Is Judge Jim Gray a Potential 2016 Presidential Candidate?

In an article published here yesterday about the recent complaint filed against the Commission on Presidential Debates, Judge Jim Gray, the Libertarian Party’s 2012 Vice Presidential nominee, identified himself as a “potential candidate.”  It was not entirely clear whether he was referring to the presidential or vice presidential nomination.  I contacted Judge Gray to find out.

In response to whether he considered himself a potential candidate for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, via e-mail, Gray wrote the following:

In a word, no.  Governor Gary Johnson is the most qualified person to be President that I know of, and I fully support him.  It is my understanding that he will announce his candidacy for President as a Libertarian sometime in February.  And I have already told him that if he asks me, I would be proud again to be his running mate.  But that is his decision to make.

So stay tuned, and help to elect President Gary Johnson in 2016.  It is the best investment we can make in our great country.

112 thoughts on “Is Judge Jim Gray a Potential 2016 Presidential Candidate?

  1. Shawn L.

    Betteridge’s law exists because of trollish concern articles, headlined by a passive aggressive headline. It asks a question suggesting an situation exists, but without proof. Which is why the headline can’t be a statement.

    Here, the headline being in the form of a question is just a poor choice of headline, as the question is answered. Something along the lines of “Judge Jim Gray clarifies his status as a ‘potential candidate’ in 2016”, would be a better headline. It preserves a bit of the “tease” to encourage people to read the article, but clearly communicates that there is an answer within.

    I don’t know if there is any style guides for writing headlines. If there is, a rule against headlines in the form of a question should be in there. (Unless you’re writing about the game show Jeopardy!)

  2. Mike K

    I love how he just takes the ‘running mate’ part for granted…. I doubt we’ll be seeing the Delegates nominate him a second time around. Especially after his silly “Police as noble servants” and Teddy Roosevelt was a good president articles.

  3. Jill Pyeatt

    I also don’t think he will automatically be Johnson’s running mate, if indeed Johnson runs and is nominated. The “police as noble servants” will (and should) haunt him.

  4. Andy

    MikeK, I have seen LP Delegates make bad decisions at pretty much every LP Convention I have attended, so it would not surprise me at all if Gray gets the VP nomination again, even though he has defended his calling the police noble servants that Libertarians should honor, respect, and thank.

  5. Joe Wendt

    IF Johnson runs and somehow won the nomination, he should at least have the decency to support Feldman, Kerbel, Perry, Petersen, or one of the other currently announced Presidential candidates for the VP Nomination. Jim Gray doesn’t deserve it based on some of his statements.

  6. Andy Craig

    “Have the LP delegates always respected the presidential nominee’s wishes on the running mate?”

    When the nominee states a preference, I believe so. They don’t have to, and not all nominees have expressed a desire for a particular running mate, but I can’t think of any cases where the pres. nominee endorsed a candidate for VP, and that candidate wasn’t nominated. There was an effort to do so in 2008, that might have succeeded but-for a handful of disgruntled delegates walking out after Barr won pres. nomination. But that was only even maybe possible, because some people who voted for Barr as the nominee, were willing to vote against his endorsement of Root for VP, and that’s not a very common or likely scenario.

    I think Gray is a perfectly good running mate, and arguably the best VP candidate we’ve had since Tonie Nathan. But even if I was on the fence about that, he certainly gets extra points in the “pissing off the right people” category. The list of repetitive complaints, and petty out-of-context misquoting, is even skimpier than the talking points against Johnson. Nitpicking at his lack of f***-tha-police attitude (in an article lamenting the demise of the traditional ‘peace officer’ ideal), or his mom-and-apple-pie generic patriotism, strikes me as very silly when there are Libertarian candidates for lower office running around spouting off much bigger deviations from the platform than anything Johnson or Gray have ever said.

  7. paulie

    “Have the LP delegates always respected the presidential nominee’s wishes on the running mate?”

    Not sure, but there have been at the very least times when it was close.

  8. Robert Capozzi

    ac, I’d say David Koch was the best LP veep to date. He played his role — funder — to a T.

  9. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy Craig, I actually think Gray’s defense of policemen is a serious liability for the LP, if he were to become our vp candidate. In fact, I think the militarization of police forces and the lack of accountability for murderous cops should become an issue we speak about as a party. The two big parties aren’t willing to speak out about it, but many Americans are highly alarmed by what we see and read about it.

    Joe Wendt is right that many of our presidential candidates should be considered as vp candidate, if Johnson were to become our presidential candidate.

  10. Joe Wendt

    @ paulie- First, I will politely say FU. Second, that doesn’t provide you with an excuse to essentially demean a valid point about the VP nominee by associating my comment with my opinion on the subject of my preferred GOP candidate.

  11. paulie

    I will politely say FU

    Fail.

    Second, that doesn’t provide you with an excuse to essentially demean a valid point about the VP nominee by associating my comment with my opinion on the subject of my preferred GOP candidate.

    I’m not commenting about your point. If I wanted to I would. I’m just wondering about your constant careening back and forth between very different parties and ideologies. How does someone go from radical libertarian to denouncing the LP as a whole and supporting one of the most thoroughly and admittedly anti-libertarian Republicans and back to the LP within such a short period of time?

  12. Andy

    I strongly agree with Jill Pyeatt about Gray’s love affair with law enforcement being a liability.

  13. Mike K

    Andy Craig, “he certainly gets extra points in the “pissing off the right people” category.”… What right people are you referring to???? The people who aren’t delusional like you about winning elections?

  14. Richard Winger

    Maybe I’m just lucky, but all my interactions with police in San Francisco have shown me police in San Francisco are good human beings working a very stressful job. I have visited friends in jail and in prison and I find some prison guards and sheriff deputies not to be well-behaved. The New York Times stories recently (even today) about NY prison guards are sickening. Not all types of law enforcement people are the same.

  15. Gene Berkman

    The only time of which I am aware that there was an issue with the Vice-Presidential nomination was at the 1975 convention, nominating for the 1976 election. There was a group that pushed Jim Trotter of Santa Barbara, CA (I believe) for Vice-President, after Roger MacBride had been nominated for President.

    Those supporting Jim Trotter wanted to push the “tax revolt” angle, and apparently Mr Trotter claimed that he had engaged in tax resistance – some sort of non-payment as protest. Roger MacBride indicated he would use the power granted in the by-laws to veto Jim Trotter, because he did not want a legal issue. Dave Bergland was flown from Orange County, California to the national convention and received the nomination for Vice-President.

    I have never seen any indication that Jim Trotter actually resisted taxes, and there is no report of any prosecution. Years later he became involved in the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee, expressing some real bitterness toward the Libertarian Party, but not because of the 1975 convention.

  16. langa

    Of course, the LP should speak out against out-of-control cops, and should also talk about the laws and institutional factors that allow them to maim and kill many people, often with impunity.

    Unfortunately, it seems that some libertarians would prefer to simply parrot the MSM narrative, that police brutality is simply a racial issue. This is like saying that terrorist attacks are simply a religious issue. Yes, there is some connection between police brutality and race, just as there is some connection between terrorist attacks and religion. But focusing on these tangential connections just serves to distract people from the real causes of, and more importantly, the real solutions to, these serious problems.

  17. Andy Craig

    “Andy Craig, I actually think Gray?s defense of policemen is a serious liability for the LP, if he were to become our vp candidate. In fact, I think the militarization of police forces and the lack of accountability for murderous cops should become an issue we speak about as a party. The two big parties aren?t willing to speak out about it, but many Americans are highly alarmed by what we see and read about it.”

    Which is exactly what the article you’re referring to was talking about. This talk about “Gray’s love affair with law enforcement” (as Andy J. put it) or that Johnson/Gray refuse to talk about police abuse and accountability issues, is pretty wildly removed from what Gray actually wrote. That a former judge tries to make a more positive case for an alternative model of police conduct, rather that just hating on all cops, is a far cry from refusing to criticize police or failing to call for criminal justice and police accountability reforms. He’s been making that case in the context of L.E.A.P. for a long time before he was our candidate for VP– if anything, the topic and his experience in the area is one of the strengths he brings to the ticket. Both Johnson and Gray talk about the issue with some frequency, and have been for quite a while.

    It honestly strikes me as a very strained and exaggerated complaint, that keeps getting repeated ad nauseum. Just because something caused a brief kerfuffle in the IPR comments, doesn’t make it any sort “liability” in the general election. If that’s the biggest complaint party insiders have about Gray, I think we’re in pretty good shape to nominate him again, if that’s how it ends up shaking out.

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/judge-gray-responds-to-iprs-opposing-viewpoints-on-policemen-as-noble-servants/

  18. Andy Craig

    “Maybe I’m just lucky, but all my interactions with police in San Francisco have shown me police in San Francisco are good human beings working a very stressful job. I have visited friends in jail and in prison and I find some prison guards and sheriff deputies not to be well-behaved. The New York Times stories recently (even today) about NY prison guards are sickening. Not all types of law enforcement people are the same.”

    I’d say state/local jail/prison officers are widely recognized at being at the bottom of the totem pole, in terms of professionalism and accountability. It’s a lot harder to generate public demand for accountability, when the victims are all ‘criminals’. Federal is substantially better, or at least that’s my understanding, which is part of why you see state/local prisoners often make a deliberate effort to get upgraded to ‘Club Fed’.

    But it’s also hard to generate public demand, if we’re going around with a message that contradicts your more positive experiences, which is something most (or at least a lot of) people have had in their lives. The point is to hold up that image of Officer Friendly, or your proverbial Andy Griffith, as what we’d prefer, what we want to have instead of the corruption and abuse we have now… but not to try to convince people their drinking buddy on the town force is really History’s Greatest Monster. Because that just won’t work, it’s as simple as that. We have a police officer on our state party EC, I know many other movement libertarians who’ve had careers in law enforcement. There have been elected Libertarians who’ve had to making hiring and firing decisions in their town’s police department. I don’t think drawing some sort us vs. them line, is what our message is really about.

  19. Andy Craig

    @Mike K

    “What right people are you referring to???? The people who aren’t delusional like you about winning elections?”

    Am I supposed to take it as an insult, that somebody active in a political party cares about winning elections?

    I don’t know on what basis you think I”m “delusional” about it. I’m very realistic, to the point of maybe even cynical, about the long odds facing Libertarian candidates. But I don’t out of hand reject the possibility, or more on-point that pursuing it should be a goal. If a candidate isn’t themselves interested in even the chance of winning, and (same thing) earning as many votes as possible, then I don’t know why they should expect anybody else to bother supporting their campaign. The other positive things that can come from a campaign- party growth, shaping the debate, raising issues, education, etc.- all follow from that. A campaign that tries to do them instead of winning votes, will get neither.

  20. Andy

    Richard, I would say that you have been lucky.

    Abusive and corrupt cops are a huge problem in this country, and it is a problem everywhere.

    I have had my rights violated by the police on numerous occasions, many times while in the process of gathering petition signatures or voter registrations, but there have been other instances as well.

    Both of the times that I have been arrested they were for gathering signatures on petitions on public property, and both times the police LIED in their police reports (they did not even bother to mention that I was gathering signatures on petitions). The first petitioning arrest they actually sprayed mace in my eyes. The second petition arrest has wasted a lot of my time, as I have had to travel back and forth (at my own expense) to fend off false charges, and the situation has still not been resolved.

    People who think that all is well in this country with the police must live sheltered lives.

  21. Joe Wendt

    @ Paulie:

    “I’m not commenting about your point.” Actually, by bringing up an unrelated subject as a retort to a comment is a passive aggressive way of denigrating the argument by essentially attacking the commenter.

    “I’m just wondering about your constant careening back and forth between very different parties and ideologies.” Considering in the past you have defended Adrian Wyllie, who fairly recently publicly denounced the LP, (where as, for the most part, I kept my decisions and opinions within a my circle of friends) I really don’t think you are in a position to criticize. Also, it’s completely unrelated to my comment, which was fairly concise.

  22. paulie

    Actually, by bringing up an unrelated subject as a retort to a comment is a passive aggressive way of denigrating the argument by essentially attacking the commenter.

    In your imagination.

    In reality, I commented on what I commented about because that’s what I wanted to comment about, and said nothing about whatever you commented about. Either because I didn’t feel like talking about it, or don’t care, or maybe even agree with you. If you think you know my position, you don’t.

    Considering in the past you have defended Adrian Wyllie, who fairly recently publicly denounced the LP

    He denounced the organization, not the ideology, and he did have a legitimate beef even if he overreacted (I’m not saying whether he did or not). He hasn’t backed an extreme anti-liberty Republican and then returned to the LP all within a couple of months. Not even remotely comparable to your situation.

    where as, for the most part, I kept my decisions and opinions within a my circle of friends

    You’ve posted both to the whole world on IPR.

    I really don’t think you are in a position to criticize.

    I disagree. We’ll let the readers decide.

    Also, it’s completely unrelated to my comment, which was fairly concise.

    Admittedly true. If I wanted to comment about what you said I would have, but I didn’t want to, and didn’t. I’d rather comment about what I choose to comment about, which is exactly what I did. Now, again: I’m just wondering about your constant careening back and forth between very different parties and ideologies. You don’t have to address the point, especially since I don’t think you have a good answer.

  23. Joe Wendt

    @ Paulie

    Deep thought: Perhaps, just perhaps, it’s no one’s business why someone chooses to support one candidate in another party’s primary. Why would I like Santorum? Could it be that I view abortion as an act of aggression that violates NAP, therefore would support the only candidate who is consistent on that issue and lives by what he preaches on that issue? Could it be that I believe that he represents Republican values best and is the least offensive? Could it be that I view him as the only adult out of the whole field? Or could the real and proper Libertarian answer to your queries into my personal preferences be “it’s none of your damn business, that’s between me, God, and the voting booth you statist ass, stop violating my privacy!”

    “You’ve posted both to the whole world on IPR.” I mentioned it in some comments on a thread (after someone stated I should join/rejoin the GOP), about two months after the fact, and was then attacked by you & others and had to defend position, which more to the point shows that you have this weird OCD regarding challenging people with opinions you don’t like, or preferences you don’t like. I’m sure you’re trying to look smart, or trying to be king a**hole because you become some sort of ultimate judge and feel all good about yourself. After all, defending Gary Johnson & Jim Gray probably has hurt your street cred as a radical, so I understand you need someone to beat up on to you feel like a big bad radical.

  24. paulie

    Twist all you want. I think your comments about Santorum from not that long ago at all say everything that needs to be said about your credibility.

  25. Joe Wendt

    I care because… a Jim Gray apologist says so? Okay then, I guess credibility isn’t worth much then.

  26. paulie

    I don’t care if you care, my remarks are aimed at the readership here. As for the “apologist” nonsense I think you will find, if you bother to look, that I have disagreed with Judge Gray’s comments about the police and several other issues. But don’t let reality stop you, after all you never do.

  27. Joe Wendt

    Why do you care what I say, according to you I have no credibility. Arguing for the sake of arguing.

  28. paulie

    I’ve said what I have had to say for the benefit of others here. And no, I don’t care what you have to say, which may be why I did not comment on whatever your original point allegedly was.

  29. Joe Wendt

    So, after making a fairly straight forward comment on a topic that I had an opinion, you decide for the benefit of others you chose to to bring up an unrelated topic, make judgements on my personal preferences, and act like you for some reason believe you have the obligation to be the IPR nanny and warn people about deviant opinions. Thank you big brother paulie, for determining what people should think.

  30. Jill Pyeatt

    Above are the articles that created the “kerfuffle” Ady Craig is referring to. I was surprised they’re over 2 years old. Perhaps you haven’t seen them, Andy, but I think they’re worth reading again. I do not that Gray’s support of the police is a minor issue.

    Geography might help explain why this is such a hot topic for me (although Judge Gray also resides in Southern California). I live within 40 miles of the community whose police beat a small, obviously mentally ill man to death, as he called for his father over and over again. The videos of that torture/murder is something I’ll never get over. It changed my life. The realization that such hideous creatures as those murderous cops walk among us and GOT AWAY WITH MURDER is something I can’t accept. I also live in Los Angeles County, and I’ve read recently that the LAPD is the most corrupt department in the country.

    Police brutality and unchecked violence behind a badge is a huge topic here. I sincerely believe it’s an issue Libertarians should address and take a strong position against. This takes away our freedoms and our right to an enjoyable life in a huge way, and I believe is a threat to our country.

  31. Andy

    Andy Craig said: “But it’s also hard to generate public demand, if we’re going around with a message that contradicts your more positive experiences, which is something most (or at least a lot of) people have had in their lives.”

    This is an issue where you guys are way off base. There are millions of people in this country who have had negative experiences with the police. I am not just talking about black people, or Hispanic people, I am talking people in general.

    Sure, there are certain people who are less likely to come in contact with the police, or to have negative experiences with the police, than others, but reality is that negative experiences with the police can potentially happen to anyone.

    Remember, I come in contact with lots of people working on petitions and voter registrations over the last 15 plus years. I also travel a lot and I talk to a lot of people, both in person and online.

    I have talked to many, many people, from all walks of life, that have a negative opinion of the police.

    Another important thing to consider here is that the type of people who think that the police are wonderful public servants are also the type of people who are least likely to vote for Libertarian Party candidates, and they are also the type of people who are least likely to sign Libertarian Party ballot access petitions. Our target audience should be the millions of people who know that there are major problems with the police in this country.

    The person who says, “FUCK THE POLICE!” is far more likely to be open to the Libertarian Party than is the person who says, “I support my local police department.”

  32. Andy

    Andy Craig said: “The point is to hold up that image of Officer Friendly, or your proverbial Andy Griffith, as what we’d prefer, what we want to have instead of the corruption and abuse we have now… but not to try to convince people their drinking buddy on the town force is really History’s Greatest Monster.”

    Once again, the people who believe this and who are offended when anyone shows any evidence to the contrary of this view are people WHO ARE NOT LIKELY TO SUPPORT LIBERTARIANS ANYWAY, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO.

    So the heck with them! Focus on the people who understand that there are major problems with the police, and the people who do not get offended when you point this out to them.

    Catering to people who are not likely to support us anyway no matter what we do is counterproductive.

  33. Andy

    Andy Craig said: “It honestly strikes me as a very strained and exaggerated complaint, that keeps getting repeated ad nauseum.”

    It is not an exaggerated complaint. Gray actually defended his position that the police are noble servants that Libertarians should honor, thank, and respect.

    Gray also opposes jurors being told about their right to nullify the law, he supports the Fair Tax, and he said that Edward Snowden was a traitor.

    Sorry, but I just don’t think that this guy is the best person to be on our party’s presidential ticket.

  34. Andy

    Andy Craig said: “I think Gray is a perfectly good running mate, and arguably the best VP candidate we’ve had since Tonie Nathan.”

    I disagree. 2000 VP candidate Art Olivier (former Mayor of Bellflower, CA) was better.

    “But even if I was on the fence about that, he certainly gets extra points in the ‘pissing off the right people’ category.”

    Wow, this statement tells me that Andy Craig is out of touch. One of the biggest potential support bases for the Libertarian Party are people who are concerned about the police state in this country. Pissing off a big base of potential supporters by saying that the police are noble servants who should be honored, respected, and thanked, is not a sound political strategy. The people who think that the police are wonderful are people who are NOT LIKELY TO SUPPORT LIBERTARIANS, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, so sucking up to the police is only going to alienate people who are open to the Libertarian message, and it will not bring in supporters from the people who are shiny badge worshippers, because they already have Democrats and Republicans to support.

  35. steve m

    My position on the police is that they should be there to provide directions to the lost and food to the hungry.

    Are there some really bad police officers that never understood the oath serve and protect? sure. Does this mean all police have never understood the oath. No!

    There are good police officers and there are bad police officers. they all should be judged as individuals and not by their worst.

    The real problem, I believe is the training and instructions that they are given. If we change their training we will change their behavior. Are they completely un-needed, well we do have other violent thugs that could care less for your life and liberty. I would hope eliminating the drug laws and other non-violent crimes would strip these gangs of most of their capabilities to be violent but I suspect that there will always be a few psychopaths that break lose and that I would just as soon not have running around causing mayhem. Yes we should all be individually armed and capable of defending ourselves but that also is idealistic and not reality. So let a few crazies prey on the weak or allow the weak to have police private or public to defend them.

    Is that the real issue? libertarians want the police to be out sourced and competitively bid out out, or is it that libertarians don’t think that anti-social violent crazies exist or is it that the weak should not be allowed to be protected?

    Don’t get me wrong. I am very unhappy with the excess use of force and killing people that should have been left alone or that could have easily been subdued with a few more officers and more patience.

    But I am no more willing to call all police evil and bad then I am willing to do the same to Muslims or Christians or Jews or…..

  36. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Jim Gray’s praise for police is no worse than Johnson’s support for “humanitarian wars.” If Gray’s remarks disqualify him for LP candidacy, Johnson too should be disqualified.

    However, I don’t feel too strongly for or against Gray or Johnson. On the whole, I like Gray better. Gray has been more strongly antiwar and pro-nonintervention than has Johnson. But neither man is perfect.

    No candidate excites me this election, not like Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012.

  37. Robert Capozzi

    a: One of the biggest potential support bases for the Libertarian Party are people who are concerned about the police state in this country. Pissing off a big base of potential supporters by saying that the police are noble servants who should be honored, respected, and thanked, is not a sound political strategy.

    me: How big is this base?

    I’m sure there are single-issue voters on a whole raft of subjects. I’ve seen no evidence that the police-brutality-issue is a significant one.

    btw, it seems obvious to me that one can be opposed to police brutality and militarization AND still hold Gray’s position.

  38. Darcy G Richardson

    In a year of insurgent candidacies — outsiders like Bernie Sanders seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and Donald Trump seeking the GOP nod — it’s hard to imagine the Libertarian Party again turning to a couple of old, stale politicians, both of whom come across as failed Republicans and neither of whom ever really had anything to original to say, even in their prime.

    Gary Johnson, much like the long period following his governorship, has been almost silent on most of the crucial social and economic issues facing the country since 2012.

    The “Invisible Man” seeks the presidency — again.

    I think Johnson is just stringing the party along…and isn’t sure whether he’ll really run again.

    Moreover, former governors — and current governors, for that matter — aren’t exactly lighting a fire in 2016.

    The LP should try something totally different next year by nominating a radical outsider…a real libertarian…instead of trying to pretend that it’s a major party by fielding a former Republican governor.

  39. Darcy G Richardson

    I wish the LP well, though. We desperately need some alternatives to the establishment.

  40. Darcy G Richardson

    This is just my opinion, but I get the impression that Gary Johnson doesn’t have the fire in his belly this time around.

    The fact — if you believe what he’s saying — that’s he’s going to wait until February before making an announcement and start raising money says much more than one might think.

    According to the FEC. as of September 30th of this year, Johnson’s principal campaign committee was still carrying a debt of nearly $1.4 million from 2012 — not an ideal way to start another bid for the White House, particularly for somebody starting so late…

  41. Andy

    steve m said: “Are there some really bad police officers that never understood the oath serve and protect? sure. Does this mean all police have never understood the oath. No!

    There are good police officers and there are bad police officers. they all should be judged as individuals and not by their worst.”

    While it is true that there are different degrees of bad, with some cops being worse than others, I doubt that there is such thing as a 100% good cop. Police take an oath to “protect and defend the US Constitution,” yet they routinely enforce “laws” that violate their oath of office. When police arrest a person for a drug “offense” they are violating their oath of office. When police arrest somebody for a gun control “offense” they are violating their oath of office. When the police ask to see somebody’s ID without probable cause that the person is committing a crime, they are violating their oath of office.

    Really, the entire system that the police operate under is dysfunctional. Their pay system is based on taxation, which means that people are forced to pay them, even though they provide a lousy service.

    The courts have ruled multiple times that the police HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT ANYONE. That’s right, the police are NOT there to protect the public.

    So given that the police HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, and given that the public is forced to pay them via taxation, and given that it is very difficult to get a cop fired, or to even get any recourse when the police violate your rights (sure, you can sue them, but a lot of people do not have the time or money for this, and the police have attorneys provide for them at tax payers expense, while you either have to hire your own attorney out of your own pocket, or you have to represent yourself), then what is the true purpose of the police?

    Their true purpose is to protect the ruling political class, keep the slaves in line (this means the rest of the public), and extort money and property from the public (via taxes, fines, fees, and asset forfeiture).

    The fact that police as we know them today did not exist in early American history (and there was not much crime back then) should tell everyone something.

    Modern police evolved out of slave patrols (people who searched for runaway slaves) and rich, establishment types in major cities wanting to keep the poor in line.

  42. steve m

    Andy,

    Not much crime in early America?

    This is what you want to return to?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3191345/posts

    Crime: assault in sudden anger, blasphemy, counterfeiting, idolatry, murder, rebellion, robbery of a church, witchcraft

    Punishment: death by hanging

    Crime: denying God, killing chickens, spying, stealing grapes, striking one’s mother or father

    Punishment: death (usually by hanging)

    Crime: forgery, manslaughter, theft

    Punishment: branding with an “F” for forgery, an “M” for manslaughter, or a “T” for theft

    Crime: hog theft

    Punishment: first offense: 25 lashes and a fine of 400 pounds of tobacco (39 lashes for a Native American or mulatto), second offense: time in the pillory, ear nailing third offense: death (usually by hanging)

    Crime: perjury

    Punishment: ear nailing, whipping

    Crime: baking bad bread, brawling, slander

    Punishment: ducking stool

    Crime: arson, cheating, conjuring, drunkenness, fortune-telling, gaming, impudence, libel, lying, slander, threatening, wife-beating

    Punishment: time in the pillory

  43. Andy Craig

    “There are millions of people in this country who have had negative experiences with the police.”

    Which I did not deny.

    “Once again, the people who believe this and who are offended when anyone shows any evidence to the contrary of this view are people WHO ARE NOT LIKELY TO SUPPORT LIBERTARIANS ANYWAY, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO.”

    I think this is absurd, and false. There are plenty of Libertarians right now who are more likely to “support your local police” (emphasis in that phrase was originally on the ‘local’ part), as they are to angrily blast NWA and flip the bird at the next cruiser they see.

    “Catering to people who are not likely to support us anyway no matter what we do is counterproductive.”

    That’s how I feel about the Alex Jones crowd, and a few other subsets Libertarians waste time trying to win votes from that I think are pointless dead-ends. And if I were to make a list of such groups, “people who don’t hate all cops” wouldn’t even be on the list.

    “”“But even if I was on the fence about that, he certainly gets extra points in the ‘pissing off the right people’ category.”

    Wow, this statement tells me that Andy Craig is out of touch. One of the biggest potential support bases for the Libertarian Party are people who are concerned about the police state in this country. “”

    My statement was much narrower in focus than you’re making it out to be.

    “Pissing off a big base of potential supporters”

    Which in this case means, “a handful of IPR commenters that didn’t like him anyway.” To describe this a general election liability that will cost votes, is blowing way out of proportion how much reach the comments section of this blog actually has.

    “The people who think that the police are wonderful are people who are NOT LIKELY TO SUPPORT LIBERTARIANS, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO”

    As mentioned above, there are plenty of Libertarians with careers in law enforcement. People I know, right now, who wear a uniform, and then show up to help organize and support the Libertarian Party in your area. You paint with too broad a brush. I’m not talking about, and nobody here ever was talking about, people who defend police abuse and misconduct. The question is whether the LP should reject and castigate and insult all LEOs, on nothing more than that basis. I say absolutely not.

    To put a finer point on it: I’m out there campaigning against police militarization, no-knock raids, police shooting dogs, and just about every other parade of horribles you could mention, at least those that can be tied to a federal law or program, which is most of them. But I don’t say, and you won’t ever hear me say, that all police are evil; that none of them do a worthwhile job, that anybody who wears the uniform is a monster; or that enforcing laws against murder and robbery and rape, etc., are not important or admirable work. Not only is that message *wrong* in my estimation, it sure as hell isn’t going to win votes, even from many people who are sympathetic to the need for reform.

  44. Robert Capozzi

    Anyone paying attention will recognize that GJ is QUITE radical compared with the Rs and Ds.

  45. Darcy G Richardson

    America has long been a police state, but it’s just become so much more obvious during the past 14-15 years. What some big-city mayors and police commissioners used to bemoan as a “thin blue line” has evolved into local armies — thick blue lines across the country, ready for overkill at every opportunity.

    It’s pretty frightening if you think about it.

  46. Andy Craig

    @12:19

    Good point. And while it’s true that modern “police” came later, *of course* colonial/early America had law enforcement officials, empowered to conduct searches and arrests, and to raise a posse if necessary. Who else would the the 4th Amendment have been written in reference to? Even on the federal level, the U.S. Marshals as a civilian law enforcement agency are literally older than the Bill of Rights (created 1789, BoR ratified two years later).

  47. Darcy G Richardson

    “Anyone paying attention will recognize that GJ is QUITE radical compared with the Rs and Ds.” — Robert Capozzi.

    That might be the funniest thing I’ve ever read on IPR. It’s only true when compared to fascists like New Jersey’s Chris Christie…

    Sorry, my friend, but Gary Johnson doesn’t have a radical bone in his body.

  48. Robert Capozzi

    dgr, glad to enliven your day!

    Radical is a relative thing. GJ is outside the mainstream pretty significantly; personally, I think too much. That, to most, means “radical.”

    It may mean something else to you.

    True, GJ doesn’t say things like fetuses are parasites or that 2A protects private possession of WMD, so he’s not radical compared with the most extreme of the most fringe elements in the LM.

  49. Darcy G Richardson

    Gary Johnson isn’t outside the mainstream, and he’s only “radical” if one is looking through some sort of distorted right-wing prism. The former governor is a centrist at best, a guy who stands out a little bit from other Republicans on a couple of social issues only because of his party’s drift to the far-right…

    On the other hand, Johnson is quite reactionary — calling for one of the most regressive tax policies imaginable, along with an immediate $1.4 trillion cut in federal spending, draconian cuts that even exceeded Ron Paul’s austerity measures…

    Pummel the poor.

    You guys can have him…

  50. Darcy G Richardson

    Why, one wonders, is Gary Johnson waiting for the Republican field to be “sorted out” before declaring his own 2016 intentions? I think that’s what he said a week or two ago, as reported on IPR.

    It begs the question. Which one of those fascists would he step aside for?

  51. Andy

    “steve m

    December 18, 2015 at 12:19

    Andy,

    Not much crime in early America?

    This is what you want to return to?”

    This country has never been perfect. My point was that there were no police as we know them today in early American history, patrolling the streets and harassing people. There was no giant extortion racket to fund them (as in the taxes that fund the police). There was no huge population of people in jail or prison like we have today (unless of course you count people held as slaves, but like I said, this country was never perfect).

  52. Robert Capozzi

    dgr, you’ve made your point…for YOU. And I respect that…for YOU.

    What you have NOT done is referred to what others might think. My sense is most would find his agenda to be too radical, and your counsel is for Ls to be more so.

    Based on your Wiki page, it would appear that you are a progressive, or a left-liberal sort. Perhaps you want Ls to fail by playing the shill or something.

  53. Andy

    Here’s an excellent article about the history of the police in America:

    ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

    This is from the article:

    “Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ ‘textualist’ and ‘originalist’ methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution’s ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America’s founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.”

  54. steve m

    I agree that what we have today is wrong in many ways. I agree that the vast prison industry needs to come to an end and we need to have a discussion about what we do with those that commit act of violence and property crimes.

    Where I disagree is that characterizing all people who have chosen to work as police officers are evil and I also disagree with the concept that society shouldn’t have just means to deal with those that commit violent crimes and property crimes.

  55. Darcy G Richardson

    Sorry, Robert. That’s not the case. The only two candidates that I’m supporting in 2016 are Tom Knapp, a write-in candidate for Congress here in Florida, and Andy Craig in Milwaukee. I believe they’re both Libertarians…

    I’m not looking for the LP or any other minor-party to fail.

    Trust me, I don’t have any dog in this fight (the LP presidential nominating process)….but minor-party candidates ought to actually represent — at least to some degree — the ideology of the party they represent.

    Gary Johnson’s apparent deference to the Republican field — as though that intellectually bankrupt party was capable of nominating an acceptable candidate for the presidency — is a complete turn off, reinforcing the notion that America’s third parties are some sort of minor league AA or AAA franchises to the duopoly.

    If you’re going to run, RUN.

  56. Robert Capozzi

    dgr: If you’re going to run, RUN.

    me: I’ve not seen an explanation of why GJ hasn’t announced as yet. I’ve seen him say something like there’s no advantage to doing so. I have no opinion on his timing, since I don’t have nearly enough information to make an assessment of whether his timing is optimal or not.

    dgr: Also, Robert. Are not left-liberal leaning voters welcome in the LP?

    me: I’m not in the LP, though I have been and I vote L when I vote. I would say, though, that, no, of course not. The LP challenges the cult of the omnipotent state, and left-liberals want the state to grow. Left-liberals and Ls are at cross purposes, although on some issues they are in league. Generally, though, they point in opposite directions.

  57. Darcy G Richardson

    Before I sign off, I just wanted to say that Andy Craig’s recent campaign video on the militarization of local police forces was excellent. I hope that it’ll be widely distributed. Good job, Andy.

  58. Darcy G Richardson

    “The LP challenges the cult of the omnipotent state, and left-liberals want the state to grow.” – RC.

    Not really. Some of us merely want the economy to grow, providing the sort of healthy environment for middle-income, working-class and poor Americans to prosper. It’s a position being articulated by insurgents Bernie Sanders on the left and Donald Trump in his adopted right-wing party in 2016 — a shared belief fueling both of their “outsider” presidential candidacies.

    I’ve never heard either of them argue for a larger state. In fact, in his early years, Bernie — if you really knew his history — was more libertarian than almost anyone in the Libertarian Party today, at least in terms of civil liberties.

    The Donald, like most Americans, has been all over the board politically, looking for what might work insofar as the economy is concerned. I guess I can’t really fault him for that…

    Enjoyed it Robert.

  59. steve m

    Robert,

    ” Left-liberals and Ls are at cross purposes, although on some issues they are in league. Generally, though, they point in opposite directions.”

    There is another term, Left leaning Libertarians. which I also scratch my head over much like i scratch my head over right leaning libertarians. As far as I can tell one side leans more to liking large businesses then the other.

    Where as I see big enterprise a product of big government. Big enterprises exist because of the protections against competition that big government provides. Get rid of or dramatically reduce the size and scope of big government and then big enterprise will be open to competition from smaller enterprises. This would likely reduce income inequality, (goal of the liberals) and provide new opportunities (another goal of the liberals).

    So I am not so sure that the goals of liberals are at cross purpose to the goals of left leaning libertarians, just the methods for achieving the goals.

  60. Andy

    “steve m

    December 18, 2015 at 13:04

    I agree that what we have today is wrong in many ways. I agree that the vast prison industry needs to come to an end and we need to have a discussion about what we do with those that commit act of violence and property crimes.

    Where I disagree is that characterizing all people who have chosen to work as police officers are evil and I also disagree with the concept that society shouldn?t have just means to deal with those that commit violent crimes and property crimes.”

    I do not think that everyone who goes becomes a cop is evil, although a disturbingly high percentage of them are, and some of them start out “good” but become corrupted, or turn a blind eye to the abuse & corruption that happens. Some of them are probably decent people, but they are working in a bad system, and really, the system is so bad that it is really not possible to be a completely “good cop” because it is a flawed system. I do recognize that there are different degrees of bad, and that some cops are worse than others, but given that it is a bad system, I don’t think that it is really possible to be a truly “good cop” without resigning from the police force.

    I agree that there has to be ways to deal with criminals, but the best way to do it is not to give some of them power over the rest of the population, and to allow them to operate with impunity (at least most of the time), and for them to be able to force everyone else to pay their salaries.

    My Libertarian Zone concept has a “law enforcement” (or more accurately, a contract enforcement) mechanism that does not rely on a monopoly on force which everyone is forced to finance. It would be up to each Libertarian Zone member to see that The Libertarian Zone contract is enforced. It would be legal for people in The Libertarian Zone to hire private security guards, but those guards would be held to the same standard as everyone else.

    Click here for more details:

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/

  61. Chuck Moulton

    Andy wrote:

    I do not think that everyone who goes becomes a cop is evil, although a disturbingly high percentage of them are, and some of them start out “good” but become corrupted, or turn a blind eye to the abuse & corruption that happens. Some of them are probably decent people,

    Donald Trump wrote:

    They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

  62. Chuck Moulton

    I’ve had bad experiences with the police and many of my friends have too. The question that divides people is: “In the ordinary course of your life (no special circumstances), if you see a cop does it make you feel more relieved/secure or uneasy/afraid?” For me it is definitely the latter.

  63. steve m

    But that is like being afraid of a black man just because they are black. If you see a cop and you feel uncomfortable is that the fault of that police officer or your own expectations.

  64. langa

    If voluntarily choosing an occupation, which you know will involve committing aggression and violating people’s rights, literally on a daily basis, is not an evil thing to do, then what is? Are there also benevolent hit men, benevolent burglars, and so forth? I’m sure some of those people would seem nice enough if you sat down and had a beer with them.

    And as for saying that cops do some good things, that may be true, but it could also be said of the Mafia, e.g. providing products and services that are not otherwise available. Furthermore, many “Godfather” types donate a lot of money to charities and other noble causes. Do these things make them any less evil?

  65. Robert Capozzi

    dgr: Some of us merely want the economy to grow, providing the sort of healthy environment for middle-income, working-class and poor Americans to prosper.

    me: I do believe just about everyone with a political position wants the economy to grow, and virtually all want the less well-to-do to prosper. I can’t say I’ve met a left-liberal who didn’t want government spending to grow as a percentage of GDP, however.

    As I’ve previously indicated, Sanders and left-liberals can share some values with Ls on things like civil liberties and sometimes foreign policy.

  66. Robert Capozzi

    cm: “In the ordinary course of your life (no special circumstances), if you see a cop does it make you feel more relieved/secure or uneasy/afraid?”

    me: On foot, I’m neutral. In a car, I’m uneasy, mostly because I have a minor concern that I’ll be pulled over.

  67. Andy

    Great points made by langa.

    Yes, sometimes there are cops who do good things, but on a net balance, when you factor in all of the money/resources they drain in taxes, fines, fees, and asset seizures, and then consider the number of people they arrest for victimless so called crimes, the number of people they falsely arrest, the number of civil rights violations they commit, and the amount of corruption in which many police departments engage, I think they are net negative to society, as in they do more harm than good.

  68. paulie

    Lots of silliness about Gary Johnson above. To take the most obvious example, he said he was waiting til the herd thinned out because he believed it would be easier to get media coverage at that point, not because he is deferring to them or thinks any of them are good. He is no longer saying that, and in personal conversations with both Gary and Ron Nielson they have told me that at this point the only thing holding him back is wrapping up business obligations before he goes on the campaign trail. He expects to be done with that by January and will make an announcement then, and both Gary and Ron were positive about my idea of a college mini-tour of Oklahoma in January, followed by other states where we petition for ballot access next year and then other states after the petition season is over. I detailed this in an article here that received a lot of comments, including from the very same people repeating the same tired nonsense again above.

  69. steve m

    Langa,

    You stated….

    “If voluntarily choosing an occupation, which you know will involve committing aggression and violating people’s rights, literally on a daily basis,”

    The Cato Institute 2010 NPMSRP Police Misconduct Statistical Report says that police misconduct is less then 2% of the total population of Police Officers. 98% are not engaged in daily violating of people’s reports.

    Do you have any data that backs up your assertion?

  70. langa

    “Police Misconduct” as defined by who? The government? The fact is that anytime that a cop enforces a law that violates the NAP (which describes at least 95% of the laws on the books), he is violating someone’s rights. So, every time a cop arrests someone for something like drug possession, or even writes a speeding ticket, he is violating someone’s rights. In fact, as Andy points out above, cops are paid by taxes, which are obtained by coercion, so even when a cop is just sitting around stuffing his face with donuts, he is still guilty of receiving stolen property.

  71. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Darcy G Richardson: “In a year of insurgent candidacies — outsiders like Bernie Sanders seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and Donald Trump seeking the GOP nod — it’s hard to imagine the Libertarian Party again turning to a couple of old, stale politicians, both of whom come across as failed Republicans and neither of whom ever really had anything to original to say, even in their prime.”

    I agree that Johnson and Gray are stale. (Nothing wrong with them being old — Trump and Sanders are older.)

    I too doubt that a Johnson/Gray ticket will catch fire with the public. Not with Trump hogging the spotlight.

    Nor do I think that many Republicans will turn to the LP due to disgust with Trump. That’s wishful “cargo cult” thinking (as Thomas Knapp calls it). That is, this notion that voters will like Johnson/Gray because they look like “real politicians” — just like the ones seen on TV.

    Johnson/Gray are boring. An edgy, radical outsider might do better in 2016, even if competing against Trump. The outsider Carson did better against Trump than the more respectable candidates.

    I think a Johnson/Gray ticket will pull fewer votes than in 2012. I didn’t vote for Johnson in 2012 because of his pro-“humanitarian war” position. I doubt that I’ll vote for him in 2016. I might well not vote for any of the presidential candidates on the ballot.

  72. steve m

    Langa,

    read the Cato report they are very specific in the terms they are using. Where is your data?

    If you exceed the speed limit, your broke the law, the road isn’t your personal property. You made a choice to ignore the law and you get your ticket. That is hardly a violation of the NAP. Most police officers aren’t involved in the drug wars on a daily basis. Again fix the laws rather then slander people.

  73. steve m

    Teeth,

    Your data is old. Both Cruz and Rubio are out polling Carson now. In New Hampshire, even Fiorina is out polling Carson.

  74. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Steve, I’m aware that Carson lost ground in some recent polls. But despite that, he’s proven there’s room for more than one outsider in the race. He polled strongly alongside Trump for a while, garnering much attention while the the more establishment guys were lost in Trump’s shadow.

    By contrast, I don’t think Johnson/Gray leftovers from 2012 will entice many people.

    That said, I think Gray is a decent fellow on balance, despite his cop comments. And I don’t see anyone on the LP horizon who could achieve much in 2016. No libertarian lightning rod like Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012.

  75. Andy

    Anytime the police arrest somebody for a victimless crime I call that misconduct. Anytime the police ask to see a person’s ID without probable cause that they have committed a crime I call that misconduct. Anytime the police prevent a person from engaging in constitutionally protected rights (like free speech, peaceful assembly, peaceful protesting, gathering petition signatures, etc…) I call that misconduct. Anytime the police invent reasons to pull over drivers I call that misconduct.

    If anything, police misconduct is under-reported.

  76. Andy

    Another problem with the police and their unions is that they actively engage in political campaigns to increase the size and power of government.

    This is yet another example of why people who receive government money should be barred from voting and from taking part in politics in general.

  77. Andy

    Just to be clear, there are cases where to police pull over drivers for legitimate reasons. I am talking about situations where they just feel like pulling somebody over because they are bored, or because they are on “fishing expeditions,” or just because they don’t like the way somebody looks.

    I have had cops admit to me that they make up reasons to pull people over.

  78. Andy Craig

    “”Just to be clear, there are cases where to police pull over drivers for legitimate reasons.””

    That’s a pretty significant concession from somebody insisting Libertarians should only ever say negative things about police officers.

    “”Yes, sometimes there are cops who do good things, but on a net balance, when you factor in all of the money/resources they drain in taxes, fines, fees, and asset seizures, and then consider the number of people they arrest for victimless so called crimes, the number of people they falsely arrest, the number of civil rights violations they commit, and the amount of corruption in which many police departments engage, I think they are net negative to society, as in they do more harm than good.””

    I could make the same observation about those involved in politics, a category that would include you and every other Libertarian.

  79. NewFederalist

    “I think a Johnson/Gray ticket will pull fewer votes than in 2012. I didn’t vote for Johnson in 2012 because of his pro-“humanitarian war” position. I doubt that I’ll vote for him in 2016. I might well not vote for any of the presidential candidates on the ballot.” – Root’s Teeth Are Awesome

    I don’t know what state you vote in but I figure a protest vote is still better than not voting simply because not voting is easy for the “experts” to ignore. Voting against the duopoly at least send a message. Just my $0.02 worth.

  80. Mark Axinn

    NF just made the same comment I would have.

    We are trying to build a movement, and the candidates who actually run may not be perfect but they are generally promoting a pro-freedom message 180 degrees different from the statist parties. (Let’s leave 2008 aside.)

    There are states where LP ballot access is dependent on number of votes for President, and if I lived in one of them I would not withhold my vote merely because Johnson and Gray are stale or might believe in humanitarian wars or even might have a much higher opinion of cops than I do.

  81. langa

    If you exceed the speed limit, your broke the law, the road isn’t your personal property. You made a choice to ignore the law and you get your ticket. That is hardly a violation of the NAP.

    The government’s “laws” have absolutely nothing to do with the NAP, or with rights. There was a time when it was against the law to help a slave escape. Does that mean the Fugitive Slave Law wasn’t a violation of the NAP, or that those people who volunteered to enforce it weren’t violating anyone’s rights?

    Either stop being an apologist for tyranny, or join a party where you’ll be more at home with the other bootlickers.

  82. steve m

    Langa,

    when it comes to the roadways the question is more who owns them and thus gets to determine how they are used. Well you didn’t build them on your own and on your own property so no you alone don’t get to make these decisions. Your exceeding the velocity that the owner of the roads has set would be the violation of the NAP.

    Suck on that for a while.

  83. langa

    Ha, nice try. Your exact words were: “If you exceed the speed limit, your broke the law, the road isn’t your personal property. You made a choice to ignore the law and you get your ticket. That is hardly a violation of the NAP.” So, if punishing someone for breaking the law can’t be a violation of the NAP, then I will ask again, to be clear: You are saying that when people were punished for breaking the Fugitive Slave Law, that was not a violation of the NAP, or of anyone’s rights. Correct?

    As for this red herring about who owns the roads, are you claiming the government is the real owner of all the roads? Perhaps you can explain where the government got the land and the money to build these roads. (Hint: If they stole it from other people, that doesn’t count.) The real answer is that government is the legitimate owner of nothing. All the property claimed by the government actually belongs either to everyone, or to no one, depending on your semantic preference. In either case, no one else has the right to tell me how fast I can drive on property that belongs just as much to me as to them.

  84. steve m

    Langa, the real answer at this time is that most of the roads are the property of public and are administrated by various governments. So you use them at the license of those that own them and if you violate the rules of the road when you use them it is you who is breaking the contract. Find some place else to drive.

  85. steve m

    Langa, you are claiming that you have the right to drive as fast as you like, to go through intersections as you like to drive on the left or the right side of the road as you like.

    And I think you are not right in the head.

  86. paulie

    By contrast, I don’t think Johnson/Gray leftovers from 2012 will entice many people.

    That could depend on a lot of things that are yet to be determined.

  87. langa

    …most of the roads are the property of public and are administrated by various governments. So you use them at the license of those that own them and if you violate the rules of the road when you use them it is you who is breaking the contract. Find some place else to drive.

    Why should I have to “find someplace else”? I have as much right to them as anyone else. Your argument is like when people say that if you don’t like the things the government does, you should move to another country. It’s kindergarten logic.

    …you are claiming that you have the right to drive as fast as you like, to go through intersections as you like to drive on the left or the right side of the road as you like.

    If I cause an accident, I’m liable for any damages. Otherwise, yes, I can drive as fast as I want. Does the phrase “victimless crime” have any meaning at all to you?

    …I think you are not right in the head.

    This, coming from someone who is unable to deny that his argument, when taken to its logical conclusion, would justify the Fugitive Slave Act. And I’m the one who’s nuts?

  88. steve m

    “would justify the Fugitive Slave Act”

    Not from using logic just from some one not quite right in the head.

    So Langa, If you Drive down your left side of the road and plow head on into some one driving down their right side of the road who is at fault? you who is going against the standard practice or them because they are going with your arbitrary usage of the road.

  89. langa

    I never said anything about driving on the wrong side of the road. That’s a red herring that you made up to deflect from the real issue. Why would anyone even want to drive on the wrong side of the road? What benefit would it offer them? It’s a completely unrealistic hypothetical, similar to RC’s “bazookas on the subway” garbage.

  90. paulie

    Why would anyone even want to drive on the wrong side of the road?

    Being drunk and stupid or thrillseeking/orneriness, usually.

Leave a Reply

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