that he was just “defending” his friend. Is that murder?
me: Yes, that would be murder. But most would — I suspect — find your analogy off point. Military actions, even ill-advised ones like the Iraq War, are not bank robberies.
Chris Kyle is not considered to be a murderer by many, including me. Consider thinking through that analogy s’more.
If it helps, try imagining that Kyle did what he did without wearing a government costume. For example, imagine that he and a couple of his friends decided to rob a bank. While in the process, he saw that the security guard was about to shoot one of his friends, so he shot the security guard instead. He then claims that he was just “defending” his friend. Is that murder?
Johnson not taking extraordinary steps when in office seems abundantly forgivable.
There’s nothing “extraordinary” about issuing a pardon. Many governors (and presidents) have been known to issue a flurry of them during their final days in office.
If that’s the case, then why single out Kyle? Any military vet alive who has killed in the line of duty would also qualify for your judgment.
Well, one reason is because he went to great lengths to brag about his crimes, and parlay them into celebrity status. But you’re right. The same is true of anyone who voluntarily joins the military, goes to a foreign land, and kills people. They are all far more deserving of scorn and criticism than Paul or Rockwell.
By the way, don’t waste your time making your typical straw man argument. I am not saying that all these veterans should be put on trial for murder, or war crimes, or anything else. As I have explained before, that would be a logistical nightmare. What I am saying is that if “haters” are going to be shunned (as you seem to be advocating), then people who have done far worse should be, as well.
…I’m none too pleased with RP’s recent statement that the CBC only opposes war because they want to spend the money on welfare instead. He could have made this point about lots of liberals – why, exactly, target that caucus – and why assume that wanting to spend money on welfare means that anti-war arguments are necessarily insincere. On the margin, I see no reason favoring government spending should undercut anti-war arguments – unless the only argument against war is its cost. Since there are many good arguments against war, I consider this argument rather silly, and think it’s hard to discount the importance of who it was directed at.
I agree it was a bit of an odd statement, but I’m very reluctant to view it as evidence of bigotry, especially given that RP worked with the CBC on a number of issues (not only on foreign policy, but civil liberties, as well), and generally seemed to be on much better terms with them than the average Republican congressman. I would guess his statement was more about “anti-war” liberals in general, and the CBC was the first example that popped into his head.
I also think there’s a tendency, perfectly understandable, for us to overestimate what a politician can feasibly do. Blanket pardons sound great – until the opposition to the drug war is set back a decade since it gets tarred with every crime committed by a pardoned person. Yes, the response will be – real people are sitting in jail, and that’s more important than this imagined outcome. I am sympathetic to this, and ultimately favor blanket pardons, but let’s be honest about the costs. When that governor is out of power, drug war prosecutions will continue, since no law was changed, and the people sitting in jail – under laws that are now harder to repeal – will be real people too.
That’s a fair point, although the cynic in me is skeptical that GJ was dissuaded by the possibility of that particular hypothetical. I think it’s a lot more likely that he wanted to avoid the bad PR, in order to keep from “tarnishing his legacy” as Governor and/or to leave open the possibility of future campaigns.
jk: I have concluded that going to another country with the overt purpose of taking over is analogous to a felony, making any killing done in the process ‘felony murder.’
me: If that’s the case, then why single out Kyle? Any military vet alive who has killed in the line of duty would also qualify for your judgment.
And it’s valid if that’s YOUR judgment. My guess…and it’s just a guess…is that anyone taking your position would alienate the vast majority of the US population. That’s OK, too, but I do wonder what the point would be for doing so.
Sometimes, the wisest course of action is to keep one’s own counsel!
Joshua Katz makes some good pts. In general the Libertarian Platform is the solution and getting the Libertarian msg. out there is key. Our message is easy to understand and most who take the quiz realize they are Libertarian leaning. We have recruited many candidates in California for the 2016 elections, including myself. I hope the party comes together, grows and eventually spreads the Libertarian msg. to every American. Thank you in advance for your support.
Mark Matthew Herd
Candidate for U.S. Senate 2016 (CA)
facebook.com/vote.herd
twitter.com/voteherd or #voteherd
Website, Facebook and Twitter are all up but under construction.
sites.google.com/site/electmarkmatthewherd/
I thought it is what happens when you fall asleep in bed while reading!
Mark said: “What’s a facebook?”
I don’t know. I think it is a cult.
What’s a facebook? 🙂
RC – Okay, I’ve thought it through. I have concluded that going to another country with the overt purpose of taking over is analogous to a felony, making any killing done in the process ‘felony murder.’ I’m aware that Kyle attempted to defend himself with the statement that “they were trying to kill my men” but, of course, those men were also there for nefarious purposes, whereas the Iraqis killed by Kyle were simply engaged in the act of defending their homeland.
L: Are you claiming that bigotry is somehow unique, and unlike all other viewpoints, once held, it can never be abandoned?
me: Yes, it is unique. Yes, it CAN be abandoned, but even then, it’s hard to live down.
L: Second, while I certainly don’t condone bigotry, the idea that it is the worst sin anyone could ever commit is downright silly. As I mentioned on another thread here a while back, even if RP had written a thousand newsletters, and each one of them had contained a thousand bigoted remarks, that still wouldn’t be nearly as bad as committing a single murder.
me: Agree. Murder is worse than bigotry. Aside from Teddy Kennedy with Mary Jo Kopeckne incident, I can’t think of a pol who has recovered from a murder.
Chris Kyle is not considered to be a murderer by many, including me. Consider thinking through that analogy s’more.
Barr generally admitted many of the errors of his ways. Johnson not taking extraordinary steps when in office seems abundantly forgivable.
Overt bigotry is not the WORST thing, but in our culture since I’d say since 1965, it’s quite unacceptable.
All votes are wasted. Always.
I don’t have much use for the brutalist label, outside of those who use it for self-description. Those 2 or 3 people are close to the only libertarians I have no real desire to associate with. As for hostility to right-libertarians and plumblines – I object to claims that left-libertarianism is just being trendy, playing with words, or trying to appeal to lefties, but outside of that, I say we’re all in agreement on what really matters, and disagreeing on application. We’re all against oppressive tyranny; we might differ sometimes on what qualifies, and that’s okay. Similarly in the party – we all agree on moving public policy in a libertarian direction, we disagree sometimes on strategy – sometimes fiercely, and we can do that without making each other into enemies. The only way, within the party, to draw hostility from me is to attack my beliefs, or me, without a willingness to engage in a reasoned discussion. If someone wants to paint me as a compromiser with no respect for principle, and doesn’t want to engage in a discussion as to why I advocate what I do, well, that will draw my hostility, as will unexamined insistence on doing something because we’ve always done it, pronouncements about strategy that are presented as not open to debate, etc.
I try to have the same attitude outside of libertarians too. I think the easiest way to have a dysfunctional system is for people to conclude that those who disagree with them must be crazy, stupid, evil, etc. instead of acknowledging that we’re all just trying to solve problems, and bringing with us some set of basic principles and beliefs – and few of those sets actually are evil, pro-tyranny, or whatever.
https://www.facebook.com/paulie.cannoli
Awesome, Jill. I just sent a friend request. My FB name is a writing pseudonym (long story, privacy concerned ex husband).
Carynification , you can find me on Facebook if you’re interested. I use the name Jill Catherine.
We sometimes find some good things to discuss there.
>>>I also think there’s a tendency, perfectly understandable, for us to overestimate what a politician can feasibly do. Blanket pardons sound great – until the opposition to the drug war is set back a decade since it gets tarred with every crime committed by a pardoned person. Yes, the response will be – real people are sitting in jail, and that’s more important than this imagined outcome. I am sympathetic to this, and ultimately favor blanket pardons, but let’s be honest about the costs. When that governor is out of power, drug war prosecutions will continue, since no law was changed, and the people sitting in jail – under laws that are now harder to repeal – will be real people too.>>>
That is a real important point.
>>>C – I’ve met people who seem plumbline to me who hold strong personal and religious beliefs. I just think it’s easier to describe oneself as plumbline or thin than to actually keep other beliefs from influencing your understanding of libertarian principles. I think it happens on the left and right, but that left-libs are more likely to not mind describing themselves as thick, and so it happens more on the right. I’m not some virtuous crusader fighting for the purity of plumbline thought, either – I don’t consider myself one, and I am happy to work with right, plumbline, left, etc. It’s just an observation I sometimes make.>>>
Fair enough. Though I absolute will not mind if you call me out on inconsistencies if I self-describe in an inconsistent way. Generally speaking, and I wish it weren’t this way, you are one of the few serious left-libertarians I have interacted with that haven’t been somewhat hostile. That is why I joked about the brutalist label.
Langa and New Federalist, bummer. I probably spend too much time on Facebook, but I would have love to interacted with you there. I don’t spend much time on sites like this. I came to this article because Mike Shipley from Outright Libertarians shared it, and he is a friend of mine.
AC – absolutely. When I come across, for instance, liberals who are theoretically anti-war, but tell me that some other Obama policy, such as healthcare, is more important, and so they still judge him on the positive side, I’m often moved to wonder what they’d have thought about abolition.
L – I agree with a lot of what you say here, but I’m none too pleased with RP’s recent statement that the CBC only opposes war because they want to spend the money on welfare instead. He could have made this point about lots of liberals – why, exactly, target that caucus – and why assume that wanting to spend money on welfare means that anti-war arguments are necessarily insincere. On the margin, I see no reason favoring government spending should undercut anti-war arguments – unless the only argument against war is its cost. Since there are many good arguments against war, I consider this argument rather silly, and think it’s hard to discount the importance of who it was directed at.
I also think there’s a tendency, perfectly understandable, for us to overestimate what a politician can feasibly do. Blanket pardons sound great – until the opposition to the drug war is set back a decade since it gets tarred with every crime committed by a pardoned person. Yes, the response will be – real people are sitting in jail, and that’s more important than this imagined outcome. I am sympathetic to this, and ultimately favor blanket pardons, but let’s be honest about the costs. When that governor is out of power, drug war prosecutions will continue, since no law was changed, and the people sitting in jail – under laws that are now harder to repeal – will be real people too.
I abstain from very little but total abstinence from Facebook is my thing, too! I may love to talk about myself but I generally do it in a mirror. That way I have a fascinating speaker and an attentive audience.
LOL, that’s basically my view of Facebook as well, NF.
AC, those are definitely fair points about the Confederacy. I agree they were just as far from libertarian as the Union was. It’s just that considering how far most mainstream historians go to condemn the Confederacy’s crimes, while basically glossing over those of the Union, I don’t really get too upset if the LRC guys go a little too far in the opposite direction.
L, the difference is that RP and LR’s statements had racist or otherwise hater overtones.
First of all, what does that have to do with my point? Are you claiming that bigotry is somehow unique, and unlike all other viewpoints, once held, it can never be abandoned? If so, that’s ridiculous. There have been many examples of people who held bigoted beliefs, and later abandoned them. As far as Paul and Rockwell, I have followed both men pretty closely for the last decade or so, I’ve read countless articles they’ve written, countless interviews they’ve done, countless speeches they’ve given, and so forth, and I can’t remember ever hearing either of them say anything that could reasonably be construed as evidence of them “hating” blacks, gays, or any other group of people (with the possible exception of politicians).
Second, while I certainly don’t condone bigotry, the idea that it is the worst sin anyone could ever commit is downright silly. As I mentioned on another thread here a while back, even if RP had written a thousand newsletters, and each one of them had contained a thousand bigoted remarks, that still wouldn’t be nearly as bad as committing a single murder. Yet Chris Kyle, who murdered scores of innocent people and never showed even an ounce of remorse about it, is considered by many to be a hero, and even many people here at IPR are eager to portray him as some sort of victim, deserving of sympathy, while at the same time continuing to excoriate RP over the newsletters. And as for Barr, he introduced some of the most draconian legislation in the history of the Drug War, while Johnson allowed thousands of innocent people to rot in jail, when he could have freed them with the stroke of a pen. As far as I’m concerned, those things are infinitely worse than anything that could be written in a newsletter or newspaper editorial.
“No, sorry. I seem to be one of the few remaining Facebook abstainers.” – langa
I abstain from very little but total abstinence from Facebook is my thing, too! I may love to talk about myself but I generally do it in a mirror. That way I have a fascinating speaker and an attentive audience.
“I think the whole “neo-Confederate” thing is way overblown”
I think a lot of the time it is. I think Hunter’s shtick was as much a character and a deliberately over-the-top stereotype, than anything as serious as it was made out to be. But there are some who cross the line from criticizing to Lincoln, to defending the Confederacy or minimizing its crimes or saying the Confederacy didn’t secede over slavery (they did), or who make unjustified false claims about Lincoln (there’s plenty to pick from in the historical record without making stuff up or taking it out of context). That’s not good, or justified by any kind of libertarian principle. Whatever offenses Lincoln committed- and I agree they were many- you can find worse examples of the same thing under Jefferson Davis’s government. That on top of slavery, which is not exactly irrelevant to the discussion no matter how you slice it. I also think libertarians owe much more of our intellectual heritage and tradition to the radical abolitionists (that Lincoln was not one of), than anything you can find in the Confederacy.
And really, if you stand on a stage with a Confederate flag and preach the virtues of The Lost Cause, you can’t reasonably complain when somebody calls you a neo-Confederate.
C – I’ve met people who seem plumbline to me who hold strong personal and religious beliefs. I just think it’s easier to describe oneself as plumbline or thin than to actually keep other beliefs from influencing your understanding of libertarian principles. I think it happens on the left and right, but that left-libs are more likely to not mind describing themselves as thick, and so it happens more on the right. I’m not some virtuous crusader fighting for the purity of plumbline thought, either – I don’t consider myself one, and I am happy to work with right, plumbline, left, etc. It’s just an observation I sometimes make.
L, the difference is that RP and LR’s statements had racist or otherwise hater overtones. LR also especially gives the impression that he is the authority on all things L, which BB and GJ don’t.
Making the case for lessarchy is hard enough. There is a sensitivity when lessarchy is associated with haters, for good reason. Haters are increasingly being shunned in our society.
langa EXACTLY. Are you on Facebook? I would love to make your acquaintance there.
No, sorry. I seem to be one of the few remaining Facebook abstainers.
Just a side rant…. people don’t so easily let people change their minds and that is a shame. Lord knows I have radically changed my mind on multiple things. I am utterly embarrassed at the authoritarian shit I used to espouse.
There is kind of a double standard in the LP. On the one hand, if you criticize Bob Barr or Gary Johnson for some of the non-libertarian things they did in office, their supporters are quick to say, “Come on, that was over 10 years ago. They’ve changed since then.” Yet many of these same people continue to rip Ron Paul about his infamous newsletters, even though that was 20 years ago, or to rip Lew Rockwell over a column he wrote about Rodney King, even though that was 25 years ago. You would think if there’s going to be a “statute of limitations” on this kind of stuff, that it would at least be consistent for everyone.
Joshua
>>On Lew – yes, he was involved in those things, and possibly more. However, he repudiated them>>
Just a side rant…. people don’t so easily let people change their minds and that is a shame. Lord knows I have radically changed my mind on multiple things. I am utterly embarrassed at the authoritarian shit I used to espouse.
Joshua, well I would be interested in seeing if you ever see me say anything that you would interpret as not plumb-line… possible that my self-assessment is wrong, but I don’t think so. On political quizzes I always turn out as right-libertarian, but I always overhead those damn quizzes. I started out very right-libertarian until I started really assimilating what I believed into practical questions.
Not saying you do this, but I find that many take one’s personal preferences (mine are conservative) and morality (mine is religious, specifically Christian) as one’s political view.
I certainly agree that Block’s tactic of being as extreme as possible is not advisable. However, I disagree with the assessment of his views on, for instance, defamation. Agree or disagree, his point is that if someone advocates for a law, and makes use of that law, it is not wrong to use that law against them. It’s not that different from his view that in a free market, it would be wrong to counterfeit currency, but it’s a virtue to do so today.
I don’t think North would even attempt to square his views with NAP, or any other libertarian principle. Recall that his view is that we should secure a small government so that it will be easier to establish a theocracy.
On Lew – yes, he was involved in those things, and possibly more. However, he repudiated them, and went on to form an institute that is not limited to his personal preferences. See, as I mentioned, using me as a writer, and hosting a week-long Roderick Long seminar. He also endorsed a left-libertarian in the 2010 at large race.
Tom Woods, on the other hand…
C – I couldn’t say if you’re plumb-line or not, since I haven’t talked to you. I was stating my general observation that most people I meet, who say they are plumb-line, turn out to be right-libertarians who either simply read their right-leaning views into libertarianism, or think that thick-libertarian always means left-leaning, and so identify as thin for that reason. I have no way of knowing, of course, if you do that, or if you are genuinely plumb-line.
langa EXACTLY. Are you on Facebook? I would love to make your acquaintance there.
One of the other hallmarks of it is apologia for the Confederacy, which I think is a huge mistake and one they’ve finally gotten away from a bit since it blew up in Jack Hunter’s face…
Honestly, I think the whole “neo-Confederate” thing is way overblown. While there might have been some of that in the paleo days, I don’t see much of it at Mises or LRC these days, unless you are equating any criticism of Lincoln with Confederate apologia. I actually think it’s very important for libertarians not to shy away from harshly criticizing Lincoln, as the government indoctrination factories (er, I mean, public schools) work very hard to promote the idea that Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents and that the Civil War was one of the “good” wars. In fact, even many libertarians believe those things, but they couldn’t be further from the truth. Lincoln was a brutal tyrant, easily one of the three worst presidents ever, and I don’t think there’s such thing as a “good” war, but even if there were, it certainly wouldn’t be the Civil War, which was essentially a turf war, that was justified with a lot of rhetoric about ending slavery, when in fact, there would have been many far simpler (and far less bloody) ways to do that.
On Block and defamation, I thought he was wrong in Defending the Undefensible… though a book I really liked for the most part.
>>Defending libertarian principles at their most extreme or unpopular isn’t the tact I would advise anybody to take in general….>>>
I believe it is a tact everyone must know how to do even if it isn’t part of their regular arsenal. I come from a very conservative background with a load of friends still there, and if you shy away from the gotcha questions, they have zero interest in listening to the rest.
>>I’ll concede to those distinctions, but I think they could all accurately be put into the broader category of “libertarians who advocate and defend cultural conservatism.” Which isn’t per se a bad thing, it can be done a right way and wrong way, And I agree Rockwell and Block are relatively better at sticking to plausibly true-north or plumb-line libertarian arguments, or whatever we want to call it, than contortionist anarcho-theocrats like Hoppe and North.>>
In Block’s article on Plumb Line Libertarianism he does a really good job of not favouring cultural conservatism (FWIW I am a cultural conservative— well I think so…. my conservative friends might think otherwise).
I have a good friend in the Constitution Party who keeps trying to sell me on North as a True Llibertarian.
I’ll concede to those distinctions, but I think they could all accurately be put into the broader category of “libertarians who advocate and defend cultural conservatism.” Which isn’t per se a bad thing, it can be done a right way and wrong way, And I agree Rockwell and Block are relatively better at sticking to plausibly true-north or plumb-line libertarian arguments, or whatever we want to call it, than contortionist anarcho-theocrats like Hoppe and North.
But still it was Rockwell, after all, was if anything the ringleader of the paleocon fusion strategy in the first place. He was the one who coined “paleolibertarian”- and though he later repudiated that term, the basic idea is still strong in that Auburn-centric wing of the movement. And it was Block who went out of his way to bash “feminists” and “gays” as per se not being libertarian (he later rewrote that in a less objectionable wording, as critiques of non-libertarian things those movements have advocated, but that was only after he was criticized for it.). There was also that ridiculous piece of his saying he’d changed his mind on defamation, because he’d been allegedly defamed by the NYT and so was totally justifying in suing them for it, because bad pro-government papers like the Times aren’t entitled to freedom of speech if they advocate against libertarians. But that he wouldn’t do it because it might undermine the all-important Rand Paul campaign in 2016. That was about a clear a contortion of NAP analysis to reach the desired pre-ordained result as I’ve ever seen.
I did enjoy Defending the Undefendable, which is a classic libertarian text even if I disagree with a lot of it. Defending libertarian principles at their most extreme or unpopular isn’t the tact I would advise anybody to take in general, but it’s worthwhile that somebody went out there and did it in a pretty decent and thoughtful manner.
I think often though his personal perceptions- be they conservative or just plain contrarian- color his judgement and leads to statements about the NAP that are more like rationalizations than they are legitimate inquiry into how libertarian principles should be applied. Just my $0.02 though, I hesitated on whether to include Block for exactly that reason. Tom Woods might be another example, of somebody whose work I generally like, but who veers off the rails on some social/cultural issues and is influenced by that paleocon/lib’t strain. One of the other hallmarks of it is apologia for the Confederacy, which I think is a huge mistake and one they’ve finally gotten away from a bit since it blew up in Jack Hunter’s face (I bet Tom Wood’s past League of the South affiliation is also probably why he isn’t working in an official capacity for Rand.)
Rockwell/Block/Hoppe/North
I agree with JK. There is a huge difference between the first two and the last two. While Rockwell and Block may be cultural conservatives in terms of their personal opinions, I have never heard either of them advocate the use of NAP-violating action to achieve their goals. The other two have, although I’m sure that Hoppe (and possibly North) would try to spin the NAP in such a way that it could be used to justify their positions. But I’m not buying that spin.
c: I have zero interest in speaking with you because I think you are a pompous ass as again demonstrated by your last comment.
me: Hmm, not what I’m going for! More radical open mindedness.
Ignore the substance of my question, but on its face it seems odd to me to not think for oneself. Still, if it gets you through the night, s’alright.
ac: I actually think he had the better of the argument on abortion, making the fairly common radical pro-choice case that doesn’t concede the “depends on definition of personhood/life” trope, but using the term “parasite” is ill-advised for sure.
me: Ill advised, certainly. I didn’t keep my copy of FaNL, but I don’t recall whether he addressed the late-term issue.
In my case, I do think defining when personhood starts is necessary on the matter. I actually think existing law lands in about the right place, though.
ac: Fun libertarian trivia: FaNL quotes and praises a young lawyer for the Children’s Defense Fund by the name of one Hillary Rodham, c. 1973, on the topic of children’s rights.
me: Interesting!
@NewFederalist LOL. I used to own a debate forum for over a decade. The only way to stay sane is to stay for the good conversation and weed out the rest.
“Possibly also his craziest period.”
I dunno. We’re talking about a man who campaigned for Strom Thurmond in 1948, Eguene McCarthy in 1968, David Bergland in 1984, and Pat Buchanan in 1992. If you want to find eccentricities in his politics, there’s plenty to choose from.
I won’t disagree that driving out Ed Crane et al was probably the most damaging thing that has ever been done to the LP, including the 2008 ticket. That’s just my opinion though, looking at it and seeing that the Cato Institute has been a hell of a lot more successful than the LP in the years since then.
I actually think he had the better of the argument on abortion, making the fairly common radical pro-choice case that doesn’t concede the “depends on definition of personhood/life” trope, but using the term “parasite” is ill-advised for sure.
Fun libertarian trivia: FaNL quotes and praises a young lawyer for the Children’s Defense Fund by the name of one Hillary Rodham, c. 1973, on the topic of children’s rights.
So I suppose we could even say that Hillary is the only Rothbard-approved candidate for 2016. 🙂 😉
“Robert, this will be my last comment to you. I have zero interest in speaking with you because I think you are a pompous ass as again demonstrated by your last comment. Pursuing unwelcome discussions is sad. Good day.” – carynification
I believe you have joined an ever expanding club!
@Joshua addition to prior comment
>>I don’t see it at all with Block, who explicitly argues for plumb-line libertarianism, and is one of the few plumb-liners who, in my opinion, actually are.>>
Went back and re-read some Block stuff and completely agree with your assessment. Every time I read Block I resonate with him more. Not on board with his “evictionism” but I understand why he thinks it coherent, and it is worlds better than Rothbard.
@Paulie I think I would agree as well on the foreign policy thing though Nolan seemed not to agree. He explicitly states in the opening to the article that it is an area of acceptable disagreement. Perhaps that might be because there are so many different permutations of non-interventionism.
Robert, this will be my last comment to you. I have zero interest in speaking with you because I think you are a pompous ass as again demonstrated by your last comment. Pursuing unwelcome discussions is sad. Good day.
Interesting link, thanks!
I agree with you about foreign policy, and with subsequent comments a number of people here have made about monetary policy.
c, is it comforting to adopt a plumbline dictated by someone else? Talk to us about *why* you accept and embrace the plumbline as your own.
Worded that badly, I do think it is pure, but I mean “purist” in the perjorative sense that is all the rage now.
Joshua, actually I consider myself very much a plumb-line libertarian. But that is the view that is being slammed as the “purist” view by many. If I differ in some way from that view, I would love to see how (in anything I have said so far). I think my questions to Marc Feldman were precisely what a plumb-line libertarian would say.
Rockwell/Block/Hoppe/North
Certainly true of Hoppe and North. Arguable about Lew Rockwell, although he has left-libertarians writing at his site (me, for instance) and hosted a week long seminar with Roderick Long on left libertarianism. I don’t see it at all with Block, who explicitly argues for plumb-line libertarianism, and is one of the few plumb-liners who, in my opinion, actually are.
AND… all only for 5 bucks a ticket! 😉
So should we refer to Marc “Macho Flash” Feldman that way at IPR from now, including in headlines? Maybe a Mexican wrestling costume and mask for campaign appearances?
🙂
ac: Probably Rothbard at his most libertarian was between when he wrote For A New Liberty (1973) and Ethics of Liberty (1983).
me: Possibly also his craziest period. From his fetuses are parasites in FaNL to his unhinged war against Crane and the Kochs in his Lib Forum, he revealed his angry, irrational side for all to see.
…I do not think you can accurately say that a Libertarian *has* to share the Austrian School/Ron Paul view that all bad government actions can be traced to the original sin of leaving the gold standard, and that going back on the gold standard is the only way to fix it.
I’m pretty sure I’ve heard Ron Paul say that the ideal monetary system would be competing currencies, which I agree with. Of course, he does believe that a return to a pure gold standard would be much better than the status quo, and I agree with him there, as well.
In particular, I think Rothbard’s contention that fractional-reserve is everywhere and always a per se fraud, is neither true nor reconcilable with his stated principles re: freedom of contract. If I want to deposit my money in a fractional-reserve institution, knowing full well that it is one and accepting that risk in exchange for the possible return, then who the hell is Murrary Rothbard & the Austrians to tell me I can’t do that? It’s certainly true that the gov’t subsidizes and distorts the banking market very heavily under the status quo, including pushing down the reserve requirement lower than a competitive market would probably set it. But that doesn’t mean 100% reserve is the only possible arrangement that isn’t fraudulent, the only type of bank that would be allowed in libertopia, which is what Rothbard tried to argue.
I totally agree with you here. As much as I like Rothbard, there were some areas where he went off the rails a bit, and I think this is one of them. The only way that fractional reserve banking is inherently fraudulent is if it’s combined with government-funded deposit insurance (as, of course, it is in the status quo). Having said that, I’m not sure that a fractional reserve bank could survive for very long in a true free market (i.e. without any government subsidies, especially deposit insurance). But if it could, I don’t see how it would violate the NAP.
I figured that MF or Macho Flash refered to me, Marc Feldman. I won’t object to the nickname. It might help with my efforts to represent Latinos.
Very truly yours,
Marc “Macho Flash” Feldman
Libertarian candidate for President
Best comment of the week so far!
He tended to veer all over the place as the decades passed. In his later years he was very much into promoting paleocon fusionism, backing folks like Pat Buchanan, etc. In earlier years he’d sought to build an alliance with the “New Left”. Both ideas were premised on war and foreign policy being the most important issue, and that the paleocons to the right and the hippie types to the left were at any given moment the best chance for less war. Hard to fault him for that. But in pursuit of that he advocated a lot of contorted logic to justify working with those groups on other issues. When he went left it was usually focused on drugs, abortion, sexual issues, etc., none of which is too objectionable from a libertarian perspective (though the focus on them might be to some). But when he went right, he totally abandoned any idea of cultural/social liberalism, and justified it on the grounds that a libertarian society would likely produce a social-conservative result, therefore libertarians shouldn’t really care about social-conservative government policies like prayer in school. That was the gist of it as I recall it anyway, it’s been a while since I read a bunch of Rothbard.
Probably Rothbard at his most libertarian was between when he wrote For A New Liberty (1973) and Ethics of Liberty (1983). That period also more-or-less overlaps with the time when he was heavily involved in the LP. In his later stuff, and some of his earlier stuff, you’re a lot more likely to find things that most libertarians would object to, leading to the Rockwell/Block/Hoppe/North type you see today, who tends to be quite openly socially conservative and regard themselves as the true heirs of Rothbard (and by extension the very word “libertarian”)
gp, not finding that one. I have found MNR’s praising the merging of North and South Vietnam because a state fell!
Seems a bit hard to believe. Wasn’t Rothbard a Jew and against government schools even existing at all?
Rothbard (The Lou Rockwell site has the material) said that Libertarians should be OK with compulsory Christian prayer in the public schools.
BTW, not that I wish to argue it, just wanted to point out that I do think Rothbard got several things utterly wrong without having to abandon the NAP to argue so… that is the obligations of parents to offspring and abortion.
@Andy Craig some good points there, and I don’t have Rothbard handy to interact, but at least as far as that simple Nolan article, I don’t think he would have fundamentally/ultimately disagreed. From the article:
>> The fifth and final key test of anyone’s claim to being a libertarian is their support for an honest money system; i.e. one where the currency is backed by something of true value (usually gold or silver). Fiat money — money with no backing, whose acceptance is mandated by the State — is simply legalized counterfeiting and is one of the keys to expanding government power.>>
The key point is “acceptance mandated by the State” though I would have been very interested in his nuances had bitcoin been around. I will keep your points in mind when I go back through Rothbard (and similar thinkers). Which is highlighted in his conclusory statement : >>A government which cannot conscript, confiscate, or counterfeit…>>>
Bitcoin is not government-mandated. While I think of course it is fair to point where technology or other radical changes I have happened, I see no conflict in your words applying these principles.
If your representation of Rothbard is accurate (I am not saying it isn’t, I am not an economics and that wasn’t the area I concentrated on and don’t have his materials handy right now), you would be more consistently libertarian (purist as you will).
ac, excellent point. It’s another example of The Nolan and many NAPsolutists confusion between the general and the specific. Being for “sound money” is hard to argue with as a general matter, but the specific Rothbardian prescription that The Nolan advocated in his Five Commandments seemed heavy-handed and presumptuous to me, and likely many.
I figured that MF or Macho Flash refered to me, Marc Feldman. I won’t object to the nickname. It might help with my efforts to represent Latinos.
Very truly yours,
Marc “Macho Flash” Feldman
Libertarian candidate for President
There are plenty of libertarians who don’t support or advocate a return to the gold standard. Particularly these days, with the rise of bitcoin etc. (which is a “fiat” system as defined by Nolan, as would be some kind of fixed-rule system as advocated by monetarist/Chicago economists). So while one can fairly say that monetary reform of some sort should be the Libertarian agenda, I do not think you can accurately say that a Libertarian *has* to share the Austrian School/Ron Paul view that all bad government actions can be traced to the original sin of leaving the gold standard, and that going back on the gold standard is the only way to fix it. My personal view is that a gold standard probably would be an improvement, but not a perfect silver bullet, and there are good libertarians and legitimate economists who wouldn’t even concede that much about it.
In particular, I think Rothbard’s contention that fractional-reserve is everywhere and always a per se fraud, is neither true nor reconcilable with his stated principles re: freedom of contract. If I want to deposit my money in a fractional-reserve institution, knowing full well that it is one and accepting that risk in exchange for the possible return, then who the hell is Murrary Rothbard & the Austrians to tell me I can’t do that? It’s certainly true that the gov’t subsidizes and distorts the banking market very heavily under the status quo, including pushing down the reserve requirement lower than a competitive market would probably set it. But that doesn’t mean 100% reserve is the only possible arrangement that isn’t fraudulent, the only type of bank that would be allowed in libertopia, which is what Rothbard tried to argue.
c, wait a sec. You defend the (false) term “cult of the omnipotent state” as colorful, yet the colorful term “macho flash” is brutalist for you?
Perceptions are not facts, but sticking only to facts seems kinda dull and uninteresting.
@Mark Axxinn, oh I thought you meant some philosophical core, not a certain political situation. I have zero doubt Nolan was wrong on many contemporaneous political situations.
@langa on macho flash, exactly. It is another word used to silence discussion through verbal bullying. Like “brutalist.”
L: Which kind of begs the question as to why you feel such non-productive navel-gazing is so beneficial.
me: I didn’t say it is beneficial. I’d say it’s unavoidable. Everyone’s always up in their heads.
Some think about stuff more “deeply,” that is, in more “sophisticated” ways. Rand and Rothbard come to mind. Since both of their thought systems were clearly, deeply dysfunctional, they came to many wacky conclusions.
What are they?
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/nolan.htm
By the way, I like Nolan’s list, but I would definitely add a sixth one, which would be a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Many/most people spend entire lifetimes pondering the meaning of life, philosophy, psychology, relationships, etc., and they never seem to make much progress. Myself definitely included!
Which kind of begs the question as to why you feel such non-productive navel-gazing is so beneficial. In any case, while I agree with Socrates that the unexamined life is not worth living, I would also contend that a life that consists of nothing but self-examination is equally worthless.
Just a note on “Macho Flash.” As far as I can tell, Michael Cloud invented the term “Libertarian Macho Flash” sometime in the 1970s. He was promoting a course on “The Art of Persuasion” and his ads would include warnings about engaging in the “Libertarian Macho Flash” – an extreme iteration of a libertarian position on a controversial issue, intended to show off how radical one is, rather than convince the person you are talking to.
The phrase may have been around for a long time, but it certainly seems to have become a lot more popular recently. I discovered libertarianism approximately twenty years ago, but I don’t remember hearing “macho flash” until maybe five years ago, if that. In any case, if it was still being used in the same sense that Cloud apparently meant, I wouldn’t really have a problem with it. I definitely understand the importance of tailoring one’s rhetoric to the audience, and even though some people respond well to bold rhetoric, others do not. However, the “macho flash” argument today seems to be used primarily to insist that libertarians should not advocate anything that is not politically feasible, or even worse, to denigrate any purist position.
What are they?
L: The fact is that I have spent the last 25 years thinking about political philosophy, questioning assumptions, etc., on almost a daily basis. I even completed all the course work (although never wrote my thesis) for an M.A. in Political Theory. So, save your condescending snark for someone else.
me: I am sorry you feel I condescend. Many/most people spend entire lifetimes pondering the meaning of life, philosophy, psychology, relationships, etc., and they never seem to make much progress. Myself definitely included!
Rothbard himself thought about things longer than you have, and he — IMO — was just as confused about the human condition at the end of his life as he was as a young adult. If anything, his thinking degenerated in his later years, as he cozied up to the hard right.
Time served may facilitate to progress, but my observation is that it really doesn’t prove a damn thing. The trick seems to be to ask better questions and to be open to the answer, which is often right there, hiding in plain sight.
The Nolan may well have believed that his 5-point litmus test was the be all and end all. But they collapse under rigorous scrutiny or in application.
Sound money, for ex., sounds good to me. It sure as shit ain’t sound now. The question is: How to get there from here?
Self ownership seems directionally correct, but how do we get there from here? Nonarchy pods?
Self defense seems like the right attitude, but does that mean anyone can tote anything anywhere?
“Just a note on “Macho Flash.” As far as I can tell, Michael Cloud invented the term “Libertarian Macho Flash” sometime in the 1970s. He was promoting a course on “The Art of Persuasion” and his ads would include warnings about engaging in the “Libertarian Macho Flash” – an extreme iteration of a libertarian position on a controversial issue, intended to show off how radical one is, rather than convince the person you are talking to.” – Gene Berkman
Right you are, Gene! He was Michael Emerling then and the course was “The Art of Political Persuasion” and the term was “The Great Libertarian Macho Flash”. Ahh… I love trivia!
In particular, while Nolan argued against helping New York in 2010, the deciding vote to assist in ballot access funding that year was cast by then LP Chair Mark Hinkle. As a result, we got IPR’s current owner Warren Redlich and five other candidates on the ballot and Warren ran the best and most successful campaign for Governor in the history of the LPNY.
Cary–
When he was on LNC, Nolan said spending money on New York ballot access was like flushing it down the toilet. Fortunately, my state’s many friends on the LNC disagreed with him.
Marc–
Good luck! You have a far way to go, but you know that already.
@Mark Axinn
I feel like a know a bit about non-voters since I was one until I was 50 years old.
I was not uninterested or ignorant of politics. I grew up in Washington DC and knew several national politicians on a personal level. I felt they were self-centered opportunists who were not particularly honest. I grew up with Viet Nam, Watergate, “Read my lips, no new taxes”, etc., etc.
I have been told (it may be a bit of exaggeration) that Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico vote 90% of the time, then when they come to the United States, they vote 9% of the time.
It is not because they suddenly became disinterested in politics. I think it is because they do not feel there is anybody running who will really represent them. Most of the time, they are probably right.
This is the most important difference between me and Gary Johnson. My primary goal is to represent these people, the non-voters. I respect them and I am listening to them. I would rather meet and discuss politics with an unemployed Puerto Rican man trying to make ends meet for his family, than any millionaire Cannabis businessman.
Will I succeed? I don’t know. In three months I have over 4000 “likes” on my “Votes Not For Sale” Facebook and its going up 8% per week. This compares with 8000 for the “Our America Initiative.” It is foolish to think I have a sure thing. It is also foolish to think I have no chance. We will see.
Mark what would you disagree with Nolan on (just bare curiosity on my part)
Joining the discussion a tad late:
1. Marc–What makes you think the 100,000,000 uninterested non-voters will vote for you? I doubt strongly they could care less about politics or showing up at the polls.
2. Steve–I agree. I work in an office of Ivy League or equivalent level eduated people with advance degrees from places like Yale Law School. Their income is no doubt in the top 2 or 3% of the country. They are actively raising money for Hillary Clinton.
3. Sticking my finger in the eye of the cult of the omnipotent state is the reason I am a Libertarian. It is the pernicious, intrusive, authoritarian, arbitrary, sanctimonious attitude of our rulers which particularly disgusts me and why I tilt at windmills year after year to spread a message of liberty to the masses. I did not agree with Nolan on some things, but he certainly got the primacy of that message right.
Just a note on “Macho Flash.” As far as I can tell, Michael Cloud invented the term “Libertarian Macho Flash” sometime in the 1970s. He was promoting a course on “The Art of Persuasion” and his ads would include warnings about engaging in the “Libertarian Macho Flash” – an extreme iteration of a libertarian position on a controversial issue, intended to show off how radical one is, rather than convince the person you are talking to.
c: Yet of course he does precisely the opposite in the article I listed. Having some foundational definitional presuppositions is simply reality.
me: Well, I read the article and I generally agree with it. And I’d in a sense agree that having foundational definitional presuppositions are not so much “reality” but more “unavoidable.”
To me, the more interesting question is what one does with one’s presuppositions. Where can progress be made toward liberty? How can one offer ideas and rhetoric which persuades others to change their minds about civil society?
Even the slightest desire to be consistent gets ruthlessly attacked…
Yeah, unfortunately, it seems a lot of self-proclaimed “libertarians” these days aren’t really interested in a consistent application of libertarian principles, but rather, only seek to apply those principles when they can be used as a means to accomplish their cultural objectives.
@Langa, I agree with it being unnecessary to add that baggage. We are on the same page. I have heard Corey M say similar things too and it is deeply troubling. Unfortunately, I see a lot more of this coming from the left presently. Even the slightest desire to be consistent gets ruthlessly attacked, even though as I have said here, I frequently give in to pragmatism. I got called a brutalist shitlord which is a source of endless amusement considering how I cry at cheesy commercials.
Langa and Jill, I intend upon staying (gracias!), I just learn who not to waste time on:)
What qualifications would those be?
Well, it depends on the particular “thick” libertarian in question, and whether they are on the right or left side of the culture war. To give an example of each, I have heard Hans Hoppe say things like, “Libertarianism can only work in a society based on bourgeois values.” Meanwhile, I have heard Roderick Long say things like, “One cannot be a libertarian without also being a feminist.” I disagree with both those things, and I think they are each likely to alienate many potential libertarians who agree with the NAP, but are turned off by having to embrace this type of cultural baggage.
Carynification, you’ve contributed quite a bit to this conversation. Please come back soon.
Have a good day, and see you at some time in the future if I don’t comment again here.
Don’t let RC run you off. If you haven’t figured it out yet, he’s just our resident troll. He’s persistent, but ineffective — much like most government-run services.
@Lango
>>I agree, which is one reason I am so strongly opposed to “thick” libertarians adding additional qualifications to the concept of libertarianism.>>
What qualifications would those be? (we probably agree– I go with a minimalist definition, but that doesn’t mean no definition).
>>My critiques of Nolan and other deontological absolutist strains of L-ism has been shared here over the years,>>>
Yet of course he does precisely the opposite in the article I listed. Having some foundational definitional presuppositions is simply reality.
>>so sorry if you are late to the party. >>
Okay, I see you can’t discuss things without being a patronizing ass.
Have fun.
It’s well and good to have standards for candidates. It becomes problematic when the public perceives a party as having standards for voters, supporters, and donors, which I think is largely the public perception at the moment. If our message to someone is “if you don’t agree to X, you aren’t a libertarian” the takeaway might well be “okay, I guess I shouldn’t vote Libertarian even though I agree with their candidate more than the others in this race.” I find that to be the danger – not being careful with our nominees. As a party, you want votes – you don’t want to create additional hurdles voters need to get over before they will vote for you.
I agree, which is one reason I am so strongly opposed to “thick” libertarians adding additional qualifications to the concept of libertarianism.
c: Once again wondering why you think you are Libertarian when you basically have just sit here and insulted anyone who would agree with what the LP actually says with very inflammatory terms. You haven’t challenged any of Nolan’s foundations for Libertarianism.
me: L seems the best term to describe my political philosophy, as theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist is rather cumbersome.
Actually, my experience is we live in one crazy world. The L flavor is a bit different than other craziness we all see in our everyday lives. This may not be your experience, and for that I am a bit jealous!
My critiques of Nolan and other deontological absolutist strains of L-ism has been shared here over the years, so sorry if you are late to the party. I could go over several of them if you are interested, but mostly I think that Nolan and Co. set up a construct against which they measure the world as it is and demand lockstep agreement that this construct of theirs is “moral” and all other views are not. There seems no meaningful recognition of process, just a my-way-or-the-highway sanctimony that persuades very few.
If a group of bakers in a community agree either explicitly or implicitly to refuse to bake for same-sex couples, and those couples must go to additional significant time and expense, then that injury is an act of aggression that is illegal discrimination.
It may be illegal under current law, but it is not a violation of libertarian principles. In fact, it is no different than a group of workers (i.e. a labor union) agreeing to refuse to work for a certain wage, and then those businesses would have to go to additional time/expense to find workers to hire. Would you also consider that to be an act of aggression? If not, what is the difference?
>>You act as if I was just some random big government supporter, who just happened to stumble across a Rothbard column, and after thinking about it for 5 minutes, said, “You know, this guy’s absolutely right. No need to worry about that anymore!”>>
I thought we all did that.
Go back to all your premises and ask, Is this true? Take a scalpel to your pre-conceived notions and constructs. Be rigorous. Leave no stone unturned.
You act as if I was just some random big government supporter, who just happened to stumble across a Rothbard column, and after thinking about it for 5 minutes, said, “You know, this guy’s absolutely right. No need to worry about that anymore!”
The fact is that I have spent the last 25 years thinking about political philosophy, questioning assumptions, etc., on almost a daily basis. I even completed all the course work (although never wrote my thesis) for an M.A. in Political Theory. So, save your condescending snark for someone else.
>>Right out of the gates, Nolan and the founders claimed to “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state.” Those were among the first words they decided to chisel into the LP’s foundation, and to make matters even more dysfunctional, they protected it with a 7/8ths hurdle to remove said language.
To my way of thinking, a clear thinker doesn’t make such obviously false statements, especially in one’s opening statement!>>
Again that is just ipse dixit— they don’t share your view, so they are looney. I happen to agree with their statement, and am left to wonder why you bother with a party founded on something you obviously disagree with. The LP still believes this. And I am very glad for this.
>>There are no blind followers advocating an all-powerful government, so it’s easy to imagine that most reading that sentence in the SoP would conclude the authors were insane, possibly paranoid schizophrenic.>>
If you are going to take political rhetoric in a hyper-literal manner, and then make medical pronouncements that are at best way more outlandish than what you are challenging, and at worst, downright malicious, well, credibility….. is…… lost.
The phrase “cult of the omnipotent government” is still just as true today. It doesn’t require literally blind followers and a literally all-powerful government unless you are actually proposing that Nolan and his comrades were saying… oh, people believe that the government created the universe? If not, then even you recognize this statement is not hyper literal. People today and then look to the state as their saviour. Just as true today. Someone won’t make someone a cake? THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW AGAINST THAT. That is irrational. And vesting the state with an omnipotent power to make everyone conform. Liberty be damned.
>>You may also believe that such a cult exists. And you may be correct, as it’s always possible that the few who perceive said cult have broken through to another, higher plane of existence.>>>
Wow, the passive aggressiveness is strong with you. Okay. Thanks for indirectly let me know I am wasting my time.
Once again wondering why you think you are Libertarian when you basically have just sit here and insulted anyone who would agree with what the LP actually says with very inflammatory terms. You haven’t challenged any of Nolan’s foundations for Libertarianism.
What is the worst I have to said to you? You are not Libertarian (perhaps— I still don’t know exactly what you believe other than being qualified to make outrageous pronouncements on mental states) and use questionable tactics to load the discussion?
If you respond with something of actual substance other than playing a doctor on the Internet and smearing people who are supposed to be your Libertarian comrades,, i might respond. Otherwise, I WOULD be a lunatic for continuing on such an irrational course.
The “purists” — you know those people who have the damned arrogance to actually believe this stuff– will always be around and will always oppose non-Libertarian ideas gussied up to be Libertarianism. Again, I am pragmatic on many things. I support the legalization of gay marriage. That is not a purist nor end-goal Libertarian position. It is stop-gap. I don’t pretend it is the ideal Libertarian solution which of course would be to get the State out. I don’t call those who disagree with me on pure Libertarian grounds as insane.
I find all these hurls of “purist” are usually when someone is challenging someone else’s special interest. Gay Libertarians tend to be very unLibertarian when it comes to having to let others have the liberty to disagree with them. Same with women. Same with religious folks. And hurling “purist” might make a great sound byte but it is transparent. We don’t like our sacred cows to be tipped but have no issues tipping others.
For those who want to see what is this “insanity” that is causing such a push on the panic button? Here is Nolan’s Five Essential Libertarian Positions (and he wasn’t an anarchist, which is something that implied in other comments— he didn’t believe in no state whatsoever)
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/nolan.htm
Have a good day, and see you at some time in the future if I don’t comment again here.
Thank you for your response Marc. Let me agree right up from that I find bigotry to be immoral and offensive. I don’t think it can or should be illegal or be subject to state coercion.
My followup question isn’t intended to be antagonistic, and I have no issue with someone saying they are taking a pragmatic position that isn’t libertarian per se, but that the real world sometimes doesn’t obey our philosophy as much as we would like.
I am asking the followup question because you appear not to be arguing pragmatically but claiming this is a violation of the NAP:
>>If a group of bakers in a community agree either explicitly or implicitly to refuse to bake for same-sex couples, and those couples must go to additional significant time and expense, then that injury is an act of aggression that is illegal discrimination.>>
Why? Precisely what right does a customer have to the product of another such that the denial of that product, either individually or in groups (particularly of a luxury item like a cake) violates some right that the couple has? Precisely what right is this? How is that aggression? Are you suggesting that the couple has a fundamental right to a cake at a certain cost and aggravation level? I do not think you are defining aggression in a libertarian manner…. and that’s okay…. my issue is that you seem to be claiming it is being defined in a libertarian manner and it isn’t. If the libertarian argument against government in many cases is that what is wrong for one person to do doesn’t become right just because a bunch of people voted for another group to do it, the converse is true. If one private owner has the right to refuse service on a luxury item, a group of them would have the same right. Sounds like a great opportunity for a cabal-buster to make a ton of money. I am very concerned about this definition of aggression you are proposing. (and this is of course sheerly cerebral, no gay person has any trouble finding flowers, a cake, or a photographer. And if I were a baker, florist, or photographer, I would take nearly anyone’s business) As a pragmatist, I think this argument can be made for sheerly essential services (basic groceries, medical, housing)… but basically you are saying that our freedom of association is dependent upon the convenience of another party. Why can’t freedom of speech be then limited in this way? (I could parse out a whole other host of problems with our proposal including the potential government overreach in defining “implicitly”— rings of thought police). I am really troubled about this new right you seem to be creating. You can’t merely allege “aggression”— there can only be true aggression against a true right. I have a right to life. You are not aggressing against me if you refuse to support me financially. The minute you start defining “aggression” in this manner…. well, you don’t pay me enough to live “comfortably”— aggression. You don’t want to pay for my healthcare—–aggression. Etc. Those things are a lot more important than a cake.
I can think of a concrete example actually. As Muslims come more into our country, there will be predominantly Muslim communities. There are gay people in those communities. It is highly likely that the only bakers in town would not want to serve a gay wedding. You are suggesting that if there is some inconvenience to the gay couple that you would be in favour of using government punitive coercion to force these Muslims to comply? And which of the bakers? All of them? Or just all minus one? If the state has this compelling interest to provide people with hassle-free cakes, perhaps the government should bake them.
You also seem to be saying that if it is a small town with one baker, the state can use government force to make them comply. That is troubling. How is that aggression on any libertarian philosophical view not to bake a cake because you happen to be the only baker?
And what if there are two bakers…. and one is doing better than the other…. why isn’t it “illegal discrimination” and “aggression” for customers to choose one over the other… say perhaps because one is a Middle Eastern, and the people in this town have a prejudice against Middle Easterners? Why isn’t this aggression under your view? Why should the baker have to suffer the inconvenience of opening up in a more ethnically tolerant community? How can someone have a right to cake without arguing that someone has a right to equal business? Where does this right come from?
Most importantly since you are seeking the Nomination, what in the Libertarian Party platform justifies this view you are suggesting? Or do you simply disagree with the Libertarian Party platform on this issue? (which again is okay, I prefer things on the table— I disagree with the Libertarian Party platform on abortion)
This doesn’t compute under libertarian theory.
Again, not trying to give you an unnecessary hard time. I respect anyone who cares enough about our country to run. I hope to be able to meet you at the National Convention.
It’s well and good to have standards for candidates. It becomes problematic when the public perceives a party as having standards for voters, supporters, and donors, which I think is largely the public perception at the moment. If our message to someone is “if you don’t agree to X, you aren’t a libertarian” the takeaway might well be “okay, I guess I shouldn’t vote Libertarian even though I agree with their candidate more than the others in this race.” I find that to be the danger – not being careful with our nominees. As a party, you want votes – you don’t want to create additional hurdles voters need to get over before they will vote for you.
By the way, I suspect the ‘cake issue’ has worked out fantastically for big-staters. Get everyone discussing cakes instead of more fundamental questions – even within the gay rights question – and you’ve won, regardless of the outcome.
carynification said: ” I don’t care if someone wants to disagree, but simply asserting “deeply unclear thinkers” and “out of their minds” is just rank insult.”
I agree with that. Then Capozzi said: “possibly paranoid schizophrenic.”. It always amazes me that RC calls himself a Libertarian when he clearly thinks so little of the philosophy and its followers.
@carynification
I recognize that there is immoral and offensive prejudice that is unacceptable, but not illegal. It is not the role of our government to enforce any thought or belief system. We need to fight prejudice by recognizing it in ourselves and others, learn about people different from ourselves, and work together towards common goals.
Illegal discrimination is a form of aggression, a use of force against a member or members of identified groups. If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage, and the couple can go across the street and order a cake just as good or better, then that is offensive prejudice that is unacceptable but not illegal. The couple had no injury.
If a group of bakers in a community agree either explicitly or implicitly to refuse to bake for same-sex couples, and those couples must go to additional significant time and expense, then that injury is an act of aggression that is illegal discrimination.
My solution is in “evidence-based government.” For illegal discrimination to be a target of government intervention, it must be objectively observable and measurable. The extent of the problem would be surveyed and potential solutions developed and monitored. Money would be budgeted and the cost-benefit of the government programs would be assessed. At the same time private organizations would also be voluntarily surveyed and assessed for their cost-effectiveness in fighting discrimination. If the private organizations are shown to be equally or more cost-effective than government programs – then those organizations would not only be tax-deductible, but donors would get a 100% dollar for dollar tax rebate for donations. Because I would maintain a balanced budget, money donated to effective private organizations would lead to budget cuts to government programs.
This system objectively shows that society problems can be solved, but not always necessarily by government intervention.
c: I don’t care if someone wants to disagree, but simply asserting “deeply unclear thinkers” and “out of their minds” is just rank insult.
me: Thank you. That’s fair feedback.
Right out of the gates, Nolan and the founders claimed to “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state.” Those were among the first words they decided to chisel into the LP’s foundation, and to make matters even more dysfunctional, they protected it with a 7/8ths hurdle to remove said language.
To my way of thinking, a clear thinker doesn’t make such obviously false statements, especially in one’s opening statement!
There are no blind followers advocating an all-powerful government, so it’s easy to imagine that most reading that sentence in the SoP would conclude the authors were insane, possibly paranoid schizophrenic.
You may also believe that such a cult exists. And you may be correct, as it’s always possible that the few who perceive said cult have broken through to another, higher plane of existence.
Seems unlikely, but I’m always open to another interpretation and more data points establishing the existence of the cult.
>>by no intention of shutting up, I mean in general not here specifically. I mean in the real world not online quibbling. Still smh at anyone who thinks the LP SoP and founding principles are insane would be LP.
David Nolan is one of the founders, but considered the key one. And he wrote on this topic. Clearly. I don’t care if someone wants to disagree, but simply asserting “deeply unclear thinkers” and “out of their minds” is just rank insult. Not argument. And I don’t really appreciate the passive aggressive assumption that purists haven’t been rigious and if only we would be deep thinkers, we would think like …. well like you.
I have thought about it deeply, and Nolan is right. There are essential Libertarian positions, and if you don’t hold them, you might hold a wonderful view. You might be absolutely right. But you are not Libertarian. I don’t mean “you” are in you personally since I don’t have a handle on exactly what you said except that the Party founders were loons. I wouldn’t be in a party that is still living by principles I thought were lunatic. I would form or join a new one.
And I have no intention of shutting up. If you can’t argue your pragmatism from libertarian grounds, it isn’t libertarian.
I have some sheerly pragmatic positions. I don’t pretend they are libertarian. They aren’t.
c: David Nolan, the Party founder, sure thought so.
me: My understanding is that DN was not THE founder, but A. Nevertheless, given the SoP and some of the foundational rules, I think it’s obvious that the founders were deeply unclear thinkers…possibly out of their minds.
L: Personally, I think it would be pretty embarrassing if, say, an LP presidential candidate, after securing the nomination, began taking, for example, blatantly communist or fascist positions, and the LP had no way of distancing itself from him. Don’t you?
me: Yes.
On “purists” shutting up, my counsel is different. Go back to all your premises and ask, Is this true? Take a scalpel to your pre-conceived notions and constructs. Be rigorous. Leave no stone unturned.
You will be stunned when the scales fall from your eyes!
L, I don’t see the quotes from the article you cite. Did I miss something?
The first one was a paraphrase of the article. The other two were examples of arguments that other people have made, that are based on the exact same logic as the article. And yes, the clear implication of such arguments is indeed that “purists” need to shut up and go along with whatever “pragmatic” position is being advocated.
…would you set up a review committee which could pull a nomination from any L candidate if s/he did not toe the platform plumbline?
You know, that’s not a bad idea. Personally, I think it would be pretty embarrassing if, say, an LP presidential candidate, after securing the nomination, began taking, for example, blatantly communist or fascist positions, and the LP had no way of distancing itself from him. Don’t you?
Robert, do you not think there are essential Libertarian positions? David Nolan, the Party founder, sure thought so. He articulated five. Yes, someone who doesn’t at least give philosophical assent to those five (even if pragmatically they can’t happen right now) shouldn’t be a nominee…. there is a reason why there are Parties, they are some foundational differences.
L, I don’t see the quotes from the article you cite. Did I miss something?
Nor do I see anyone advocating that people “shut up.” I do agree with you that government will most likely continue to be involved in granting marriage contracts and taxing for the foreseeable future.
I’m not sure that the platform is THE “actual” L position. Ls individually take positions, it seems to me, including L candidates. Or would you set up a review committee which could pull a nomination from any L candidate if s/he did not toe the platform plumbline?
Marc Feldman, how would you end discrimination more than the Democrats without using State force?
When I have used MF, it’s a comment on marketing, rhetoric, and presentation, not principle. Making statements WAY outside the mainstream that are NAP-compliant and implied by applying the NAP to its logical conclusion may well be “principled,” but I’d submit UNWISE.
As I said, the way it is typically used, at least in my experience, is as a variation on the “lesser of two evils” argument. This article provides a perfect example: “Sure, the actual libertarian position may be that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all, but that’s clearly unrealistic, so just shut up and embrace a government-mandated ‘marriage equality’ scheme.” Or, to take another example: “Sure, the actual libertarian position may be that the income tax should be eliminated, but that’s never going to happen, so just shut up and support the ‘Fair Tax’ idea.”
I fail to see how these sorts of arguments are any different than saying, “Sure, the Libertarian candidate may be the best candidate on the ballot, but he has absolutely no chance to win, so just shut up and help me campaign for Rand Paul.”
Just so everyone knows … the post that went up on the Outright blog wasn’t intended to endorse a candidate – our apologies if it appeared that way. It is the first-person opinion of one of our officers and not the deliberated conscience of the caucus as a whole.
Having said that, I totally stand behind the premise of the article, which is that voting for a Libertarian in 2016 does not make us “purists”, as if purity is something to be ashamed of. Outright Libertarians is proud to stand beside our LP allies and insist upon Liberty for All.
We’re going to be doing some additional work to shine light on the options that Libertarians have in 2016 to be sure there’s a vibrant dialogue about what’s really best for liberty and we see Dr Feldman as one of the front-runners of that conversation.
Thank you everyone for the work you do for Liberty. It’s a joy to do activism with you all.
Mike Shipley, Chair
Outright Libertarians
Steve M: “So your target market is people with High School Degrees or less and make less then $60,000?”
I believe Marc stated that he was going for those people whose minds were not already made up to vote for one of the major party candidates.. In other words, those 100,000,000 people whose minds at least have the possibility of being open to an alternative point of view.
On a side note, I am disturbed by the bigoted nature of your statement. Are you suggesting that those people with High School Degrees or less, and or making less than $60,000 are somehow unworthy of our attention?
When I was running, this past year, for state rep here in PA, I spoke with many people who were not of a high income bracket. Those people were VERY receptive to my ideas on education. In fact, they are very motivated to providing the best opportunities for their children, because of their financial circumstances.
I definitely think that Marc is targeting the correct market for his message, though I do agree with Andy in that he will be needing to raise more money than his $5 max donation will give him. I would also suggest finding a way to talk to Ernest Hancock about advertising on a low budget…
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
“I don’t believe you raise enough money”
Should read, “I don’t believe you’ll raise enough money…”
L: Oh, and the coining of the idiotic pejorative “macho flash” appears to be the latest in the long line of attempts to persuade libertarians to abandon principle in favor “pragmatic” political maneuvers.
me: I do believe the term goes back to the 90s, at least.
When I have used MF, it’s a comment on marketing, rhetoric, and presentation, not principle. Making statements WAY outside the mainstream that are NAP-compliant and implied by applying the NAP to its logical conclusion may well be “principled,” but I’d submit UNWISE.
Politics is at once about GENERAL aspirations but also SPECIFIC, short-term positive steps.
“Marc Allan Feldman
April 20, 2015 at 9:20 pm
Yes, Steve. And with a large Latino representation also. My $5 maximum contribution may not make sense to many people here, but it may to this constituency.”
I don’t believe you raise enough money to come anywhere close to reaching these people with this $5 maximum contribution plan.
CQ: “nor do I want to bash people for not living up to my own ideology.
Neither do I, EXCEPT; when they don’t, then fail on their faces and then whine about it!
We are SUPPOSED to learn from our misstates!
Yes, Steve. And with a large Latino representation also. My $5 maximum contribution may not make sense to many people here, but it may to this constituency.
Marc,
So your target market is people with High School Degrees or less and make less then $60,000?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
Or, if you prefer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4lK41SX-Q
This article could be summed up in two sentences: “Well, I’m not even going to pretend that Gary Johnson is a hardcore libertarian, because I really don’t care whether he is or not. He’s good on my pet issue, and that’s all that really matters to me.”
Oh, and the coining of the idiotic pejorative “macho flash” appears to be the latest in the long line of attempts to persuade libertarians to abandon principle in favor “pragmatic” political maneuvers. In fact, it is based on the exact same logic as the “lesser of two evils” argument that virtually all Libertarians claim to despise. If standing up for actual libertarian principles instead of selling out for short-term political gains makes me a “macho flash” libertarian, then so be it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08
This article demonstrates the difference in strategy between Gary Johnson’s and my campaign. Gary appeals to the traditional liberty-oriented interest groups, marriage equality, munitions, and marijuana. The aim is to attract disgruntled Libertarian-leaning voters away from the old parties. As the article says “A vote for Gary Johnson sends a clear message to both major parties: Be more libertarian, or lose our vote.”
In 2012:
Obama received 66 million votes
Romney got 61 million votes
Gary Johnson got 1 million votes
and 100 million eligilble voters did not vote.
I am not aiming for the 66 million Democratic votes, or some Libertarian-leaning votes from the 61 million Republicans. I am trying to represent the 100 million who were not inspired enough by the Democrat, the Republican, or the Libertarian. I am espousing a new Libertarian populism to help the poor and fight discrimination better than the Democrats, and balance the budget and shrink the government to Constitutional limits better than the Republicans, using Libertarian solutions.
This is a good article, and very well said. I hope Gary really does run for President for us in 2016.
Good, I am not a Libertarian ‘purist’ either.
It’s just that don’t like being absolute & chauvinist in my approach, nor do I want to bash people for not living up to my own ideology.