Biloxi Libertarian presidential debate: live-streaming video and discussion thread


Livestream will begin at 7:00 pm, Central Time.

222 thoughts on “Biloxi Libertarian presidential debate: live-streaming video and discussion thread

  1. George Phillies

    Sarwark on stage to say nice things. “Our conventions are always contested. Candidates are chosen by delegates. That’s why this debate is important. We are dedicatd to all your freedoms all the time. They aren’t.

  2. Andy Craig Post author

    Whoever was fiddling with it had it figured out how to turn down the brightness or contrast so that we could actually see the people on stage, but then they inexplicably turned it back up to “white blobs” settings again. Complete with some choice color commentary.

  3. Stewart Flood

    Video keeps breaking up and pausing. Can’t see anything, can hardly hear what they are saying.

  4. Anastasia Beaverhausen

    Well, this is useless. A white-washed stage and annoying people yakking next to the camera.

  5. George Phillies

    Every time I upload words I lose sound and must restart. 3 moderators. 10 caniddates for the first hour. Then audience chooses 5 leaders for next hour. 2 minute openers
    Feldman. MD. Thank you for having me. We’re amazing people. I was brought into the party by recent leaders, e.g. Knedler, Starchild. I rgew up in DC, and knew politicians. Follow the money to know tem. Me: Votes not for sale. Max donation $5. We need to show a reaonable alternative.

    Ince Entrepreneur. Dismantle the economins system and return ti to the peopel. Too much power in the Federal government. Support the platform and unite all libertarians.

    Johnson. Government is way too big,. #1 balance the federal budget. Cut budget 29%, Eliminate income tax and corporate tax, get rid of lobbyists. Go to a national consumption tax. Civil liberties are under attck. Someone near the mike is talking and making it hard to hear. I stand up for civil liberties and the ACLU liked it. I am suing the debate commission. I want our candidate. Claims geetting in the debates will amtter.

    McAfee: Denounces drug laws.

  6. George Phillies

    Spoke up for civil liberties and personal freedom. We must honor agreements. We must not harm other peopel or take their property. Can I win. The human spirit is infinite in its capacity. I am in this to win not to elevate someone’s consciousness.

    Daryl Perry: We should agian be the party of principle not the party fo half steps. 100% liberty all the time, every issue. Decrim pot only is NOT LIBERTARIAN. Libertarina principle is you own all your money. All taxes are wrong. I will rpoclaim the ideals of liberty as loudly as possibel and give people a chance to vote for a real libertarian.

    Austen Petersen. Started politics in 2007. Praises Ron Paul. My club went from 12 to 1200 and raised a million bucks. Iw as your volunteer coordianter ffor the antional party. I will do that as Presdient. yes my fast typing is terrible. I sell Libertairian ideas for profit. I have a plan to get us 5% of the vote. Yes, I am sure he said five. I turned 35 two weeks ago. He mentioned a URL. First to doso.

    Gets loud applause.

    Derrick Michael REid.

  7. Stewart Flood

    Just for the record, and said in advance of whatever is about to be said by Mr Robinson, the South Carolina Libertarian Party neither endorses or agrees with his proposals.

  8. George Phillies

    I have a wonderful plan. It advances liberty and freeodm from government. It does not amtter how many liberty torches you have. If you can’t win you do not advance liberty. We must advance incrementally. DR are totalitarian socialists in DC. If nominated I guarantee victory. I will start the movement. I am the practical reality the path to the white hosue no other cnadidate here is.

    Jack Robinson. I am a businessman. I have a packaging company. I have an economic program worhty of a presidential candidate. I wnat my program to be the platform. I expect a borign debate. To win must be bold good plan, wise. To break 1% we must be imaginative. We must think or be irresponsible.

    Rhett Smith. Thank. We’ll lead America tomorrow. Remember our history, eprsonala nd collective. Sound dropped out. Why am I running. US military veteran. Navy 79-83. Indian Ocean. Americna cna regain the initiative and lead the world.Tanslate First Amendment into every langauge. Stop supproting oppressors. We should stand on our own values. Obama wnats to tkae our religion and guns. Obama CHeney want to destroy our lives take our guns. Each state needs to stand on its own.

  9. Stewart Flood

    And yes, it is HUGE government increases. So big that the current national debt will be magnified at least three to five fold — before the hyper inflation that his ideas would cause.

    Go look at his website. And PLEASE DO NOT BLAME THE STATE HE LIVES IN!!!

  10. George Phillies

    Shawna Sterling. Lifetime Republican. Veyr ahrd to understand. Also helped Democratic Party. REgret she helped Obama get in.

    next: Running on one thing. I want natioanl unity. national debt close to 20 trillion. no sense in that. I have grandchildren. that drives me. Foudning fathers did not createthe 2-p[arty system. I am looking for unity and victory. We need to come together. Everyone. If there is a libertarian message hear, i cannot hear it.

  11. Stewart Flood

    Petersen? First word out of his mouth when asked if he’d support deficit spending was “ABSOLUTELY!” A penny per dollar reduction does not eliminate the deficit. The deficit is actually around 13% of the federal budget, so a one percent decrease will do nothing to balance the budget. This is voodoo economics.

    Feldman’s tax plan? He still supports the IRS claiming you owe money. He just says that if you give it to someone else you won’t have to give it to them. But you STILL PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAXES. Anything that requires you giving away money is A TAX.

  12. George Phillies

    Robinson: We can balance the Federal budgte in five years by cutting the budget 1% a year for 5 years. [phillies: His math is wrong]. I would veto every bill that does not deal with deficit.

    People near camera are talking again. Cannot tell who is tlaking. Proposes to balance the budget instantly. Convert all deductions into tax credits.

    Someone thnks the President signs Constitutional platform. Johnson Must address entitlements Replace medicare medicaid with block grants to states. We need to stop interventions. have free market economists advising. Replace income tax with a national consumption tax.

    SOMEONE Claim Housing and Urban Develment gets over a trillion a year. 350 billion for Agriculture. We should trim the Federal budget by 1/2 in 1 year. Proposes tariffs, tax on driving. Claims we do nt ned an income tax.

    Perry: I support no tax, 100% voluntary funding. Says libraries and museums supported only a bit by taxes, so nothing needs taxes.

    Proposes to eliinate payroll taxes and cut corporate income tax immediately. Flatten out the income tax. My opponents want to support a progressive income tax. I want a flat tax in which everyone pays 10%. Good enough for Jesus, god enough for me. Lotteries are a great idea.

    Reid: The best tax is the simplest. Veyr strange pattern of empahsis. Says balanced budget is impossible. Budget balancing is folly. Correctly says that cutting deficit would crash the economy.

    Someone: claims we can improve current debt by driving down interest on national debt. Descedning flat tax. Start at 19.5% then as ecoonomy grows taxes fall.

  13. Stewart Flood

    Only about a half billion dollars in debt? Robinson said that? Did he actually say that and laugh it off as five line items? Well sure, it is only 13% of the budget this year.

    But wait…

    Oh no…

    Here it is…

    Robinson’s “descending flat tax” and “birth loop economics” ideas. A descending tax is not a flat tax. And the birth loop, at a minimum, will TRIPLE the current national debt of $20T and cause hyper inflation that would rival Germany in the 1930s.

  14. Rebel Alliance

    The first guy to fix the camera has my vote.

    This is a low energy debate. Its more entertaining reading the wisecracks in the video chat feed than hearing these candidates ramble on and on. I can’t even tell who’s speaking.

  15. George Phillies

    ?Do not tax poor people, sales or property.

    Sterling IRS out of cotnrol, I would not raise taxes on anybody. Remove IRS from health care.

    Moderators are often not saying who si speaking.

    Medical costs?
    Feldman? 1 people are not spending their own money. 2-Science is limited in what it an do. Want separation of health care and state.

    Sterling: Why did you change on supporting Obama? Answer: The ACA needs to repealed. It reduces access to medicine.

    Johnson: Veterans benefits. For those who have served, those commitments should be honored.

    ? Treat our veterans poorly. This should change. The unwritten contract is ‘we will take care of you.’

    Perry on gun control I support Vermont concealed carry. I support that everywhere. Someone agrees with Darryl.

    I want to live in America where gay married couples protect their pot fields with auto weapons.

    Vigorous support of the second amendment. Johnson: I signed aconcealed carry bill. Went to get permit; requires 17 hours of classes. This was unfortunate.

    There seems to be complete agreement.

    Someone will have AG take every state to court to rpotect the 2nd Amendment.

    The partiesof colonialism (DR) refuse to take responsibility for the soldiers they sent off to be maimed.

  16. Stewart Flood

    Who cares if Feldman’s ancestor sold chickens? In what way was his rambling answer relevant?

    It is hard to hear everything, especially with the people who are talking near the mic picking up the state audio, and the candidates — like Reid — who speak so softly that they can barely been heard!!!

    Of course if you can actually hear Reid, he’ll bore you to sleep…

  17. Stewart Flood

    Petersen is completely wrong. They (the government agency, NOT the FBI) changed the iTunes account password. They know that password. But since the phone had the OLD password in it, that stopped it from making further backups.

    But that is irrelevant, since the phone’s backups had been stopped weeks before the day of the shootings by someone changing the settings on the phone. Apple has verified that.

    They were just booing someone. Sounded like Robinson getting hit. I couldn’t hear what he said, but it clearly went over like a lead balloon!

  18. George Phillies

    Perry says Kelo is worth Supreme court decision ever.

    Some of us remember Dred Scott.

    Suit against Apple violates the 13th Amendment. FBI endangers our national security. Someone describes the password change and gets the details wrong. The FBI password will let Chine catch and execute dissidents.

    Someone just got booed.

    Death penalty. Smith gives very clear explanation fo why it is wrong. No taxpayer dollars for fetal research specifically.

    Reid: Opposes death penalty. Supports public executions for serial killers, with ten year olds required to watch.

    petersen opposes death penalty.

    90% of people killed by targetted drone strikes were innocent.
    McAfee. We are not barbarians. I will not use the governmetn to terminate the existence of another person.

    johnson: As governor I supproted the death penalty. But there are errors. I went over to opposing the death penalty. What if the person by mistake executed is you?

    there is a lack of discussion of death by summary execution prior to arrest. #BlackLivesMatter

    End of full debate. 15 Minute break.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    On break. Top 5 coming back.

    I’m not sure I could pick a top 5. Perry and McAfee would make it. MAYBE Feldman. MAYBE Johnson. After that it’s rapid descent into dumb and/or boring and/or crazy.

  20. Stewart Flood

    Did he actually say that ten year olds should be required to watch? I heard him saying something about them watching the body twitch, but he was hard to understand.

    That is sick. Just plain sick. Reid looks sick, he sounds sick in his speeches where he talks about how much better he is than everyone else. But have ten year olds watch bodies twitch? That is so far beyond sickness. That is total perversion.

    I didn’t hear him say that they’d have to, but what else can we expect from someone who goes around wearing 19th century military uniforms.

  21. Steven Wilson

    I hate to nit pick, but the individuals who are running the camera should remain silent.
    The camera should be angled on stage.
    The moderator should name the speaker every time.
    Close-ups of each candidate speaking would aid in many ways.
    Hard to watch and follow.

  22. Stewart Flood

    I was already sure of who not to vote for, but this clarifies just how bad some of them are.

    I can’t tell clearly who they’ll have in the second round either. Petersen seemed to be getting applause at times, as did Perry and a few others. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess Perry, Petersen, McAfee, Johnson and Feldman make the cut.

  23. Stewart Flood

    “I hate to nit pick…”

    That isn’t nit picking. All valid points. I’ve done live streaming, and in fact still hold the unbreakable record of the first multi-camera broadcast of an entire season of minor league baseball. 71 home games shot with four cameras and 71 on the road with audio only. We could show plays being made at the bases, and that was in 1997. 1997, folks! Technology is much better now, and we get this?

  24. Stewart Flood

    That said, you have to commend the state parties for effort. They just needed to hire someone who knew more about how this stuff is done.

  25. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m glad Darryl is doing well. Petersen doesn’t seem genuine to me. Reid, although very strange, is at least sincere in his desire to be our candidate. I also that his death penalty comment was bizarre. Having children watch would indeed be sick and perverted.

    Shawna Sterling is completely unprepared and out of her league.

    I like McAfee’s answers.

    Feldman is doing better than I expected.

    (Not that any of you asked for my opinions!)

  26. Stewart Flood

    Opinions are certainly welcomed. 🙂

    It was difficult to catch all of it with the video feed showing a spinning wheel at random times and the sound from people talking.

  27. George Phillies

    Guessing at applause:
    Alphabetical

    Johnson
    McAfee
    Perry
    Petersen
    Not sure on #5. Feldman?

  28. Shivany Lane

    OK I had a family emergency, what is going on?

    The camera crew needs to shut the hell up.

    It’s rude, I could not follow most of it. They need pop screens. and a decent sound engineer.
    Seriously camera crew shut up!!!!

  29. George Phillies

    Need better questions

    How much money will you budget for raising.
    What are reasonable salaries for your lead people?
    What fraction of your money will go into the back office?
    How much into advertising?
    What will you do to leave a stronger party after the election is over?

  30. Jason Cook

    Yes, we can hear everything you are saying by the camera. Everything. Louder and more clear than the speaker on stage.

  31. Stewart Flood

    If it is Feldman, then I guessed the finalists correctly! 🙂

    Will this be another hour round? Will we have to listen to Feldman talking about chickens again, or Petersen howling at the moon? And will Perry melt down and tell everyone to vote for the BTP again?

  32. George Phillies

    Having done camera work on a 5-person debate:
    The camera should be way closer, unless they can change the angle being picked up.
    A closeup lens, and a cameraperson who always points the camera at the speaker, could work. For the MA debate, I did not have some to handle repointing the camera.

  33. Rebel Alliance

    Jill, agreed on your review. I like Perry being in there, he really took Johnson to school on the tax issue.

  34. Stewart Flood

    It has gone offline a couple of times during the break.

    So will this be just another round of questions, or will we let them go gonzo and actually debate each other?

    The first round was boring, with a few disgusting places where twitching bodies and chickens were mentioned.

  35. George Phillies

    None of these guys appear to read the newspapers or whatever very much. The last Bush budget (October 2008-September 2009 had a 1.5 trillion dollar budget. The latest deficit, thanks to an expanding economy giving more taxes, and spending held constant, was around 0.5 trillion. “I will veto the living daylights out of the Republican spendthrift Congress, and the budget will balance itself. A consumption tax is a selective tax on the poor and the aged.”

  36. Stewart Flood

    And I can’t believe that I’m sitting here at 10:30pm on a Saturday night, after spending the entire day at the DIY festival (really fun!) showing people how you design objects and do 3D printing. I hope I can stay awake for the second part.

  37. George Phillies

    And the deficit will fade in a few years. How do you expand the economy? Infrastructure investment, no amtter how the money gets to the infrastructure.

    Shivany: Everyone.

    Stewart: Feldman needs an opponent to all him on his $5 donation limit, and Petersen needs to be called on his position that he will not take donations except metal coins and bitcoins (and imitators).

  38. Bruce Liddel

    Amateur audio technicians… A/V production is not an afterthought. I should know. I have about 6 years experience Full Time Equivalent. Sometimes hard problems arise. That’s why you test beforehand, before going live.

    “It’s the feedback”. Really? There’s nobody there with a $300 dbx Automatic Feedback Suppressor, who knows how to use it? Good grief!

    “The camera’s not using the external feed. It’s using the built-in. Twoo Twoo, see? it’s picking you up”. Yeah, I know, I heard you. We all heard you. Don’t even run the audio through the camera, you moron. This reflects poorly on the Libertarian Party.

    I wish they’d asked me. I’d have run the Audio/Vedio show for the cost of travel and lodging. I’d have used a single wireless handheld mic, and have candidates pass the mic. The cameraman would follow the mic. No feedback, no confusion, and we’d know who was talking.

  39. Stewart Flood

    Yeah…this one penny BS has got to stop. I agree with Dr Phillies that just suddenly cutting the deficit by cutting spending will detonate the economy. We all know that taxes are wrong, and we all agree that the government is horribly out of control, but how do we solve the problem?

    I have never heard a libertarian candidate give anyone a real plan on how we fix it. Just saying “get rid of taxes” does not solve the problem. Saying “get rid of the FED” doesn’t either. And “Fair Tax” only shifts the vampire to another victim — we still end up paying the taxes in the end! HOW do we get rid of them? HOW?

    The first LP candidate to come up with a real plan that can be implemented will get my vote. Until then: NOTA!!!

  40. George Phillies

    Feldman: Go after non-voters. I will do this with Votes Not for Sale, max $5 contribution. Thinks non-voters are poor people.

    McAfee: I ahve run multibillion dollar businesses. Claims we cannot just print money. As oldest, I have the most life experiences. I have inordinate ability to get publicity. My wife will kill me if I lose.

    Johnson. I have a wonderful family. I grew a business to 1000 people. I;m an adventurer, balloons, ironman, I learned a lot in 2012. may get the Libertarian nominee into the fall debates. Claims this will matter. I woudl have won in 2012 if people had heard me. If Trump and Hillary are nominees, that is an opportunity. I climbed the tallest mountain on each continent.

    Petersen says how great he is. Worked with Napolitiano. Focused on getting 5% vote. Will build coalition of conseratives of National Review, Reaganites, because I am proflife. I believe in life.

    Perry I will proclaim as loudly as possible the idea of liberty. I propose to disband the Federal government, the alrgest terrorist organization in the world.

    What if there is another 9/11.
    Feldman

  41. natural born citizen

    Gov Johnson is concerned that “Islam allows for gays to be hung.” Couldn’t individual concerned about that do some kind of kegel exercises? Why should the state have a role here?

  42. Stewart Flood

    McAfee didn’t address what he would do if an attack occurred his first day in office, but he is correct on the issue of defense against what the next war will be.

    Same with Johnson. Did not answer the question, just talked about differences between Islam and Sharia Law. Not an answer.

    Petersen? Talks about Jefferson. Not sure if he’s answering the question or not.

    GONZO!!! They are actually debating!!!

  43. Stewart Flood

    Perry actually answers the question! Or at least tries to…

    10 points!

    No…wait…he’s not saying what he’d do. He’s just trying to explain why it might happen.

    More debate? WOW!

  44. natural born citizen

    Wasn’t this supposed to be a three-camera affair? Will there be a three-camera edit posted after the fact?

  45. Stewart Flood

    Walls? We’re talking about walls?

    Feldman sounds whiny…whine whine whine…

    Ok, good answer. Open the borders. But did he have to whine about it?

    McAfee. Madmen build walls, Mexico best tunnel builders on the planet. Applause from the audience. Don’t build a wall, build a highway. Bring them in. Good answer.

    Johnson: wall is asinine. If it gets built, we’ll have to take it down at some point brick by brick. Work visas. Tax them. Getting steamed up.

    Petersen: build a wall around Trump and make Sanders pay for it. Ok…ummm…talking about immigration. Diversity, expand on it. So does the answer of having Sanders pay for it mean he’s for it or against it?

    Perry: Quotes MLK. Laws are not fair, do not follow the Constitution. Pulls the “tear down this wall” from RR. Good answer: if you want to come here, welcome.

  46. George Phillies

    Many groups want fear so they can take away Liberty. If America is attacked, I would respond with awesome force, to eliminate the future possibiity of another attack. Preemptive warfare is bad. I believe education and free speech are better than bombs.

    Kerbel Violence begets violence. 9/11 was a faiure of natioanl defense. We are on the edge of a cyberwar that would kill 90% of all Americans. (readers are referred to the Sterling Emberverse series). The next war will be a cyberwar. We know how to do this. How do you prevent yourself from being attacked. That is the prime purpose of goverment.

    Johnson If attacked we will attakc back. We are in favor of freedom of religion. Claims sharia is a political system,, allows gays to be hung. Sharia is a sytem of government. We must distinguish between freedom of religiona dn the politics of sharia. Attacks Islamic extremism. At the basis of homegrown is

    petersen Stop the fearmongering, governor. What would Jefferson do? Jeffersen advocated letters of marque and reprisal. We should revive Constitutional foreign policy. Claims letters of marque are Constitutional.

    Johnson is given to respond Do you support sharia law?

    prry I do not advocate the horrible war/ We create another 9/11 Sharia is somethign that you voluntarily agree to.

    Johnson claims that Sharia is political not religious. We took the boy out of the Republican party but the Republican is stuck inside the boy.

    Feldman Wall of Trump…he doesn;t want a wall; he want s the cheap labor. Let’s open borders and watch welfare collapse

    McAfee: Don;t build a wall, build a highway. We have huge amounts of empty space (he lists places with limited water).

    Johnson: building a wall would be assinine. If we build it, someday we will take it down. We should make work visas not green cards relatively easy. Says there are jobs peopl do not make.

    (I seem to recall the idea of raising wages.)

    Petersen Id like to build a wall aorunnd Trump and make Sanders pay for it. Immigration is good. Multiculturalism is good. Deport violent criminals. Send back people who got our colllege degrees is dumb; we need them here.

    perry Martin luther King no man has a duty to obey an unjust law. Currently we have an unconstitutional immigration law that does not impose equally on everyone. That is why we have illegal immigration.
    Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall. Claims immigrants tke you job and are too lazy to work (these are not the same people)

    Largest warehouse of mentally ill people is prisons. Stop criminalizing mental health and drug problems. Stop using force tocoerce people. Get government out fo mental health issue. Drugs are a medical problem;

    petersen I agree with Perry. I do not have a good answer. I woudl ask fo expert advice. I wnat to be honest, I do not have a solution.

    Johnson: High incareration rate is war on drugs. 20 staets will elgalize pot. WE are tkaing a quantum leap Forward. 2.3 million people behind bars.

    McAfee: Addiction is tis own punishment. We do not use to punish them. Release all nonviolent drug users . I will aprdon all fo them.

    Feldman :ot taxes supporting surveillance. Pot should be legal like chocolate.

  47. Stewart Flood

    Mental health issues question?

    Perry: get the government out of it. Let the free market work on it.

    Petersen: says he agrees with Perry, but doesn’t have an answer. Not up on the issue. But he’ll find experts.

    Johnson: talks about incarceration, California may legalize pot, may be tipping point. Mandatory sentencing adding to problem.

    McAfee: addiction is its own punishment. do not need to punish drug addicts. Mild applause. It will be his top priority to pardon all non-violent drug users

    Feldman: not in favor of legalizing pot. Normalize it like chocolate. Government doesn’t represent the people.

  48. Stewart Flood

    Closing remarks

    Feldman can’t do math. Tries to insult Johnson’s last run, but ends up with just a stupid, whiny, rambling closing. One of the people standing by the camera said “oh wow!”

    Feldman should drop out. NOW!!!

    McAfee: says we’re all libertarians. We’ve been deluded, mesmerized by the two parties. Good solid close. Far better on stage than I expected.

    Johnson: does the old good news/bad news routine. Learned lessons. Law suit. He gets it. Do the math (obviously referring to Feldman)

    Petersen: sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. Libertarians are the sheep dogs, other party’s candidates are wolves. Loves country from sea to shining sea. Will restore…background music..ok…

    Perry: will answer another question? If he’s allowed to take the oath (says he can’t support the Constitution and take the oath). Pardon Manning, pardon silk road guy, pardon Snowden. Pardon…pardon…bring home every troop around the world. Goes back to the I’ll advocate liberty 100% of the time.

    Closing up…

  49. George Phillies

    We now have a government that does not represnt the people; our police are an army of occupation.

    Each candidate gets 2 miniutes
    Feldman: Think of the 100 million nonovoters. Disgusted by DR. We need a credible, reasonable alternative. Why did he only get 3% of the peple. need to get our messgae otu. The medium is the message. The new owrld is the internet. Limit is attention fpo people. (GP: appears not to understand yellow dog democrats). To be free you must have freedom and you must have choices. The 100 million do not have cohoices. Thinks nonvoters are unemployed.

    McAfee: All Americans are libertarians. Everyne thinks govenment is too big. But we have been mesmerized by the Democrats and Republicans. We must let the peopel know there is an option…us.

    Johnson In 1999 I was the highest government official to call for legalizing pot and school vouchers. Also pushes for term limits. I learned a lot form 2012. One of us poetntially on stage; that will change the game. We spent a million, they each spent a billion.

    petersen “Americna Sniper film” Sheep. Wolves Sheepdogs. Two wolves want the president; I want to be the sheep dog. I love america I will restore the Consttituional Republic…short Reaganesque.

    perry I will answer “Darryl what will you do if elected and taking the office. if I do, the first thing I would do pardon Ulbrich, Manning, Edward Snowden. Pardon all onviolent offenders, bring home all troops. I will advocate liberty as loudly as possible.

    Dear me, Johnson is really a Republican except on pot. Everyone is being applauded. This is the argument America has not been hearing. Y’all have a good night. There are tokens…choose who you want to support.

  50. Stewart Flood

    I won’t vote for him in Orlando because he’s unstable, but I give first place in the debate to Perry.

  51. Losty

    Just reading the blog, I think I lost 100 iq points for 5 minutes, then got them back as soon as it was over.

    And one of these people will finish between 3rd-5th to be the leader of the free world??

  52. George Phillies

    When I ran in 2008, I advocated concrete steps. End the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bring the troops home from war zones. I gave details on how to reduce the size of the military, a lot, and still have a working national defense.End nondisaster foreign aid.

    There are some new ones. End the carried interest deduction racket…Trump go that one right. It’s yuuuuge and obscene. It’s a tax deduction, and he can;t take it. (8^(( But he is right. Drop the F-35.

  53. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’d say Perry and McAfee definitely came out on top in terms of debate performance. Feldman a distant third. Johnson and Petersen neck and neck for “who let these idiots on the stage?”

  54. George Phillies

    There are some wonderful numbers on how infrastructure investment…get the potholes out of teh roads…create huge positive returns for teh economy, often in invisible ways.

  55. George Phillies

    But I agree with Stewart.

    Also Perry and Feldman have impossible fundraising schemes.

  56. Stewart Flood

    Johnson did not do well debating. He avoided answering too many questions, and spent too much time saying he’s made mistakes and learned from them. Lost ground.

    McAfee made a few good points, but some of his previously published positions still need clarification and/or explanation. Possibly gained a little ground. He and Perry were the only two who “sounded presidential” in some of their answers, which is one thing we need.

    Petersen also did not do well debating, and his “not up on it” response took him down quite a few points. Lost significant ground in several areas, especially when he covered by just saying he agreed with Perry. But he’s working on delegates in the back rooms more than most candidates so he may still be the sleeper in Orlando.

    Perry gave mostly solid answers, but his closing was a “rally the rabble” “pardon pardon pardon!” that will remind many of us of his prior rantings at conventions. Lost some ground.

    Feldman didn’t really have any more ground to lose, which is why he should pack up his grandfather’s chickens and go home.

    The rest of the candidates are not even worth mentioning by name.

  57. Stewart Flood

    So yes, I agree that McAfee and Perry did the best.

    I currently predict that if Johnson doesn’t take it on the first round it will be McAfee in three.

  58. Stewart Flood

    And I’m not so sure he can take it on the first round. He did not learn from the 2012 debate against Wrights. He already had it won, easily, but he was trounced in the televised debate.

  59. Shivany Lane

    What is up with Johnson and Sharia Law? Most Muslims do not abide by Sharia Law and they know that if they are in America, they must abide by American laws. Period.

    The only difference as far as I know id that Muslims have a different way of loaning money. I don’t know the particulars, I just know that my broker has a seperate process for Muslims and California has a special bank for Muslims that, I believe, does not charge interest for loans.

    I am not an expert on it by any means, however I am not sure that it has any place in an American debate. If Saudi Arabia wants to run their contry differently than we run ours, who are we to say they are wrong for doing that?

  60. Michael H. Wilson

    It sounds like some people need a better grasp of the issues. And I wish Gary would drop the Sharia law issue. I would put that right up there with Rabbinic law or the laws of any Christian church. Hell we still have religious inspired blue laws in some parts of the country.

  61. Logical_Fallacies

    Very good. I would like to congratulate all the candidates for an excellent debate. And it will be my pleasure to vote for whomever wins the nomination. Like Feldman said, we need to work on getting our message out there and making it more accessible and easier to use – particularly across the internet – but this was a particularly intriguing debate. I loved hearing the broad array of replies and I believe Perry’s passion is an inspiration to us all. I was pleased to hear Petersen stand up for his conviction to be pro-life, and I believe that could lead to a lot of national support, if he is our nominee. I am very grateful for Johnson’s lawsuit and the push it is making to bringing a Libertarian candidate to the public eye. I foresee McAfee’s statement that “[w]e are all Libertarians” could be a rallying cry across the nation and put a Libertarian candidate in the Oval Office. Again, I would like to thank the candidates for an excellent debate. And hopefully in March we will have a better presentation and more time to get our voice out there and appeal to the American people. Thank you for such an enjoyable experience.

  62. Rebel Alliance

    I really liked the 2nd half, much better done! They finally fixed the camera, and it was good to clear the riff-raff off the stage and let the front-runners mix it up a bit with each other. Strong performances by Perry and McAfee. Johnson and Petersen much weaker than I expected.

  63. Stewart Flood

    It doesn’t have a place in the debate. The question he was asked had nothing to do with Shira Law. The question was what response would the candidate have to an attack on his first day in office. I believe the moderator said “9/11 type attack”, so I can see why some of them gravitated to instantly blaming it on Muslims.

    Johnson lost the back and forth against the other candidates. He can’t stand up to a one on one debate. He kept raising his voice every time he argued with someone. That isn’t how you win points or influence libertarians. You’re viewed as arguing — as he was — rather than debating.

    The only person who actually answered the question said “awesome force”. Twice. Libertarians using “awesome force”? Doesn’t he understand that he’d be committing mass murder of people, many of whom could be innocent victims — possibly subjected to the rule of law in the country they live in and in fear of their lives already?

    Feldman does not believe in NAP. That statement shows that he agrees to using force and aggression against others, without care of who is harmed.

  64. Joe Wendt

    After watching the debate, I think McAfee and Perry tied for first place in debate performance, Feldman is a close second, and Gary Johnson is waaay past his prime. Gary is clearly living in the past. Also, what is with that meltdown over Sharia?

  65. George Phillies

    I am all in favor of Johnson staying with his Sharia law line, because it makes it more likely that he will lose.

    Stronger rejoinders about Sharia (the following word “law” is how you ID a Republican bigot) are good. Hang gay people? Look up what was done in parts of the Middle Ages in Christian countries. Stone apostates? The before present era Jewish answer was much firmer, or so Jewish friends assure me.

    The Islamic position on loans is about the same as the Christian position, namely paying interest on a loan, any interest, is usury and hence forbidden. The Islamites have a simple solution, namely you do not pay interest on a loan. You pay a cut of the income. This is a standard American practice vigorously exploited by one of my retirement funds.

    As a further aside, I seem to recall that we signed a treaty banning the use of letters of marque and reprisal.

  66. Losty

    The winners of tonight’s debate?

    Steve Kerbel, Hillary Clinton, Donald J. Trump, Bernie Sanders, and whoever the Republican fundraisers try to get on the ballot…

  67. George Phillies

    Perhaps worth emphasizing are Austin Petersen’s statement that he is antiabortion and that he wants an alliance with conservatives and Republicans.

  68. Steven Berson

    Some random thoughts after watching most of the final 5 debate ->
    McAfee came off impressively as long as he stayed away from his pet issue of “cyber warfare” – which to me seems to be the one area where he consistently calls for expansion of the size and scope of government (where as I want to see things only go in the downsizing direction). He definitely seems to be the most articulate and focused speaker especially in regards to situations needing an off the cuff response – and these responses, unlike the otherwise single issue focus his campaign seems to fall back on, seemed pretty consistently libertarian to me. However – the fact that he is coming to the LP essentially because it has ready made ballot access – something the aborted “Cyber Party” wasn’t going to be able to get – and the fact that his platform changed a bit in possible pandering in the transition to an LP candidate is worrying – as is the mainstream narrative regarding his past which will lead some people to dismiss him out of hand without actually listening to what he has to say (but possibly not as worrying as the lack of transparency in GJ’s 2012 FEC filings in that these make someone such as myself who donated a decent bit back then not want to really do it the same extent again this year)

    I really like Gary Johnson on a one to one level (disclaimer: he got my vote as a delegate to the LP National Convention back in 2012) but I have to say it seems he go from some occasional moments of really nice focus (e.g. during his speech at the Ron Paul appreciation fest in 08-2012) and then reverts sometimes to slightly embarrassing clumsiness in messaging when in front of the crowds. This latest “sharia law” thing he keeps on harping on this campaign so far in particular seems not well thought out and does not consider the various commonly used definitions in those words (i.e. it not only can refer to theocratic authoritarianism of the brutal variety as done by the likes of the Saudi government and ISIS – but also can potentially encompass voluntary arbitration by community leaders in civil matters in preference to Muslims going to government courts).

    The main advantage GJ still presents this go around is that as a former two-term Governor he actually has a track record as an elected executive office holder to stand on, which gets him (and by association, the LP) taken initially more seriously than putting someone that is more “gonzo” (such as McAfee). Both GJ and McAfee have shown able to get booked into national TV spots though

    Lordy, Austin Petersen just comes off horribly on tons of levels to me. Even when I agree with his views he still comes off as just not a person I could ever really support.

    Darryl Perry is indeed the most consistently principled anarcho-capitalistic libertarian that was up there – but as someone that leans more to mutualist minarchism and pragmatic radical centrism myself – the advocating for the complete destruction of the United States as a national entity isn’t really something I can get behind given the realities of the day and given the world we live in. Also attempting to run a Presidential campaign while only accepting metals and bitcoin not already personally rich and seems like the definition in futility. It’s nice having someone with his view point in the debates though.

    Feldman came off as a decent enough to me if nothing really placing him above McAfee or Johnson – but didn’t really make a case to me why the LP should pick him when he has committed to crippling his campaign with his $5/person donation limit.
    It’s too bad that Steve Kerbel couldn’t make it to this debate as he has come off really well in the interviews I’ve seen of him (although there are certainly quibbles I have with a few points in his website’s platform as well).

    Oh well. Wish I could garner greater enthusiasm for any of those seeking the LP nomination but so far no one is truly convincing me as someone I can give support to without some kind of reservation.

  69. langa

    There were no real surprises here. Perry was by far the best (and most libertarian) on the issues, McAfee had the most presence/charisma, and the others all sucked. Overall, it’s a very weak group of candidates.

  70. langa

    Oh, and one other thing. Saying that we shouldn’t cut spending because it would hurt the economy is the same as saying one shouldn’t have a cancerous tumor removed, because the surgery might be unpleasant. In both cases, the longer we wait, the more unpleasant it’s going to be, and if we wait too long, we’re dead.

  71. Robert capozzi

    L, as a matter of theory, I would agree that most spending is a deadweight loss. It is also possible that some cuts might slow growth in the short run.

  72. Matt

    Regarding the Sharia Law point by Johnson, I agree with Steven. The common point in terrorists are more that they are ultra-conservative, which is a bad thing no matter what religion they are.

  73. Thomas L. Knapp

    “It is also possible that some cuts might slow growth in the short run.”

    What kind of “growth?”

    Is there some reason to believe that “growth” in general is an overriding value versus others?

  74. Andy

    “Steven Berson

    February 28, 2016 at 02:13 Oh well. Wish I could garner greater enthusiasm for any of those seeking the LP nomination but so far no one is truly convincing me as someone I can give support to without some kind of reservation.”

    Same here. I feel bad for newcomers to the LP. Selecting a presidential candidate is one of the most exciting things about being in a political party. There are really no candidates to get excited about this time.

    The selection of candidates running for the LP presidential nomination has gone down hill since 2004, in my opinion.

  75. Robert Capozzi

    tk: What kind of “growth?”

    me: That’s generally measured by GDP.

    tk: Is there some reason to believe that “growth” in general is an overriding value versus others?

    me: That’s a matter of judgment and politics. If Ls advocated highly dislocative abolitionist policies that drives half the population into dire poverty that lasts a year or two with the hopes for a robust recovery after Langa’s “cancer” is excised, that is sure to not garner much support and continued irrelevance. I’d also say that humans generally aspire for increased prosperity and are willing to expend effort to further that aspiration. Historically, that has led to increased material wealth over time. I’d not say that’s an “overriding value,” it is rather the result of aggregate and cumulative economic behavior. Relative freedom tends to generate more prosperity to less freedom, but that’s over time.

    An L could advocate abolishing the “cancer” of Social Security, but if were to ever happen, expect to see a lot of seniors homeless and starving. Seems like a real bad idea to me, but you and Langa may feel otherwise.

  76. Michael H. Wilson

    Maybe I didn’t read the comment correctly but someone might want to explain how cutting spending on wars will harm the GDP.

  77. Chuck Moulton

    Thanks to everyone for the liveblogging!!

    Given the complaints about the video / audio quality, I’ll probably rely on this rather than watching myself.

  78. Chuck Moulton

    Michael H. Wilson wrote:

    Maybe I didn’t read the comment correctly but someone might want to explain how cutting spending on wars will harm the GDP.

    GDP is a fairly flawed measure. Government spending is counting regardless of whether it actually helps or hurts standard of living.

  79. Chuck Moulton

    Now that this debate is done, I will again go on record as saying that given the choice between:

    1) an unprecedented media opportunity to have a televised debate with top notch professional video production value among 3-4 credible candidates moderated by libertarian celebrity journalist John Stossel taped in front of a studio audience of 1,000 – 2,000 enthusiastic young libertarians and broadcast in prime time on a nationwide cable network that hosted 2 Republican presidential debates this cycle which could have reached hundreds of thousands or more Americans — especially if promotes to friends and family on social media — or

    2) a state convention live debate with terrible audio and video among anyone with a pulse including several certifiably insane and quite un-libeetarian candidates in front of a studio audience of 100 200 Libertarians (a fraction of whom will be delegates) livestreamed to a remote audience of less than 500 2,000 people

    I would choose option 1. But it wasn’t my choice to make… Gary Johnson flushed that unprecendented media opportunity down the toilet.

    Will there be a Stossel debate in March? Maybe, but it won’t be in front of a studio audience of 1,000 – 2,000 young libertarians. If any Stossel staffer saw this trainwreck and how bad even the “top tier” candidates were, I wouldn’t be surprised if even that invitation were rescinded.

  80. Steven Berson

    Regarding which treaty banned the use of Letters of Marque – most of the rest of the powers of the world at the time signed the Paris Declaration of 1856
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law
    but the USA did not sign – however in separate declarations made during the Civil War and the Spanish-American War the USA government did issue statements that it would follow the regulations of the Paris Declaration anyway.
    Apparently the last time the USA commissioned privateers was 1815.

  81. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m proud to still be supporting Darryl Perry. I hope he is able to make it to the California convention.

    I understand all of the candidates were invited, but I have no idea who has RSVPd yet. I hope we can hear from Mr. Kerbel (get well quickly, Steve!)

  82. Robert Capozzi

    mhw: Maybe I didn’t read the comment correctly but someone might want to explain how cutting spending on wars will harm the GDP.

    me: It seems unlikely to me as well.

    cm: GDP is a fairly flawed measure.

    me: Yes, probably all metrics have their limitations. Is there a better one than GDP?

    My point is mostly that “no particular order” is a losing, poor approach, ATC. I suspect there are better ways to cut spending in the short run that makes it more likely that more cuts could be made in the future.

    I’d rather cut corporate welfare before transfer payments and entitlements. I’d rather cut gold-plated weapons systems before veteran’s benefits. etc.

  83. Michael H. Wilson

    RC writes “I’d rather cut corporate welfare before transfer payments and entitlements. I’d rather cut gold-plated weapons systems before veteran’s benefits. etc.”

    Nice to see we agree on something for once.

  84. Nicholas Sarwark

    Given the complaints about the video / audio quality, I’ll probably rely on this rather than watching myself.

    Professionally edited video should be completed by the end of the week. That will be much better to watch and reflect how beautiful the stage looked in person.

    a state convention live debate with terrible audio and video among anyone with a pulse including several certifiably insane and quite un-libeetarian candidates in front of a studio audience of 100 Libertarians (a fraction of whom will be delegates) livestreamed to a remote audience of less than 500 people

    It appeared to me that we got up over 150-200 people at some point, but I wasn’t counting. Many of the audience were local people who were not Libertarian yet. We also got at least three news stories on the major TV station in the area, WLOX.

    The livestreaming audience topped out at well over 1500 viewers and probably would have been higher if the Libertarian Party of Mississippi’s web hosting provider didn’t fail under the press of viewers.

  85. Robert Capozzi

    mhw: Nice to see we agree on something for once.

    me: So, if we agree, that implies that we also agree that the “Radical” Caucus’s “no particular order” approach is a poor one, yes?

  86. Chuck Moulton

    Nicholas Sarwark wrote:

    It appeared to me that we got up over 150-200 people at some point, but I wasn’t counting. Many of the audience were local people who were not Libertarian yet. We also got at least three news stories on the major TV station in the area, WLOX.

    The livestreaming audience topped out at well over 1500 viewers and probably would have been higher if the Libertarian Party of Mississippi’s web hosting provider didn’t fail under the press of viewers.

    Great to hear the state convention and livestream audiences exceeded expectations!

    Still, a far cry from the audience pissed away by Gary Johnson when he torpedoed an unprecedented media opportunity.

  87. George Phillies

    The consumption tax advocates need a slogan. “F**K the Poor” comes to mind.

    For those of you who did not recognize line used by the Republican in lady liberty’s clothing, shouting “do you support sharia law” is a standard Republican line used to defend their Islamophobic hatemongering. Debaters facing it need to take the line and verbally shove it down the user’s throat or such other bodily orifice as comes to hand.

    The comment about putting gays to death is, as it happens, the Christian position, at least if you were an American Christian in 1776, and is still the letter of Jewish law in Leviticus. though this law is not widely honored. In 1776 every state had a death penalty for sodomy. There was legislative friction between the US and the UK, because Americans wanted to extend the death penalty to lesbians, while Englishmen typically did not, even before we reach Queen Victoria, who informed her ministers that, of course, sex between women was physically impossible and therefore should not be criminalized. (Readers may wish to inquire if this is actually an urban legend).

    If you are going to debate a Republican, it helps to have lots of facts at hand, since you have the disadvantage of having to know things, while the Republican just makes stuff up as he goes along.

  88. langa

    I’d rather cut corporate welfare before transfer payments and entitlements. I’d rather cut gold-plated weapons systems before veteran’s benefits. etc.

    So would I, if that were the choice being offered. However, if the choice were between cutting entitlements or cutting nothing, then I would choose to cut entitlements.

    That’s the whole point of the “no particular order” principle, at least as I understand it. It doesn’t mean you can’t have preferences between cutting one thing or another. It just means that any cuts are better than no cuts.

  89. Stewart Flood

    Chuck is correct. If Stossel or any of his staff look at this, they’ll cancel. I would.

    We had an opportunity, and it was blown. And the quality of the broadcast wasn’t even up to standards we had twenty years ago. 1500 viewers exceeded their capacity? Seriously?

    Why wasn’t a commercial system (aka livestream or a competitor) used? It costs next to nothing, and even if you buy their hardware it will be cheaper than paying someone to provide it.

    Total botch up. I can’t recommend to anyone that isn’t already a large L libertarian that they watch it. We’d actually lose ground with the general population. Half of the candidates are, as Chuck pointed out, certifiable. Quite a few were not even small l libertarians, but were re-fried Ds and Rs. I still haven’t figured out why Robinson told me he was a former republican when his programs are huge (HUGE!) Government socialism through new entitlement programs that would give each citizen more money the day they are born than they are likely to pay in taxes for over half their life or more in non-inflated dollars. Of course he would still tax them…

    .

  90. Robert Capozzi

    L: However, if the choice were between cutting entitlements or cutting nothing, then I would choose to cut entitlements.

    me: Let me get this straight: It’s the “radical” plumbline position that if the only spending cuts that could be made were to Social Security benefits, it’s the “radical” position to support those cuts…is that right?

    If yes, it should be no wonder that liberty is frittering away and Ls are of almost no consequence. Such cuts, of course, would not happen, but such a “radical” position is sure to alienate just about everyone, except “radical” Ls.

  91. Thomas L. Knapp

    “It appeared to me that we got up over 150-200 people at some point”

    The highest number I noticed for livestream viewers was a full order of magnitude higher than that — around 1,600.

  92. Thomas L. Knapp

    OK, I’m going to say this one more time so that maybe certain people will get it through their heads:

    The “Gary Johnson blew a huge media opportunity” crap is entirely a function of “Austin Petersen trolled you and you took the bait.”

    That’s what it is.

    That’s ALL it is.

    There are plenty of things wrong with Gary Johnson. Quit making yourselves look like fucking idiots in public by pretending this was one of them.

  93. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    OK, I’m going to say this one more time so that maybe certain people will get it through their heads:

    The “Gary Johnson blew a huge media opportunity” crap is entirely a function of “Austin Petersen trolled you and you took the bait.”

    BULLSHIT!!

    Facts:

    1) Debate invitations were extended to Johnson, McAfee, and Petersen.

    2) It was an unprecedented media opportunity.

    3) Johnson declined to attend.

    4) Petersen and McAfee looked for ways to reschedule so the event could still be held that weekend at SFL and make it work.

    5) Johnson refused to negotiate on the timing.

    6) Stossel refused to proceed without Johnson.

    These are all FACTS. Your denying reality or trying to change the subject or getting butthurt because you don’t like Petersen are irrelevant. The best description of your attitude pretending these facts don’t exist and pretending anyone who calls Johnson out on his colossal blunder is making a mountain out of a molehill is nothing short of utter BULLSHIT.

  94. Losty

    George,

    Are you wanting to let us all know something by that suite?

    Or who would be using that suite for that announcement?

    or any others?

  95. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    The point at which you should have realized it was a Petersen troll was when (if not before) he claimed that he and McAfee had offered to charter a private jet to make the timing work out.

    Two days before that, he was claiming that he wouldn’t be able to make it to state conventions without an infusion of donations, then suddenly he could afford to go in with McAfee to charter a private jet. Riiiiiiiight.

    You got trolled. You fell for it. There’s no shame in that, except when you belabor it at the expense of the REAL problems with JOhnson.

  96. langa

    Such cuts, of course, would not happen, but such a “radical” position is sure to alienate just about everyone, except “radical” Ls.

    First, I doubt that, unless you mean “just about every senior citizen” — I think cutting (or even completely eliminating) SS would be welcomed by a lot of young people, who realize they will never get back anywhere near what they are being forced to contribute. And of course, when I say I would support such cuts, I am assuming that they would be accompanied by corresponding tax cuts. Obviously, if the money was just going to be spent on some other government program, that’s not a cut.

    Second, and more importantly, the LP is the party of principle, not the party of pandering, so we should never abandon our principles simply because they are unpopular. I suppose you think that back in the ’70s, the LP should have come out strongly against allowing gay marriage, since that was an unpopular idea. Or if the LP had been around a century ago, they should have supported Jim Crow laws. After all, we wouldn’t want to “alienate” all the white voters, would we?

  97. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    The point at which you should have realized it was a Petersen troll was when (if not before) he claimed that he and McAfee had offered to charter a private jet to make the timing work out.

    Two days before that, he was claiming that he wouldn’t be able to make it to state conventions without an infusion of donations, then suddenly he could afford to go in with McAfee to charter a private jet. Riiiiiiiight.

    You got trolled. You fell for it. There’s no shame in that, except when you belabor it at the expense of the REAL problems with JOhnson.

    Again, BULLSHIT.

    All of the facts I listed have been confirmed by multiple parties in subsequent statements, including McAfee and Johnson. Your judgement is clouded by your hating Petersen, so you ignore facts and logic.

    Even if Petersen were disingenuous in speaking about chartering a private plane, that would be totally irrelevant to the fact that Johnson pissed away an unprecedented media opportunity.

    However, I wouldn’t even concede that point. Chartering a private plane isn’t really that expensive. On the high end, it could cost $3,000 an hour. Biloxi, MS to Washington, DC is a 2 hour 17 minute flight. If Johnson, McAfee, and Petersen booked a 3 hour private charter jet flight together, it would cost them around $3,000 each. That’s not pocket change, but it would be pretty easy to fundraise for an unprecedented media opportunity and it would be perfectly reasonable for a candidate to propose that solution with the expectation of future targeted fundraising for that purpose.

  98. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    I guess I’ll just take yes for an answer. You want someone besides Johnson. I don’t — or at least shouldn’t — really care whether that’s because you think Johnson is a mole for the conspiracy of freemasons and lizard people, or because Austin Petersen successfully trolled you, or for some reason that actually makes sense.

  99. Robert Capozzi

    L: the LP is the party of principle, not the party of pandering, so we should never abandon our principles simply because they are unpopular.

    me: This is, for me, a false dichotomy. YMMV. This simplistic approach completely misses the problem as it exists.

    We agree that the government is far too big. Only for plumbliners, however, does it follow that each and every cut is virtuous unto itself. To me and most, spending cuts that drive grandma and grandpa to eating cat food lacks virtue on its face. It’s not “pandering” since I happen to believe that.

    Simplistic popular/unpopular also doesn’t work. Then again, you seem to think Granny eating cat food is a righteous outcome.

  100. Steven Berson

    Chuck –
    Are you privy to the communications of the Johnson campaign and the scheduling managers of the Stossel Show? Because unless you are then I would say that you can not declare your points #4 and #5 as “facts.”

  101. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote:

    4) Petersen and McAfee looked for ways to reschedule so the event could still be held that weekend at SFL and make it work.

    5) Johnson refused to negotiate on the timing.

    6) Stossel refused to proceed without Johnson.

    Steven Berson wrote:

    Are you privy to the communications of the Johnson campaign and the scheduling managers of the Stossel Show? Because unless you are then I would say that you can not declare your points #4 and #5 as ?facts.?

    Yes, there is enough information released to infer that.

    Points 4 and 5:

    The Gary Johnson campaign, the John McAfee campaign, the Austin Petersen campaign, and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi all corroborate that Gary Johnson declined the Stossel debate invitation, then did not make any effort work with the schedules to make the Stossel debate happen another time that weekend. At no point has the Gary Johnson campaign, the John McAfee campaign, the Austin Petersen campaign, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, or John Stossel made any claim that the Gary Johnson campaign tried to negotiate on timing. All the Gary Johnson campaign has said is that they apologized to John Stossel and he understood Johnson’s decision.

    The John McAfee campaign, the Austin Petersen campaign, and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi all corroborate that the John McAfee campaign and the Austin Petersen campaign tried work with the schedules to make the Stossel debate happen another time that weekend. At no point has the Gary Johnson campaign, the John McAfee campaign, the Austin Petersen campaign, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, or John Stossel made any claim that the John McAfee campaign and the Austin Petersen campaign did not try to work with the schedules to make the Stossel debate happen another time that weekend

    Andy Craig comment, quoting Joe Hunter from the Gary Johnson campaign:
    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/controversy-over-biloxi-debate-petersen-accuses-johnson-of-refusing-to-ditch-state-lp-for-stossel-episode/#comment-1317213

    Joe Hunter [GJ2016]:: Jo, I am violating my rule of not getting involved in these threads, but to your point, suffice it to say that we have talked with Stossel?s folks numerous times in the past 24 hours, they ?completely understand? the Governor?s desire to keep his commitment to the MS/AL convention, and graciously acknowledged the ?chaos? they inadvertently created.

    McAfee press release:
    https://mcafee2016.com/2016/02/12/statement-from-john-mcafee-on-proposed-fox-business-news-libertarian-presidential-debate/

    My campaign, as well as the campaign of Mr. Petersen, had the same prior obligation as Gary Johnson: the very worthwhile joint state conventions of the Alabama and Mississippi Libertarian Parties.

    We were both willing to work with all three candidates to make sure that we could not only take advantage of this great media opportunity, but also spend quality time with Libertarian Party delegates in convention.

    Unfortunately, Gary Johnson?s campaign had no such interest.

    Austin Petersen email:
    http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=642172a20d573043d9af6fe4e&id=e15240fc53

    After an invitation from Fox Business host John Stossel to appear on the network during this year’s Students for Liberty conference, Gary Johnson refused to accept the invitation to debate alongside fellow candidate John McAfee and myself.

    Johnson told our campaigns that his refusal was due to a prior engagement. However, when both of our campaigns offered to work together with Johnson in order to make both events possible for all campaigns, he refused to play ball with us and with McAfee.

    Libertarian Party of Mississippi press release:
    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-party-of-mississippi-statement-on-hoopla-over-biloxi-debate/

    On, or about, Thursday, February 11, 2016, I was notified that the John Stossel show invited Mr. Johnson, Mr. McAfee, and Mr. Petersen to a debate at their taping in front of the ISL. As soon as I was able to speak to Mr. Johnson?s campaign, they maintained their commitment to our event. As to the others, they said they would go to Washington and were working on coming back to Mississippi as soon as they could.

    Point 6:

    McAfee press release:
    https://mcafee2016.com/2016/02/12/statement-from-john-mcafee-on-proposed-fox-business-news-libertarian-presidential-debate/

    Gary Johnson, however, stated that he had ?prior obligations? and would not be able to attend. Fox Business News then indicated that a two person debate would not be viable.

  102. Thomas L. Knapp

    There is “enough information to infer that” this whole thing makes a tempest in a teapot look like a matter of earthshaking importance by comparison. I doubt that Petersen thought his little troll would be anywhere near this successful and that people would actually still be talking about it weeks later as if it had been something of actual significance.

  103. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    There is “enough information to infer that” this whole thing makes a tempest in a teapot look like a matter of earthshaking importance by comparison. I doubt that Petersen thought his little troll would be anywhere near this successful and that people would actually still be talking about it weeks later as if it had been something of actual significance.

    No matter how many times you ignore facts and logic, your attempts to gloss over the damage done by pissing away this unprecedented media opportunity will continue to be BULLSHIT.

  104. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    You keep using that word, unprecedented. I do not think it means what you think it means. The word you were looking for was “notional.”

    Well, I’m dealing in logic and facts. You aren’t. You are spewing random nonsense. You don’t seem to respond well to logic and facts. When I’m discussing with someone and I present logic and facts while the other person spews random nonsense, it’s important for me to flag it as BULLSHIT so that anyone else who views the conversation steps back to think about whether what I’ve labeled is in fact random nonsense.

    I think we should step back and talk about how I approach things vs. how you approach things.

    Austin Petersen said something controversial: he accused Gary Johnson of declining a Stossel debate, refusing to negotiate time, and thus squandering a debate opportunity because Stossel would not hold the debate without Johnson.

    Now, I’m not party to the discussions between Gary Johnson, John McAfee, Austin Petersen, Stossel, or the Libertarian Party of Mississippi. I have no firsthand knowledge of what was said or not said. You are in the same situation. You too have no firsthand knowledge of what was said or not said.

    How do I evaluate claims with no firsthand knowledge?

    First, I think about whether the claim was plausible. Does it fit what I know about Gary Johnson, John McAfee, Austin Petersen, Stossel, and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi? Is the claimed behavior what I would expect them to have done based on my past knowledge and experience of the parties involved? The answer is yes, the claim was entirely plausible.

    Second, would Austin Petersen lie about this? Does he have an incentive to lie? Yes, he has an initial incentive to lie about this. It would tend to boast his campaign and hurt Gary Johnson’s campaign. However, he does not have a long term incentive to lie. If he is caught lying, that would substantially hurt his campaign — and far more than the initial boast. So I tend to doubt he would lie about something that could be proven demonstrably false if it were false.

    Third, is there anyone with firsthand knowledge that can corroborate his claim? Yes, the John McAfee campaign corroborates all of his claims. The Gary Johnson campaign and the Libertarian Party of Missisippi corroborate some of his claims.

    Fourth, would the people corroborating the claims lie about this? Would they have an incentive to lie? The McAfee campaign might have an incentive to lie because it would tend to hurt the Johnson campaign and boast their campaign. But again, if they are caught lying, that would substantially hurt the McAfee campaign — and far more than the initial boast. So I tend to doubt the McAfee campaign would lie about something that could be proven demonstrably false if it were false. On the other hand, parts of Petersen’s claim were corroborated by the Gary Johnson campaign and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi. Neither has any incentive to lie about this… in fact, their statements were against their own interest. So I tend to believe them.

    Fifth, has anyone with firsthand knowledge disputed any parts of his claim? No. The Gary Johnson campaign has not disputed anything about the Petersen claim. In fact, the Gary Johnson campaign released a statement about the matter: nowhere in that statement did it dispute that Gary Johnson declined a Stossel debate and nowhere in that statement did it dispute that the Gary Johnson campaign refused to negotiate another time that weekend. The Gary Johnson campaign has a huge incentive to expose Austin Petersen and John McAfee as liars, but it has never done so. Why? I’m inclined to believe it’s because Austin Petersen and the John McAfee campaign were telling the truth. By the same token, no other person or entity with firsthand knowledge has disputed any part of Austin Petersen’s claim.

    All of the evidence points to Petersen telling the truth. Zero evidence points to him lying.

    That is me looking at facts and logic.

    In contrast, how do you approach Petersen’s claim?

    You immediately accuse Petersen of being a liar because you don’t like him. Then you come up with excuse after excuse after excuse trying to concoct a scenario where Petersen could be lying, Johnson could be doing something great for the LP by ducking the debate, the Fox Business network doesn’t have many viewers, Stossel wouldn’t have actually broadcast a debate, the Students for Liberty has a small crowd, the Students for Liberty aren’t libertarians, it’s cost prohibitive to charter a plane, etc. etc. Every time you bring up a point, I rebut it with logic and actual evidence. So you keep looking for a different angle of attack or you default to ad hominems or you repeat prior debunked claims. At no point do you apply logic to the overwhelming evidence that Austin Petersen was in fact correct about Gary Johnson pissing away an unprecedented media opportunity.

    If you can show me any evidence that contradicts the 6 facts I listed, I’m all ears. If you’re going to keep ranting and raving nonsense, I will continue to call BULLSHIT and repeat the facts.

  105. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    I didn’t accuse Petersen of being a liar. I just noted that Petersen is a troll.

    You’re believing what you want to believe because it’s what you want to believe.

    I wish I could join you in doing so, but over time I’ve learned that it’s a bad policy to believe something just because I want to. It usually ends up backfiring.

    In this particular case, there’s just so MUCH wrong with Johnson that it seems really stupid to hang your hat on some picayune bullshit like this. Someone inclined to like Johnson probably isn’t going to stop liking Johnson just because Chuck Moulton says “I look up when people say the word gullible is written on the ceiling.”

  106. Nicholas Sarwark

    “It appeared to me that we got up over 150-200 people at some point”

    The highest number I noticed for livestream viewers was a full order of magnitude higher than that — around 1,600.

    Live audience in the room, not streaming, which was about an order of magnitude higher.

  107. Nicholas Sarwark

    We had an opportunity, and it was blown. And the quality of the broadcast wasn’t even up to standards we had twenty years ago. 1500 viewers exceeded their capacity? Seriously?

    Why wasn’t a commercial system (aka livestream or a competitor) used? It costs next to nothing, and even if you buy their hardware it will be cheaper than paying someone to provide it.

    The capacity of the stream was fine, since it was using YouTube. Most links to the debate were to mslp.org/debate, not to the YouTube link. When mslp.org crashed under all the hits, it became harder for people to find the stream.

    The production issues for the livestream were real, but maybe simpler than the commentariat thinks. There were two teams with two sets of cameras, one for live stream, one for edited final cut. The live stream team did not watch the stream after the stage lights were brought up to verify picture quality. The streaming camera did not have an adjustable iris. I think Aaron Barksdale did a post on this, but I would suggest that people be a little more patient with the efforts of others.

  108. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    I didn’t accuse Petersen of being a liar. I just noted that Petersen is a troll.

    If he’s right, I don’t much care whether he was saying it to be a troll or to inform people.

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    You’re believing what you want to believe because it’s what you want to believe.

    No. As I outlined, my “belief” is based on the overwhelming evidence. Your “belief” is based on a hatred of some dude.

    There you go again: failing to address any of the 6 facts because you hope if you dance around them no one will notice that they are uncontested.

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    In this particular case, there’s just so MUCH wrong with Johnson that it seems really stupid to hang your hat on some picayune bullshit like this.

    There is a whole lot wrong with Johnson. This is one thing. The “fair” tax, his campaign debt, and his sharia law fetish are even bigger problems. Any of these four things alone should be enough to disqualify Johnson from consideration (not in a bylaws sense, but in a “this is a bad choice for the LP” sense).

    It is not bullshit or “picayune bullshit”. An unprecendented media opportunity fell into the LP’s lap and Gary Johnson pissed it away. A lot of us activists invest huge amounts of time and money into the LP hoping there will be opportunities like this… it is an insult to our hard work to squander the opportunity. It’s horrifying. It’s embarrassing. It’s a colossal blunder.

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    Someone inclined to like Johnson probably isn’t going to stop liking Johnson just because Chuck Moulton says “I look up when people say the word gullible is written on the ceiling.”

    There you go with the BULLSHIT again. It’s not “gullible” of me to look at the overwhelming evidence and form the only logical conclusion. If anyone is “gullible”, it is you: you ignore the overwhelming evidence because you hate the initial messenger.

    I’ve spoken with several delegates who supported Johnson in 2012, but are livid that Johnson pissed away this unprecedented media opportunity. Is it going to sway his cult followers who have drank the Kool-Aid like Andy Craig? Probably not. This ridiculously stupid decision will cost some delegates on the margin though.

  109. langa

    …you seem to think Granny eating cat food is a righteous outcome.

    Wrong. I don’t think the “righteousness” of any outcome can even be evaluated without considering the events that led to it. For example, if some old woman is starving because she went to Vegas and blew her life savings in a casino, then I have no sympathy for her. On the other hand, if she is starving because she kept all her money in a shoe box and her house got robbed, then I have a great deal of sympathy for her.

    But in either case, if she tries to put food on the table by, say, robbing a bank, then she is in the wrong, and equally so in either case. I don’t say that because I think starvation is good, but because I think theft is bad. Always. The ends don’t justify the means. Ever. On the contrary, the means justify the ends. In fact, that’s libertarianism in a nutshell.

  110. Robert Capozzi

    L: the means justify the ends. In fact, that’s libertarianism in a nutshell.

    me: For you, that’s your nutshell, and it was once mine as well.

    For me, most issues don’t boil down neatly to ends and means. Most of the time, I take a more holistic approach where ends and means are both, on balance, virtuous.

    So, for the plumbliner, the simplistic analysis seems to be: Social Security benefits are stolen money. Therefore, cutting or eliminating Social Security benefits is justified.

    I see it differently. Governments have been taking taxes forever and redistributing the funds in myriad ways. For the past 70+ years or so, some of the taxes they have taken were (allegedly) targeted for Social Security. Most probably don’t understand that SS is not like a pension fund, but to me the relevant thing is that the taxes were taken. An obligation was generally established, although there are some catches, as the Nestor case shows. But again most don’t know about the technicalities.

    Importantly, we can’t know what would have happened if SS was never established. My sense is we’d collectively be better off, and that most would have made other arrangements to prepare for their retirements. And charities might have developed for those who fell through the cracks.

    So, for me to support policy X, means and ends both need to make sense. Millions of seniors eating cat food does not make sense to me. Many of them don’t have the ability to adjust to cuts in benefits that they’ve come to depend on.

    That’s not to say that a reasonable person should not consider tweaks to SS, including current benefits. If liberty were on the rise and significant percentages of the electorate were pushing to rollback the State, I might support an element of such a program taxing SS benefits for those who are not in poverty, probably only on a phased-in basis.

    And of course I’m open to phasing the entire program out. Of course, I’m attracted to Friedman’s idea of a negative income tax to replace all government social programs, including SS. The details would have to be worked out, taking many issues into consideration, not just the robotic consideration: Stop “stealing” money/abolish as much government as possible as quickly as possible.

    Such a program is unsellable, and leads to horrific ends. I would ask: What’s the point of advocating the unsellable? So that in 100 years, future Ls can say: See, we’ve been advocating abolitionism for decades/centuries. Maybe then the conditions will be ripe for a “L society.”

    Why not get in the mix NOW and start a process of rolling back the State NOW? Afraid to get your hands dirty?

    Particular orders matter.

  111. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    I’m not sure who you think I “hate.”

    Of the announced presidential candidates, there’s only one whom I gave up $10k rather than be associated with in any way, and that candidate is Gary Johnson. I’m the last person you will ever see defending him unless, as in this case, there’s just no other honest choice.

    Am I saying the whole Stossel debate thing was a setup job from start to end? No. There may have been some actual “there” there. Nothing even approaching “unprecedented” in terms of value, but sure, something.

    Is one of the prospective participants saying “sorry, I’ve got commitments and I’m keeping to my schedule, we’ll have to do it another time” a big deal? Not to anyone who looks at the situation with even a modicum of rationality.

  112. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Yep Tom, you got it.

    And further evidence – no matter what anyone thinks of Johnson’s positions – he certainly proved he was “too chicken” to debate. That WAS the childish accusation that belongs back in 4th grade not in smarmy press releases.

    I mean if we are talking about evidence here.

  113. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    Am I saying the whole Stossel debate thing was a setup job from start to end? No. There may have been some actual “there” there. Nothing even approaching “unprecedented” in terms of value, but sure, something.

    There has never been a pre-convention televised debate months before the national convention on a nationally televised cable network (a nationally televised cable network that hosted 2 Republican primary debates) between candidates for the Libertarian nomination. This was to be in front of a studio audience of 1,000 – 2,000 young libertarians moderated by libertarian celebrity journalist John Stossel.

    Stossel is televised on Friday at 8:00 pm (prime time). It is an hour long show. Each Stossel episode is ordinarily re-broadcast at least 6 times between Friday and Sunday. Sometimes a Stossel episode is broadcast 10 times on a weekend. They basically use his show to fill up every weekend time slot that their ordinary weekday shows have off.

    At no point has anyone pointed out any similar level of coverage for any Libertarian Party presidential debate (or even a collection of several Libertarian candidates rather than just one) at any point in the past that is pre-nomination and not at the convention itself.

    Any notion that such coverage is in any way unprecedented is completely ridiculous.

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    Is one of the prospective participants saying “sorry, I’ve got commitments and I’m keeping to my schedule, we’ll have to do it another time” a big deal? Not to anyone who looks at the situation with even a modicum of rationality.

    It’s a huge deal. It’s a colossal blunder.

    If our eventual nominee is invited to debate Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but declines the invitation because he has a prior obligation to play bridge on alternate Thursdays or to wash his hair or to feed homeless paraplegic veterans at the soup kitchen on main street, then he’s an idiot and is making a colossal blunder.

    If our eventual nominee is invited to appear on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel Live, or The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, but he declines because he has a prior obligation to eat dinner with his mom at Denny’s or to help paint his buddy’s house or to tutor poor inner-city youth at English as a second language, then he’s an idiot and is making a colossal blunder.

    If our eventual nominee is invited to be interviewed and photographed for a Time magazine cover story, but he declines because he has a prior obligation to chat about “12 Years a Slave” with his monthly book club while munching on potluck appetizers or to plant a tree on his lawn for Arbor Day or to deliver flowers to bereaved widows in nursing homes, then he’s an idiot and is making a colossal blunder.

    When opportunities come, you take them. You prioritize them. If you let them slip by, then you’re doing a terrible job campaigning and the delegates would be making a catastrophic mistake giving the keys to the castle to a person who squanders opportunities we all toil day and night hoping for.

  114. George Phillies

    Tom,

    Somehow you had a chance at $10K to support or not oppose or something Johnson? That’s impressive.

    Would you care to share the details?

    Be well,

    George

  115. George Phillies

    However, it is obviously correct that the things Johnson said in the debate were far more serious than the perhaps-debate he might have missed.

    I am reminded of Harry Browne being suckered by one of the big Sunday AM TV shows. Week after week, they said they would put him on the air, but he had to promise he would not accept any other invitations. Week after week, he kept the deal, and they cancelled on him.

    The lesson is that there might have been a debate on Stossel, or there might have been a cancellation.

    With respect to the real debate, the camera without an iris or a traveling set of filters is, ummh, a bit different.

  116. Thomas L. Knapp

    “At no point has anyone pointed out any similar level of coverage for any Libertarian Party presidential debate”

    Exactly.

    Of course, you left out the important clause “including this time.”

    If the event took place in the way you frame it (as opposed to the actual offer, which was not quite as good), I agree that it would be cool. Not nearly as big or persuadable an audience as Ed Clark’s prime-time infomercial or appearance on Nightline in 1980; not nearly as big a deal as McAfee’s appearance on ABC’s World News Tonight last weekend if they hadn’t gone out of their way to avoid mentioning his presidential candidacy; but somewhere toward the lower edge of that ballpark.

  117. Thomas L. Knapp

    George,

    I’ve shared the details before. Steve Kubby gave me 1% of the shares of his medical cannabis company in return for doing some of its communications work, which I did for awhile. Then he brought Johnson and Gray on board and asked me to write the press releases for that. I gave him his stock back rather than be involved/in business with those two. The company shortly thereafter sold for an advertised $1 million, of which 1% would have been $10k.

  118. Derrick Michael Reid

    Notwithstanding the streaming problems, it was a great time and good debate. I made 6th in tokens, and miss the last debate cut, to the other 5 much more well known candidates. But moving from 12th place to 6th place, at the start of the debate season, was a good showing.

    There are some photos from the convention posted on the below link,

    Aaron Barksdale was gracious enough to allow me to deliver a foreign policy speech, between the MS and AL formal conventions, and he remarked about the enthusiastic response of the crowd, which speech is posted on the below link. Thank You Much Aaron Barksdale!

    http://www.totalitariandemocracy.com/lectures/public-interviews/msaldebate

    Very Truly Yours, in Liberty and Freedom,
    Derrick Michael Reid B.S.E.E., J.D.,
    2016 Presidential Candidate, Libertarian Party,
    Engineer, Patent Lawyer, Military Scientist,
    Market Analyst, and Geopolitical Analyst.
    PO Box 1584, Laguna Beach, CA 92652
    Contact Email: Libereens@yahoo.com
    Skype Account Name: derrickmichaelreid
    http://www.totalitariandemocracy.com/

  119. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    Of course, you left out the important clause “including this time.”

    If the event took place in the way you frame it (as opposed to the actual offer, which was not quite as good), I agree that it would be cool.

    You’ve already repeatedly demonstrated your complete ignorance of Stossel, the Students for Liberty, Fox Business, etc.

    It is an hour long show — though you can subtract the standard commercials from that.

    Stossel runs at 8:00 pm. It is re-broadcast repeatedly throughout the weekend — usually 6-10 times unless it is pre-empted for something else (like a Republican debate or live primary results or a terrorist attack).

    Fox Business is available in 74,224,000 households (63.8% of households with television) in the United States.

    Fox Business hosted 2 Republican presidential debates.

    The Students for Liberty conference provides a studio audience of 1,000 – 2,000 for Stossel.

    These are all facts.

    You claim the actual offer was different. Yet no one actually involved with the offer (the Gary Johnson campaign, the John McAfee campaign, the Austin Petersen campaign, John Stossel staffers) have claimed it is different. Again, you are making up a fantasy putting things in the worst possible light you can imagine because the truth makes you butthurt.

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    Not nearly as big or persuadable an audience as Ed Clark’s prime-time infomercial or appearance on Nightline in 1980;

    That was post-nomination, not pre-nomination.

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    not nearly as big a deal as McAfee’s appearance on ABC’s World News Tonight last weekend if they hadn’t gone out of their way to avoid mentioning his presidential candidacy; but somewhere toward the lower edge of that ballpark.

    That was not a debate among several pre-nomination candidates. It was not an hour long appearance, rather it was a fly by interview. It did not focus on libertarianism or the presidential campaign.

    Look, I get it that you like grasping at straws because facts and logic contradict what you wish happened, as you hate Austin Petersen. At least put greater effort into coming up with nonsense that isn’t so easily debunked. Your BULLSHIT is pretty tiresome.

  120. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    You keep referring to various facts. Here are three facts, two of which you keep including and one of which you omit every time:

    1) Stossel offered to MODERATE the debate.

    2) Stossel offered to RECORD the debate.

    3) No word on how much, if any, of the debate Stossel offered or intended to AIR.

  121. Chuck Moulton

    George Phillies wrote:

    I am reminded of Harry Browne being suckered by one of the big Sunday AM TV shows. Week after week, they said they would put him on the air, but he had to promise he would not accept any other invitations. Week after week, he kept the deal, and they cancelled on him.

    The lesson is that there might have been a debate on Stossel, or there might have been a cancellation.

    You people love coming up with ridiculous fantasy scenarios to justify Johnson’s outrageous behavior…

    This is Stossel. He was at the Students for Liberty conference. He has taped Stossel episodes at the Students for Liberty conference for years. Students for Liberty has accommodated Stossel’s taping schedule at the conference for years. At no point has he ever taped an episode at Students for Liberty, Freedom Fest, etc. and not subsequently aired it.

    For some reason you are imputing rude behavior from some other television personality or show to Stossel. There is no foundation for that. Stossel likes libertarians, has covered libertarians in the past, and has shot shows at SFL in the past. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate Stossel would screw over his guests — especially these guests.

  122. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    You keep referring to various facts. Here are three facts, two of which you keep including and one of which you omit every time:

    1) Stossel offered to MODERATE the debate.

    2) Stossel offered to RECORD the debate.

    3) No word on how much, if any, of the debate Stossel offered or intended to AIR.

    I have to hand it to you, you really are creative when you grasp around at imaginary straws after repeatedly failing at logic and facts.

    Why would Stossel moderate and tape a debate he doesn’t intend to air?

    Why would Petersen and McAfee fly out to Washington, DC to participate in a debate that would never air?

    Why wouldn’t the Johnson campaign point out that Stossel would not air the debate when he was defending himself in that statement, if it were indeed the fact that Stossel never agreed to air it?

    None of these things make any sense whatsoever.

    When you concoct your fantasy dream scenario to justify the nonsense you are spewing, next time try to conform it to the evidence already presented.

  123. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    You can fantasize that I’m trying to “justify” Johnson’s decision all you want. And it will remain a fantasy and a symptom of your complete disconnect from anything resembling the real world here.

    My preference would have been for Johnson to change his schedule, apologize to the MS/AL LPs for the inconvenience, etc. and do the debate.

    That he didn’t is not a good thing.

    Nor is it anything even remotely close to as big a deal as you’re making it.

    Why would Stossel tape the debate and then not air it? Because Stossel probably tapes 20 hours of stuff for every hour he actually uses, discarding the stuff that sucks and keeping the parts that are good TV. And there’s no guarantee whatsoever that the debate in question would have made good TV, especially aired as an entire event. If I had to guess, I’d guess that he would have ended up showing five minutes of highlights.

    And yes, he would have shown whatever he showed to a substantial audience. The Fox Business audience and the Stossel audience, which breaks down into two groups:

    1) Those who already vote Libertarian; and
    2) Those who don’t vote Libertarian and are clearly never going to — or they already would be doing so, having been exposed to Stossel for decades at this point.

    Nothing wrong with reaching that audience. All other things being equal, if Johnson had asked me, I’d have said “you probably ought to do that” if for no other reason than that it was to be expected that Petersen would try to fool people into joining him in a public tantrum over it if he didn’t, and that some naive LP members would indeed be fooled into doing so.

  124. Stewart Flood

    Stossel isn’t the old network shows. And this clearly wasn’t a fake invitation. The fallout from that at the conference would have really been bad. There is no reason at all to believe there was anything “sinister” or otherwise what the invitation appeared to be.

    So given that we had a clearly visible (pun intended) debate opportunity that was given up for a washed out video with bad audio and candidates invited who’s websites and own statements show that they ARE NOT LIBERTARIAN OR THAT THEY ARE BAT SHIT CRAZY…

    Chuck is being mild in his criticism. Johnson made a serious mistake. A very serious mistake. Hopefully a fatal mistake, because he’s certainly lost my vote. *

    * the sole exception being if it is the final round and it is Johnson vs Feldman or one of the other bat shit crazy non-libertarians.

  125. Stewart Flood

    I am now defining Feldman as one of the non-libertarians, since his idea of getting rid of taxes is to give the option to give your money to non-profits, crediting it against your tax debt.

    What’s wrong with this scenario?

    If you need to have it explained, you are not a libertarian — small or large “L”.

  126. Thomas L. Knapp

    If you’re affiliated with the Libertarian Party — and as a member of the Libertarian National Committee, a two-time candidate for public office on the Libertarian Party line, and a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, Dr. Feldman is absolutely, positively, beyond any shadow of a doubt so affiliated — you’re a “big L” Libertarian.

    Whether or not he SHOULD be is a different question.

  127. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    Why would Stossel tape the debate and then not air it? Because Stossel probably tapes 20 hours of stuff for every hour he actually uses, discarding the stuff that sucks and keeping the parts that are good TV. And there’s no guarantee whatsoever that the debate in question would have made good TV, especially aired as an entire event. If I had to guess, I’d guess that he would have ended up showing five minutes of highlights.

    I’ve watched him tape several episodes at the Students for Liberty conference. Your characterization is completely inconsistent with my experience.

    Generally he seems to air 1/2 to 2/3 of his time talking with guests and 1/10 of questions from the student audience. But it becomes an hour episode.

    The notion that a debate among Libertarian candidates would become a 5 minute highlight reel in an hour long show about something else is ridiculous. It contradicts everything we know about how the show is taped.

    You’ve already indicated you have never watched a Stossel episode. I’ve seen 5 episodes taped and watched at least 50 on TV. I don’t see any reason why anyone would believe your characterization over mine.

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    And yes, he would have shown whatever he showed to a substantial audience. The Fox Business audience and the Stossel audience, which breaks down into two groups:

    1) Those who already vote Libertarian; and
    2) Those who don’t vote Libertarian and are clearly never going to — or they already would be doing so, having been exposed to Stossel for decades at this point.

    False dichotomy.

    His show is also viewed by small-L libertarians who sometimes vote Republican and sometimes vote Libertarian. They are persuadable.

    His show is also viewed by small-L libertarians who almost always vote Republican, but may be persuaded to vote Libertarian — especially if the Republican nominee is Trump.

    With a coordinated social media campaign, it would be very easy to expand his audience for this one show by asking Libertarians to invite their family and friends to check out the Libertarian Party candidates, after having watched a slew of Republican and Democrat debates.

  128. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    Let me make this as simple as I can for you:

    Your obsession with this subject makes Johnson look better and his opponents look worse.

    So if you support Johnson, just keep doing what you’re doing.

  129. Chuck Moulton

    I’m not obsessed with this subject. I just have a pet peeve when people spread incoherent falsehoods, so I correct them. I will correct incoherent falsehoods whether or not they help or hurt any particular candidate.

    You claim to be not a fan of Gary Johnson’s. You believe discussing this helps Johnson and hurts others. If you want me to stop discussing this subject, then stop uttering incoherent falsehoods that I have to correct.

    Johnson made a colossal blunder. He deserves to lose votes for it. He will lose votes for it.

  130. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, I’m happy for any votes he loses.

    By all rights his “ban burqas” weirdness, coupled with his multiple subsequent “I’m going to babble nonsense about sharia law” meltdowns, including two of them just in the Biloxi debate, should have moved him into the sub-10% range by now. He should consider investing in an 1870s US Army cavalry uniform.

    “Refused to recombobulate his schedule because Austin Petersen threw a public temper tantrum” is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list of good reasons to oppose him, and I have to question the judgment of anyone who considers it a factor.

  131. George Phillies

    Notwithstanding Knapp, I actually do not care a great deal about Johnson and the Stossel debate. I merely pointed out that people who assumed there would certainly have been a debate seen on Stossel may have been just slightly optimistic.

    However, there are far better reasons to oppose Johnson, as Knapp correctly notes.

    With respect to Feldman, I advocated something similar in 2008. However, I did not claim it was a tax reduction. My proposal was to attach to every child a $5000 (number may be out of date) tax credit, for educational expenses, which goes to whoever pays the $5000. I do not myself have children, but I suspect there are some kids in Worcester down on South Main or in the heart of DC who could use the educational spending. My rationale was that in order to move away from government doing everything to doing rather less, the competitive institutions need to be reinforced.

  132. George Phillies

    Readers may correctly assume that my proposal is somewhat like the endings of Kronos and Forbidden Planet, using the power of government to make less government.

  133. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    By all rights his “ban burqas” weirdness, coupled with his multiple subsequent “I’m going to babble nonsense about sharia law” meltdowns, including two of them just in the Biloxi debate, should have moved him into the sub-10% range by now. He should consider investing in an 1870s US Army cavalry uniform.

    I agree.

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    “Refused to recombobulate his schedule because Austin Petersen threw a public temper tantrum” is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list of good reasons to oppose him, and I have to question the judgment of anyone who considers it a factor.

    You keep trying to make this about Petersen because you have some odd visceral hatred towards him.. What Petersen said is irrelevant. I don’t care if Austin Petersen said it or the Queen of England said it or David Duke said it; it’s a fact regardless of the messenger. I don’t care whether Austin Petersen said it in polite, flowery gentleman language at a press conference in a full tuxedo, or if he said it in profanity laced ebonics while wearing clown makeup and hopping on one foot; it’s a fact regardless of his tone.

    It wasn’t Johnson’s reaction to Petersen that was the problem. It was his reaction to Stossel’s debate invitation that was the problem: namely, he pissed away an unprecedented media opportunity by 1) declining the Stossel invitation and 2) refusing to negotiate on time to make both events work. It was a colossal blunder that will cost Johnson votes at the convention.

  134. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    You keep asserting that I have some kind of “hatred” of Petersen, which is pretty much in line with all your other claims lately in that it’s completely disconnected from reality.

    I don’t hate Petersen. I GET Petersen. If the opportunity should happen along for me to have a beer with him, I’ll almost certainly do so.

    I do understand how Petersen works and how he effortlessly turns people like you into carbon copies of Nicholas Cage in the Wicker Man …

    … but I don’t hate him for it.

  135. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    I do understand how Petersen works and how he effortlessly turns people like you into carbon copies of Nicholas Cage in the Wicker Man …

    He gives me information that Johnson pissed away an unprecedented media opportunity, that information is subsequently confirmed by multiple other firsthand sources and not denied by any firsthand sources, then I use that information to form the conclusion that Johnson made a colossal blunder and should not be given the LP nomination. For some reason you seem to believe that is Austin Petersen manipulating me. Of course, you are being ridiculous.

    I’m just glad that it wasn’t Austin Petersen who pointed out Johnson’s terrible “fair” tax position or Johnson’s “ban the burqas” position or Johnson’s huge campaign debt. Clearly if Austin had brought any of those matters to your attention you would take the contrarian position that they don’t matter. However, since Austin had nothing to do with bringing those things to life, you did not turn off your brain and turn on your BULLSHIT generator.

  136. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    Well, look — if Petersen didn’t manipulate you, you can feel free to stop acting like Petersen manipulated you any time now. A good start would be to quit wearing out the completely inapplicable term “unprecedented” for a thing that doesn’t quite make the tempest in a teapot importance cut.

    I get it. You think Johnson made the wrong call. I suspect he did as well.

    But your response to it doesn’t hurt Johnson. The character of your response, combined with your reasonably high profile in the LP, just tends to tar Johnson’s opponents as a gaggle of hysterical drama queens with no sense of proportion.

  137. Robert Capozzi

    TK: tends to tar Johnson’s opponents as a gaggle of hysterical drama queens with no sense of proportion.

    ME: YOUR LIPS TO God’s ears

  138. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    Well, look — if Petersen didn’t manipulate you, you can feel free to stop acting like Petersen manipulated you any time now.

    Okay, I’ve hit my breaking point.

    I’M GETTING REALLY FUCKING TIRED OF BULLSHIT ASSHOLE LAND WHERE THOMAS FUCKING KNAPP FUCKING REPEATS THE SAME BULLSHIT ASSHOLE DEBUNKED NONSENSE TALKING POINTS OVER AND FUCKING OVER AND FUCKING OVER AND FUCKING OVER AGAIN LIKE A BROKEN FUCKING RECORD.

    I WAS GIVING YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE FUCKING DOUBT THAT YOU WERE REALLY FUCKING SLOW OR REALLY FUCKING STUPID RATHER THAN JUST A MALICIOUS ASSHOLE TROLL, BUT I’M PAST FUCKING DOUBTING THAT AT THIS FUCKING POINT.

    I’VE DEBUNKED EVERY FUCKING ONE OF YOUR FUCKING IDIOTIC THEORIES AND YOUR FUCKING AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AND NON SEQUITURS, BUT YOU KEEP RETREADING THE SAME FUCKING BULLSHIT.

    I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO RESPOND TO ILLOGICAL FUCKING TROLLS WHEN MY REPEATING LOGIC OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN NEVER FUCKING WORKS.

    I HAVE NEVER FUCKING BEEN MANIPULATED BY AUSTIN PETERSEN. I’VE DETAILED THE FUCKING EVIDENCE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT GARY JOHNSON PISSED AWAY AN UNPRECEDENTED MEDIA OPPORTUNITY. RATHER THAN RESPOND TO ANY OF MY FUCKING POINTS, YOU JUST FUCKING INSULT ME.

    IF YOU’RE GOING TO FUCKING CONTINUE TO FUCKING TROLL ME, BY FUCKING INSULTING ME, YOU CAN FEEL FUCKING FREE TO FIST FIGHT ME AT THE NATIONAL FUCKING CONVENTION.

    A good start would be to quit wearing out the completely inapplicable term “unprecedented” for a thing that doesn’t quite make the tempest in a teapot importance cut.

    FUCK YOU. DIE, ASSHOLE TROLL.

  139. langa

    Also, Chuck’s last comment reminds me of a scene from one of my favorite movies:

  140. Andy

    Chuck Moulton said: “Okay, I’ve hit my breaking point.

    I’M GETTING REALLY FUCKING TIRED OF BULLSHIT ASSHOLE LAND WHERE THOMAS FUCKING KNAPP FUCKING REPEATS THE SAME BULLSHIT ASSHOLE DEBUNKED NONSENSE TALKING POINTS OVER AND FUCKING OVER AND FUCKING OVER AND FUCKING OVER AGAIN LIKE A BROKEN FUCKING RECORD.

    I WAS GIVING YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE FUCKING DOUBT THAT YOU WERE REALLY FUCKING SLOW OR REALLY FUCKING STUPID RATHER THAN JUST A MALICIOUS ASSHOLE TROLL, BUT I’M PAST FUCKING DOUBTING THAT AT THIS FUCKING POINT.

    I’VE DEBUNKED EVERY FUCKING ONE OF YOUR FUCKING IDIOTIC THEORIES AND YOUR FUCKING AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AND NON SEQUITURS, BUT YOU KEEP RETREADING THE SAME FUCKING BULLSHIT.

    IF YOU’RE GOING TO FUCKING CONTINUE TO FUCKING TROLL ME, BY FUCKING INSULTING ME, YOU CAN FEEL FUCKING FREE TO FIST FIGHT ME AT THE NATIONAL FUCKING CONVENTION.

    FUCK YOU. DIE, ASSHOLE TROLL.”

    Wow, I’ve never seen Chuck get this angry before.

    I know how frustrating that it can be to go round and round with Tom Knapp on a subject where you post facts and debunk his claims, yet he keeps repeating the same things that you already refuted over and over again, so I can sympathize with your level of frustration here.

  141. Andy

    I agree with Chuck’s point in that Gary Johnson should have made it a priority to participate in that debate at the Students for Liberty Conference with John Stossel as a moderator. This would have been an excellent opportunity for the candidates to get publicity for themselves and for the Libertarian Party.

    My only problem was the selection of candidates. I don’t think that Gary Johnson, John McAfee, and Austin Petersen are the best representatives for the Libertarian Party. It would have been nice if they had offered invitations to Darryl Perry and Steve Kerbel, so at least there would have been some real libertarians in the debate.

  142. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    I don’t initiate force. If you want a fistfight, you’ll have to start it.

    Andy,

    I agree. Chuck v. me on Johnson is indeed a whole lot like you v. me on “9/11 was an inside job.”

    And I agree with Chuck, too, that Johnson should have made the Stossel thing more of a priority. Him not doing so was probably worthy of a mildly strident remonstration.

    ONE mildly strident remonstration.

    ONE.

    OK, I’ve used up my all caps quota for the day, and Chuck has used his up for the millennium.

  143. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Nah, no rebar involved. Chuck is usually a very reasonable person and I’m sure he’ll eventually get off Teh Krazy Train on this thing. I do hope that he’ll set up some nanny-cams in his house, though, to make sure someone hasn’t been sprinkling ibogaine on his corn flakes or something.

  144. Robert Capozzi

    tk, completely agree. Much direct experience. Can’t fathom this eruption.

    We all have a bad day. Even Mr. Chill myself has my rebar moments! 😉

  145. Robert Capozzi

    tk, sorry you feel that way. For me, I find myself often agreeing with you, and almost always respecting your opinions. In truth, I sometimes get frustrated with discussions about the NAP and the deflections and stonewalls when that construct is challenged.

    Open mindedness pays huge dividends, I’ve found.

  146. Chuck Moulton

    I’m done with IPR. Thanks for almost 8 years of mostly fun, interesting news and discussions.

    The recent repetitive trolling is a huge pet peeve of mine. I can’t deal with illogical people. This makes IPR a toxic environment that just raises my blood pressure and makes me want to pull my hair out. My time is better spent on positive activities I enjoy, of which there are many outside of politics.

  147. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    Well, if there’s not room here for the two of us, perhaps I should be the one to leave.

    But I think there’s plenty of room here for the two of us.

  148. NewFederalist

    With paulie on hiatus and the prospective nominees of the two dominant parties likely to be even worse than usual (and I didn’t think THAT was possible!) now is really not the time for either of you to pack it in. Both your viewpoints are important to IPR. Just my $0.02 worth.

  149. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, I’m certainly willing to quit belaboring Johnson’s foul-up if Chuck is. For that matter, I might even be willing to stop tormenting Chuck if he persists in trying to make it ten times as important as it was.

    But if that’s not good enough, I guess we should decide who stays and who goes. Flip a coin, whatever.

  150. Jill Pyeatt

    Can’t you just agree not to talk about this topic? There’s an issue or two here I just don’t get involved in anymore. It usually works.

    The incident is past so it won’t be terribly hard to avoid.

    There’s another option besides anyone leaving.

  151. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jill,

    At no time have I ever started a conversation about the matter in question. I only talk about it if other people want to. And then I mostly just point out that it was minor and boring news at most and stopped being news at all about five minutes after it started being news.

  152. Jill Pyeatt

    Thomas, I was surprised he kept bringing it up and almost commented about that on the thread, but I was afraid I’d make an enemy for life if I did.

    This is going to be a long, unpleasant campaign season. I’ve already realized I’m going to have to come up with an “Off” switch for times when I get too wound up over things I can’t do anything about (such as Trump’s likely nomination/possible win). We have enough issues here in CA to keep my blood pressure high.

  153. Jeremy

    I really don’t understand Chuck’s vehemence on this issue, particularly since a debate is in fact happening on Stossel and all of the major candidates have signed on. The problem has been solved, no?

  154. NewFederalist

    Perhaps Chuck is just pissed off that the two dominant parties are giving the electorate even worse choices than usual and yet the Libertarian Party continues to find new ways to seek irrelevance. I know I feel that way.

  155. Stewart Flood

    Chuck’s concern, which I agree is valid, is that the original debate would have been in front of a live audience of young libertarian activists, while the revised plan will be an in-studio debate, probably with everyone sitting at the same desk — looking more like a panel discussion.

    The advantages of the first format included (but are not limited to):

    Live audience response and an opportunity to energize hundreds of young activists
    Nutty and non-libertarian candidates aren’t promoted
    That horribly debate Saturday night might have been avoided

    Advantages of the second format? none.

    Both are debates, but the second will look and sound staged.

  156. Thomas L. Knapp

    Stewart,

    I agree that a debate in front of an SFL audience would have been cool.

    On the other hand, if you want the nutty and non-libertarian candidates excluded, then Johnson doesn’t make the cut, so why be mad at him?

  157. Robert Capozzi

    jp, an excellent question! And I would think that ONE event that did not happen (for understandable reasons) will make little difference in the grand scheme of things. Marketing requires repetition.

  158. langa

    With paulie on hiatus and the prospective nominees of the two dominant parties likely to be even worse than usual (and I didn’t think THAT was possible!) now is really not the time for either of you to pack it in. Both your viewpoints are important to IPR. Just my $0.02 worth.

    Well said, NF.

  159. Stewart Flood

    So…

    If we’re going to exclude the nutty candidates as well as the non-libertarian candidates…

    What are we left with?

    NOBODY

    They are all either nutty or non-libertarian — or in some cases both.

  160. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Petersen says how great he is. Worked with Napolitiano. Focused on getting 5% vote. Will build coalition of conseratives of National Review, Reaganites==

    I remind everyone of what I pointed out before:

    Who said that?

    Wayne. Allyn. Root.

  161. Jill Pyeatt

    Today’s lesson:

    Austin is Root’s Mini-Me.

    Root is Trump’s Mini-Me.

    Some people just have to keep reminding everyone of how terrific they are.

    Others of us don’t need to keep telling everyone else, because it’s just obvious how terrific we are.

    😀

  162. Andy

    Did Austin Petersen really say he wants that?

    If so, this should be a sttike against him getting the normination.

  163. David

    Stewart Flood, you have done a disservice to Americans by misrepresenting Birthloop economics. As you say, go to his website and check it out. Each program is implemented by basically what are long term loans to banks who will pay the interest of the loan into a child’s account instead back to the government. It’s that simple; since the original outlay comes back to the government (because it’s a loan and not sunk cost as currently the case) we can borrow the money and the only real cost is the interest. So, “birth loop” is a program that has an annual outlay of $268 billion but an actual cost of only $7 billion (the amount of the interest) and because all 25 year olds come off of government dependence for one year, this will save roughly $60 billion. Birthloop effectively leaves every future newborn with $50,000 free and clear (thus breaking the poverty cycle) and reduced our budget by roughly $53 billion every year. Please stop misleading the people Stewart Flood.

  164. Thomas L. Knapp

    I can’t imagine any misrepresentation of birth loop “economics” that could possibly be sillier than the real scheme. The math is even worse than the proofreading, and the proofreading isn’t very good.

  165. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 11, 2016 at 18:25

    I can’t imagine any misrepresentation of birth loop ‘economics’ that could possibly be sillier than the real scheme.”

    I agree.

  166. Stewart Flood

    A disservice? Wow. Not exposing this fraud would be the real disservice.

    You mentioned the loans. Yes, his plan involves loans — trillions of dollars worth of them over a generation. Loans from the government. Or at least that’s what he calls it.

    And just where does the money come from for these loans? Is it made up out of thin air? Or do they continue to tax citizens at what will certainly be an even higher rate to get the cash to fund this massive personal and corporate welfare system? No…he wants to BORROW it.

    If you borrow money, it comes from someone. That money is no longer in circulation, since you’ve taken it away. And you’re then going to put it back, giving it to banks to control? How does this give them money to loan out? The money you borrowed was probably taken out of accounts in these very same banks!

    And the only real cost is the interest? Geez…how many times have we heard Democrats and Republicans use that phrase?

    This plan is socialism on the grandest scale ever imagined by a politician!

  167. David

    Stewart, yes, a disservice. There is not another government program that is funded through cyclical loans like Birth Loop. The Birth loop cycle replaces the sunk cost system that is currently funding our federal programs- leading us into debt- with loans that always get repaid; libertarians should be fond of this.
    The cyclical loan method Jack has proposed ultimately creates a known cap on the entire outlay needed to fund each program.

    As for where the money comes from, the roughly $70 billion saved from our federal expenditures when 25 year olds are mandated to come off of government dependence, the hundreds of billions from improved credit ratings, the $29 Billion in congressional earmarks, the $294 billion in federally expired programs, and the fact that our current budget increases by about $200 billion annually all help to pay for the $7 billion ‘birth loop’ program and control any inflation that would arise.

    How is birth loop socialism, how did he redistribute wealth?- seems that he gave out loans, which the government currently does anyway, and just has the interest paid to a child instead of to the government; thus, creating wealth for every individual without discrimination, not redistributing wealth like you claim. Libertarians should be glad that the money is going to an individual to use as they see fit, according to their own needs and using the free market to solve their problems- instead of giving the interest back to the government who will ultimately waste it.
    How did he use force? If anything he is ushering individuals away from government and into the free market. He is not raising the tax rate, he is doing what libertarians want- drastically reducing government size. He is just using the savings for something productive, like breaking the poverty cycle, and protecting us from future government expansion. Just because he solves solves societal problems does not mean he is a socialist nor his ideas socialistic.
    How did he expand government size? Every single government program that currently utilizes the sunk cost method will start to diminish in size and thus funding every single year, being replaced with the cyclical guaranteed repaid loans. For an example, people will not be relegated to government healthcare and instead can purchase a private insurance plan on the free market- eliminating Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, etc.
    The distinction between socialism and capitalism is clear; Socialist take from those who have and give to those who do not, making it a redistributionist economic model. Socialism also does not encourage personal responsibility. None of that happens in Birth Loop Economics -wealth is only created not redistributed- and Birth Loop Economics encourages personal responsibility. I’m not even sure how you can misconstrue Birth Loop as socialistic. Explain to me how a loan is socialistic?

  168. Thomas L. Knapp

    “with loans that always get repaid”

    Except, of course, that they would not always get repaid. That’s not the only false point of the scheme, but it’s one of them.

  169. David

    I say they do; what is your reasoning and proof otherwise? I’ll state the case for birth loop again but since your the one disputing that the loans will be repaid, explain.

  170. Thomas L. Knapp

    David,

    It’s not complicated: Birth loop economics has the government loaning money to banks, which then loans the money out to others. If those others don’t repay the banks, the banks can’t repay the government.

  171. Andy

    Where does the “Birth Loop” money originate? It sounds like fiat currency to me.

  172. Stewart Flood

    And regardless of whether or not the banks are paid back, the idea proposed by Robinson would be ADDING this to the current system with the hope that people will come off of other assistance systems.

    The amount of additional debt that would be taken on is staggering. I did the math on his systems (he wants more than one!), and estimate that the debt would be increased by more that 20 trillion dollars in the first generation alone.

    And don’t forget that if you are giving away free money, you are only going to encourage those currently not able to support their families to have LARGER FAMILIES!

    This is a complete disaster. It cannot work.

  173. langa

    “Birth Loop Economics” is just another Keynesian shell game, much like cash for clunkers, stimulus checks, quantitative easing, and so forth. They all use sleight of hand to create an illusion of economic prosperity.

    Of course, the only real source of economic prosperity involves people providing goods and services that are in demand, and since these schemes involve none of that, they do absolutely nothing to improve the economy. On the contrary, they result in massive misallocation of capital, to the detriment of the economy.

    For further elaboration, see here: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

  174. Robert Capozzi

    L: Of course, the only real source of economic prosperity involves people providing goods and services that are in demand, and since these schemes involve none of that, they do absolutely nothing to improve the economy.

    me: Not quite. Without a rule of law, property rights are a function of who has the bigger club. Isolating “economic efficiency” from “justice” doesn’t work. In a world filled with many injustices, the more interesting question is how to get things moving toward a free, prosperous society.

    Movement requires mass support and a generalized sense that justice is just. I suspect most Ls would be hard-pressed to argue that the justice system as structured is anywhere close to just. Many Ls make the case that the concentration of wealth is in many ways the outcome of a rigged game and an unjust justice system, I think rightly so.

    While I don’t know enough about this (new to me) birth loop concept to support it, I do like that it tries to address a more fundamental issue. It’s probably not the best swing at it, but it does have some sentimental appeal. I’m more interested in a more straightforward idea like the negative income tax.

  175. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Hmm. You captured part of a comment I started to type and then gave up on.

    For various, and fairly obvious, reasons, I oppose most “welfare” and “social safety net” programs.

    On the other hand, “birth loop economics,” while it looks like a fail to me, is an attempt to address one of the problems with those programs in a way that various “libertarian-leaning” or even allegedly libertarian, schemes have tried to use in the past, ranging from negative income tax to guaranteed income to even the “prebate” associated with the “Fair” Tax.

    That problem is a subset of exactly the one langa points out, misallocation.

    Of course, there is the meta-argument that ANY “redistribution of wealth” constitutes such a misallocation and has ugly market-skewing effects. And I agree with that argument.

    BUT.

    Inside the larger misallocations are the smaller ones that schemes like these attempt to address.

    An easy example is deciding that to help the poor afford food, we’ll give them “food stamps” (I don’t know that they are still calling it that now that it’s a debit card arrangement). Those “food stamps” are only useful for certain things — even for only certain kinds of food — and the driving force behind keeping them going and keeping their use constrained is that they funnel money to the producers of those particular things.

    For example, cooked, ready-to-eat restaurant food is excluded.

    The way that rule is justified to those of us who are PAYING for the program is “why should we pay for those beggars to eat out? Let them buy food at the store and cook it, it will be cheaper.”

    But it isn’t necessarily cheaper. Awhile back I ran the numbers on quarter-pound cheeseburgers. It would cost me more to two pounds of decent-quality hamburger, a package of eight buns, a package of eight cheese slices, etc. that it would to just go to McDonald’s and buy eight Quarter-Pounders.

    But of course if the food stamp recipient can go to McDonald’s, less of the money goes to agribusiness because McDonald’s buys in bulk at a lower price. And since Big Ag is the driving force behind how the program is structured, they oppose letting the recipient go to McDonald’s.

    So the guy who doesn’t have a house to live in, or a stove to cook on, or electricity or gas to run it, gets to eat a bologna sandwich and a bag of chips instead of a hot meal.

    Screw it — if we’re going to give the guy money, give the guy MONEY. Then HE gets to decide what HE needs instead of someone else hiding behind his hunger as a way to maximize their profits at taxpayer expense.

    So to my mind a direct cash benefit scheme at least has the virtue of being LESS misallocative (I hope that’s a word). I’m still opposed to the whole idea, but it doesn’t seem any different to me in principle than most of the fake “privatization” crap that the Beltway libertarian types think if the bee’s knees.

  176. Robert Capozzi

    tk, yes, but it’s not IMO just about “misallocation.” There’s also a LOT of injustice — fraud is a good example. To some extent, we probably all get micro-defrauded fairly frequently. But the jurisprudential standards to prove fraud and to get made whole are just not worth the time and effort.

    Fraud is, in a sense, backed by the State, since they control the justice system and its rules.

    I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the poor get defrauded more than the affluent generally as a percentage of subsistence. The State in a sense shields the fraudsters against the defrauded, since it makes it difficult to be made whole.

    And then there’s the Georgist argument that we all own the unimproved natural resources. Those who improve them never compensate the rest of us — a major source of injustice.

  177. langa

    …there is the meta-argument that ANY “redistribution of wealth” constitutes such a misallocation and has ugly market-skewing effects.

    Yes, this was the crux of my comment. The defenders of BLE (including one on this thread) have repeatedly claimed that it is not a form of redistribution, but is instead a “free market” policy. I call bullshit. That’s why I compared it to cash for clunkers, stimulus checks, etc. Those are all just redistributionism masquerading as a way of generating economic growth. But none of them make the pie any bigger. They simply change the way that it gets divided (and, in doing so, actually make it smaller). So, yes, BLE is a form of redistribution. It’s not a “free market” policy at all. And it’s certainly not the kind of policy that an LP presidential candidate should be advocating.

    As for the more general question of whether libertarians should support any form of redistributionism, the answer is obviously no. Are there “injustices” with the way wealth is distributed in the status quo? Sure. In fact, I would argue that, if you trace property ownership back far enough, virtually no one has any iron-clad claim to any property, as that property has almost certainly been stolen from someone, or purchased with money that was stolen from someone, or purchased with money that was earned in a way that involved the use of stolen property, and so on. So, if those are the “injustices” we’re talking about, then yes, there are lots and lots of them.

    The problem is that it’s laughable to think that the state can go back, untangle all those webs in order to see who “really” owns what, and then right all those wrongs. In fact, as TK’s food stamps argument demonstrates, the state likely has no interest in even trying to do so. But even if it did, it’s simply impossible. It’s like trying to get the pee out of the pool. Can’t be done. The only thing the state can do is get the hell out of the way, and stop creating more “injustices” than already exist. They can’t untangle the web, but they can stop making it bigger. Given that, I find “libertarian” arguments about which type of government welfare scheme is best to be about as useful as “libertarian” arguments about whether it’s better to commit murder with a gun or a knife.

    Finally, RC, we’ve been over this before. “Justice” presupposes the existence of rights. Furthermore, rights are not a creation of the state. If you rape a woman in Antarctica (or any other place not controlled by a state), you’ve violated her rights just as much as if you did it on the White House lawn. Similarly, it makes no sense to speak of “justice” being achieved by programs that arbitrarily redistribute wealth, with no regard for, or even any way of determining, whether or not such wealth was obtained through legitimate means. Even if the current distribution is unjust, there is no way of determining that the new distribution would be any less unjust.

  178. Robert Capozzi

    L: But none of them make the pie any bigger. They simply change the way that it gets divided (and, in doing so, actually make it smaller).

    me: I certainly used to believe this. However, even assuming a reasonably certain justice system underpinning property rights, I can’t say with certainty that this is true. If there were a baseline income level that was not “targeted,” I could imagine that it might make the pie bigger. If a significant subset of the population is in a constant struggle for their very survival, their labor would not be able to rise to its highest and best use. They would constantly just take whatever job they can to survive in the short term.

    With a baseline income, they might be able to be more selective about how they derive additional income. They might relocate to where their labor rises to the highest and best use.

    L: Are there “injustices” with the way wealth is distributed in the status quo? Sure. In fact, I would argue that, if you trace property ownership back far enough, virtually no one has any iron-clad claim to any property, as that property has almost certainly been stolen from someone, or purchased with money that was stolen from someone, or purchased with money that was earned in a way that involved the use of stolen property, and so on. So, if those are the “injustices” we’re talking about, then yes, there are lots and lots of them.

    me: That’s only PART of the injustice of which I speak. But I’m pleased we agree that we have widespread injustice regarding how property is allocated currently. Politically speaking, widespread injustice creates conditions for a welfare state. There is guilt that vast portions of the society have been screwed by the system. This, I submit, makes it easy for liberals especially to manipulate the guilty to somewhat address underlying inequity in the distribtution of property.

    L: The problem is that it’s laughable to think that the state can go back, untangle all those webs in order to see who “really” owns what, and then right all those wrongs.

    me: Agreed.

    L: The only thing the state can do is get the hell out of the way, and stop creating more “injustices” than already exist. They can’t untangle the web, but they can stop making it bigger.

    me: Yes, stop making it bigger is indicated. Getting out of the way, however, has some very practical restrictions. Abolition of the overly complex welfare state is not going to happen. The guilt ridden again are too easily manipulated, and the dislocative effects of abolition are unacceptable. Millions of homeless seniors and poor roaming the streets begging for food is acceptable only to the most heartless ideologue.

    L: Finally, RC, we’ve been over this before. “Justice” presupposes the existence of rights. Furthermore, rights are not a creation of the state. …

    me: OK, even if we buy into a natural law construct, rights may well not be a CREATION of the state, but jurisprudence and other enforcement mechanisms ARE a creation of the state, at least so far. (Contiguous Harlos Nonarchy Pods might come up with a demonstrable counter, but so far no advanced, highly interdependent civil society has emerged without a state.)

    L: Similarly, it makes no sense to speak of “justice” being achieved by programs that arbitrarily redistribute wealth, with no regard for, or even any way of determining, whether or not such wealth was obtained through legitimate means. Even if the current distribution is unjust, there is no way of determining that the new distribution would be any less unjust.

    me: Yes, a precise redistribution system that targets wholesale injustice on a case-by-case basis seems impossible to me, too. Not having some kind of redistribution system to address wholesale injustice doesn’t work on many levels. Without some redistribution, we’d be accepting the injustice. This, in turn, undermines the very idea of property rights, since only some have access to enforce their property rights, or to be compensated for their property rights being violated.

    I don’t argue that a negative income tax is perfect. It’s not. It is, IMO, way better than the current “system” of dirigistic redistribution.

  179. Thomas L. Knapp

    Yes, markets require a just and peaceable framework within which to function efficiently.

    The questions separating Bob and langa pretty much come down to whether or not the state provides such a framework, or at least a closer approximation of such a framework than some other arrangement would or might.

    Those are hard questions to get provable answers to due to the riotous nature of the lab and the massive calculation problems involved. I suspect langa and I share a certain “extreme apriorism” penchant for predicting outcomes of the type, but empirically it often seems to come down to things like:

    Bob: “If you think state regulation is so bad, move to Somalia.”

    Tom: “I’d kind of like to do that, given that during its stateless period, Mogadishu had faster economic growth and a lower homicide rate than St. Louis, Missouri.”

  180. David

    Thomas, giving out loans are what banks do and have always done; what you are saying is basically predicated on every single person in the United States defaulting on their loan from a bank- such as a car loan or house loan. Which if the case the banks have 25 years (depending on the program) to make up for that loss.

    Andy, Where does the money come from? Forget the complication of borrowing the money- its as simple as this; if we just printed the money and for every new dollar he put into the economy, he offset by pulling that same amount of money out of the economy from bad programs, then Its a wash.

    Stewart,

    About inflation: for every new dollar he put in the economy, he takes a matching dollar out of the economy. It matches dollar for dollar. The economy will benefit from the exchange because the sunk cost programs are being replaced by loans.

    Take the $70 billion from 25 year olds mandated to come off government dependence, The $30 billion from congressional budget earmarks, $300 Billion in government waste (John McCain); once the birth loop programs kick in our credit rating will improve saving roughly $400 billion each year and next year our federal budget intends to grow by $200 billion in money that has no plans to be repaid- That’s $1 Trillion that can be pulled out of the economy.
    That $270 billion outlay for birth loop can obviously be offset by the up to $1 Trillion in wasteful spending.

    As for the $1 Trillion in bad expenditures that we are removing from the economy, we did not expect any of it to be repaid; not one penny of it. The $270 billion he is putting into the economy are in the form of loans to our Federally insured banks, loans that will be repaid-100% . Making loans is what banks do and have always done. There are safeguards to make sure deposits are protected, that is why they are insured. Not every loan a bank lends pays off for them but they understand and account for that. That’s their business.

    So, what we can expect this year with our current system is $1 Trillion dollar in wasted money that is to never be repaid. Over 25 years this is a 25 trillion dollar loss. Over 50 years this is a $50 Trillion loss. However, with the ‘birth loop’ program the cost over 25 years is 6 Trillion 750 Billion in outlay but since the money is in the form of loans, that money is to be payed back. Meaning, over 50 years the birth loop cost is still only that original $6.75T. This is because when the original outlay was repaid by the banks to the government, the government then used that same money to fund the next year of births.

    That Stewart is what you are missing. Couldn’t be a bigger miss. He is not “Hoping people come off government roles.” Stewart, in short, in every case we are taking money that is not expected to be returned and replacing it with loans that are expected to be returned. This is explanation enough, if you do not understand the relative simplicity of this concept then do not reply again. Stop

  181. Thomas L. Knapp

    David,

    You write:

    “giving out loans are what banks do and have always done; what you are saying is basically predicated on every single person in the United States defaulting on their loan from a bank”

    Um, no.

    First, of all you are the one who claimed that these are, and I quote, “loans that always get repaid.” So no, disputing that claim does not imply that every single person in the United States defaulting on all their loans.

    I was just pointing out that no, these are not loans that always get repaid. Once the bank has the money, it will loan that money out to people who are buying or remodeling homes, buying cars, etc., and SOME of them will in fact default.

    Secondly, no, it does not require a 100% default rate for even a single bank to go under. Remember that the bank is paying out interest on that money. It’s renting or maintaining a building. It’s paying its staff. If you were running a restaurant, would ALL of your customers have to dine and dash instead of paying their tab for you to go under? No. Because every time one of them does so, you’re not just losing the money they were going to pay you, you’re losing the cost of the food you cooked, the salary you paid a server to bring it to them, the electric bill to keep the lights on and the stove running, etc.

    If the government starts pumping nearly $300 billion more dollars per year into the banking system to be loaned out, with interest being paid by the banks (even though that interest is not paid to the government), that’s a lot more money that HAS to be loaned out (or else the bank isn’t making any money to pay that interest WITH).

    Remember the sub-prime housing loan crisis, when banks were practically knocking down doors begging people who were poor credit risks to take loans from them? Default rates got very high and banks went under.

    “Birth loop economics” is an attempt to create a free lunch out of moonbeams and fairy dust.

  182. Robert Capozzi

    tk: or at least a closer approximation of such a framework than some other arrangement would or might.

    me: Not quite. I’m open to the possibility that statelessness is the optimal arrangement AT SOME POINT. I’m firmly convinced that point is NOT tomorrow. I am highly skeptical that that point would be arrived at in 10 year’s time, based on current conditions and the prevalent zeitgeist.

    I’m more interested in incremental optimization, to begin to ride the asymptote toward statelessness. That requires political judgment vs a precise calculation.

    Again, though, I do support individual secession from the State in the form of Harlos Nonarchy Pods for conscientious objectors to the State.

  183. Robert Capozzi

    As for moving to Somalia, my understanding is its stateless run proved unsustainable. Personally, I want the best for all, so I’d be dispensing poor counsel to those seeking statelessness. I see Harlos Nonarchy Pods as more sustainable, although I’m skeptical that Pod dwellers could create their own survivable autarkic models.

  184. Robert Capozzi

    I also support AndyLand, and other attempts to create Libertopia. The challenge there is they’d need to be off-shore.

  185. Andy

    Robert, I appreciate the endorsement.

    Yes, I think you are correct that at this point in time, the USA is so far into the welfare/warfare/police state, that it may not be realistically possible to implement the Libertarian Zone concept here.

    Buying land from some poor country, or building a floating platform in the ocean are probably better prospects for establishing The Libertarian Zone.

  186. Robert Capozzi

    A, my reason for off-shoring is different. I think it might be sellable to allow individuals to secede onto their property. It wouldn’t be easy, but conscientious objection has a long tradition. I don’t think it’s seceding a large area of land with thousands of prospective AndyLanders is a tough nut.

Leave a Reply

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