A March 17–20 national poll of 848 registered voters, released today by Monmouth University, shows 2016 Libertarian Party presidential front-runner Gary Johnson, the party’s 2012 nominee, at 11% nationwide. He trails Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton who polls at 42% and Republican front-runner Donald Trump who receives 34%.
Johnson polls his best in traditional GOP states where he nets 15%. Nevertheless, Clinton loses six percent of her support when Johnson is included, compared to the four percent Trump loses.
Only nine percent of voters have a favorable view of Johnson with 15% holding an unfavorable view and 76% not knowing enough about him to form an opinion.
By comparison, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who announced earlier this month he will not run in 2016, received 29% in a January 2016 Luntz Global poll when matched against Trump and Clinton.
In 2012, Johnson polled at seven percent in a March 2012 Public Policy Polling survey against President Barack Obama and future Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. He then polled at six percent in a September 2012 Reason-Rupe poll before receiving 0.99% two months later in the general election.
Regarding the poll, via press release, Johnson commented:
2016 could very well be the year when American voters recognize that there are more than just two choices for President. The fact that we are in double digits before the general election campaign has even begun is a strong signal that voters are finally ready to challenge the premise that their President must be either a Republican or a Democrat.
Polls across the board are showing that the real plurality of American voters are independent, and are clearly not comfortable with either the likely Republican or Democrat nominee. The door is open for a credible advocate of smaller government and greater freedom.
Election Addict, the presence or absence of a “social safety net” is entirely up to the States and We the People pursuant to the US Constitution Bill of Rights 10th Amendment. The Federal government has no right to try and force any American Citizen to pay taxes for anything not required by the US Constitution.
Under my administration, I will work with the LP national and state leaders to abolish all federal programs that are receiving money from required federal taxes and that are not authorized by the US Constitution.
First of all psychologist are extremely diverse.
I believe in free trade.
Humanity has control over their own lives and live with the consequences of their actions, including those as a product of “irrational emotions”. Greed and jealousy will seek to enslave no matter what the playing field is and this is because those who are greedy and jealous are in a cage themselves that they choose to stay in, and that is why they seek to enslave others.
Free markets help humanity survive. Our unconscious mind knows what freedom is and that survival is reaching your hand out to help someone else climb the next step up, instead of stopping on their hand to try and make them fall down the steps.
If people want to give to help others, they have that right and no one should try and take that away from them, with that being said, the federal government has no legal right pursuant to the US Constitution to require American Citizens to pay taxes that will be used for welfare.
Langa, migrants are required to take the oath of nationality which states that they will support and defend the US Constitution. Here is the link:
https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america
If you were born in the US, then you automatically become a US Citizen and you have 100% right to renounce your US Citizenship if you do not want to be a US Citizen.
All US Citizens are required to support and defend the US Constitution. If you choose to live in the US then you choose to be governed by the US Constitution which includes the Bill of Rights.
Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
Oath
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Rhinehold, when people agree to be governed by the US Constitution by either choosing to keep their natural born US Citizenship or to immigrate into the US and take the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the US Constitution then they agree and when there is agreement, there is not force.
Our problem is that our agreed upon government has been hijacked by criminals and to be quite honest the LP is the only hope for Americans to take this country back and that’s why we should agree to disagree and remember that United We Stand – Divided We Fall.
A non-governmental agency cannot write laws because in our agreement, the US Constitution, only those who represent the people and who are elected by the people can write the laws that the people will live under.
The writing of laws is done by the people. The laws are in place to protect, when someone violates the law then the government acts in defense to enforce the law.
Now, when our government has been overtaken by criminals then we have a problem and it is our duty to take our government back (I only advocate using legal means) and then prosecute the criminals in a court of law.
In regards to your “Frank” example, the US government cannot write a law that is in a violation to the US Constitution, anyone who does can face prosecution. We need to prosecute the criminals.
There are only two situations where you may need to leave the country, first if you choose not to support the US Constitution and you want to be a citizen of another country, or if the LP is not able to get our government back then you may want to leave as those who have taken over our government will enslave the entire population if they are not stopped. The only party that I see that can stop them is the LP as the GOP and DNC are leading and facilitating the take-over by the elites.
Now if you choose to leave than you may want to know that these elites have plans to control the entire planet, so unless you got some good defense, they will enslave you, no matter where you go. They don’t have any laws, so nothing will stop them from killing and enslaving humanity.
“Marc Allan Feldman
April 3, 2016 at 17:50
Proposal: American citizens to have the privilege to sponsor as many immigrants or refugees as they can take responsibility for. How many Syrian refugees should America except? As many as individual Americans would like to sponsor.”
Interesting idea.
Proposal: American citizens to have the privilege to sponsor as many immigrants or refugees as they can take responsibility for. How many Syrian refugees should America except? As many as individual Americans would like to sponsor.
Dr. Marc Allan Feldman
September 21, 2015
“heard to make”
Should read, “helped to make…”
“Interesting that based on the above linked videos that Stefan Molyneux has turned into a straight up xenophobic populist statist these days.”
That’s a well-trodden path — be a “libertarian” until it looks like there’s more money in fake populist demagoguery, then switch to that while still pretending to be a “libertarian” so that you can drag some of your audience with you. That was the Rothbard/Rockwell/Paul “paleo strategy” long before Molyneux, and it’s what Cantwell’s been trying to pull off lately.
Robert, it is one thing to take in refugees, but it is another thing to use tax payer funds to bring them here, and then to use more tax payer funds to put them on welfare once they are here.
Also, in a lot of cases US foreign policy heard to make some people refugees. How about put an end to interventionist US foreign policy?
aj: there is the Refugee Resettlement Act, where the government — USES TAX PAYER FUNDS to move immigrants to this country, and once here, the government helps these immigrants sign up for every welfare program they can.
me: OK, there’s an example. Ideally, there’d be no such thing as the RRA.
Still, the idea of offering safe harbor to refugees has a humanitarian feel to it that part of me supports.
I take it you would abolish it. However, IIRC, others in the anarcho commentariat are OK with taking in refugees.
This might be a case where I have no position.
tk: Explaining the point of non-ubiquity kind of begs the question of ubiquity, doesn’t it?
me: Not sure exactly what you mean. If you’re suggesting that ubiquity is not all that and a bag of chips, I’d have to agree. I’d say it’s the more practical model for the time being, and that it requires eternal vigilance.
Re libertarian zone:
That sounds fine to me, and I sympathize with people dreaming about a society that ‘works.’ I’ll tell you my impression, that there is an absence of an appeal to man’s better nature, and I’d think others would be starving for recommendations of what people ‘should’ do, but then they should and do probably work things like that out on their own.
I admit I might not join if the only idea around is “guns guns guns.” :p A joke (kind of)
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal | Lew Rockwell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5wZjdEl9F8
All property would be privatized in an anarcho-capitalist society. So there’d still be borders, but they would they would be private property borders. Property owners and/or neighborhood associations would set their own immigration policies.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Open Borders? Highly Destructive anti-Libertarian Notion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ugv9-cYvHc
What would immigration look like in a real libertarian society? Immigration to The Libertarian Zone would be done via contract.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/
“There is a big rape epidemic in European countries which have allowed lots of Muslim immigration. Is this an example of “peaceful people” crossing borders?”
Did it ever occur to you that a lot of this is propaganda? You know half of what the mainstream media tells us is not true. I think a lot of this is propaganda to keep us hating Muslims and to keep us at war.
Keep in mind that the same people who want to bring all of these Muslim immigrants into this country are the same people who want to take our guns away. Coincidence?
Gee, I wonder if there’d be as many rapes in these European countries if the women in these countries were able to carry guns. I wonder if there’d be as many rapes in these countries if their governments stopped importing all of these Muslims (note that almost all of the rapes are being committed by Muslims).
Islamic Invasion Of Sweden Has Led To Rape Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uNBoUqGvVs
There is a big rape epidemic in European countries which have allowed lots of Muslim immigration. Is this an example of “peaceful people” crossing borders? I say not.
Oslo, Norway: 100% of rapes committed by ‘non european immigrants’ (muslims)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a56EqUPwyFQ
Yes, Steven, somewhere along the line Stephen Molyneux has lost his way. I can’t listen to him anymore.
Andy said: “So anyone who questions millions of foreigners coming to the USA getting on welfare, and after becoming American citizens, voting in large mass to expand the welfare state and pass new gun control laws, should automatically be labeled as a “xenophobe” and disregarded without discussing any of the facts presented? ‘
in my view, people who believe a minority of immigrants have come here to enjoy all the freebies we have to offer a. probably hasn’t spent much time with immigrants; b. perhaps need to look more closely at the many different countries and cultures these immigrants have come from, and c. may just be xenophobic.
Southern California is a mecca (this word used intentionally) for all kinds of immigrants. I wouldn’t live another way. It’s wonderful to have people around me with different cultures and ways of life. WITHOUT EXCEPTION, the people I know who “live off the system” were born here. I know of exactly ZERO immigrants who live off the welfare state.
Obviously some people do, possibly even some communities more than others, but assuming a majority of immigrants live off of us is simply not right.
“Steven Berson
March 30, 2016 at 00:00
Interesting that based on the above linked videos that Stefan Molyneux has turned into a straight up xenophobic populist statist these days.”
So anyone who questions millions of foreigners coming to the USA getting on welfare, and after becoming American citizens, voting in large mass to expand the welfare state and pass new gun control laws, should automatically be labeled as a “xenophobe” and disregarded without discussing any of the facts presented? Wow, this sounds really rational to me….not.
Hahaha! This is a good one.
Stefan Molyneux asks a Jewish caller why the hypocrisy on immigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q8BLfefGtg
Interesting that based on the above linked videos that Stefan Molyneux has turned into a straight up xenophobic populist statist these days.
Stefan Molyneux: The Truth About Immigration: What They Won’t Tell You!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7JILRugOg
Stefan Molyneux: 62% of Illegal Immigrant Households on Welfare | Steven Camarota and Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjjSG705Inc
Everyone should watch this video.
Stefan Molyneux: The Truth About Immigration and Welfare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM
“as their are some good ones in the mix,”
Should read, “as there are some good ones in the mix…”
“robert capozzi
March 29, 2016 at 15:16
aj: ‘I mean people in government have NO INCENTIVE to bring more people into the country who support EXPANDING the welfare state, right?’
me: I dunno. My impression is that immigrants are self selecting. I am not aware of the government recruiting immigrants for ideological reasons.
If the ‘evil statists’ are actually running a recruitment effort for socialistic immigrants, please provide evidence.”
Robert, the welfare state acts as a magnet to draw the wrong kind of people to immigrate here. Also, there is the Refugee Resettlement Act, where the government — USES TAX PAYER FUNDS to move immigrants to this country, and once here, the government helps these immigrants sign up for every welfare program they can.
There is also the way the government runs the Naturalization process. It should be pretty clear to all that they are Naturalizing new American “citizens” – who, as a part of the process swear an oath to the US Constitution – do not really understand, and/or agree with what the Constitution says, and these people being added to the voter rolls, and the statistics show that the vast majority of them vote in favor of expanding socialist programs and enacting more gun control laws.
This is not to say that all immigrants are bad, as their are some good ones in the mix, but given the welfare state magnet and given the way that the Naturalization process is run, the end result is that the political views of immigrants skew in favor of bigger government.
Rhinehold said: “Seems legit, randomly factoring numbers by a number you pull out of your rear…”
Fool, if you truly believe that Johnson commands anywhere close to eleven percent support nationally, then you need to pull more than the number six out of your rear.
Robert,
Explaining the point of non-ubiquity kind of begs the question of ubiquity, doesn’t it?
“When you start using definitions that mean one thing to mean another, you do nothing but create confusion.”
True.
Also, when you talk without knowing what the hell you’re talking about, you do nothing but create derision.
tk, they might, or they might not. They may or may not have extradition agreements. That’s the point of non-ubiquity.
Shadier players might engage with Corleone Protection Services to shield their aberrant behavior. And then there’s Murphy’s “eccentric areas,” which I still get a kick out of.
https://mises.org/library/law-without-state
When you start using definitions that mean one thing to mean another, you do nothing but create confusion. But even using your definition of ‘anarchy’ is impossible with human nature. But, I’ve learned long ago that faith based arguments are usually a bad idea to try to get into.
RC,
Why are you assuming that Acme, Konkin and Spooner won’t have many rules in common? There would presumably be several ubiquitous rules — all three would enforce rules against murder, rape, assault, burglary, etc.
tk, hmm. I thought the idea is that 1311 Mockingbird Ln could use Acme Insurance’s rules, 1313 Konkin Property & Casualty rules, and 1315 Spooner Assurance’s rules. The rules on Mockingbird Lane are not ubiquitous, but it has them.
RC,
Well, that’s certainly not a different way of saying the same thing, nor is it something that necessarily follows from the absence of a unitary enforcement mechanism.
iow, no ubiquitous rules.
langa beat me to it. There are actually a lot of different definitions for anarchy, but normally when a political anarchist uses the word, he or she is referring to a society absent a de jure institutional monopoly on force aka a state.
Wrong. “Anarchy” (as used by libertarian anarchists, or pretty much anyone with a clue) does not refer to the absence of rules. It refers, instead, to the absence of rulers. That’s an extremely important distinction.
To put it another way, “anarchy” simply means that no person or group has any more rights than any other.
BTW Andy, just an FYI, ‘anarchy’ cannot exist in a human society. Not that I mean it can’t be successful, I mean it cannot exist.
Anarchy exists with a complete absence of rules and law and government. But once two people agree to stop a third from doing something to someone else, a government has been formed, even if it is a small and minor one. Anarchy no longer exists at that point. Human nature has within it empathy and as a result, humans will always band together to protect the innocent and weak. Anarchy cannot exist with human beings are part of the world.
aj: I mean people in government have NO INCENTIVE to bring more people into the country who support EXPANDING the welfare state, right?
me: I dunno. My impression is that immigrants are self selecting. I am not aware of the government recruiting immigrants for ideological reasons.
If the “evil statists” are actually running a recruitment effort for socialistic immigrants, please provide evidence.
Should read, “supporters of the Bill of Rights…”
“robert capozzi
March 29, 2016 at 13:38
aj, thanks for the thoughtful elaboration. I wonder what percentage of the pop engage with or are prostitutes? Are there cultures where prostitution is legal and often taken advantage of?”
Going from my experience in talking politics with I don’t even know how many people (it may be over one million, both in person and online, but if it is not over 1 million, it has to be in the hundreds of thousands), I’d say that only a very small segment of the population supports legalized prostitution.
I worked on a referendum petition in the city of Los Angeles, CA years ago to keep lap dancing legal in Los Angeles. The LA city council passed an ordinance that banned lap dancing. Yes, this surprisingly got passed by the city council in left leaning Los Angeles, the home of Hollywood (Hollywood and North Hollywood are both a part of LA city (West Hollywood is its own city)/note that Los Angeles County encompasses a lot more than just LA city, and there are parts of LA county that have a higher percentage of conservatives than LA city has).
One would think that a petition to keep lap dancing legal in the city of Los Angeles would be easy to get signed, but I ran into a surprising amount of resistance on that petition. Lots of people either a) Did not care, b) Thought that it should be illegal, or c) Thought that it should be legal on in certain places, and they did not want the city of Los Angeles to be one of those places (several people said that people should have to drive to Las Vegas, NV for lap dancing).
What ended up happening with that petition is enough signatures were gathered to bring the petition to a referendum vote on the ballot (a referendum suspends a recently enacted piece of legislation until the public gets to vote on the issue), and then the Los Angeles City Council ended up backing down on the issue and reversing the ban rather than having the issue go to the ballot.
“Perhaps we should lower the quotas from those nations, if I’m understanding your logic.”
I’m not sure how many nations have legalized prostitution. I’m thinking probably the Netherlands, maybe one or two other countries in Europe, and maybe a few Asian countries. I’d have to research this to find out where prostitution is legal.
“I think I’ll stick with my ‘let’s make immigration easier, but let’s have reasonable screens on new immigrants.’ position. Excluding those from low-tote-incidence places has a creepy feel for me.”
So who cares how many socialists, communists, or theocrats come in and who cares how much this expands the welfare state, or how the shift in demographics affects the right to keep and bear arms, right?
I’m sure that the government is doing a great job of teaching people to be constitutionalists and free market supporters in the Naturalization classes, so they would not dare swear in lots of new people as citizens and register them to vote unless they were all strong supports of the Bill of Rights, right?
I mean people in government have NO INCENTIVE to bring more people into the country who support EXPANDING the welfare state, right?
aj, thanks for the thoughtful elaboration. I wonder what percentage of the pop engage with or are prostitutes? Are there cultures where prostitution is legal and often taken advantage of?
Perhaps we should lower the quotas from those nations, if I’m understanding your logic.
I think I’ll stick with my “let’s make immigration easier, but let’s have reasonable screens on new immigrants,” position. Excluding those from low-tote-incidence places has a creepy feel for me.
I worked on a city initiative petition in California years ago for home owners to be able to maintain the right to make alterations to the outside of their homes. One would think that this would be pretty easy to get signed, but you’d be surprised at how many people I encountered who made comments like, “I rent, so I don’t care about home owners.” or, “What if I don’t like what somebody does to the outside of their home? I think that the city should be able to force people to not alter the outside of their home.” (As if the city government officials were going to consult with them about whether or not they liked an alteration to the outside of somebody’s home before they used force against a home owner to prevent an alteration.)
“robert capozzi
March 29, 2016 at 12:48
‘aj: The USA by far has the biggest pro-gun rights culture. Check out this list from Wikipedia of number of guns held in private hands per person:’
me: I’ve never understood why people conflate gun ownership with RTKBA. They are separate things. I, for ex., don’t own a gun and have in fact never shot one. Yet I support the RTKBA.
What’s up with that conflation?
Strikes me the point is: Do you recognize the right, not do you EXERCISE the right? This is true of a whole lotta personal liberty issues…drugs, prostitution, and wearing cologne, for that matter.”
Robert, did you read what I said above about Traditionalists and Rationalists? If not, scroll back up and read it.
Most people in general are not rational. Given this fact, most people who support gun rights came to support gun rights because it became a tradition in early American history, and it was passed down to them through their family.
Yes, a person does not have to be something or participate in some activity to support a right for said thing or activity, but this is not how a lot of people operate.
It sounds like you are in the Rationalist camp on this issue, and that is great, but like I said, most people are not rational, and also keep in mind that there is a mass anti-gun rights propaganda campaign in the media and the education system to turn the public against gun rights, all under the guise of “making people safer.” There are a lot of people out there who don’t think for themselves, and who do not have the inclination to research crime statistics or study history on their own.
Look at the issue of marijuana. One of the main reasons, or perhaps even THE main reason, that the tide of public opinion is turning away from marijuana prohibition is because lots of the public has either used marijuana in the past, or they currently use marijuana, or they have heard that marijuana can be used to help treat certain medical conditions, and they either know somebody who has such a condition, or they have such a condition themselves.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who don’t care about an issue, and will not lift a finger in favor of individual rights, unless they think that it benefits themselves. You may point out how __________________ (fill in government policy) is negatively affecting _________________ (fill in whoever is being adversely impacted by said government policy), and how said government policy needs to be reformed by doing ________________ (fill in reform), and lots of people will not care, and even more will not care if they are somehow benefiting from said government policy (say you are talking about ending marijuana prohibition to a prison guard, or a DEA agent, or a government contractor who sells equipment to prisons, or somebody who owns lots of stock in “private” prisons, or whoever else has a vested interest in marijuana prohibition).
aj: The USA by far has the biggest pro-gun rights culture. Check out this list from Wikipedia of number of guns held in private hands per person:
me: I’ve never understood why people conflate gun ownership with RTKBA. They are separate things. I, for ex., don’t own a gun and have in fact never shot one. Yet I support the RTKBA.
What’s up with that conflation?
Strikes me the point is: Do you recognize the right, not do you EXERCISE the right? This is true of a whole lotta personal liberty issues…drugs, prostitution, and wearing cologne, for that matter.
“So given these averages and demographic trends, I don’t see how anyone who supports the right to keep and bear arms could examine these facts and not think that there is cause for alarm.”
Alarm is one thing.
Supporting measures that would require a police state now because without those measures (or if those measures are unsuccessful, as they will be) there’s the possibility of a police state later is another thing entirely.
The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be crossing someone else’s fake property line without your permission is not a libertarian impulse, nor is any policy based in that fear a libertarian policy.
“wolfefan
March 29, 2016 at 03:35
People who are ‘Asian or Middle Eastern looking’ can come from a gun-rights culture as well as anyone else. Many of them were born in the US, and some Asian/Middle Eastern countries such as Pakistan have a gun culture that far surpasses our own.”
The USA by far has the biggest pro-gun rights culture. Check out this list from Wikipedia of number of guns held in private hands per person:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Also, look at the statistics. I am talking about general trends. I am aware of the fact that there are exceptions to rules and averages.
The statistics shows that 80% of Asians support more gun control laws. Lily Tang, Chairwoman of the LP of Colorado, is an obvious exception to the 80%.
Survey after survey after survey clearly indicates that immigrants are less likely to support gun rights, and that the only group in this country that has majority support for gun rights are whites, but that even among whites, the majority support for gun rights is not a super majority until you limit the survey to whites who live in rural areas. If you limited the survey to whites who’d be classified as being rednecks/hicks/hillbillies/cowboys, that super majority support for gun rights would go up even higher.
Surveys indicate that 75% of Hispanics support more gun control laws. I am well aware of the fact that there is diversity among Hispanics, and that there are Hispanics who have been in the USA for a long time (as in multiple generations). I used to know a Cuban guy who fled Castro back in the 1960’s or 1970’s, and he was very pro-gun rights.
Once again, I’m talking averages and trends. The averages and trends point towards a combination of foreigners, big city liberals, and young people not being passed down America’s pro-gun rights tradition, and being indoctrinated in “political correctness” by the education system and the big media, leading to the death of the right to keep and bear arms in this country.
Do you ever attend gun shows? Like I said above, I’ve been to a bunch of them all over the country. Go to a gun show and you tell me what the demographics are.
I’ve also attended a few pro-gun rights protests. I went to one that was in front of a state capital and I noticed that 100% of the crowd was white men.
So given these averages and demographic trends, I don’t see how anyone who supports the right to keep and bear arms could examine these facts and not think that there is cause for alarm.
People who are “Asian or Middle Eastern looking” can come from a gun-rights culture as well as anyone else. Many of them were born in the US, and some Asian/Middle Eastern countries such as Pakistan have a gun culture that far surpasses our own.
Open Borders, or Market Immigration?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3NFY9KCzZ4
Libertarianism Is Not A Suicide Pact
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKQy5SyzUi0
Here is Mark Dice gathering signatures on another gun control petition, this time on a pier in California.
People Petition to Confiscate Guns From Tea Party Supporters and Repeal the Second Amendment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diNojgJF9c
Southern California based activist Mark Dice has put out a bunch of videos where he comes up with tyrannical, and sometimes ridiculously crazy petitions, and then he goes out in public with a hidden camera to see how many people he can get to sign them.
The video below shows Mark Dice at a college in California asking people to sign a petition for the government to confiscate guns and to haul gun owners off to FEMA camps. Look at the number of people who sign, and notice how so many of the signers are Asian or Middle Eastern looking.
More evidence that foreigners who do not come from a gun rights culture, along with a generation that is being raised by left wing idiots, and are detached from America’s gun rights culture, are leading to the death of the right to keep and bear arms.
Now just imagine what would happen if somebody took a petition like this to a crowd of rednecks in say Alabama, or a crowd of West Virginia hillbillies, or to a crowd of cowboys in Wyoming. Do you think they’d get any signatures in places like that? I think not.
College Students Sign Petition to Imprison All Registered Gun Owners!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n02qgqtpRKY
Andy,
Thank you. I will read it in the future. Not too clearheaded right now.
“Election Addict
March 29, 2016 at 02:31
In an anarchy, the mechanism preventing abuse of authority, would be an enlightened or educated populace, maybe with some more direct control over the means of production or unionization in a leftist anarchy. Presumably in a rightist anarchy some groups would form checking whether abuse occurs, and hopefully people listen, and find independent arbitration if needed (and that would work only if the abuser would agree to it?). ”
Check out The Libertarian Zone:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/
*by preventing it I meant an informed populace, the absence of which leads to rigged economic outcomes
In an anarchy, the mechanism preventing abuse of authority, would be an enlightened or educated populace, maybe with some more direct control over the means of production or unionization in a leftist anarchy. Presumably in a rightist anarchy some groups would form checking whether abuse occurs, and hopefully people listen, and find independent arbitration if needed (and that would work only if the abuser would agree to it?). What prevents proper education from happening when there is some more solid means of law enforcement arbitration, yeah forced by a government, but largely agreed to as the simplest way to make everyone follow standards? And this government checked by people through election and impeachment, and hopefully direct referendums and proper prevention of tyranny and outrageous redistribution (perhaps through a constitution)? Doesn’t a government tend to keep a social contract more stable?
Maybe the government prevents it now, and maybe in an anarchy business would prevent it to the same extent.
I am not a psychologist either, but you provide I think the answer I’d expect. I would say that people in government have the same flaws, to similar extents, as people in business, or as any group of people with some authority. So if we follow a minarchist argument, large enough corporations (the sort that might influence government to start wars for oil, or so was said, and I agree) are just a fourth ‘branch’ requiring the same restrictions any other institution with too much power. The difference also being that government, in theory, is more directly accountable to people.
Well, first of all, I am an anarchist, not a minarchist, and I will agree with you that some (but not all) minarchists fail to recognize, or to admit, the potential for corporations to wield their influence over government to rig “free market” outcomes in their favor (note the scare quotes, as a true free market would be one with no government interference, as opposed to the crony capitalism that exists in the status quo). However, I would make two points:
First, this “rigging” of economic outcomes would be impossible in the absence of government, and even in the case where government does exist, the smaller it is, the more difficult it is to abuse its power. So, I would argue that if you really want to keep corporations from having excessive power, shrink the size of government as much as possible.
That brings me to my other point. When I hear any non-libertarians (almost always those on the left, as many of those on the right want corporations to have as much power as possible) discussing this issue, they almost always say that: 1) Corporations control the government, and 2) The only way to reign in big corporations is by granting more power to the government to regulate the economy. This is clearly contradictory. If you think corporations have too much power already, why would you want to give even more power to them, or more specifically, to an organization that they control? This is like having the fox guard the hen house.
” is who they are ‘bad'”
Should read, “is how they are ‘bad'”
Police:”IF NECESSARY”…will go door to door to take your guns…(says) “WE ARE YOUR MASTERS”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guDCFQKjie0
I am not the fan of every single thing done by government, nor all things done by any one group, or one community, or one individual. People within the government can break the influence of those you mention, including the influence of those within the government who allow for less freedom (to what, purchase from the black market? I don’t care…) to some extent. Is it likely? Nah. But maybe we can elect McAfee or Sterling or something 😉
(Preferably Stein, I admit.)
Hurricane Katrina Door to Door Firearms Confiscation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo
The 2016 Gun Control Agenda Explained | Obama’s Gun Control/Fake Shootings/FEMA Camps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGKSSBYi0jc
Election Addict said: ” The difference also being that government, in theory, is more directly accountable to people.”
What government is in theory and what it is in practice are not the same thing.
Governments have been in bed with corporations for a long time. Even so, as bad as that is, people can still not shop at some corporations, and said corporations will lose money. Try not “doing business” with the government.
Thomas Knapp said: ‘Most Americans don’t own a gun, and want more gun control’
Exactly. I have a gun and don’t want more gun control. Guess who wins that argument?”
Tom, that argument is being held at the voting booth and in the halls of government. People who support gun rights becoming more and more of a minority of the population means that unless there is a big change, that the votes will not go our way (as in the votes will go against the right to keep and bear arms, not for them).
The argument will not be you debating some leftist gun grabber, it will be the police or some other government thugs breaking your door down.
I am posting this link again, just because I want people to see the excerpt from below, and I want them to go back and read the article.
Most Americans don’t own a gun, and want more gun control
http://qz.com/518477/charted-this-is-the-gun-ownership-minority-in-america-that-has-a-big-impact-on-national-policy/
From the article: “When you look at the adults who actually own a gun themselves, rather than those who merely live in a household that has one, the numbers are even smaller—just 22.4% of the American adults surveyed owned a gun in 2014:”
MY COMMENT: You see, lots of people who are counted as being gun owners merely live in a house where somebody else owns a gun. So according to this, only 22.4% of Americans actually own guns. Even if this number is under-reported, and even if you factor in family members who live in a household with guns, the percent of Americans that own guns is a far cry from early American history, where just about everyone owned guns and supported gun rights.
Americans of yesteryear fought a revolution, in part for the right to keep and bear arms, and for many years after this the majority of Americans owned guns and supported the right to keep and bear arms. Now contrast this with today’s America, where a much smaller percent of the population owns guns, and where a lot of the public is clamoring for more gun control laws.
“The drop, the report accompanying the survey said, can be partially attributed to fewer Americans hunting.”
MY COMMENT: Go back and read what I said up above, about the gun rights traditionalists. A county with less hunters, and with the huge increase of single mothers, many of whom are on welfare (a government welfare check has replaced a daddy’s paycheck for a lot of kids growing up today), THE AMERICAN GUN RIGHTS TRADITION IS NOT BEING PASSED ON TO YOUNGER GENERATIONS NEARLY AS MUCH AS IT ONCE WAS IN THIS COUNTRY.
“The research also found that American women are a lot less keen than men to own guns, as they have been for the life of the survey. But a slightly higher percentage of them own one than they did in 1980.”
MY COMMENT: You see, just like I said above, the right to keep and bear arms is pushed more by men than by women. Go to any gun show. Most of the crowd is men. There are women there, and there are SOME truly pro-gun rights ladies out there, don’t get me wrong, but even so, most of the women at gun shows are there with their husbands or boyfriends or fathers. Many men go to gun shows by themselves, or with male friends or male family members. It is rare to see any women at gun shows who are not there accompanied by a man.
“In addition, the research found that white adults are more likely to live in a household with a gun than non-whites.”
MY COMMENT: BINGO! Once again, exactly as I said above. Most of the people who see at gun shows are white. Sure, you’ll see a few blacks, or a few non-white Hispanics, and on very, very, very rare occasions, you’ll see some other group (extremely rare to see an Asian at a gun show), but the fact of the matter is that the crowds at gun shows are mostly white, and mostly men.
I’ve attended gun shows in Pennsylvania (6), Maryland (2), Virginia (1), North Carolina (1), Alabama (4), Indiana (7), Iowa (1), Arkansas (3), Texas (1), Oklahoma (4), Nebraska (1), North Dakota (2), New Mexico (2), Arizona (6), and California (4).
I’ve been to gun shows in big cities and in small towns.
I think that this is a big enough cross section of gun shows in America to make informed comments.
Having attended this many gun shows, in this many places, and following this issue for as long as I have, I’d say that I’m pretty well informed on the subject.
Now if I am seeing the same demographic at every gun show, as in 90 PLUS percent white (sometimes in the high 90’s% range, like 99%), mostly male, then what does this tell you about the demographics that support gun rights?
Many of the people at gun shows would be described as being “rednecks/hicks/hillbillies/cowboys” or as being “white male gun nuts”.
There are some younger people at gun shows, but a lot of the attendees are middle aged or older.
Now I have run into pro-gun black/African Americans at gun shows, as well as some other groups (outside of whites, the group that you are second most likely to see at gun shows from my experiences are blacks), but with blacks or other groups there are more men than women, just like with the whites at gun shows. It is extremely rare to see an Asian at a gun show. It is also rare to encounter anyone with a foreign accent at a gun show.
So given that gun show demographics are mostly white (90% or higher), mostly male, and mostly middle aged or older, how do you think that the shifting demographics in this country are going to affect the future of the right to keep and bear arms?
Thank you, by the way.
“Maybe these psychologists could explain to us how it is that when people start working for the government, they suddenly become immune to these flaws of human nature. Instead of being greedy and jealous, they become benign and altruistic. This is why government always acts rationally. Is that your claim, or am I missing something?”
I am not a psychologist either, but you provide I think the answer I’d expect. I would say that people in government have the same flaws, to similar extents, as people in business, or as any group of people with some authority. So if we follow a minarchist argument, large enough corporations (the sort that might influence government to start wars for oil, or so was said, and I agree) are just a fourth ‘branch’ requiring the same restrictions any other institution with too much power. The difference also being that government, in theory, is more directly accountable to people.
The response to that might be “then following that logic, why not go on to regulate anyone in any position of authority in anything they do, it is merely another argument for a parent state,” or I am sure something smarter than I put it. But if we don’t allow for tyranny from one group, which we call government, why allow a plutocracy from a different group, that sucks up the nation’s wealth due to lack of foresight, and due to lack of accurate conscious reasoning? If there is any way to overcome unconscious bias, or at least ameliorate its effects on massive groups of people with less say, it would be by opening the way for the input of those people, and in the meantime reallocating this wealth back to proper hands.
Sounds socialist, but to everything there is degree.
Well, yes, if you’re looking for something to panic about, you can probably convince yourself that our gun rights in danger even though that situation’s been getting better and better for 20 years now.
And it’s certainly something I vote on.
“Most Americans don’t own a gun, and want more gun control”
Exactly. I have a gun and don’t want more gun control. Guess who wins that argument?
Gun Control. The Agenda is incremental total disarmament. The left admits it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47XWXG1k8I4
Most Americans don’t own a gun, and want more gun control
http://qz.com/518477/charted-this-is-the-gun-ownership-minority-in-america-that-has-a-big-impact-on-national-policy/
MY COMMENT: Do you people see what I mean about demographic shifts and media brainwashing? This article should SCARE THE SHIT out of every libertarian or constitutionalist in the country.
Here is Eric Holder, also from 1995, talking about how the public needs to be brainwashed into accepting more gun control laws.
Here we are in 2016. Look at all of the media brainwashing against gun rights that is happening now, and has been happening for a long time now. Then factor this in with the demographic shifts I mentioned above.
Holder Says People Need to be Brainwashed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw
Below is a clip of Senator Dianne Feinstein from 1995, where she ADMITS that if should could have gotten a gun ban passed, she would have done it, but that she just could not get enough votes.
Well, maybe she could not get the sufficient votes back in 1995, but what is going to happen in the future with America’s changing demographics?
Feinstein in 1995: ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn Them All In’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-three-americans-own-guns-culture-factor-study-finds-n384031
From the article: “A new study aimed at figuring out who owns gun in the United States and why suggests that about a third of Americans have at least one.
Most are white males over the age of 55, and a ‘gun culture’ is closely linked with ownership, the team at Columbia University reports.”
MY COMMENT: You see, most gun owners are white males OVER the age of 55. Over the age of 55 is getting old. What happens when these 55 and up white male gun owners start dying out? Who is replacing them in the population? A bunch of foreigners who COME FROM COUNTRIES THAT HAVE NO GUN RIGHTS TRADITION, and who statistically speaking, a SUPER MAJORITY of them SUPPORT MORE GUN CONTROL LAWS. Lots of Americans being raised by single mothers, many of whom are on welfare, so a government welfare check has replaced a father in a lot of cases. How many of these kids being raised by single mothers are being taken to shooting ranges, or on hunting trips, therefore passing on the American gun rights culture on to this generation? How many of these kids go to schools where if they draw a picture of a gun, or even mention the word “gun” get sent to the principles office, or have the police called on them? How many young people today are growing up in a society where everything they hear about guns in the media is who they are “bad” and how they should be “controlled” by the government or outright banned?
Look at the American population. Do you really expect a bunch of kids who are indoctrinated in “political correctness” and who worry about “micro-aggressions” and who need “safe spaces” to stand up and fight for your gun rights? Do you expect a bunch of immigrants from places that have NO GUN RIGHTS CULTURE to stand up for your gun rights (remember, these are NOT like the pioneers of yesteryear, who came to a county with NO WELFARE STATE and where pretty much everyone owned guns for hunting and for self defense)?
“Thomas L. Knapp
March 27, 2016 at 20:12
I support gun rights one thousand percent, but fortunately it’s an issue of almost no real importance.”
I can’t believe that I’m seeing “Mr. Anarchist Libertarian” Thomas Knapp say that gun rights are an issue “of almost no real importance.”
I consider the right to keep and bear arms to be one of the most important issues that there is, certainly in the top 2 or 3, and maybe even THE most important issue.
Take away the right to keep and bear arms and there is nothing to stop a tyrannical government from taking over, and also forget being able to defend oneself against common street criminals, so street crime would almost certainly increase as well without the right to keep and bear arms.
“That’s not to say it can’t be useful politically, but the simple fact is that there are more than 300 million guns in the hands of more than 100 million Americans, some non-trivial number of whose answer to any confiscation scheme would be ‘come try to take them and see what happens.'”
Yes, there are still lots of gun owners in this country who own lots of guns, but the agenda of the gun grabbers is a long term one. They have been passing a gun control law here, and another gun control law there, for decades now. We’ve gotten to the point where there are thousands of gun control laws in this country at the federal (national), state, and local level. Sure, there are still lots of guns in lots of private hands, but this country has gone from a country that did not have any control laws, and where pretty much everyone was in favor of gun rights, and where most people owned guns, to a country where there are all kinds of restrictions on guns (with guns being more restricted in some parts of the country than in others), and a country where only maybe 1/3 (although possibly a little less) of the population owns guns, and where a significant portion of the population wants more gun control laws, and where a disturbing percentage of the population wants to ban civilian ownership of firearms.
Look at the demographics and look at what the trends are. More and more immigrants coming to the country who come from places with NO TRADITION of gun rights, most of whom settle in major metropolitan areas where they are surrounded by lots of “big city liberals” who do not support gun rights. A big increase in children being raised by single mothers, therefore reducing the chance that they will have the American gun rights tradition passed on to them, since this tradition is usually passed down by the father (yes, there are exceptions, but I am speaking in generalities here). Lots of children are being propagandized that “guns are bad” (never mind when guns are in the hands of government employees though) and they should be banned. Look at the society today’s kids are growing up in, where playing with a toy gun or even drawing a picture of a gun can get a kid suspended from school or having the police called on them. Look at all of the media propaganda that Americans are subjected to where shooting incidents (and I think that a lot of the big ones are being staged by the government, but this is another issue) are hyped up, yet stories about people defending themselves receive little media coverage, and crime statistics that show that gun ownership actually reduces crime receives little to no mention in the mainstream media.
Meanwhile, the same government that wants to take our guns away is busy arming itself to the teeth, with mass ammo buys, armored assault vehicles, etc…, and don’t forget the massive surveillance grid and FEMA camps which are being constructed.
Gun rights, like a lot of other rights that we are supposed to have, are being chipped away a little at a time.
It appears to me that some people here do not realize how serious the situation is.
The government controllers are just waiting to make their move. They keep tabs on people, especially anyone who is politically active. I bet they have estimates on how many people will fight back if they come to take the guns away, and I know that they already have data on which regions of the county where they will be most likely to encounter the most resistance.
Sure, there are something like 100 million gun owners in this country (with a total population of around 318.9 million people), but how many gun owners are willing to fight back against their own government? Look what happened after Hurricane Katrina, when the government started conducting house to house gun confiscation raids, they caught people by surprise, and nobody fought back. This was just a test run. What happens if there is a bigger disaster, or maybe the government will create one by pulling off another false flag. Maybe next time they’ll release a bio weapon, or blow up a nuke, or a dirty bomb, or something like that. They could use the ensuing chaos as an excuse to start going after gun owners, especially the ones who have spouted “anti-government” points of view (remember, they already keep files on pretty much anyone who is at all politically active, and/or who has made public statements that the government does not like).
Yes, some people would fight back, and that’s why the government is not conducting mass confiscation raids right now. The gun grabbers are very patient know. They think long term, and unlike the average libertarian, they are very good at political strategy. Right now they are working through the states to pass new background check laws, under the pretext that they are only trying to stop criminals and the mentally ill from being able to obtain firearms (but of course they could still get them off of the black market, just like drug laws don’t stop people from getting drugs), but what they are really doing is outlawing private gun sales, and building their database of who all of the gun owners are, plus they are turning what is supposed to be a right into a privilege which is granted by the state. Also, don’t be surprised if they expand the definition of what constitutes being a criminal who can’t own a gun, and who is a mentally ill person who can’t own a gun (like people who speak out against the government could be labeled as being “mentally ill” and be put on a list that says that they can’t purchase a gun).
The gun grabbers will continue their agenda of using anti-gun rights propaganda in the media, purposefully shifting demographics towards a population with a higher and higher percentage of the population that accepts socialism and gun control laws, and more “reasonable” gun control laws which are just “common sense” and are only meant to “protect people” and which every “reasonable person” must support. The population of the country will continue to shift more and more towards urban areas, which means a lower percent of people in rural areas, and statistically speaking, a higher percent of the populations of urban areas support gun control laws as compared to people in rural areas.
Mass statist migration will bring in more Hipanics, Asians, Middle Easterners, Africans, and Europeans (note that the typical European of today does not support the right to keep and bear arms), to the point where the traditional Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms (notably, the rednecks/hicks/hillbillies/cowboys I mentioned above) will become more and more of a minority, to the point where they will be outvoted.
The demonization of gun owners will be very easy, because they can just say that they are a bunch of “racist white rednecks” or that they are “anti-government extremists” or some similar line they will use in the media to rally public support for the government going after the gun owners.
The future of the right to keep and bear arms in this country does not look good. The fact that there are still millions of guns in millions of private hands in this country is one of the only things that has kept the government from going further than it has so far. If they ever take out the American gun owner, look for things to get really ugly after that. The tyranny you will see after that will make Nazi Germany and communist Russia look like a picnic. We are talking a high tech police state.
The American gun owner is one of the only things that has been holding back tyranny.
“I always divide those numbers by a factor of six”
Seems legit, randomly factoring numbers by a number you pull out of your rear…
Whenever LP candidates discuss their supposedly strong polling results, I always divide those numbers by a factor of six. Johnson’s support seems about right at 1.83 percent.
“why do you keep coming to me trying to take my natural right of my religious freedom away, when you clearly don’t need to? ”
I never once suggested any such thing. That’s the problem with your critical thinking, you are making it an all/nothing situation, it isn’t.
“Government is not force”
I’m sorry, but this statement here prevents me from supporting you, if you can’t understand this simple fact, there is really not much we can talk about.
Let me try to explain a little more fully…
If government is not force, why can’t a non-governmental agency or group write these laws that we have in place? What is the ONE thing that government can do that non-governmental groups can’t? The government has been given the power, by the people. to use force, or the threat of force, to enforce the laws passed by the government. That is the ONLY thing that government can do that non-governmental groups cannot.
Let’s say that a law was passed with 99% support that all people named FRANK should pay an extra 25% in taxes. According to you, if anyone named FRANK did not support this law they would have to leave the country to avoid being forced to pay that additional tax. Now, some Franks may say ‘hey, I agree to this, it makes sense’ and follow the law because they choose to, but I’m sure some of them would feel that this is unfair. Those Franks would either follow the law because they know that if they don’t they would end up being forced, at the point of a gun, to go to jail. Or they would resist and have their freedom taken away from them, by force.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington
“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” – James Madison
There are times when force is necessary. Laws against rape, murder, theft, etc… Notice something about these laws? They are put in place to protect others from someone violating their natural rights. But we should always understand that when we support or sign a law into place, that law carries behind it the authorization of the use of force against anyone violating that law.
The founding of this country was based on the enlightenment movement, led most notably by John Locke. Please make sure to read his work and the writings of the founding fathers to understand why they wrote the Constitution and how it was supposed to work. It was supposed to be a list of the things that government CAN do, not a list of what the people can’t. Meaning that if a power was not EXPRESSLY given to the government in the constitution, it did NOT have it. Period. That is the entire meaning behind the 9th and 10th amendments, a compromise between the anti-federalists who felt that any list of rights would eventually be thought by later generations as an exhaustive list of rights that government granted and the federalists who felt that some rights needed to be expressly documented as they were that important.
“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” –Thomas Jefferson
“[Some] seem to think that [civilization’s] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824
“A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802
“With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens–a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” – James Madison
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” – James Madison
“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” – James Madison
I also recommend reading Sumner’s “The Forgotten Man” at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2396#lf1225_head_126
Shane, I’ll call it “equality”, thank you. Getting married is not a “special right”, nor does it have anything to do with being “politically correct”.I’d also be willing to bet 10 % of the people you know are off the hetero scale–and you just don’t know it.
This has been a dumb conversation, though, and the percent doesn’t matter, as most of us have agreed. It just irks me that Shane decided to interpret what I said in his own way.
L:I didn’t sign any agreement, and given that, why should I have to leave?
Me: you should not have to. You should have the option to secede onto your very own Harlow Nonarchy Pod on your property.
Problem solved.
Next…..
The issue of gay marriage is a great opportunity to explain libertarianism to others in a way they can understand. Instead of joining in with the chorus of liberals shouting for “equality” you can use it as a teaching moment to say, “it’s not the government’s place to validate ANY marriage.”
I don’t often agree with Shane, but he’s 100% right on this.
Seeing as you have a degree in psychology, what would your opinions be of psychologists having suggested that a free market cannot be moved by a rational invisible hand, given that actors within the free market are at the mercy of irrational emotions, such as greed or jealousy, which lead to irrational and addictive behaviors, emotions rooted in a survival-focused unconscious mind, which is not fully adaptive to today’s society?
I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but I’d like to take a stab at it. (I don’t have a degree in psychology, but I have a BA in political science with a minor in psychology.) Maybe these psychologists could explain to us how it is that when people start working for the government, they suddenly become immune to these flaws of human nature. Instead of being greedy and jealous, they become benign and altruistic. This is why government always acts rationally. Is that your claim, or am I missing something?
Government is not force when there is an agreement signed which is what we have in the US Constitution. No one is keeping you here in the US, you have your free will to leave at any time and go where you want. If you choose to live in the US, then you agree to live according to the US Constitution which includes our Bill of Rights.
I didn’t sign any agreement, and given that, why should I have to leave? Imagine someone moved in next door to you, and started throwing loud parties in the middle of the night, and you complained, and they said, “Well, if you don’t like it, you can move somewhere else.” You wouldn’t like that, would you? You would tell them that they should be the one to move, since they are violating your rights. The same logic applies to the government. I shouldn’t be forced to move, just because they’re violating my rights.
“When we’ve solved every other issue that impacts the liberty of all but that 1.8%-3.4%, and they still have problems, then sure, I’ll help out . . . maybe.
“But as Andy pointed out, I have no sympathy for groups of people who demand preferrential treatment. The ‘Cake Wars’ are a major point of contention for me.”
So wedding cake makers constitute more than 1.8%-3.4% of the population? Who knew?
Jill, thanks for pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of your first statistic. It went from 10% of the population to 10% of the people you know.
Why does it matter? Because libertarians fall for the BS, politically correct trap in sympathizing with the whines of up to 3% as they plea for preferrential treatment.
It’s funny to watch as “radical” L’s raise hell for the pragmatic approach of legalizing gay marriage instead of sticking to the “pure” line that government should have no role in marriage.
The issue of gay marriage is a great opportunity to explain libertarianism to others in a way they can understand. Instead of joining in with the chorus of liberals shouting for “equality” you can use it as a teaching moment to say, “it’s not the government’s place to validate ANY marriage.”
A benefit of being a libertarian is that you don’t have to be politically correct and pretend that “10%” of gays are your buddies and you want to fight for their rights. I personally don’t give a shit about the gay community as I feel we have much bigger fish to fry. When we’ve solved every other issue that impacts the liberty of all but that 1.8%-3.4%, and they still have problems, then sure, I’ll help out . . . maybe.
But as Andy pointed out, I have no sympathy for groups of people who demand preferrential treatment. The “Cake Wars” are a major point of contention for me.
*Preserves right to property from a point of view that seeks to check the imbalances of hierarchy/power, which technically is a principle of libertarianism. Preserves right to life from the perspectives of empathy physical integrity, so that people, who are forced to work in a system, since 1979, where fruits of labor are one-sidedly redistributed to mega-corporations, may retain some manner of living conducive to their development.
Pastor Sterling, responding is up to you and not necessary,
Would you agree/disagree that our social safety net preserves our rights to life and property, as do regulations of what would be the most powerful institution, perhaps above government, an unfettered and unchecked free market? Seeing as you have a degree in psychology, what would your opinions be of psychologists having suggested that a free market cannot be moved by a rational invisible hand, given that actors within the free market are at the mercy of irrational emotions, such as greed or jealousy, which lead to irrational and addictive behaviors, emotions rooted in a survival-focused unconscious mind, which is not fully adaptive to today’s society? Did not Madison say that the U.S. should evolve with the times, and wasn’t the philosophers’ defense of the right to liberty specifically a reference to what we would today refer to as civil liberties, not welfare? :p
I do think that welfare is the most vulnerable point of any prospective Libertarian candidate, and it possibly doomed Ron Paul while we see half of Democrats support Sanders, for instance, so I figure I’m doing a favor. I’m not a good messenger, though.
Shawna said: “They tried to silence me, and as you can see, it only ticked me off”
I’d be interested in hearing more about this.
Rhinehold, I agree with you on the military, but what needs to be understood is that they are taking orders from their Commander in Chief which has been bought and paid for politicians of the Democratic and Republican Parties.
Obama has fired many of our generals and military members who will not for example agree to fire on Americans if Americans refuse to give up their guns when Obama comes to take them.
Do you all realize that we can’t keep talking about this year after year? We need to get a Libertarian into the office of President of the United States to save this country.
The military will back We the People, but what do you want the military to do, engage in a coup?
They are following orders of their CINC. They need our help and if we keep talking about 1% or 2% what help can we be to them. We need to win the White House. We at least need to try. If we go for it, we will change the balance of powers.
I agree Europe needs to defend themselves.
I don’t have to support gay marriage to be a Libertarian. Like I’ve said multiple times, if gay individuals want to get married than they can go get married. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t care what you do with your life. And, I’m not telling any two people that they can’t form a union. What are yall not getting. I don’t care!
I don’t support drugs. Does that mean I’m not a Libertarian too?
I have a right to not support drugs, just like you have a right to support them.
Why do you keep trying to infringe on my rights, when I’m not infringing on yours?
I don’t care what you do. Marry whoever you want, I don’t care.
I don’t support drugs, but I also argue that the federal government has no right to pass legislation against drugs, as it is my opinion that this right belongs to the States, pursuant to the US Constitution.
Under your definition of natural and positive rights, gay rights would be a positive right because you want me to give you my religious freedom in order for you to somehow fulfill your rights.
Now I’ve expressed multiple times I don’t care who you marry, it is none of my business and that is because you have the natural right to marry who you want, so now that you know that gay rights, is a natural right, why do you keep coming to me trying to take my natural right of my religious freedom away, when you clearly don’t need to?
We agree to disagree. I was just talking and having a very great conversation with a gay politician who reached out to me. I was trying to give him encouragement and help and we were really helping each other. I don’t have a problem with individuals who are gay. Live your life the way you want and don’t try and tell me how I have to live mine.
Government is not force when there is an agreement signed which is what we have in the US Constitution. No one is keeping you here in the US, you have your free will to leave at any time and go where you want. If you choose to live in the US, then you agree to live according to the US Constitution which includes our Bill of Rights.
The part of the government that passes laws is called the Legislative branch and it is 100% made up of members who are elected by We the People.
Each state elects 2 Senators to the US Senate for a total of 100 Senators elected by We the People. States then elect members to the House of Representatives and the total number of members each state gets is based on the state’s population.
The Senate and the House unite as the Congress who makes the laws.
Note: the reason we are having so many problems with laws getting past that violate our LP NAP is because very wealthy and corrupt individuals have been buying our elected seats and they have been doing everything they can to make these seats unavailable to US citizens who really love the US and want to get into office to reign in and prosecute these corrupt individuals.
The longer the LP is satisfied with 1% or 2%, the more difficult it will be to change the balance of power to put it back into the rightful hands of We the People as a whole, not just the elites working to overthrow our country from within.
Our second branch of government is the Executive which includes the President, the Vice President and the Cabinet whose members are nominated by the US President and approved by the Senate (members who are elected by We the People). The Executive office does not have the power to make laws but to carry out the laws. The role of the executive office is to protect and defend the US Constitution.
The third branch, the Judicial is the Supreme Court and any other federal courts whose role is to interpret the laws, not make laws, as only the People of the US can make laws through their elected officials.
Thank you for the articles you suggested to review. I will review them.
Pursuant to the US Constitution the States and We the People have the right to vote on legislation concerning what state rights they choose to use as incentives to encourage increasing birth rates for example. These are issues that are determined by individual states and the people living in them.
I agree that there may be some incentives that are offered to heterosexual couples, that should also be offered to homosexual couples. I have no objection at all with couples getting married to whomever they want.
As a pastor I have the religious right to marry who in my opinion is ready for marriage, which means that I have the right to choose to not marry someone even if they are in my church.
Although I am currently not pastoring in a church at this time I still am a pastor as it is a lifetime call and I still engage in pastoral counseling as needed and I still have the right to perform marriages if I choose to do so, as these are all my religious rights.
I have not said anything about the Bible in relationship to homosexuality, so until you find something that I have said, then don’t treat me like I said something that I did not say.
I have no desire to have any moral authority over you, I don’t care what you do, live your life however you want. If you come to me for pastoral counseling, I will help you. If you come and ask for prayer, I will pray with you.
Root, Saddam wanted to naturalize the oil to get it out of the control of the foreign hands, the Iraq war was to get the control of the oil back, which they did and Bush and his friend made a lot of money as they divided up the oil contracts.
You are right in saying, “there was never a need to invade him” and least not a need by the US, Bush and his used the US to invade him, so they could regain control of the oil for themselves and their friends.
Root – I am not bought and paid for and my supporters are also not bought and paid for. Second, I’m not interested in running for the US Senate or the House. I ran for the US Senate to the gain information needed for this run and that is why, I withdrew from the US Senate race as a write-in and endorsed on my website the Libertarian Candidate David Patterson.
I have not put any number out there, I’ve said, “I have supporters nationwide who will come into the LP if I get the nomination and if the LP really tried to win the White House” meaning, if the LP just strives for 1% or 2% or even 5% or 10%, they won’t view the LP as really wanting to win.
Root, I’m not interested in a minor office. I’m not a politician Root. I’m a freedom fighter.
Root, I’m not Bob Barr or Wayne Allyn nor did I ever claim to have “celebrity status” as it was never my goal in life, nor is it now, but I guarantee you I have supporters across this nation who will come into the LP if I get the nomination and we will all work to take the White House in November as Libertarians.
Root, I agree that we do not need to have military bases anywhere unless it is in compliance with the US Constitution. I agree on the withdrawal of the US from NATO and all military alliances that are not in compliance with the US Constitution. I agree that all unconstitutional military aid to other nations needs to end. I agree that we do not need a standing army in peacetime.
I agree that we need our Navy, Air Force, and missile defense, however I would also add that we need military members trained and ready to serve in the specialities of all five branches of our military, including: Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard. I agree that large armies are for occupying countries and that we don’t need large armies.
Andy, I am a strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment. The Democrats are strategically working to bring in immigrants who will work and vote to support the Democrats on many issues including gun restrictions which are 100% a violation of the US Constitution.
The LP can work to help educate the immigrants on the importance of our US Constitution. I am a Hispanic and several years before Chinese Immigrant and Colorado Libertarian US Senate Candidate Lily Williams took a stand for the 2nd Amendment by posing in a photo with her AR-15, I did the very same thing, and let’s just say, Obama didn’t like it, I then started teaching on the US Constitution and he really didn’t like that, now if Obama is to protect and defend the US Constitution then why would I get harassed for teaching on it?
They tried to silence me, and as you can see, it only ticked me off and I have been in defense working to expose him and his acts of treason ever since.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words! So, I went ahead and put a pic of me and Lily with are AR-15! It’s on my Facebook if you want to see it. https://www.facebook.com/PastorShawnaSterling
Matt! I think the Libertarians have a huge opportunity to reach Hispanics and Asians, plus other minorities too. One thing we have going for us is we also have International LP’s which shows that we are at least open to diversity and the Democrats only use minorities as stepping stones to get what their elite politicians want, and the Republicans have no heart for really reaching out to minorities.
Steven, I’m not interested in a lower office or working to gain brownie points, I’m not a politician, nor do I intend to become one, I’m a freedom fighter. Also, I’ve been speaking behind a podium since 1998 and I’m use to thousands, as I was raised in mega churches.
I’m not with any denomination. It is my heart to help all of humanity. I don’t serve any Gods. I believe in the Elohim (God/gods). I believe that they created us mankind (male and female) in their image and gave us this Earth to protect. I don’t serve the Elohim (God/gods) because they are our family. They don’t want us to serve them or bow down to them, they want us to rise up, learn to be free, and find our strength.
The Constitution Party is too preachy for me.
I like the Libertarian Party 🙂
Steve, I absolutely get your point, but I think ultimately we are really trying to put these issues on the table so we can better know how to deal with them or consider them and try and figure out how the LP can make a positive difference
Steve, I agree. Once elected I will abolish all federal programs that are not required by the US Constitution.
Once the Libertarians get in the White House we will together review in detail all the spending and together we will cut all spending that is not required by the US Constitution including defense spending. This is my pledge to you. As Libertarians we will do this together.
George, thank you! Since my first debate, the LP has felt like family! Family doesn’t have to agree on everything, we can agree to disagree, and still be a united force defending freedom when needed.
In Kentucky we have a couple sayings, that I love, the first is “United We Stand – Divided We Fall” and the second is “Kentuckians are Unbridled Spirits”. Thank you for taking the time to get to know me.
Ianga, from the 4 debates that I’ve been to, you do see a variety of Libertarians, but the common link that I’ve seen is that they don’t want big government, and really they want to decrease it asap, and I absolutely agree with this, and they want to live their life, making choices for their own lives without being harassed by anyone including government at all levels, which I also agree on.
In Colorado I had an individual near our dinner table lean over and say, “I’m a Pastor too!” and I said, “OMG, that’s awesome!” Then he said that some people asked him, “How can a Libertarian be a Pastor?” and he told them, “Why couldn’t a Libertarian be a Pastor?”
He was really cool! I asked him, “Do you pray for people?” and he said “yes” and I asked, “Do you use oil, when you pray for people?” and he just smiled and he said, “No, I think that is more evangelicals”, LOL!
I use oil to pray for people, when they say it is ok, because I feel that it provides a type of covering or protection over them.
I got my BA in Religious Studies at the University of Arizona with training in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and split minors in Psychology and Women’s Studies.
I senior pastored for the first time from 1998-2000 in AZ as an Inner-City Pastor. I built the church up and then passed it on to another Pastor.
I then moved to TX to pursue my Masters in Educational Psychology at the University of Houston and filled in as a children’s pastor till the church could find and hire a full time children’s pastor.
I’ve done children’s ministry, youth ministry, adult ministry, community outreach, and praise and worship. Although I am not currently volunteering at any church, I still retain my role as Pastor as I still engage in pastoral counseling when other’s call me.
I have never performed a marriage. I was asked to marry a heterosexual couple early in my ministry and I declined. It has been my own personal decision not to perform marriages, however, with that being said, if I chose to do one, I would not want the federal government ever telling me who I could or could not perform a marriage for. This is my religious right.
Langa, as you noticed and stated, “I am making a sincere effort to learn about libertarian principles and apply them to various issues”, and I think that is why Libertarians are reaching out to me because we have the same goals for freedom but there is a wide variety of Libertarians and I believe that as a Libertarian Candidate, I have the duty to understand all the concerns that Libertarians have so that I can find ways to advocate and support Libertarians in all that I do as a Libertarian Presidential Candidate.
I will cut any program that is not required by the US Constitution including military spending as long as the cuts do not harm our national defense.
I want our borders secure but I would not build a wall! We just need to ensure that the health and property of our citizens are not placed in danger.
TK, you are probably right about the genetic explanation (if it is indeed a product of genetics).
I will readily concede that natural sciences, like biology, have never been my forte.
langa,
You seem to think that if sexual orientation is genetic, it’s passed on directly — if one or both of my parents are gay, I’ll be gay or whatever.
The far more likely case is that the less common sexual orientations are represented by recessives, e.g. two non-gay parents carrying a gene that did not express in them (because it was not passed on by both of THEIR parents) pass that gene on where, being the only factor, it does express.
Furthermore, the gene in question might be associated with other non-sexual-orientation characteristics that, at any given time, lend themselves to their carriers being more or less likely to reproduce, which would in turn affect the incidence of the sexual orientation in question.
Anyway, that’s about all I have to say about that. Like I said, I just don’t find it particularly philosophically or politically relevant.
I guess the question in more elaborate form would be: Is there any particular reason to assume that the incidence of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. will be the same over time and across generations?
OK, I see what you mean, although I don’t really know the answer. If it’s mostly environmental, I would guess that the percentage who self-identify would almost certainly be higher now than it was back then, given that there is far less stigma attached to homosexuality now than when I was a kid, only 20-30 years ago, much less over 60 years ago, when the Kinsey Report was released.
On the other hand, if it’s mostly genetic, I think it’s probably pretty similar. On the one hand, back then, there were a lot of gay people who “settled” into a straight lifestyle, got married, and had kids, while I would guess that happens a lot less often now. On the other hand, advances in medical technology have made it possible for gay or lesbian couples to have their “own” kids, with DNA from at least one of them. So, I don’t know whether gay people are having fewer kids now than back then, but I doubt the percentage is all that different, one way or another, especially since people in general are having fewer kids now than they did back then.
The question seems far too complex to answer with e.g. CDC-style epidemiology, which uses statistics to find correlations based on the fairly simple and predictable behaviors and vectors of pathogens. That’s probably not especially more informative than asking a Magic 8-Ball or consulting the Chinese Zodiac placemat from a buffet booth.
Yeah, I agree.
“Hahaha! I said Jedi instead of Jed.”
I’m good with it. 😉
“I’m not sure if I understand the question. Care to elaborate?”
The question being: “Is there any particular reason to believe that the percentage of Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, etc. is some kind of static thing?”
I guess the question in more elaborate form would be: Is there any particular reason to assume that the incidence of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. will be the same over time and across generations?
The 10% figure originally came, IIRC, from the Kinsey surveys of the 1940s.
Some people think that these things are cultural and environmental within the life of the particular subject. If so, there’s no particular reason to believe that “The Greatest Generation” vs. the “Baby Boomers” vs. “Generation X” vs. “Millennials” will all have the same percentage.
Ditto if, as some people believe, it’s mainly genetic — there could be cultural or environmental factors that militate toward carriers of the gene reproducing at different rates in different generations.
Obviously environmental, cultural, religious and political factors will also influence things like what would cause someone to self-define in what way, whether or not one will publicly disclose, etc.
The question seems far too complex to answer with e.g. CDC-style epidemiology, which uses statistics to find correlations based on the fairly simple and predictable behaviors and vectors of pathogens. That’s probably not especially more informative than asking a Magic 8-Ball or consulting the Chinese Zodiac placemat from a buffet booth.
Hahaha! I said Jedi instead of Jed.
Jedi, that may be so, but I still do not think that the figure would be as high as 1 out of 10 people in the USA.
As to your comment I just saw about not believing there are almost as many gays and leabians in the country as blacks, suffice it to say I strongly suspect there are more. Many, many more.
Andy, the key phrase in the article you linked to is “self-identified”. I suspect that there is a large number of people who have not admitted to themselves that they are gay or bisexual, let alone to others.
Is there any particular reason to believe that the percentage of Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, etc. is some kind of static thing?
I’m not sure if I understand the question. Care to elaborate?
OK, there may well be people who are so “in the closet” that it is not reflected in surveys/studies, but even so, I still don’t think that it is enough of the population to boost it up to 10%. So maybe counting people who are “in the closet” and who “act straight” the figure might get boosted up by 1% or maybe 2% or so, but probably not much more than that (if that high).
Well, even among people who are not in the closet, and are giving sincere answers to the survey, there is still a heavy dose of subjectivity present in self-classification. Let me give a couple of examples.
First, consider a woman who participates in (and enjoys) an occasional threesome with her husband and another woman. However, she has no desire to have one-on-one sex with other women, let alone to be in a relationship with another woman. If you could somehow survey all the women who fit this criteria, and they gave you their honest answer, I’m guessing that many of them would classify themselves as straight, while others would likely classify themselves as bisexual.
Or, to take a different example, imagine a man who has not only never had sex with another man, he has never even fantasized about it. However, he has often fantasized about transgender women (i.e. women who are anatomically male), and he has even considered acting on these fantasies, though he has not yet done so. Again, I could imagine such a man categorizing himself as either straight or as bisexual, and possibly even giving you a different answer from one day to the next. It’s not that he’s trying to deceive you; he just doesn’t really know which category he fits in.
While these are just examples, based on my conversations with other people, I’m pretty sure there are a lot more people than you would think whose sexuality is at least somewhat ambiguous. Because of that (as well as the “in the closet” factor), I think you have to take these survey results with a grain of salt.
(By the way, the ambiguous nature of sexuality is the main reason I find this topic so interesting. It’s fascinating to me that people place so much emphasis on putting themselves — and others — into categories that are, in some ways, really quite arbitrary.)
“some non-trivial number of whose answer to any confiscation scheme would be “come try to take them and see what happens.””
Then, Tom, there are the ones whose response to a confiscation scheme would not be to sit on their behinds awaiting the inevitable. Bad deal all around.
Is there any particular reason to believe that the percentage of Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, etc. is some kind of static thing?
“langa
March 27, 2016 at 20:44
‘As Breitbart News reported in July of 2014, the National Health Interview Survey, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – a highly definitive study from 2013 – found that fewer than 3 percent of respondents identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and only 1.6 percent self-identified as gay or lesbian.’
There’s a difference between the number of people who are gay or bisexual, compared to the number of people who are openly gay or bisexual. As Jed points out, there are probably still a lot of people in the closet, and so, any survey that is based on self-identification is likely to significantly underestimate the actual number of people who are LGBT.”
OK, there may well be people who are so “in the closet” that it is not reflected in surveys/studies, but even so, I still don’t think that it is enough of the population to boost it up to 10%. So maybe counting people who are “in the closet” and who “act straight” the figure might get boosted up by 1% or maybe 2% or so, but probably not much more than that (if that high).
People who are classified as being black or African American in the census make up 13% of the population. If the 10% figure for gays and bisexuals were true, then this would mean that there’d be almost as many gays and bisexuals in this country as there are blacks/African Americans. This does not strike me as being accurate.
As Breitbart News reported in July of 2014, the National Health Interview Survey, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – a highly definitive study from 2013 – found that fewer than 3 percent of respondents identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and only 1.6 percent self-identified as gay or lesbian.
There’s a difference between the number of people who are gay or bisexual, compared to the number of people who are openly gay or bisexual. As Jed points out, there are probably still a lot of people in the closet, and so, any survey that is based on self-identification is likely to significantly underestimate the actual number of people who are LGBT.
I support gun rights one thousand percent, but fortunately it’s an issue of almost no real importance.
That’s not to say it can’t be useful politically, but the simple fact is that there are more than 300 million guns in the hands of more than 100 million Americans, some non-trivial number of whose answer to any confiscation scheme would be “come try to take them and see what happens.”
“Short of establishing AndyLand, what would you suggest to address these attitudes?”
Unfortunately, I don’t know if there is realistically a lot that we can do. There needs to be a mass education campaign to teach leftists and immigrants why gun rights are important. I have tried to do this myself, and I’ve had a little bit of success with this, but some people are unreachable, and it would take a lot of money to be able to reach the number of people we’d have to reach to have a big impact. It would take a mass advertising campaign that showed how gun rights reduces crime, and how gun control has led to genocide and tyranny. It would be good to have teams of pro-gun rights activists canvassing all over the country, particularly in large urban areas, and particularly targeting left wing liberals and foreigners with a pro-gun rights, and anti-police state message. Inviting left wing liberals and immigrants to go to shooting ranges would be a plus as well. Teach them how to handle guns and maybe they won’t be as afraid of them anymore.
Another strategy that would work for the pro-gun rights side would be to spread the message of jury nullification, and that if there is no victim, there is no crime. It would be very difficult to prosecute people for non-violent gun control “offenses”, even in large urban areas, if the general public knew about jury nullification.
Electing strongly pro-gun rights Sheriffs who refuse to enforce any gun control laws, and who appoint strongly pro-gun rights deputies, and even better, if the Sheriff and his/her deputies were libertarians, would be another good way to counteract the anti-gun rights movement.
Libertarians are the most pro-gun rights people around, but libertarians are also a minority of the population, and there are lots of libertarians who do not really even understand the scope of the problem. Some libertarians have bought into what I’d call the false and foolish notion that mass statist migration (which is what we really have, as we do not really have free market migration) is always a good thing, no matter how many socialists, communists, theocrats, and welfare recipients it brings to the country (who then form voting blocks who vote to take away freedoms from those same libertarians). One would think that there’d be more libertarians calling for a repeal of the Refugee Resettlement Act, since the Refugee Resettlement Act uses TAX PAYER FUNDS to bring lots of foreigners into the country (many of whom hold theocratic and/or socialist ideologies), and then once here, they sign them up for every welfare program that they can, but there are so many left leaning “politically correct” libertarians (some of whom are reading this right now and are probably about to throw a shit fit) out there that you barely hear a peep out of them over this issue.
There is a movement in this country to create a disarmed population, because a disarmed population is easier to control. If gun rights are destroyed in this country, you can kiss whatever semblance of freedom is left in this country goodbye. There are people who want to dismantle the right to keep and bear arms in this country who have admitted that this is a long term goal. They want to brainwash the public into thinking that “gun are bad” and that they should surrender their right to keep and bear arms so the government can make them safe. They purposely hype up mass shootings (and I have spent a lot of time researching mass shootings, and the evidence has led me to believe that many of them are in fact being staged by the government to build support for more gun control laws) in the mainstream media, yet stories where guns were used successfully in self defense do not receive anywhere near the same amount of media coverage, nor do the statistics that show that gun ownership actually reduces crime, nor do they publicize the link between gun control and tyrannical governments and genocide.
Immigration can certainly be a wonderful thing, and there are certainly some immigrants who are great people and who do good things, but the fact of the matter is that the present statist mass migration is being used to enlarge the welfare state and to increase support for gun control laws. Libertarians are supposed to favor PEACEFUL people crossing borders, not socialists, communists, and theocrats, and we should not be surprised if the government policy of using welfare statism to attract more people to come here results in a population with a higher percentage of people who favor big government socialist programs and gun control laws, particularly when it is the government who “educates” these people in the public school system, and it is the government who does a lousy job of teaching them about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, in the Naturalization process, and it is the government that fraudulently swears new people in as “American citizens” who hold points of view that are at odds with the Bill of Rights.
If I were elected President, I’d create a much more stringent Naturalization process (I’d also work to cut off the welfare magnet), where would be American citizens (and yes, I realize that from an anarchist perspective, there is no such thing as a “citizen”, but this is a different discussion) would have to pass a difficult class on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as well as a class on free market economics. I’d also create a class that focused on the 2nd amendment, which would include units on the history of gun rights and how gun rights was essential to the American Revolution, an examination of gun rights and crime statistics, and the link between gun control and tyrannical governments and genocide, and the class would also include a trip to a firing range. Just imagine if in order to become an American citizen, every immigrant had to pass something like Michael Badnarik’s Constitution Class.
I think that the solutions I have presented would go a long way towards swinging the direction in this country back towards individual liberty, but implementing these suggestions is much easier said than done.
Speaking for myself, I’d say that I am more in the Rationalist camp. I do have ancestors who fought in the American Revolution (as revolutionaries), and who were pioneers/frontiersman, and my father did shoot guns as a kid (this was more through his mothers side of the family, as they were an old American family of Scottish and English stock and were farmers/my father’s father was the son of immigrant parents (Dutch and Spanish), and he grew up in a major city, so I’m not sure if he was into gun rights or not), but my father did not keep up with the gun rights tradition, so I did not grow up with guns in the house. My father is not really anti-gun rights, but he just never got that into it (probably because the only times he got to shoot guns as a kid was when he visited his mother’s family’s farm in the summer).
So even though I do have an ancestral connection to the American tradition of gun rights, it was not really passed down to me through family, so I came to the position of supporting gun rights by analyzing crime statistics and history, and coming to the logical conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms makes sense, because basically, the government can’t provide adequate protection from criminals, and governments become corrupt and tyrannical themselves, and without the right to keep and bear arms you’ve got little means of resisting and revolting against a corrupt and tyrannical government.
“I clicked through one of your links, and it showed Blacks at 66% and White NH at 42%. It also showed ‘urban’ people more interested in gun control and people in the East and West more interested in gun control than people in the South and Midwest. It might be that certain ethnicities and races are somewhat a product of where they live, too.”
Yes, I think that urban area vs. rural area has something to do with it. People in rural areas are more likely to support gun rights than those in urban areas.
Early gun control laws in this country were pushed by two groups, 1) Racists who did not want blacks to have guns (it is always easier to control people who are disarmed), and 2) Wealthy people in large cities (most likely old English upper class families) who did not want the lower class, many of whom were immigrants (mostly Irish at the time/also, keep in mind that in early American history, lots of Irish and lower class English were indentured servants, which means that they were slaves for a specified period of time) to have guns.
Big cities like New York City were some of the first places to enact gun control laws and to have uniformed police patrolling the streets (note that police as we know them today did not exist in early American history (and there was little crime back then), and that modern policing started in big cities).
Large urban areas have long been landing places for immigrants, and the same is true today. So if you go to a large urban area, you are more likely to find people who have no ancestral connection to the American tradition of gun rights, or who may have had an ancestral connection to the American tradition of gun rights, but it was lost in their family for one reason or another.
Big cities like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc…, have lots of immigrants, and they also are home to lots of left wing “liberals”, aka-big city liberals. So immigrants who come to this country from say China or Korea or India or Mexico or some other country (and I include recent white European immigrants in with this as well, as most of them do not support the right to keep and bear arms either), frequently move into large urban areas, and most of the native people whom they encounter are big city liberals. These people typically do not hang around with anyone who is into gun rights, and they have never been hunting or target shooting, and nobody really explains to them why gun rights are important and are an essential element of a free society (and some of these immigrants did not even really come here seeking a free society). The government does a shit job of educating people in the school system, and in the immigration Naturalization process (which is probably done intentionally, as the government wants more obedient slaves), plus most of what they hear in the mainstream media about guns is negative (note that the government has been in bed with the media for decades – do a search for the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird).
Right now there is a gun control ballot initiative petition that is paying mercenary petition circulators a lot of money in California, and it will almost certainly qualify for the November ballot. I talked to one mercenary petitioner I know who is working on it, and this person told me that he is surprised at how many people are signing it to give away their rights. Given the demographics of California, a state with lots of immigrants, and lots of big city liberals, this initiative will likely pass. A gun control ballot initiative made the ballot via petition and passed in Washington in 2014 (note the large number of big city liberals in the Seattle area, which is the most populated part of the state). There is another gun control initiative that was put on the ballot in Nevada via petition and is set to be voted on in November, and I will not be overly surprised if that initiative passes as well. Nevada has historically been a pro-gun rights state, but due to demographic shifts, with lots of immigrants, and lots of big city liberals from California, and other states, having moved to Nevada, I would not be surprised if this once “cowboy” state passes this new gun control law. It would be a lot more difficult to pass a new control law in a state with different demographics, like say the more “cowboy” states of Wyoming or Montana, or a more “redneck” state like Alabama or Tennessee, or the more libertarian and traditional conservative leaning New Hampshire. I guarantee you that if you took a petition for a new gun control law to a place where there were lots of rednecks/hicks/hillbillies/cowboys, you’d have a very difficult time getting any signatures, but take that same petition to a place where there are lots of left wing liberals, and lots of people who are recent immigrants or the offspring of recent immigrants, and it would be a much easier petition to get signed. I have heard that petition circulators in California are making lots of money off of this gun control petition in places like San Francisco and other parts of California that are bastions of the left (although petitioners in more conservative places in California are having a more difficult time getting people to sign that petition).
Just to be clear here, I do not really have any affinity for conservatives (and especially for Republicans), as there are a lot of things wrong with them (including a Republican establishment that frequently betrays gun rights), but I am just pointing out that conservatives tend to be better on gun rights than liberals, and that gun rights is one of the most important issues, because without gun rights, there is no “teeth” to defend any other rights, so basically, take away the right to keep and bear arms, and the whole house of cards (for liberty) comes crumbling down.
robert capozzi said: “me: Any theories on why this would be?”
People who support gun rights basically fall into the two following camps:
1) The Traditionalists.
2) The Rationalists.
Most people in general are not rational. The majority of gun rights supporters are gun rights supporters because it was passed down to them as an American tradition through their family, mostly through their father or a grandfather. There are some pro-gun rights ladies out there as well, but support for gun rights is more male oriented. Going back in history, it was the men who were the hunters and the protectors, while women staid at home and took care of the children. Guns are tools for hunters and protectors, so the American tradition of gun rights is generally passed down from the father or grandfather.
People who have ancestors who fought in the American Revolution, or who were pioneers/frontiersman, are more likely to have the pro-gun rights American tradition passed down through their family. Many of these people are hunters, and as children, their fathers or grandfathers took them out hunting.
The ethnic background of the people who have ancestors who fought in the American Revolution and/or were pioneers/frontiersman would be English, Scottish, and some Irish, French, and German (most Germans came in after the American Revolution, but many Germans became farmers, therefore living in rural areas and becoming more likely to own guns), and maybe a few others sprinkled in here and there.
If you examine the demographic studies (or just observe the crowd at any gun show), you’ll find that Americans who are classified as white in the census do have a majority support for gun rights, however, it is not by a large amount, UNLESS you break down the demographic even further, and if you only survey white Americans who’d be classified as being “rednecks” or “hicks” or “hillbillies” or “cowboys” (cowboys would be more present in western states like Wyoming, Montana, parts of Texas, etc…). If you limited your survey to rednecks/hicks/hillbillies/cowboys, you’d find a super majority in support of gun rights. The only group that you’d find that would have higher support for gun rights than rednecks/hicks/hillbillies/cowboys would be if you limited the survey to people who identify as libertarian or constitutionalist, but this would be a small segment of the population.
Notice how rednecks/hicks/hillbillies/cowboys are regularly smeared and made fun of in the media? There’s the whole stereotype of the evil racist “white male gun nut” that is used to demonize the 2nd amendment.
Now just imagine if rednecks/hicks/hillbillies/cowboys become such a minority, due to statist mass migration, and due to welfare state breeding (which frequently removes daddy from the picture, so there is no father around to pass down the gun rights tradition, and remember, the gun rights tradition is usually passed down by the father or grandfather, so if there is no daddy around, unless the child has a pro-gun rights grandfather, that child is not likely to be taken out hunting or target shooting by his or her mother), that they will be easily outvoted in elections.
(I REALIZE THAT I AM GENERALIZING HERE, AND THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO RULES, BUT I AM DOING THIS TO POINT OUT TRENDS, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IF YOU ATTEND ANY GUN SHOW ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY (AND I HAVE ATTENDED A LOT OF GUN SHOWS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY). )
2) The Rationalists are people who did not have the American tradition of gun rights passed down to them through their family, either because, a) They did not have any ancestors that fought in the American Revolution, or who were pioneers/frontiersman; or b) Their family did not continue the tradition, perhaps due to somebody dying, or due to intermarrying with people who did not come from the pro-gun rights tradition, or because of where they live (maybe they live in big city like New York City, or Chicago, or Los Angeles, or etc…, rather than in a rural area), or for some other reason. The Rationalist does not support gun rights out of tradition, but rather because they came to the logical conclusion after looking at crime statistics and studying history, or perhaps through personal experience (maybe they got mugged, and wished that they had had a gun), that it makes good sense to have the right to keep and bear arms.
MOST PEOPLE IN GENERAL ARE NOT RATIONAL. Most gun rights supporters in this country are in the Traditionalist camp rather than the Rational conclusion camp. I’d say that Traditionalists are probably 80%-90% of gun rights supporters, while Rationalists are probably 10%-20% of gun rights supporters.
So when you take into consideration that most people are not rational, this means that most immigrants are not rational (and yes, most native born Americans are not rational either/if the majority of people were rational, a lot of the problems we face would go away). Most immigrants come from countries where there is no tradition of gun rights like there is here in the land territory know as the USA. So they don’t have any gun rights tradition to pass down in their families.
Andy,
I find it odd that when collecting petition signatures you also canvass everyone you meet as to his or her sexual orientation. Or are you claiming some kind of sixth sense on the matter?
Gallup: Americans ‘Greatly Overestimate’ Percentage of Gays, Lesbians in U.S.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/21/gallup-americans-greatly-overestimate-percentage-of-gays-lesbians-in-u-s/
From the article: “A new Gallup poll finds that Americans’ estimates of the percentage of gays and lesbians in the United States is ‘many times higher’ than the actual percentage, demonstrating a distorted perception on the part of Americans of this demographic group.
According to the poll, Americans estimate on average that 23 percent of their fellow citizens are gay or lesbian.
As Breitbart News reported in July of 2014, the National Health Interview Survey, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – a highly definitive study from 2013 – found that fewer than 3 percent of respondents identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and only 1.6 percent self-identified as gay or lesbian.
In 2011, Gallup found Americans’ estimate of the percentage of gays in the population was 25 percent.
Accompanying the vast distortion in the estimates of the percentage of gays and lesbians in the United States, militant LGBT groups have pressured activists in the judiciary to strike down state laws that restrict marriage to one man and one woman. Gallup indicates that, according to its survey, the percentage of Americans who favor legalized same-sex marriage is now at 60 percent.”
MY COMMENT: So according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, less than 3% of Americans are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This is much closer to what I thought that it would be. The 10% figure sounds wildly inflated.
I have gathered petition signatures in 33 states over a period of 16 years. I’ve been all over the place, north, south, east, west, and center. Big cities and small towns. I have spoken to I don’t even know how many people in every demographic imaginable. If gays were really 10% of the population, I think that I’d encounter them a lot more often. If this theory were true, and I spoke to say 1,000 random people per day, this would mean that on average, I’d have talked to 100 gays and bisexuals per day. I’d say that this almost never happens. Hell, I gathered petition signatures in West Hollywood, California one time and I doubt that even there that 1 out of 10 people whom I spoke to that day were gay.
1 out of 10 people being gay or bisexual strikes me as a wildly inflated number.
I’m not saying this to put anyone down, but rather to point out flawed statistics. I never supported anti-gay marriage laws, and I support the same rights for everyone.
It just seems difficult to determine, non-capturing of the people who care about related issues, and irrelevant on both a moral and practical level as regards policy.
Those things are all true. Nevertheless, I still find it to be an interesting topic.
langa,
I didn’t say that there’s anything wrong with speculating about the number of people who are gay. It just seems difficult to determine, non-capturing of the people who care about related issues, and irrelevant on both a moral and practical level as regards policy.
It’s also something I’m particularly ill-positioned to speculate on by virtue of a biased data set. If I were to base an estimate on my own day-to-day personal associations, I’d have to conclude that a super-majority of the population is LGBTQ.
The percentage of people who are openly LGBT is low. Given the stigma that still exists, I see no reason to believe it impossible or improbable that the actual number couldn’t be much higher, far more than 10%.
Might part of the problem also be that many of the biggest proponents of gun rights and “smaller government” are closely associated with racist, bigot, scumbag type groups like The Republican Party, and Tea Party?
That’s definitely part of the problem. The MSM, and especially groups like the SPLC, go out of their way to portray anyone who wants smaller government as some sort of Timothy McVeigh clone.
I don’t see what’s wrong with speculating about the number of people who are gay. Of course, it doesn’t mean that they should have any more or any fewer rights, but I haven’t heard anyone here suggest that it does mean that. That seems like a straw man, designed to silence discussion about an interesting topic that, for some odd reason, seems to make some people here rather uncomfortable.
As to my own speculation, I would say that it all depends on how you define the terms. It’s important to remember that in addition to homosexuality and heterosexuality, there are also many various degrees of bisexuality, including not only “true” bisexuals, but also people who are “mostly” gay or “mostly” straight, such as those who are mainly attracted to one gender but have “experimented” with the other.
My own (totally unscientific) guess is that, if you exclude bisexuals, the number of people who are “totally” gay would be no more than 3%, max. On the other hand, if you include all of the various degrees of bisexuality, then the number of people who are something other than “totally” straight would probably be at least 10%, and quite possibly higher.
Paulie may be out gathering signatures on ballot access petitions: an admirable activity.
One person’s Opinion I’d love to see on this topic?
Paulie
Where is he, anyone heard from him?
more…
Let’s bring the issue of positioning and targeting closer to home.
To solve the anarchist problem, I sincerely believe that Harlos Nonarchy Pods are the answer. Anarchists have a point: They never signed any stinking contract, why should they have to obey monopoly laws they object to? If the civil society allowed anarchists to secede onto their own property, it creates a win/win. Anarchists are free, and civil society can go about its business.
However, while Pods make a lot of sense from a moral perspective, I would not counsel a pol to run on the issue. Anarchists are few and largely invisible minority, aside from the occasional A-in-circle graffiti one sees. The injustice toward anarchists simply hasn’t risen to the level that makes the issue relevant in the Public Square.
Rhinehold: The military … has been aggressive on other continents in areas that are not necessary for US defense, but for EUROPE’s defense.
Well, not entirely. The U.S. military’s “aggressive” actions have largely been for ISRAEL’s defense.
Has everyone forgotten that some of the reasons given for the Iraq War were that 1. Saddam was building nukes with which to threaten Israel, and 2. Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel?
Even the military aid we give to the Egyptians and Saudis is largely so they can repress their local Islamists, who would be a greater threat to Israel than are the current Egyptian/Saudi regimes.
We’re certainly not rushing troops in to defend Ukraine against Russia. Our aggressive troop invasions (as opposed to military bases) have mostly been in the Mideast (Serbia excepted), the reason being to make the Mideast safer for Israel. That was the Neocons’ grand plan. (Not that that plan worked out too well.)
I don’t even believe that the Iraq War was about controlling oil. Saddam was always eager to sell his oil. There was never a need to invade him.
tk, yes, we surely don’t know.
As to whether it matters, I’d say it does. If there were only 2 gays and 2 lesbians on earth, and they wanted to have a same-gender marriage, I suppose I’d be for that, but since the numbers are so small, I’m not sure the issue would be mobilizable.
Instead, there is enough of a critical mass of gays and lesbians that many/most fair-minded people favor marriage equality.
Is there some particular reason why it matters what percentage of the population is lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual, etc.? Are there extra bonus rights, and perhaps a set of steak knives, for breaking 10%? A penalty box for coming in below 2%?
There have been numerous studies using various definitions and methodologies over the year, and of course they all return different results. There are really only two honest answers:
1) We don’t know; and
2) It shouldn’t matter.
Rhinehold said: “And sorry, the bible is not against homosexuality in any meaningful way, as a former pastor myself, I get that a lot of people misread the bible and see that in there, but it really isn’t. ”
I agree. It’s just pulling out selective scripture to justify their prejudice. This is one of the reasons I stopped attending organized churches.
I’m not going to justify my estimate of 10 % except to say that in my world AT LEAST 10 % of the people I know are gay, bisexual or someplace else on the spectrum away from heterosexuality. My in-laws (who are both ordained ministers) have 2 gay grandchildren out of ten. Clearly, other people have had different experience. This doesn’t change the fact that we have no right to force them to live differently.
There was a Johnson-Petersen debate a few days ago. It might be good to have it up as an article.
Andy,
No its not. You have every right and frequently are to be an ass. And I have every right to state that racial profiling is an act of being an ass. Racial profiling is an act of treating a group of people different based upon meaningless criteria. The genetic difference been you and a Hispanic or a Asian is exceedingly small. Using these small difference to categorize people to separate them into different groups and to treat them differently are methods of fear and not intellect.
People that do so will get no respect from me.
sm: This type of profiling has no place in libertarian politics.
me: Agree in part, disagree in part. Politics is a marketing exercise, as is persuasion generally. Different communities of people tend to communicate in a kind of code, and being mindful of the various codes can be useful in building bridges with “profiles” of people who might be more inclined to hear and hopefully buy into a message.
There are geodemographical strata of folk who might be more inclined to vote L in 16, and crafting messages and soundbites that get their attention could help to maximize the L vote and buzz.
For ex., if (assume GJ) says in his media interviews, “I’m for marriage equality,” odds are high that gays will largely like what he says. So will many, possibly most, D and D leaners . So will many R leaners and coastal, non-evangelical Rs.
Not all will, though. Many churchgoing black Ds may not. Evangelical Rs may not. These demographics may tend to be low-opportunity targets.
So he might want to take the opportunity to position himself as a friend of marriage equality…to make a point of making sure he “ticks off that box.”
Other issues, however, he might want to downplay. Homeschooling might play great among evangelicals but less for suburban soccer Moms (not all, of course). He might not want to always tick that box. That doesn’t mean he should not ever talk about school choice, but he might downplay it.
Selective positioning is not the same as pandering, I submit.
It’s vital — above all else — to be authentic, to have a clear, coherent, thoughtful set of talking points. (This, however, should not include ANY discussion of Sharia Law, as he clearly has screwed the pooch on the issue.) But what makes the list and what doesn’t is an art, one that if properly executed could be important in breaking out of the 1%* result to the 5-10% (maybe even 15%) this-guy-is-interesting-and-worth-a-look status.
That is a bunch of “politically correct” bullshit, Steve.
If large groups of people are voting to destroy the right to keep and bear arms, and to expand the welfare state, then it is highly relevant to identify who those people are.
Demographic studies are highly useful, and this is why advertisers and various political groups spend lots of money on demographic studies.
I agree that gays should have the same rights as everyone else (not special rights though, like being able to force bakeries to bake wedding cakes for them), but if somebody lies to inflate their numbers in the population I am going to call them out for it. The 1 out of 10 Americans being gay figure sounds like bullshit to me.
Shawna, sorry but you really just don’t get what a libertarian is, and that’s unfortunate since you seem to be seeking that party’s nomination.
The military is supposed to DEFEND the US. But that is not what the military has been doing. It has been aggressive on other continents in areas that are not necessary for US defense, but for EUROPE’s defense. The US spends so much on our defense that the rest of Europe does not have to spend hardly anything at all, they know the US is there to protect them. Sorry, but they need to step up and start defending themselves.
libertarianism is about a single idea, a single view, that states quite clearly “People should be free to do what they want with their lives as long as they don’t violate the rights of others to do the same.” A libertarian applies that though process to any and every law passed. You say you don’t support gay marriage, sorry you aren’t libertarian then. YOU have no right to tell two other people whether or not they should be allowed to form a union, period. It’s no one else’s business.
A basic understanding of what NATURAL rights are as opposed to POSTIIVE rights would help you a great deal going forward. A Natural right just exists, a Positive right requires that someone else must give up a part of their freedom in order to fulfill that right.
Also, a strong understanding that government is, at it’s base, force. Every law ever passed is enFORCEd. Government doesn’t pass suggestions, or guidelines, they pass laws. No law should ever be on the books that requires force for something that is no one’s business but theirs. Period.
If you are serious about running as a representative of the Libertarian party, knowing a little bit about what the basics of the party stands for is a good idea. As someone who has been a member for 25 years and written extensively about libertarian ideals (you can read some of those articles at http://www.rhinehold.org or http://www.watchblog.com) it took me literally 5 minutes to read through your comments and see that you aren’t ready to represent this party with what you have stated here.
” I sure as hell, as a pastor with the authority to perform a marriage, won’t have the federal government tell me who I can or cannot marry. ”
The problem here is that marriages have been given federal and state rights that do not exist outside of marriage, preventing those who seek to form a union from those rights is criminal. And unconstitutional. However, as a ‘pastor’, you are free to only marry people who belong to your church. If your church is a homophobic one, then you should be safe. And sorry, the bible is not against homosexuality in any meaningful way, as a former pastor myself, I get that a lot of people misread the bible and see that in there, but it really isn’t. Jesus himself cautioned against throwing stones and would wash the feet of sinners, yet somehow today’s ‘religious’ people seem to think they have some right to tell others how to live their lives as if they have some sort of moral authority over them. You don’t. Period. Ever.
Critical thought is a great thing to learn as well if you are going to start running for office, you might recognize some of the missteps in your own views before your opponents tear them to shreds, which I’m afraid is what would happen to you in any debate…
is anybody but me concerned about the racial and sexual profiling turn this discussion has taken?
As far as “gay” rights goes… to me they are human rights… and I don’t care if their proportion is as low as only being one person in the entire country… they still have the same rights.
The talk about Asian and Hispanic populations and what they believe is highly prejudicial and meant to create wedges. This type of profiling has no place in libertarian politics.
I think that gays should be free to marry, however, I agree with Shane here about the 10% figure. I do not buy 10% of the population being gay. That would be 1 out of 10 people in this country. I do not believe that the figure is that high. 2% or 3% I could believe, but 10% sounds too high.
I give all candidates the benefit of the doubt the first time around. Then I analyze actions and speeches.
Candidate: Shawna Sterling
I would suggest running for a lower office where you could gather name recognition; especially if that state didn’t have ballot access. Candidates can use ballot drives to further their own campaigns. Running for a lower office could also act as a “school” for you in regards to maturations at podiums, word choice, and stage presence. You might have great ideas, but you need to have the ability to articulate them clearly.
Also, you are a Pastor (not sure of what denomination). I am aware of a few religious persons running in the LP banner, but your facebook banner states “Pro America”. It might be that you serve too many Gods.
It is possible that a better fit for your future campaigns might be the Constitution Party.
Just a few observations this Easter morn.
Though I am a libertarian, I never bought into the “10% of Americans are gay” talking point, which I assume is largely propaganda.
From all my reading, I think that lesbians are more likely 0.5 to 1% of women. Gay men are maybe around 3% of men, give or take 1%.
Might part of the problem also be that many of the biggest proponents of gun rights and “smaller government” are closely associated with racist, bigot, scumbag type groups like The Republican Party, and Tea Party?
In the case of libertarianism, we don’t package gun rights and smaller government with racism, bigotry, and just general stupidity like the Republicans. Maybe Hispanics and Asians will be a little more likely to buy the arguments when they come from people that they don’t feel threatened by.
Jill Pyeatt: “DO care how people lives their lives, and by believing that some 10 % or more of the population can’t get married, you are trying to force your views on them. Not okay.”
Jill are you saying that the gay population is above 10%?
nf: There is NOBODY running for the LP nomination this year who is worth a damn. This is such an important year to get it right and yet the LP will screw it up yet again. I am truly beginning to believe the LP is utterly hopeless.
me: As one who is on record suggesting that the LP as constituted (to the CotOS) is (and always has been) hopeless, I nevertheless find this an unfair statement. If the candidates don’t meet your requirements, that’s a function of who declared for the nomination, not the LP. And, perhaps, if you had a candidate in mind. You had the option of founding the New Federalist Draft X committee. 😉
aj: So 75% of Hispanics, and 80% of Asians want to use the ballot box to destroy gun rights in America, and some Libertarians don’t see this as a problem? I’d call it a problem myself.
me: Any theories on why this would be?
I clicked through one of your links, and it showed Blacks at 66% and White NH at 42%. It also showed “urban” people more interested in gun control and people in the East and West more interested in gun control than people in the South and Midwest. It might be that certain ethnicities and races are somewhat a product of where they live, too.
Short of establishing AndyLand, what would you suggest to address these attitudes?
“Statistics aren’t people.”
there are three types of liars…
Liars, damn liars and liars who use statistics….
I might be the rare individual who is in all three groups.
“Look at the statistics”
Statistics aren’t people.
The idea that none of the people conforming to this or that demographic description should be able to cross a gang turf line because your horoscope has told you that SOME of them MIGHT support the gang is 1) fucking stupid and 2) not libertarian.
Pew Research Center: Hispanics Favor Bigger Role for Government
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/hispanics-favor-bigger-role-for-government/
From the article: “When it comes to the size of government, Hispanics are more likely than the general public to say they would rather have a bigger government which provides more services than a smaller government which provides fewer services.
Some 75% of Hispanics hold this view; just 19% say they prefer a smaller government. By contrast, just 41% of the public at large voice support for a bigger government.”
Views of Gun Control — A Detailed Demographic Breakdown
http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/01/13/views-of-gun-control-a-detailed-demographic-breakdown/
Jill Pyeatt said: “I also think you are misinterpreting our immigration plank. Most of the immigrants we have here in southern California are from Mexico. Are they are threat to our our country? Absolutely not.”
I consider anyone who is not a libertarian to be a threat to freedom.
Look at the statistics, immigrants are more likely to support big government socialist programs and gun control laws, and they are also more likely to use government welfare programs.
This is from the Washington Post:
The NRA will fail. It’s inevitable.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/
From the article: “The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades.
Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.
Asian Americans also represent a growing anti-gun demographic. Although only about 5 percent of the population today, the Asian American population is predicted to triple over the next few decades. A recent poll of Asian American registered voters found that 80 percent supported stricter gun laws.”
So 75% of Hispanics, and 80% of Asians want to use the ballot box to destroy gun rights in America, and some Libertarians don’t see this as a problem? I’d call it a problem myself.
Take away gun rights, and you destroy whatever is left of freedom in this country.
Now this does not mean that they are all bad, but a majority of them clearly do not get it on gun rights, and this makes lots of them voting a threat, because gun rights are one of the essential elements to having a free society.
Shawna Joy Sterling: I can’t get my supporters nationwide into the LP if this party only goes for 1% or 2% or even 5% or 10%. They want a chance to win our country back. We can’t do this by just striving for 5% or 10% of the votes. … If the LP delegates give me the LP Presidential nomination, I can help the LP win the White House in November.
If you have enough supporters to place you in the White House, why haven’t they already placed you in the U.S. Senate, or at lease the House?
You talk of millions of phantom voters, just waiting for a chance to elect you president. Yet you haven’t even won a minor office yet. It causes one to doubt your claims.
Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root promised they’d bring in many supporters due to their “celebrity status.” They didn’t, though they were more well known than you.
As for the military, I think there’s room for massive budget cuts and still have enough for defense. I would:
* Eliminate all overseas military bases. We have no business in other countries.
* Withdraw from the U.S., NATO, and all military alliances. End all military aid to all nations.
* Cut the Army by at least 90%. We don’t need a standing army in peacetime. A Navy, Air Force, and missile defense are enough to protect us in peacetime. Large armies are for occupying countries. We don’t need it. A small Marines Corp or small Army are enough to send in troops in an emergency.
I agree, I can’t imagine a libertarian supporting [Sterling]. But then again, Libertarians supported Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root, and NewFederalist just said above that he’d vote for the Prohibition Party’s candidate before he’d vote for a libertarian who is not without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke. So I’m guessing that the variety out there is greater than either your imagination or mine.
Well, even though I’m not supporting her, I think she would be a better choice than someone like Petersen. At least Sterling seems to be making a sincere effort to learn about libertarian principles and apply them to various issues. I think she needs to rethink some of these issues (like her reluctance to cut military spending, as well as her desire to seal the border), but at least she’s willing to learn, and to keep an open mind. I give her a lot of credit for that, and if she sticks around the LP long enough, she might eventually be someone I could support in some future election.
Petersen, on the other hand, is just another narcissistic conman with a “fusionism” fetish, and obvious contempt for libertarian principles. Wait, didn’t we already have someone just like that on an LP ticket? I can’t remember the guy’s name, but I remember he had awesome teeth. One phony, narcissistic asshole per century is more than enough for me.
Good for Johnson. I’d probably vote for any independent who polled over 10%, presuming I didn’t just hear about them in the few months before November (and their names aren’t Bloomberg or Trump or someone else with no heart or no brain).
I think any libertarian would poll about the same, for what that’s worth.
Shawna,
Welcome to the Libertarian Party and thank you for giving and explaining your views on IPR.
Shawna Joy Sterling,
A fairly rational statement other then restricting cutting of defense spending.
The US “Defense” budget is 595.7 billion dollars. We spend more then the next 12 countries combined. The 12 being in order China, Saudia Arabia, UK, Russia, India, Japan, Germany, South Korea, France, Brazil, Australia and Italy.
If we just wanted to match the spending of the next top 5 China, Saudia Arabia, UK, Russia and India we could cut our spending to 383.3 billion a savings of 212.4 billion
And I think we would be just a safe as we are now and the rest of the world would be a great deal safer.
Andy,
If that button existed, sure, I’d press it. But it doesn’t. When I run for office or help others do so, I craft policy proposals that presuppose the possibility, however slim, of winning and having to actually do things.
As far as incrementalism is concerned, I founded a specifically incrementalist political party.
Thomas Knapp said: ” My own congressional campaign platform is a bit more ambitious and detailed — I support cutting the US military budget by 75% over ten years.”
Wow, I’m surprised to see Tom take such an incrementalist position.
I am not saying that this is bad, just kind of surprising, being that you frequently come off as a “push the anarchy button right now” kind of guy.
Gene Berkman said: “As for Darryl Perry being a good representative of The Libertarian Party or the Libertarian viewpoint – I don’t see it, based on his writings or his statements. He tries to sound ‘radical’ but he does not have the familiarity with history or current issues to enable him to make a compelling case to someone who does not already agree with his viewpoint. To others, he comes off as somewhat fringey, or even kookie.”
Darryl Perry does a news segment that gets aired on a daily basis, multiple times per day, on the Liberty Radio Network. He is also one of the hosts of Free Talk Live, and they frequently discuss current events.
There are aspects of his campaign to criticize, but I don’t think that it is fair to say that he is not well informed.
Here’s a link to The Liberty Radio Network: http://lrn.fm/
Here’s a link to Free Talk Live: https://www.freetalklive.com/
Here is a link to the news segment he does: http://fppradio.com/
Thomas,
I first want to thank you for your service! Here is my pledge, if there is any way to cut the military budget without putting our national security at risk, I will work to do that.
As President, I will then gain access to the reports and personnel whom could provide me the best briefings on this issue. As a Libertarian President I would also seek the guidance of the LP and other Libertarians to help determine the best areas to cut the military budget.
This is the deal, I would rather cut the homeland security budget, international aid, and United Nations spending, then touch our Defense spending, but also I have stated that I will abolish all federal programs that are not required by the US Constitution, so if there are programs that are in the Defense spending that are not required by the US Constitution, specifically are not required to defend the US our US Constitution and our US Bill of Rights, then I would work to, as Thomas said, cut the military budget in areas that wouldn’t affect our National Security.
Stewart, why would I care what you do in the privacy of your own home, of course as long as you are consenting adults! I don’t care. I don’t want to know. That is your business, LOL! I just don’t want you or anyone else trying to tell me how to live my life.
Thomas, I didn’t engage in any major campaigning for the US Senate, I ran to gain intelligence. I had a website and I did one debate and maybe two interviews. I did not run ads, or engage in any real campaigning. Also, there were more like 7,214 (2.03%) http://elect.ky.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/Election%20Results/2010-2019/2014/2014%20Primary%20Election%20Results.pdf who voted and these were limited to Republican registered primary voters as it was a closed primary in KY and would not reflect my nationwide supporters, and when I say supporters, I’m not just talking about Republicans.
I then filed with the KY Secretary of State as a write-in in the general but after I saw the Libertarian US Senate Candidate David Patterson have my back against KET who worked to get both of us out of the general debate by creating and raising polling requirements, I withdrew my write-in filing and I publicly endorsed on my website David Patterson the Libertarian Candidate for US Senate.
So, I guess you could say that my endorsement of David Patterson a Libertarian Candidate was when I first began supporting the Libertarian Party and that was back in 2014!
BTW, Mitch McConnell spent $27,812,401 in his run for the US Senate http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do
and Matt Bevin spent $4,444,767 in his run for the US Senate. http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=S4KY00109&tabIndex=1
Matt lost and then ran for governor and won.
I only used a website, one debate, a forum, a couple interviews and no major campaigning.
Stewart, Mitch McConnell took Rand Paul everywhere with him, Kentuckians love Rand Paul and we were all told to hold our nose and support Mitch so that Rand could be President of the US!
Well guess what, we got screwed, Rand dropped out and now we are stuck with McConnell for 6 more years!
And guess what Mitch has already spent $711,645 towards his 2020 run! http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=S2KY00012&tabIndex=1
I’m not bragging about 2.03% but it’s not bad when all I used was a website and a couple interviews.
This is not about me Stewart, this is about We the People and I try to express that at every Libertarian debate that I go to.
I would never say that God told me I would win, ever, because with God there is free will.
I can say that if the LP gives me the nomination I will run to win and we will have a real chance at winning.
I don’t have issues with people not of the heterosexual persuasion! I already stated that the federal government should have nothing to do with marriage.
These are issues to be handled by the States and We the People pursuant to the US Constitution. And, if you don’t feel that the state should have any business in reinforcing married couples whether they be heterosexual/homosexual couples by telling them that they have to make a commitment to a lifetime marriage or that there can only be two in the marriage in order to get specific benefits then you have a voice to advocate for what you want.
NewFederalist – So who are you supporting for the Libertarian Presidential nomination?
Stewart – 😉
Thomas said, “It’s in Republicans’ interest to ensure that the Libertarian Party runs the weakest candidate possible”.
Exactly.
Marc Allan Feldman!
Out of all the other LP Presidential Candidates you’re the one who I really enjoy listening to during the debates! I’m so glad that you will also be at the Texas debate! See you there!
Feldman said, “not a cataclysm – but a revolution in thinking. We cannot bring it about. But we can agitate, catalyze, and be in the right place at the right time. There are signs that the revolution in thinking may have already begun”.
This is a perfect way to describe it! Every debate I’ve been to, in Mississippi, Georgia, Illinois, and Colorado, so far, you can feel it! I will miss California which I am sad about, but I will be able to make it to Texas and that debate is going to be awesome!
BTW those who think that Libertarians as a whole won’t accept me, I’ve not seen that at any debates I’ve been to. If anything they are pulling me to the side and giving me tips! I’ll take all the advice I can get 🙂 Everyone has been super cool and welcoming!
Jill – God knows my heart and what I’m telling you is the truth; I don’t care how you live your life. Some of the coolest guys I’ve been around are gay. They make me laugh and they don’t hit on me, LOL! And, I appreciate that because I’m not interested in getting married, as my life it dedicated to God, helping others, and fighting for freedom for all of us.
What consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is their own business. I don’t care who gets married to who, but I sure as hell, as a pastor with the authority to perform a marriage, won’t have the federal government tell me who I can or cannot marry.
That’s not forcing my views on anyone, that’s defending my religious rights.
And Jill, that is ok.
Concerning Defense, I am against the aggressive attacks on countries who have not attacked us. Hillary, Petraeus, and Obama all engaged in illegally arming via the CIA US enemies al-Qaeda in Iraq’s al-Nusrah Front.
On 11/6/2014 Operation Inherent Resolve exposed that Obama did not attack Nusrah Front as a whole even though they were plotting attacks on the US, instead he let them go and had the CIA arm them, and Obama then used them to try and take out the lawfully elected Syrian President so that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey could transport natural gas to the European Market.
Obama’s illegal and treasonous attempts to overthrow the Syrian President has resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost and a refugee crisis.
Pursuant to 50 USC 3093 Obama engaged in treason against the US when he engaged in covert actions that were in violation of the 18 USC 2381 Treason, and US Constitution Article 3 Section 3, when he armed and aided US enemies al-Qaeda’s al-Nusrah Front by pulling our US pilots off of them and thus letting them go to engage in more abuse of the Syrian people and plotting to attack the US.
If you look in the news today, you will see CIA armed al-Qaeda al-Nusrah Front terrorists right now on this very day fighting in Syria against our Pentagon armed Syrian Kurds who have been on the front lines fighting ISIS in Syria and working with our US Special Forces to pursue our common US enemies Al-Qaeda/ISIS/ISIL.
Bush going into Iraq was the same thing! And Operation Ajax in Iran to overthrow Mossadeq, the same thing! These are all corrupt CIA operations under the command of the elected US President and each one of these operations puts the US in grave danger as those they attack then hate the US.
The only way to stop this Jill is to realize how important it is for the LP to try and actually win the White House and get in a candidate who will protect and defend the US and the US Constitution and our Bill of Rights under the guidance of the LP’s NAP and that is what I have already vowed to do as a Libertarian President of the US.
As far as immigrants illegally in the US, I will bring them all in under the US Constitution. I just will also make sure from the moment I take office that no one enters our country illegally anymore, that is in line with the LP Platform. Here is the link: http://www.lp.org/platform
Scroll down to 3.4 Free Trade and Migration, “we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property”.
You can’t just assume that anyone coming into California is not a threat. I adopted a child and it still took me two years to get her legally into the country and she had to have test and blood work done to make sure she wasn’t bringing anything into the country that could pose a threat to the health of our citizens. This is 100% in line with the LP Platform.
Jill, I am so sorry, I won’t be able to come to the CA convention. I really wanted to come too because of the international speakers you will have there. I love that there are international LPs!
You can email me anytime with questions at [email protected] I also just set up my Facebook not long ago and people are messaging me a lot there too, so you can do that too, my Facebook is https://www.facebook.com/PastorShawnaSterling
And, I understand, I would have joined the LP earlier, but seriously I love this country and I will fight for her and we have enemies who will do everything they can to knock out anyone challenging their paid and bought for politicians.
I promise, I entered the LP as soon as I could while taking these threats into consideration.
Tk, sorry, inside LP baseball. It is of no consequence except for the junki-est L junkies.
A few gems in this thread.
I agree very much with itdoesntmatter. I kind of wonder who it is. I like this quote
“Gary Johnson. I’m not supporting him, I’m just saying it’s nuts to think that there is some huge opportunity to get anything more than 1% or so with another run of the mill candidate. The LP “brand” stinks, frankly. Why is that? I don’t know, but in the 16 years or so I’ve been following LP elections, I’ve heard a lot of excuses and a lot of plans but nothing has ever changed.”
The Libertarian brand, if there is one at all, is terrible. The Democratic and Republican brands are not doing very well either. I am against brands. Brands are a deception, a very subtle use of force. More and more people distrust brands and research quality more directly.
I see the Libertarian Party as a political instrument, not a brand. There are things that we do well. Ballot access, valuing principle, and survival. I find it more desirable to try to leverage our success, rather than invest in our weaknesses.
I also agree with this comment from Knapp:
“Neither the Libertarian Party nor any of its current presidential aspirants have any ability whatsoever to bring about victory for the LP’s presidential slate in November. That’s not to say that it’s impossible for the LP to win in November. But in order for that to happen, some cataclysmic event that we have no power to bring about would have to happen”
Not a cataclysm – but a revolution in thinking. We cannot bring it about. But we can agitate, catalyze, and be in the right place at the right time. There are signs that the revolution in thinking may have already begun.
If you don’t think Fox plays inside baseball, you haven’t been paying attention. They are constantly attempting to be kingmakers inside the GOP. What makes you think they don’t also attempt to play that role in the general election?
TK, my feedback is that is severely tortured logic.
I’d bet that such way-inside-baseball considerations are not known aside from IPR and the debating-society-set in the LP.
It’s in Republicans’ interest to ensure that the Libertarian Party runs the weakest candidates possible.
A guy who topped out at 2% in their own primary and can’t balance a checkbook presumably fit the bill four years ago. Now that he’s been caught lying to his new party and to the FEC about his finances as well, he probably looks even better to the RNC, Roger Ailes, et. al.
tk: There’s a reason for that.
me: Which is?
I’d think a R media outlet would want to spike L candidates as they are perceived (rightly or wrongly) R candidates.
Yes, Republican Fox Republican commentator Republican Greg Republican Gutfeld has been talking up Johnson for years.
Did I mention that the channel and the host are Republicans?
They talked up Barr a little bit in 2008, too.
There’s a reason for that.
Polling is a mathematical dart board.
In Marketing, you strategically gather momentum for your client to an apex upon the eve of the event. If we use the November election as such, polling now is just data mining. The number with the most significance is the 76% of sampling pool that didn’t have enough information about Johnson to give an opinion.
Gary Johnson cannot educate voters about himself by paying consultants the majority of his campaign income. His campaign war chest should be spent on shoes, ice for his knuckles, and throat drops.
Be your own media takes tact and manpower.
“…NewFederalist just said above that he’d vote for the Prohibition Party’s candidate before he’d vote for a libertarian who is not without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke.” – Thomas Knapp
Hey! No fair! I have just had two chocolate martinis (I do live in Hershey, PA after all!) and my vote for the Prohibition ticket was a metaphor. But then again as a protest vote I think they are making a better effort this cycle than the LP appears to be. No sweat, they won’t be on the ballot here so I’ll have to vote LP or Green or maybe CP but the Drys don’t figure in. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuGQAHbL19M
I’m actually not upset. I’m just egging her on. She’s nutty enough to respond, so…
🙂
Reid does bother me a little bit. If the press were to find him, they’d make us look really stupid. And he keeps sending spam to the state chair email address that comes to me. I’d respond and tell him to stop sending me crap about his campaign and how he’s the ONLY person with the ability to win, but he’d get my real address in the reply and he’d probably start spamming that as well. 🙂
Stewart- Why get upset about a head case like her? Are you equally upset about the head case Reid? They are DoA. No worries, mate!
Stewart,
“2%? Against a republican that a lot of people hate? My guess is that those were anti-McConnel votes, and nothing more.”
Highly unlikely. People who just wanted to vote against McConnell had three choices on the ballot. 5,000+ chose to write Sterling in specifically rather than voting for McConnell OR any of the other three.
I agree, I can’t imagine a libertarian supporting her. But then again, Libertarians supported Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root, and NewFederalist just said above that he’d vote for the Prohibition Party’s candidate before he’d vote for a libertarian who is not without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke. So I’m guessing that the variety out there is greater than either your imagination or mine.
2%? Against a republican that a lot of people hate? My guess is that those were anti-McConnel votes, and nothing more.
She’s so full of her own self-importance that it sickens me. Next she’ll be saying that god told her to run and that she’d win.
“I shouldn’t be forced to support same-sex marriage just to be a Libertarian, and I believe this act of force violates the LP’s NAP. I don’t have to have the same views as you and you don’t have to have the same views as me. That’s what being Libertarian is, having the freedom to form your own views.”
Do we need this? A libertarian candidate who clearly has issues with people not of the heterosexual persuasion? I don’t care if a girl likes other girls or a guy likes other guys — or even if they want to get married. The right answer is, of course, that government should have nothing to do with marriage. The state — at any level — has no business regulating personal relationships.
She’s not supportable by libertarians. At least not any that I know.
I really want to agree with Gene Berkman about Gary Johnson especially since I lived in New Mexico while he was governor but I just can’t. There is NOBODY running for the LP nomination this year who is worth a damn. This is such an important year to get it right and yet the LP will screw it up yet again. I am truly beginning to believe the LP is utterly hopeless. Hillary Rodham Clinton vs. Donald Trump is far worse than a train wreck. What a terrible shame the LP will waste 50 state plus DC ballot status again. I’d rather vote Prohibition than for a guy with massive campaign debt or a guy who will only accept bitcoin or a guy who won’t take more than five bucks. What nonsense! This is truly a unique opportunity and the LP is going to let is slip away. Lovely, just lovely!
The claim of Ms. Sterling’s that I find most interesting is that ” I can’t get my supporters nationwide into the LP if this party only goes for 1% or 2% or even 5% or 10%.”
I did a little looking to see if I could detect any signs of a Shawna Joy Sterling for president groundswell out there across the fruited plain, and came up empty.
On the other hand, she managed 2%, with 5,000+ votes, in the 2014 GOP primary for US Senate from Kentucky. If that sounds weak, think again — she did it as a write-in candidate, placing third and ahead of two apparently on-ballot candidates.
Half the candidates this year joined the party when they announced or a few months before.
Yes, we should be suspicious of someone who makes these claims. I also see a chink in her recently applied libertarian veneer when it comes to respecting the marital views of others.
Gene,
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Perry strikes me as both far more well-informed and far better at communicating than Johnson. I suspect he’s also far better at balancing a checkbook, not lying to the party about his debt, and choosing his sources of information on the issues.
Ms. Sterling,
If the US cut its military budget by 90% tomorrow, it would still be the first or second largest military budget on the face of the earth, depending on what China does in any given year. And unlike China, the US is separated from most of its likely enemies by two oceans and has a high enough rate of private firearms ownership to make any would-be invader think twice before acting.
The Libertarian Party is not calling for a 90% cut in the military budget at this time. Its candidate pledge calls only for a modest 60% cut over an unspecified timeframe. My own congressional campaign platform is a bit more ambitious and detailed — I support cutting the US military budget by 75% over ten years.
You say that you’ve talked to the troops. That’s very nice. So have I. I’ve also BEEN the troops. A good 90% of the US military budget consists of two things: Corporate welfare for “defense” contractors and a “workfare” jobs program employing 1.3 million full-time and 800,000 part-time workers, not counting civilians support staff, at taxpayer expense.
Also, Shawna, you do seem like an intelligent woman. I’m looking forward to meeting you at the CA convention, and would be interested in interviewing you for IPR if you have some time.
But…do you really not understand why many of us are suspicious of someone who joins our party the same month as she announces she’s running for President?.
Gene, are you supporting Johnson?
Will we see you and your wife at the convention?
SS said: “Defense is important to the LP and included in the Platform.” What’s key here is what is rightfully “defense”. None of the countries we are murdering people in have attacked us, or were ever likely to attack us. Drone murdering weddings and hospitals is not defense by any stretch of the imagination. We are clearly the biggest bullies on the globe. This is absolutely against our NAP, and everything else our party stands for.
I also think you are misinterpreting our immigration plank. Most of the immigrants we have here in southern California are from Mexico. Are they are threat to our our country? Absolutely not.
Shawna, you said to Root regarding same-sex marriage: “I don’t care how you live your life. I just don’t want you trying to tell me how to live my life.”
Your first sentence is not true. You DO care how people lives their lives, and by believing that some 10 % or more of the population can’t get married, you are trying to force your views on them. Not okay.
Gary Johnson has already been getting more publicity than he got at this time in 2012 – the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have both run profiles. It is very unlikely that major media would cover the campaign of any of the other “candidates” – none of whom have credentials that would impress anyone outside a narrow group within the LP.
4 years ago most of the campaign was conducted by PACs independent of the Johnson campaign, and by local Libertarian groups. They found it worth doing because as a former Governor and activist for legal marijuana, Gary Johnson had credentials. It is not likely that there would be that kind of independent campaign for any of the other no-name candidates. And many Libertarians would want to distance themselves from a McAfee campaign, because of his questionable recent doings.
As for Darryl Perry being a good representative of The Libertarian Party or the Libertarian viewpoint – I don’t see it, based on his writings or his statements. He tries to sound “radical” but he does not have the familiarity with history or current issues to enable him to make a compelling case to someone who does not already agree with his viewpoint. To others, he comes off as somewhat fringey, or even kookie. No offense intended, apparently he wants it that way. But I don’t see how running such a fringe candidate would build familiarity with The Libertarian Party or the Libertarian message.
Gary Johnson campaigned for other Libertarian candidates in 2012 and to a lesser degree in 2014. What has McAfee done for the Libertarian Movement before his recent decision to seek our nomination? What have the other candidates done?
It is pretty clear that the odd circumstances of this election offer an opportunity for a bigger than usual protest vote, something to build on – and Gary Johnson has more credentials, more name recognition, and has already set a record vote total for a Libertarian candidate. All the sniping by dissatisfied people will not change that.
Jill,
Have you checked out the LP Platform lately? Defense is important to the LP and included in the Platform. I thought it was a Libertarian principle to not force your views on others. I don’t care who you marry. I don’t support drugs, but does that mean I am not a Libertarian? I also don’t believe that the federal gov. has any right to regulate drugs as that decision belongs to the States and We the People pursuant to the US Constitution.
I shouldn’t be forced to support same-sex marriage just to be a Libertarian, and I believe this act of force violates the LP’s NAP. I don’t have to have the same views as you and you don’t have to have the same views as me. That’s what being Libertarian is, having the freedom to form your own views.
As I told Root, if you go back and read the rest you would see that I would via the US Constitution pull in the illegal immigrants who were in our country prior to me taking the office of President, at that point, I will secure our country and no one will enter it illegally. This is a defense measure that is also in line with the LP Platform 3.4 Free Trade and Migration “However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property”.
The candidate you support wants to do away with the US Constitution which includes our Bill of Rights.
The LP Platform supports and defends the US Constitution and our Bill of Rights. I read the LP platform and I agree with the LP Platform. I didn’t see anywhere in the LP platform where the LP advocates doing away with the US Constitution which includes our Bill of Rights as Perry, the LP Presidential candidate you support advocates.
Robert,
Phone banks and all the above will not bring in the votes, unless the LP elects a candidate that those dissatisfied with the other parties can get behind. They will join the party based on the LP Platform but if they come into the LP and then start getting attacked then it will be hard for us to keep them.
Libertarians should welcome them with open arms into our LP family. If we do this, we can grow this party and we can have a real chance at taking the White House in November.
Andy,
Unless you know how really dangerous the GOP and the DNC can be, you won’t understand. I can assure you that I came into the LP as early as I could, taking into consideration the threats. This is a big election; we cannot let the GOP or the DNC win this election.
Andy, you spoke as if I was not a party member, in your opinion, because of the grounds you already shared. I simply, translated the intention of your words, which was an attempt to get readers to view you as “in the party” and me as “outside of the party”, even though as you just admitted, you knew very well that I was indeed a member of the party. This “she’s not one of us” when you know full well I am, is not only an act of rejection (not acceptance) but discrimination.
You don’t need to know what type of discrimination someone faces to choose to discriminate against them. You tried to speak as if I was not a member of the party entitled to the same rights as you due to my timing in joining the LP.
Andy, you didn’t say “it’s odd”, you said, “funny how people emerge out of nowhere expecting us to give them our party’s presidential nomination”. This is saying that in your opinion, “I didn’t have the right to seek the LP’s nomination for President” or more specifically, “our party’s presidential nomination”. You referred to me as “People” and you as “our party” when you knew I was already a member of the LP and was not outside the party but inside the party.
Root’s Teeth Are Awesome,
There is no room for cutbacks in Military spending because, out of all the departments of the federal government, the military is the most important one as it is the military that protects the US, the US Constitution and our Bill of Rights and this is 100% supported by the LP Platform 3.1 National Defense “We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the Unites States against aggression”.
Root, I have talked with our military. I have graduate courses that I also take at the University of Kentucky that focus just on our military and if we cut back on the funds our military needs to defend our nation that will put our country in danger.
You may include intelligence agencies into the military spending but I do not. The CIA is not military and that is why the CIA cannot operate under our current AUMF unless our JSOC is advising them.
Now we do have intelligence analysis that are military members and yes I do support providing our military the means they need to do their job as required by the US Constitution.
I will work to abolish all federal programs that are not required by the US Constitution.
Root, the federal government has no right to the issue of marriage pursuant to the US Constitution, the definition of marriage is a decision to be made by the individual States and by We the People, no one should force anyone to support anything, we have the freedom as Libertarians to live our lives according to our own convictions, I don’t care how you live your life. I just don’t want you trying to tell me how to live my life.
Root, if you would have read further down you would have seen that I was very specific in saying that if you are physically in the country by the time I become President of the US, I will get you in via the US Constitution, but after that date no one will get in unless it is in a lawful manner.
Root, al-Qaeda killed 3,000+ on 9/11 and now we have our AUMF that was created and approved by the US Congress in defense of the US that allows our US Special Forces to pursue those who not only targeted us on 9/11 but who are still planning attacks against our nation.
The force of the US military that I am for are acts of defense and not aggression. We have the right to defend our country from those plotting and creating weapons to destroy our country.
Root – I will seek to abolish all federal programs that are not required by the US Constitution. There may be some that are not required but Americans may still want to support and under my administration, income taxes will only support programs that are required by the US Constitution (what We the People agreed on when we formed our US Constitution) and Americans will retain the option of supporting other programs if they choose to, such as agriculture, environment, space exploration, and welfare.
The reason I selected these to promote was because I believe America is under an economic attack that has dropped many of our middle class families into poverty. Americans will continue to become poorer because the elite who buy their way into our political offices through the GOP and the DNC want Americans so poor that they will not have any means to challenge them and run for office.
Through agriculture we have the potential to produce food needed to ensure we don’t lose our citizens through starvation. To successfully grow food across our country we need to protect our environment. If Americans want to donate to agriculture, environment, welfare, or even space exploration, they should be allowed that opportunity.
Root – I love this country and I’m in the LP to defend this country.
Why don’t you enlighten us on your understanding of libertarian principles? I’m curious 😉
Itdoesntmatter,
I read your post and I get what you are saying. I can’t get my supporters nationwide into the LP if this party only goes for 1% or 2% or even 5% or 10%.
They want a chance to win our country back. We can’t do this by just striving for 5% or 10% of the votes. They are Libertarians as much as you and I, but, “Why join a team that doesn’t play to win?” They won’t do it. We can win, but we need to play to win.
You need to nominate someone who knows how these other teams move and think. If you can’t counter their moves, you will have no chance. It’s more strategy than anything else at this point. I know these teams, I know what they are thinking, and I know their weaknesses. If the LP delegates give me the LP Presidential nomination, I can help the LP win the White House in November.
You stated that you don’t think the Big Money Republican “Third Party” will hijack the LP. I get what you are saying, but, while you are still thinking the LP can only get 1% or 2%, these Big Money Republicans know the truth, they know that if you get a candidate in like me, they will lose and we will win and so they are right now already working to hijack our LP.
They will try and make a deal. It goes something like this, we give you this big name, and you get suckered into nominating him and he will get you what you want 5%, and they will do this to keep the LP from running this race to actually win the White House by nominating an LP Presidential candidate like me who will run to help the LP win the White House to take this country back and to reign in the out of control federal government.
You see they use force and aggression to get what they want and they are having some problems trying to get around our LP’s NAP and this is why I strongly advice not supporting any LP Presidential candidate who speaks negatively about the LP’s NAP.
You also stated, “we Libertarians are niche that is not popular with cool kids”. The LP has been under attack for many years by the Republicans and Democrats and their controllers to discourage Americans from joining the LP. Americans love freedom and the LP loves freedom. We just need to get this message out there. I can help the LP do this!
BTW, who needs the homecoming queen? Don’t confine yourself to play in their world! Break free of it and create your own! And this comes from a former homecoming queen! You want to be free to write your own future, then throw theirs in the trash and get a pen and write!
Jill,
I was a Republican when I got recruited and even when I was working as an Obama Organizing Fellow, I was still a Republican. I was raised in a family where you had to be a Republican. My father’s business was one of the casualties of 2008. He suffers from chronic back pain and no one would insure him. He could not get health insurance. I ran to help Obama get into office because I wanted something in place to help individuals who could not get health insurance have an option to get insured.
What I have come to learn was that Obama was never for America and that the Affordable Healthcare Act was just a big lie to gain greater control over Americans. I helped Obama because I thought that the ACA would put more options on the table for Americans, but they deceived America and instead used the ACA to attack Americans and I will seek to completely repeal the ACA when elected to office. Obama also ran on being a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but of course, we all know that he lied about that too.
I was raised Republican, changed to Democrat after helping Obama get elected, changed to Independent after Obama started going for our 2nd Amendment Rights, and changed back to Republican and ran for the US Senate in KY against Mitch McConnell. At this point I knew I was going to run for President in 2016, I just needed to better understand the GOP. Running against McConnell gave me that opportunity. I didn’t campaign to win, as I was just in the race to learn, and I gained the information I needed.
During that race, I was invited by Kentucky Education Television (KET) to debate which I accepted. I was invited to a second debate but McConnell refuse to attend if KET did not un-invite me, which they did. I advocated for myself and the Libertarian US Senate Candidate David Patterson, but they then implemented new requirement that continued to rise to aggressively push us out of the debate.
The LP of KY and Patterson sued them and gained access to their emails. They found documentation that KET conspired to create ways to keep me and Patterson out of the debate. Patterson mentioned me in his arguments before the court and I viewed that as someone having my back, someone who was a Libertarian. This was when I first began considering the LP.
The second KY Libertarian that influenced me was someone I had contacted to design a political wrap for my car. He kept asking me questions about what I believe on different issues. AND, then he said, “You don’t sound like a Republican”, and I said, “I’ve been a Republican pretty much my whole life”, and then he said, “You sound like a Libertarian”. It was at this point, I realized I had never been able to grow roots in the soil of the GOP or the DNC and so I looked into the LP.
I got online and hit the join button and then I saw the NAP pledge staring at me and I read it and re-read it and I couldn’t agree to the pledge at that point because I felt that signing the pledge would mean that there would be situations that I would have to watch people self-destruct. I wanted to be a Libertarian but I couldn’t sign the pledge at that point. I also was afraid of joining the LP too soon and having the GOP send operatives in to try and keep me from getting the LP Presidential nomination.
At the end of 2015 I changed my registration from Republican to Other and I contacted the LP to look into what I needed to do to run as an LP Presidential Candidate. They got back to me in January and I then went to the LP website again, saw the NAP and said to myself, “In order for humanity to be free, they have got to have free will to live their lives how they want to live their lives, even if it leads to self-destruction in my opinion”.
In January I agreed to the LP pledge, “I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals”, with the understanding that I had the right to act in defense if someone acted in force or aggression against me. The NAP is what sets the Libertarian Party apart from the GOP and the DNC who use force and aggression to control and enslave Americans and to get controlled politicians elected into office. The NAP is something that every Libertarian needs to take time to consider within their own hearts.
The truth is, I was never able to find good soil to grow in, in the GOP or DNC because everything was controlled with the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. The reality is, there are many of us across this nation who have not been able to find a home in the GOP or DNC.
We just want the government to stop harassing us and let us live our lives and raise our children in peace, freedom, and liberty, and that is why many are turning to the LP and if the LP actually nominates a Presidential candidate who will run to win the White House, the LP will find that they will get so many new members across this country that they will have a hard time getting them all registered.
I’ve been involved in activism and outreach my entire life, within the US and also internationally. One thing I love about the LP is that we are not just a US party but we have international LP’s too.
Tom,
A good candidate with a good campaign might have an effect. The first part faces challenges. Campaigns that are starting this late are likely not going to be good. It appears that we are going to have extensive philosophical back and forths that are not going to be advantageous. The LNC budget has been shrinking shrinking shrinking and at some point ballot access is going to implode.
George
Maybe Mr. Winger is on to something. The LP could get permanent ballot status in a lot of states – thus saving future time, effort and $$$ – by getting 5%. For laughs, maybe the LP should offer the nomination to Mr. Trump when he gets shafted by the GOP? Permanent ballot status for us, and destroy the GOP at the same time!
“A smart strategy would focus on winning a state” We have been hearing this line for decades. Most of our resources are not fungible. They are available in the state where they are, and no where else. Some readers will recall that the Badnarik campaign tried this, focusing media efforts on a single state — IIRC New Mexico. Badnarik did worse in New Mexico than he did nationally.
The line is a slight variation on the ‘concentration our resources on a single race’ . That one has been tried repeatedly, some time back. It failed.
tk, I’d say DP is the cadre candidate. JMc is the freaks & geeks candidate. AP is the fusion candidate. And GJ is the Festivus candidate. 😉
“A smart strategy would focus on winning a state like Utah which dislikes both Trump and Clinton. I think one poll showed Clinton beating Trump in Utah 36% to 34%. That leaves 30% available. Ross Perot finished second in Utah in 1992 so it’s certainly open to a strong third party or independent candidate.”
I agree Will.
Alaska, New Hampshire, and possibly Indiana are also particular states where the LP has a strong base and has elected many candidates to various offices- so they could also be in serious play for the LP if the voters do turn to the LP in large numbers this November.
An early 11% poll showing is obviously not a bad thing. Whether such a showing is really specific to Johnson or whether pretty much any “not Clinton and not Trump” candidate would have done as well is an open question, but hey, it is Johnson whose name has 11% next to it.
While third party poll percentages tend to evaporate as the general election gets closer, it’s possible that they are still on an upward, rather than downward, trend at the moment. If a third party candidate could get up into the 25%-30% range, it’s possible that he or she would still be above the 15% debate invitation threshold by the time the general election debates began.
It remains to be seen which way this election is going to go, and what consequences that will have for the LP and its presidential ticket.
If both major party candidates have really high negatives all across the partisan spectrum (Trump and Clinton resemble that remark), there may be an opportunity for the LP to break its previous vote total record.
On the other hand, there’s reason to believe that our prospects are also somewhat dependent on how close and tight the race is perceived to be.
If it’s one of those “no telling who wins, it’s right down to the wire” elections, the “wasted vote” argument seems to be a lot more effective — “I hate Trump/Clinton, but I hate Clinton/Trump worse, and it’s close, so I’ll vote for the one I hate less instead of risking a vote for the Libertarian.”
If it’s an obvious blowout in one direction or the other, that kind of concern trolling doesn’t work as well.
One thing to keep in mind:
Neither the Libertarian Party nor any of its current presidential aspirants have any ability whatsoever to bring about victory for the LP’s presidential slate in November. That’s not to say that it’s impossible for the LP to win in November. But in order for that to happen, some cataclysmic event that we have no power to bring about would have to happen to drop it into our lap. We could certainly fuck it up were that to happen, but we can’t make it happen.
So: Any LP presidential aspirant who tells you that he in particular can win the election is either batshit insane or blowing smoke up your ass.
Absent the aforementioned cataclysmic event, the best-case scenario for the LP looks something like this:
– Our presidential candidate gets more attention than usual and maybe even polls well enough to be invited to the Very Important People’s debates.
– Our presidential candidate gets more votes than usual and maybe even breaks into double digits.
– Our presidential candidate “covers the balance of power” — rakes in enough votes, perceived as tilted vis a vis second choice in a way that changes the outcome — in several states (the last time that happened was in 2000; Harry Browne covered the balance in New Mexico and Florida), such that the LP might start to be perceived as relevant in a king-maker/king-breaker sort of way, influencing future major party campaign platforms.
– Down-ticket, our candidates get some presidential coat-tails and do better than usual. Heck, we might even have a wildcat/upset/WTF victory or three at the state legislative or, getting probably too blue-sky here, congressional level.
All of those would be good things.
There’s no particular reason to think that they are dependent upon nominating Gary Johnson, or even that he’s the prospective nominee who would be best at taking advantage of them.
In 2012, he was never able to get out of the cellar in the GOP presidential race. Then after he lied to the LP about the size of his campaign debt and conned us into nominating him, he didn’t raise much money, he spent much more than he raised, and in what should have been a blowout year for the LP he was only able to parlay “I’m the former governor of New Mexico and you saw me on TV a couple of times” into a million votes and change.
Presidential candidates who don’t win the first time they run tend to do worse, not better, their second time around the track. That may not be a hard and fast rule, but it’s the outcome to bet on if you want to make money as a gambler. People seem to prefer “new hotness” to “old and busted.” And this time Johnson doesn’t have the benefit of recent publicity on the stage of one of the major party debates.
It’s tempting to place some weight on the appellation “governor” in front of his name, but in the last two election cycles that doesn’t seem to have worked out for anyone even in the major parties. For whatever reason, all of a sudden Senators are the big wheels on the presidential circuit when it comes to credentials contests. And “US Representative” didn’t seem to do a great deal for us in 2008, either. Not saying they’re BAD things, but they’re obviously not silver bullets of any kind.
It seems to me that our BEST bet is to nominate the available candidate who most effectively communicates what we’re about. That way, regardless of what happens, we maximize both our vote potential and our future ability to be part of the political conversation. That candidate is clearly — it’s not even a close contest — Darryl W. Perry.
Our SECOND BEST bet is to nominate one of the two better-known nominees so that if we start getting noticed, people will start from the premise “yeah … I think I’ve HEARD of that guy, let’s see what he has to say.” John McAfee is, at the very least, on the same level as Johnson in that regard. So far there’s no evidence that he’s racked up huge campaign debt or that he’s spending most of what he’s raising on the care and feeding of consultants rather than on campaigning. Those things COULD be true, but we haven’t seen an FEC report to indicate one way or the other. If we nominate him, he’ll almost certainly get as much or more media attention as Johnson would, and it will be INTERESTING media instead of “here’s that boring guy you rejected last time, back to bore you some more … unless he goes into some kind of seizure and rants about sharia law, in which case have popcorn ready.”
Those are two of the three choices available to us. The third is “fuck it, let’s just keep doing the same stupid shit we’ve been doing and hope for that there cataclysm.”
sm, that sounds quite actionable. Excellent insight.
I’d say “Make it so.”
robert capozzi,
Take one state as an example. Connecticut. Johnson received 12.6K votes but needed 16K votes to hit 1%
Could a phone bank calling registered republicans and independents with a well scripted message and precinct walkers dropping off door hangers have added another 4 thousand votes?
If we activists volunteered to do the phone calls what would the cost of the door hangers have been?
IDM: Not trying to be all negative but for the most part we Libertarians are niche that is not popular with cool kids, which is sort of a hindrance when it comes to winning popularity contests.
me: Alternatively, Ls could make the effort to make it cool.
rw, sounds like prez totals in 7 states would get ballot access, with the coattail effect getting an 8th. (Is there evidence that L prez candidates have coattails, btw?)
Seems like something that would be worthwhile in concept.
The question is: How, and how expensive from an opportunity cost perspective? Assuming it’s GJ, does he fly to Hartford to sit with the Courant editorial board in the hopes of an endorsement? Send email blasts to rented CT resident lists, with issues specific to CT? Hold rallies at Yale and UConn?
Retail politics would appear to be expensive and time consuming.
OTOH, CT has been lopsided D for the last 20 years or so. In a state like that, a nice sliver of R leaners just might be persuadable to vote L, especially instead of Trump.
KY might be the obverse.
itdoesntmatter,
The Libertarian brand can’t stink that much if you spend your time writing 8 long paragraphs attacking it.
Thanks for your interest.
RTAA posts (from your website in January):
Sorry, Shawna. Any one of your answers above would keep me from supporting you. Seeing them all together makes me seriously questions if you understand what Libertarians believe.
Perhaps your views have changed from attending some of the conventions and hearing the other candidates. I certainly hope so.
This is what I posted on January 30, 2016, on the Shawna Joy Sterling thread:
I went to Shawna Joy Sterling’s website: http://shawnajoysterling.com/
In her Issues section, under the Budget section, she answers the following question:
In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending? No.
So it seems that Ms. Sterling does not support a reduction in military spending. Really? Military spending is one of the largest portions of the federal budget (I include the intelligence agencies), and yet she sees no room for any cutbacks?
Some of her other answers:
Do you support same-sex marriage? No.
Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship? Yes.
Do you support targeting suspected terrorists outside of official theaters of conflict? Yes.
Should the U.S use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the United States from possessing a nuclear weapon? Yes.
She also says that she wants to Greatly Increase federal spending on Agriculture, Defense, Environment, Space Exploration, and Welfare.
Yet she wants to Greatly Decrease federal spending on Arts, Education, Homeland Security, International Aid, Medical Research, Scientific Research, United Nations.
Curiously inconsistent.
She seems like an intellectual lightweight. A talk radio “conservative” with no understanding of libertarian principles — or of consistent principles of any ideology.
Just another ego-tripper who wandered over to the LP tent because of our great ballot access.
==============
I don’t know if she’s since changed her website answers.
You can see my original post on the original IPR thread: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/01/new-candidate-emerges-for-the-libertarian-partys-presidential-nomination-shawna-sterling/
Shawna Sterling said: “Andy,
I talked to somebody too within the Libertarian Party of Kentucky and they congratulated me on being 1 of 5 Libertarian Presidential Candidates to get into the Texas LP Presidential Debate. They told me to make Kentucky proud and I told them I would and Andy I intend to do so.”
This may be so, but from what I’ve heard nobody in the Libertarian Party of Kentucky knew you before you announced that you were seeking the nomination.
“BTW, you know I’m a Libertarian and yet you speak as if the LP belongs only to you by stating, ‘our party’s presidential nomination’,”
I did not say that you were not a party member. I assume that since you are seeking the LP’s presidential nomination that you must have joined the party.
“well Andy you don’t have to like me or even accept me,”
I never said that I did not like you or accept you. I don’t even really know who you are.
“I’ve faced discrimination as both a woman and a minority throughout my life and it’s only made me stronger.”
I do not know what kind of minority you are, nor do I know what kind of discrimination you have faced.
” The LP is my party too and I have every right to run for the LP Presidential nomination.”
I never said that you do not have a right to seek the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President. My point was that I find it to be kind of odd that you are seeking the presidential nomination when nobody here had ever heard of you, and from what I’ve heard, nobody in the Libertarian Party of Kentucky had even heard of you, prior to this.
Thanks for your response, Shawna.
If you worked for Obama’s campaign in 2012, was there anything about him that you supported? If I recall, you’ve also been a Republican. When did you become Libertarian, and what prior activism have you done?
IMHO, Many of the comments are delusional about the current appeal of the LP in mainstream politics. As a Libertarian I have long been accepting of reality and not delusional about realistic chances. Every election cycle there’s some Z list celebrity or ex- “big-time” pol who enters the race and/or some Congressional or Senate race that people think we can overwhelm with a minor “name” or a concentration of resources in a lower-level race that inevitably ends in disappointment.
Here’s the marginal gains you get in all the perfect world scenarios- Get an extra $1 million to spend on the POTUS race, get an extra 0.1%. Get a former Governor or Congressman maybe get another 0.2%. Everyone hates both D/R candidates, get another 0.1%. EVERYTHING possible goes right besides getting the (non-existent) single most likeable person in the history of the US, who also happens to be a movie star, former pro athlete, medical doctor, and billionaire philanthropist.. and you might get an “extra” 1%.
If you are a libertarian Libertarian, you would be overjoyed with 1% – that’s the reality. Ron Paul isn’t walking through that door (good) riding Lew Rockwell. There’s already 1 World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Famer in the race, and he’s with the Republicans. Bill Gates isn’t signing up. George Soros isn’t going to bankroll a George Clooney/Julia Roberts LP ticket. It doesn’t matter (votewise) if you run GJ or Mcafee or Perry or the guy who played Janet’s husband on Three’s Company. With that in mind, decide what matters most. I think for the most well-adjusted among us that comes down to some criteria along the lines of best representing the libertarian-libertarian position, not embarrassing the party, etc. Then considerations like not needing to hitchhike to the convention.
You know why people vote for people like Bloomberg? Because they want to. Even if he sucks, they suck, his politics is terrible and harmful to all of mankind and the future of civilization, voters vote for that. See Trump. See Clintons. See Bushes . See the people who repeatedly re-elect miscreants like Joe Arpaio.
Bloomberg outpolling Gary Johnson goes for every possible other LP candidate as well. Guy was a successful business billionaire who held one of the highest profile political offices in the US- for as long as he wanted to, apparently. Doesn’t matter that his politics sucked. People voted for him. People like him. People like the Clintons. People Like Trump. People, the majority, probably over 90% don’t like, don’t know about, or don’t give a about the LP. Period.
Sure people put out polls and you have Reason writers writing books about this huge libertarian chunk of the electorate. But they aren’t Libertarian libertarians, and most of them don’t even self-identify as libertarians and many hate the thought of it. People don’t place themselves in political categories based on the Quiz or what some think tank people tell them about their own beliefs. There are entire families, many of them, all over the country, who support political parties based on their policies from the 1930s or the 1940s and they don’t change. on Easter with my in-laws I will probably see a dozen people who are Republicans because their grandfather grew up on a certain street in 1927, and most of them are liberal.
If the LP gets 1% with Gary Johnson, which would be a typical LP result. IMHO, it would have not much to do with Gary Johnson. I’m not supporting him, I’m just saying it’s nuts to think that there is some huge opportunity to get anything more than 1% or so with another run of the mill candidate. The LP “brand” stinks, frankly. Why is that? I don’t know, but in the 16 years or so I’ve been following LP elections, I’ve heard a lot of excuses and a lot of plans but nothing has ever changed. You would think if it comes down to marketing, someone would have done something, but there are many factors here that I’m not going into. The “Trump Brand” has had so many real-world failures, but it’s apparently very healthy (at least in primary season). Maybe because as many times he’s lost he’s not a perpetual “Loser.” He makes the deal, he gets the girl and so on. Libertarians get 1% and get told not to talk to girls so we don’t scare them off.
This is why I don’t think any hypothetical Big Money Republican “Third Party” is going to hijack the LP. The LP ballot line would be a negative factor compared to being Independent with money and ballot access. Not trying to be all negative but for the most part we Libertarians are niche that is not popular with cool kids, which is sort of a hindrance when it comes to winning popularity contests. Telling everyone how great we are and that 99% of everyone else is too stupid for their own good is never going to win anything. Neither is substantiating false rumors that the homecoming queen is going to ask you to prom.
In 2012, the Libertarian Action Super PAC, run by Wes Benedict, helped out quite a bit with literature and signage in support of the GJ campaign. As far as I know, that PAC does not exist for the 2016 campaign. Is anyone aware of another organization to take up the slack?
Steve M’s comment about targeting certain states for ballot access improvement is a very good one. The LP has never managed to get as much as 1% for president in Connecticut. If we could do that, for the first time we would be ballot-qualified for that particular office for 2020.
Getting 2% for President in Kentucky would make the LP a ballot-qualified party in that state for the first time. Ditto Iowa.
Getting 3% for President in Arkansas would keep the LP on that state’s ballot, which would be the first time we had met the Arkansas vote test.
Assuming the Oklahoma bill passes (which is likely), getting 2.5% for President in Oklahoma would keep us on the ballot there for 2018.
Getting just 1% for President in Maryland would keep us on the 2018 ballot in that state.
Getting 3% for President in Massachusetts would restore our qualified party status in that state. Then we could fight the terrible Massachusetts laws on how candidates get on the primary ballot of a small qualified party.
Getting 3% for President in New Hampshire would not make us a qualified party in New Hampshire again, but if we got 3% for President in NH, it is likely we would get 3% for either Governor or US Senator in that state, and either one of those would do it.
Getting 2% for President in North Carolina would keep us on in that state for another 4 years.
Hi Jill!
I like Darryl Perry and have watched him debate. The issue I have with Perry is that Perry stated during the Mississippi debate that he would do away with the U.S. Constitution which includes our Bill of Rights. The office of President of the U.S. requires the President to take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, whereas Perry is not able to do this after stating that he would do away with the U.S. Constitution in Mississippi, he would not be able to take the Presidential Oath.
If the LP’s goal is to get a Libertarian into the executive office of U.S. President, then the LP needs someone who can take this Oath and I can take this Oath.
“I, Shawna Joy Sterling Libertarian Presidential Candidate will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, under the guidance of the LP’s NAP.” – Shawna Joy Sterling Libertarian Presidential Candidate
In 2012 I was recruited as an “Obama Organizing Fellow”. I know what it takes to win a Presidential election and if the LP gives me the LP Presidential nomination, I will run a campaign that will give the LP a real chance to compete for the White House in November, getting the 5% or 10% won’t even be an issue, I’ve got supporters across the 50 states who know me as Shawna4Freedom.
Some have come into the LP already but most will wait to see if I can secure the LP nomination, but if I get it, this party will gain members all over this nation who want freedom, liberty, and equality with the same passion as you and I, and they will unite with us to take the White House in November.
I am against: physical force; censorship; violation of property rights; slavery; spying; bailouts; federal control of energy production, education, health care, and retirement; the draft; terrorism; the death penalty; and torture.
I am for: rights to life, liberty, property, ownership of one’s own body, speech, religion, privacy, self-defense, the right to raise and educate one’s own children; free trade and markets; abolishment of all federal programs not required by the U.S. Constitution; and defending our borders to prevent attacks against security, health, and property.
Stewart,
Insane because my supporters don’t like to post all their information on the internet or social media? Stewart, stealth is a good thing when you’re up against the criminals of the Republican and Democrat Parties.
These criminals, these traitors to this country, they know I’m Libertarian and they’ve known that for a long time. If you are a true Libertarian, you will know that we are on the same team. I might not have been able to go public about my intention to run with the Libertarians until January, but the strategy paid off as I am here right now in position to help the LP win the White House, and what can the GOP and DNC do now to stop me? My loyalties belong to the Libertarian Party.
Andy,
I talked to somebody too within the Libertarian Party of Kentucky and they congratulated me on being 1 of 5 Libertarian Presidential Candidates to get into the Texas LP Presidential Debate. They told me to make Kentucky proud and I told them I would and Andy I intend to do so.
BTW, you know I’m a Libertarian and yet you speak as if the LP belongs only to you by stating, “our party’s presidential nomination”, well Andy you don’t have to like me or even accept me, I’ve faced discrimination as both a woman and a minority throughout my life and it’s only made me stronger. The LP is my party too and I have every right to run for the LP Presidential nomination.
sm: How about targeting states with the idea of improving ballot access?
me: Seems valid if there are states that use prez totals and have attainable hurdles. Although that’s probably not as noticeable on the national stage, if such states exist compared with winning a state or two or exceeding say 5% nationally, I’d say.
Stewart Flood said: “Another insane candidacy. Why would she somehow be able to win, when NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF HER!!!
The public doesn’t know her. She has no record at all. She can’t even show that she’s libertarian. I see no reason to consider her a viable candidate.”
I talked to somebody I know in the Libertarian Party of Kentucky (Shawna Sterling is from Kentucky) and this person told me that nobody in the Libertarian Party of Kentucky even knew who this woman was prior to her announcing that she is running for the LP’s presidential nomination.
Funny how people emerge out of nowhere expecting us to give them our party’s presidential nomination, when nobody in the Libertarian Party in the state where they reside even knows who they are.
“You feeling OK today? ?” – Robert Capozzi
No. Bloat. Constipation. Hangover. Hemorrhoid flare up. More info available upon request! 🙂
How about targeting states with the idea of improving ballot access?
ws, interesting. I think the last time a 3rd party won states was in 68. That was a regional thing, and to some extent was about segregation.
WINNING a state would probably involve specific targeting. I wonder what advertising budgets might allow to do so.
What I’m suggesting could be done on national (free) media. It would ju jitsu the wasted-vote argument, since in safe states, in a sense, all loser votes are “wasted.”
A smart strategy would focus on winning a state like Utah which dislikes both Trump and Clinton. I think one poll showed Clinton beating Trump in Utah 36% to 34%. That leaves 30% available. Ross Perot finished second in Utah in 1992 so it’s certainly open to a strong third party or independent candidate.
nf, might be, but I can’t assess it on the feedback-o-meter, given its lack of elaboration.
You feeling OK today? 😉
“Just throwing this out there….love some feedback.” – Robert Capozzi
What a stupid idea! It really sucks! 🙂 How’s that for feedback? 😉
No one seems to have picked on my proto-suggestion of targeting “safe” states.
If CA, for ex., is likely to be “safe” for HRC, why not make an appeal to anti-HRC voters there? It’s a great example, because of its population and because many non-Ds might be open to a protest vote for the former R guv who runs a weed company.
TX might be “safe” for the Rs, and there the pitch might be to progressives who don’t like HRC.
Just throwing this out there….love some feedback.
“If the LP really wants to win the White House, then I ask the LP delegates to give me, Shawna Joy Sterling Libertarian Presidential Candidate, the chance and nominate me as the LP Presidential nomination and I will not only get us the percentage we need but I will run a strong campaign to help the LP win the White House in November 2016!”
Another insane candidacy. Why would she somehow be able to win, when NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF HER!!!
The public doesn’t know her. She has no record at all. She can’t even show that she’s libertarian. I see no reason to consider her a viable candidate.
Shawna, most of us don’t know you because you’re apparently new to the Party. Can you tell me why I should support you over my current choice, long-time activist Darryl Perry? I hope the question doesn’t sound snarky, because I really don’t mean for it to.
What do you have to offer us as the candidate? What issues are most important to you?
As an alternative to Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump, Gary Johnson is poised to get a record vote for Libertarian candidate for President. As a former Governor who has campaigned in several states for legalizing marijuana, Gary Johnson has credentials that will make people less hesitant to vote for him.
Trump is so toxic to many Republicans that the wasted vote argument will have less impact. The other reason third party candidates don’t do well is that people are afraid of voting for an extremist, and Gary Johnson does not have any extremist associations or newsletters to embarrass him.
As with 2012, most of the campaign will be carried out by pro-LP PACs and local libertarian organizations, so the financial problems of the presidential campaign are less important. And if you don’t trust Gary Johnson with your money, don’t send money to the campaign.
The offer that Bernie Sanders makes is less voluntary. He will push to raise all our taxes – including taxes on working people and small business – to cover a deficit far greater than 1.5 million dollars.
True, this poll is early, and the numbers can change. But if The Libertarian Party nominates one of the other no-name candidates offering themselves (and their egos) to us, the numbers are likely to be 0.11% or in a couple cases, just 11 votes.
Robert Taft said that “Politics is the art of the possible.” Daryl Perry or Marc Feldman are not going to get into a position where they can end the income tax and end marijuana prohibition. Gary Johnson won’t get into that position either, but when he advocates those positions, more than 11 people will hear about it.
If the Libertarian Party gives Gary Johnson the LP Presidential nominee in 2016, the best Johnson can do, based on his past performance is 1.65%. This is way below the 5% and 10% needed. It also is no where near taking the White House in November. If the LP really wants to win the White House, then I ask the LP delegates to give me, Shawna Joy Sterling Libertarian Presidential Candidate, the chance and nominate me as the LP Presidential nomination and I will not only get us the percentage we need but I will run a strong campaign to help the LP win the White House in November 2016! https://www.facebook.com/PastorShawnaSterling
http://www.shawnasterling.org/
“I think Gary Johnson will set a new record for a Libertarian Party candidate for President this year.” — George Whitfield
In terms of popular votes, or are you talking about campaign contributions squandered by insanely overpaid consultants?
It’s only March, so I suppose the “fiscally responsible” ex-governor still has plenty of time to accrue an even a larger campaign debt than the $1.5 million he recklessly racked up in 2012 — the vast majority of which was deceptively hidden from LP donors until after the election.
This is excellent news for the Libertarian Party. I think Gary Johnson will set a new record for a Libertarian Party candidate for President this year.
So what happens to polling numbers if Cruz or another as yet undermined candidate ends up taking the nomination away from Trump at their convention? What happens to our numbers then?
The longer the GOP fights publicly over the snake eating them alive, the better we do.
How well a third party does in November will largely depend (as always) on how close the race is between the majors.
Most voters hate and fear one of the major parties more than the other one. If Trump and Clinton are close, the election will become “too important to lose.” The possibility of a Trump or Clinton presidency too frightening to “waste” that vote on a third party.
The only way a third party will do well is if Clinton or Trump are an obvious shoe-in before Election Day.
This is why third parties and indie candidates always poll strongest many months before Election Day, then see their numbers shrink as Election Day approaches.
I don’t think the LP will poll well on Election Day. But the LP might garner a lot more free media than in previous years. Good advertising. That opportunity should not be wasted on a wishy-washy, has-been politician.
I don’t want a Gary Johnson with his vague, “safe” soundbites, in hopes of not scaring away voters. I’d rather use that free media spotlight to sell hardcore libertarianism.
I’d rather educate the public and get 1% in November, than say nothing offensive or meaningful and get 2% in November.
Of course it’s only one poll, and yes of course GJ ain’t well known.
Bernie Sanders was not known much at the beginning of this process, either, but now he is.
Inside baseball campaign financing matters aside, we can imagine that GJ will ramp up his efforts as the R and Ds settle and GJ gets the nomination. Mostly — and I’d say this will irritate purists — he really doesn’t need to talk about issues too much, he mostly can run saying, “I’m not Trump or Clinton. I’m a former guv. We need a new approach to politics.”
A few choice soundbites on a few issues. A few barbs about why Trump or Clinton will be disasters.
If well executed, that attracts money and drives polls up, I believe. Things break right, and he gets in the debates. He’ll need a LOT of handling to pull this off.
I am not convinced that Trumps support could be greater… that hidden racists or sexists will come out and support him. I think if this were the case it would be happening already in the republican primaries. Trump gets half of the Republican base which is half of 30% so Trumps base is 15% of the electorate.
To suggest that Trump may pull another 35% of hidden racists from the democrats and independents seems pretty unlikely.
More likely Trump is counting on the right leaning to have to back him and that Trump is going to take a turn to the middle to win the election (after the convention) in a classic Republican move is more likely.
“It might be that Trump is so socially unacceptable in some areas of the U.S., that people are lying to pollsters. They’ll vote for Trump, but claim otherwise, lest they appear “’xenophobic.'” — RTAA
This is only anecdotal evidence, by I personally know three individuals who fall into that category, including a woman whose son absolutely despises Trump and who told me recently that she would never admit to family or friends that she was planning to vote for him.
I’m not sure that it’s a “silent majority,” but I think there’s a rather large bloc of voters across the country like her who plan to quietly support The Donald on November 8th.
“Trump’s support might be much higher than that reflected in the polls, due to the ‘David Duke factor.’ — RTAA
Agreed. That’s a great point.
The conventional wisdom is that this could be a good year for an alternative presidential candidate, but the exact opposite might be true.
As RTAA indicated, Trump’s support is probably much greater than the polls suggest while those who fear the megalomaniacal real estate mogul, including millions who otherwise wouldn’t bother voting for Hillary, could potentially turn out in droves to keep him out of the White House.
With the possible exception of the Green Party’s Jill Stein, who has a genuine opportunity to capture at least a small yet meaningful segment of Bernie’s constituency, this could actually be a somewhat bleak year for America’s minor parties.
One poll, does not an election make
given a tally forged could be a fake
whilst we argue who might be great
deaf be our words in the great debate
we ask those that make the rate
what be our chances to run the state?
I am feeling a bit Shakespearean tonight.
Here’s the poll in which George Phillies received 12% against Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani: https://web.archive.org/web/20080507232213/http://phillies2008.org/press/12%25_would_support_phillies_in_3way_race
Trump’s support might be much higher than that reflected in the polls, due to the “David Duke factor.”
I am not referring to Trump’s remarks about Duke. Rather, I’m referring to Duke’s campaign for the Louisiana state legislature, when he polled low, yet won on election day. Many people told pollsters they opposed Duke, but voted for him on their secret ballot.
It might be that Trump is so socially unacceptable in some areas of the U.S., that people are lying to pollsters. They’ll vote for Trump, but claim otherwise, lest they appear “xenophobic.”
These poll numbers really don’t mean anything at this stage in the campaign. Given their abnormally high negatives, any generic candidate would probably show similar strength at this point in a prospective Trump-Clinton contest.
That’s almost surely the case in the Monmouth University poll, where eleven percent of those polled indicated a preference for Johnson, yet only 9 percent of the same respondents had a favorable opinion of the former governor. Clearly, some who indicated a preference for him don’t even know who he is.
They’re as clueless about him as he is about libertarianism.
As the director of the polling institute explained, “including Johnson’s name in our polling seems to be more of a placeholder for voters who are not particularly thrilled with either major party choice right now.”
The real question is whether Gary Johnson can raise enough money to even wage a minimal national campaign.
Given the consultant-driven massive debt of $1,538,118 still hanging over his head from his poorly-managed 2012 effort, it’s not particularly surprising that Johnson has only raised $149,361 in the first seven weeks since declaring his candidacy in early January, according to his March monthly campaign finance filing with the FEC.
During a similar period in the 2012 election cycle, the spendthrift ex-governor had already raised more than $685,000 in individual contributions (while amassing a debt in excess of $1,014,000 — a debt that wasn’t reported in its entirety until long after the 2012 election).
As of the end of last month, Johnson had received only a small fraction of the amount he had raised at a similar juncture four years earlier.
Donors are obviously leery this time around — and for good reason.
“Has a LP presidential candidate ever polled in the double-digits before?”
Never and Ron Paul was never going to be the LP nominee in 2008 or 2012.
This could be the breakthrough year….
‘…delegates will nt care about ledger issues…
Some of you had better START caring, or you will get a campaign that is another failure.
Steven,
That’s an interesting take. It hadn’t occurred to me to even think about what the Republicans and Democrats would do with the available material versus Johnson if he represented any kind of threat to them in the general election. I’ve been fairly focused on the pre-nomination campaign, and on trying to get Libertarians to care enough, if not about their party’s prospects then about how embarrassing it would be to them personally to let the same con artist take them to the cleaners for a second time in a row.
“Has a LP presidential candidate ever polled in the double-digits before?”
Yes. In 2008, George Phillies polled 12% in a three-way poll versus Clinton and (I think) McCain.
The smart operator for the D n R is to let Johnson get the nomination. Polling in March means almost nothing by the time October comes around. For me, there are two variables worth watching.
1. Trump vs. the Republican Convention
2. Clinton and her possible indictment
After the conventions and after the debates is when you start to drop punches on character, voting record, and overall persona. Current Libertarians will not be turned off by GJ’s ledger issues with the FEC, but if he appears to be polling in double digits in October, then both D n R will begin with his campaign debt and “consulting” fees. Next, they will move onto his record as Governor of New Mexico vs. his LP stance on current issues and the hypocrisy therein.
A. Sharia Law as Trump Jr. strategy
B. Deception of a Ledger like a Corporate Banker
C. Incestuous Campaign management by GJ
It wouldn’t take much to canvas any of the candidates, but you can’t make the voters care. Trump supporters in Missouri have no interest in his vulgarities, tirades, insults, bankruptcies, or hair. They don’t even care that he has no policies or strategies as President outside of YUGE and making America Great Again.
Bernie Sanders is proof that young progressives have no trust in Hillary. As the youth are out numbered by their grandparents, the baby boomers will win this one by attrition and raw numbers. But Hillary will inherit that same House of Reps as Obama has right now.
After four years of nothingness, will the American voters turn to another party or rinse and repeat?
2020 should be more interesting than 2016.
Peace
For some damn reason I think it would help to throw some verbal punches such as “there needs to be an investigation into the lies that led up to the invasion of Iraq and if so we need to arrest people and have a trial or two.”
I can’t answer that question without any concrete data. I believe Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or Jesse Ventura would definitely get far more than 11% if polled. But they aren’t candidates. People just don’t seem to like Johnson. Darryl is more likable. If Darryl gets the nomination, I think he’d work harder than Johnson to get exposure and spread his name and the party. If he gets about the same coverage as LP presidential candidates usually get I think he could get more than 1% without piling up debt and spreading non-libertarian ideas.
ws, is there a better candidate who has the plausible potential to break 5%?
Of course, one may not care about breaking through. The exercise might be more about gathering tenths of percentages of true-believing cadre in preparation for the Zombie Apocalypse or maybe the 1000 year struggle for worldwide nonarchy.
I agree that the conditions are good for a strong third party showing, but Johnson is only four points above where he was at this point last cycle. Bloomberg polled at 29% so the potential is definitely there but Johnson doesn’t seem to be the right candidate.
ws: If 2012 repeats itself, this is the apex of Johnson’s polling numbers.
me: That’s a big IF. Obama v Romney is a lot different than Trump v Clinton, in that the 12 matchup was between 2 plausible presidents (one sitting) compared with 2 really, really bad candidates. There was no talk of Rs not supporting Romney like there is with Trump. Clinton is a walking scandal. Both happen to be quite old. Both have massive negatives.
Now, GJ’d have to make the case against the wasted-vote syndrome more forcefully than ever. I wonder if it can be done by targeting the opposition voters in “safe” states.
Breakthrough to me means 5%, btw.
Has a LP presidential candidate ever polled in the double-digits before?
Yes
“Again, has a LP presidential candidate ever polled in double digits before?”
Ayup.
Ron Paul was the LP presidential nominee in 1988.
Again, has a LP presidential candidate ever polled in double digits before?
And the fact of the matter that since he is polling better this year then he did in 2012- as the LP candidate for president, he will likely get more votes this year then he did in 2012.
In January 2012, Ron Paul was included in a three way NBC/Wall Street Journal poll against Romney and Obama and received 18%. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/120126NBCWSJfinal.pdf
Has a LP presidential candidate ever polled in the double-digits before?
If Thomas thinks we can do better this year with one of the other candidates currently running for the LP nomination; think again.
It’s starting to get quite petty with how desperate some of GJ’s critics are becoming in their attempts to derail and stop him in the LP presidential primary.
If 2012 repeats itself, this is the apex of Johnson’s polling numbers. Even if the numbers remain constant, it will not qualify him for debates. It’s discouraging that even after running a national campaign, only 24% of voters know who Johnson is and the majority of those have a negative opinion of him. It’s sad that Johnson can only muster 11% when someone like Bloomberg can get 29%. The LP can do better.
Strong numbers. This is a very strange cycle, where almost anything is possible. IMO, of the current field, only GJ stands a reasonable chance for a breakout performance. McAfee has a very outside chance of doing so.
Darryl Perry passes all four.
This may be a sign that those who think the LP is in for a breakout year are right.
Whether that’s the case or not, our best bet is to nominate:
1) A libertarian; with a
2) Fresh face; who
3) Is not starting his campaign $1.4 million in the hole after
4) Lying to the LP’s convention delegates about his debt to get nominated LAST time.
Johnson fails on all four counts. NEXT!