January 2019 Open Thread

Our monthly open thread. Post news tips about alt parties and independent candidates, discuss any story that should be posted here but has not yet been posted, or even delve into completely off-topic stuff…just avoid quarantined thread subject matter and things that could get us and/or you into legal trouble such as threats, libel, and copyright infringement.

News tips can also be sent to the IPR writers who have chosen to make their contact info available at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/about/.

382 thoughts on “January 2019 Open Thread

  1. Fernando Mercado

    Well, Ian Schlakman shared and responded to my article (Cause I kept tagging him.)

    And there’s a possibility I get to interview him for my YT/Here

    That’s a plus to end 2018 and start 2019 with

  2. robert capozzi

    Jim from Dec thread: I can’t say I knew about the 7/8ths rule when I joined, but who joins a party with the intention of changing its principles?

    Me: I didn’t know, either. Part of my contention is that it seemed highly likely that as many as 7/8ths of those who have joined the LP over the years didn’t read the Bylaws. It’s fine print that few read on many contracts. I say it’s a great big gotcha.

    Imagine if you clicked a box for a website and you didn’t realize you were giving away your first born!

    When I joined the LP, “cult of the omnipotent state” seemed like a perfectly reasonable phrase. I “got” what “governments — when instituted” implied. As the years rolled by, I realized just how poor the CotOS is on just so many levels. And, while I consider myself a theoretical asymptotic anarchist, the politics of even considering a Zomia outcome in the US is certainly tin-eared at best, wacky at minimum.

    Yes, the depth charge likely seems justified to the NPO and High NAPists, and even for some Low NAPists like PF. Now, they might not care how unjustified it is for non-NAPists and Normals, but this is politics, not religion we’re talking about.

    If I’m correct, I’m appealing to NAPists of all stripes to reconsider this travesty. Even if they consider NAPist the One True Way, do they REALLY want to put themselves above the rest of humanity?

  3. Chuck Moulton

    I have no problem with the statement of principles. Seems good to me. On the other hand, we ought to get rid of the membership pledge (even though I can agree to it myself).

  4. robert capozzi

    cm,

    Back at ya!

    How do you feel about the fine-print that probably very few read on becoming a member? Is the stealth 7/8ths depth charge fair? Is it humble or hubristic? Can someone be an L in good (and effectively full) standing if s/he doesn’t see a CotOS?

  5. paulie Post author

    Can you name names?

    All day, but I don’t see the point. It’s like being asked to prove that 1 plus 1 equals 2.

  6. robert capozzi

    cm,

    High I can buy, too. 7/8ths feels hubristic to me. You?

    pf,

    Wow! I definitely cannot think of one. I suspect the vast majority of L pledgers didn’t even know about the bylaws and the depth charges.

    Is it your contention that most pledgers DID read the bylaws before joining the cult-challenging contingent?

  7. paulie Post author

    8/8 would have been even better, but 7/8 has been good enough, so far. I’m not contending that most people have read the bylaws before or after joining. Your original question was whether people join a party with the intention of changing its principles and my reply was yes, of course. That doesn’t require reading the bylaws. Some do, most don’t.

    A lot of opportunists join parties because they see a better chance at a nomination for themselves or someone they support in a party which is small enough for them to have a lot of influence in but big enough to have significant ballot access and some name recognition/media footprint. People in tiny and widely despised fascist and marxist cults often infiltrate relatively larger parties to gain wider acceptance and converts. Disgruntled Republicans frequently join the LP and try to turn it into a tea party conservative type of party. And so on. This is all self-evident to anyone who actually participates and has seen this done many times.

  8. Jim

    robert capozzi –

    Is your objection to the language of the statement of principles or to the difficulty in changing the language?

  9. paulie Post author

    Pretty sure Robert objects to both. But it doesn’t matter, because he’s not do anything about it except complain about it endlessly on IPR.

  10. Jim

    It appears to me that he objects to both, also. But that brings me back to the unanswered part of my comment in the December thread: if the anti-slavery Republican party of the 1850s had had an unchangeable statement of principles, perhaps it would not today be the party of white nationalists. Same with the classically liberal Democratic party winding up as the party of socialists. Since he didn’t answer that part, I thought maybe he agreed with the point and his only real objection was to the language of the statement of principles. But then he went back to focusing on the 7/8ths rule…

  11. robert capozzi

    j and pf,

    Yes, personally both. The 7/8ths depth charges are unconscionably arrogant. The SoP is poorly worded, and could be fixed if there were a plausible mechanism to fix it.

    I did try to fix it, but found it nearly impossible. I’m appealing lately to the conscience’s of NAPists to come to their senses 50 years later to AT LEAST acknowledge that the Founders went way overboard.

    One of the reasons that the Constitution is so often ignored is BECAUSE it’s too hard to amend.

    As for what the Rs and Ds might look like today, J, that’s way too speculative for my tastes. But it seems very unlikely that they — or any organization — would adopt a 7/8ths rule and survive as a relevant one. Times change. The data change.

  12. Jared

    It’s not implausible that non-Libertarian political misfits would try to piggyback off Libertarian ballot access and/or coopt the LP, as an established third party, to promote unlibertarian candidates with unlibertarian agendas. An ironclad SoP could be enough to deter some unprincipled, opportunistic outsiders and prevent a hostile takeover.

    The flip-side, of course, is that poor wording is forever enshrined in the LP’s core document until a super-super-majority agrees it’s worth correcting.

  13. dL

    It appears to me that he objects to both, also. But that brings me back to the unanswered part of my comment in the December thread: if the anti-slavery Republican party of the 1850s had had an unchangeable statement of principles, perhaps it would not today be the party of white nationalists. Same with the classically liberal Democratic party winding up as the party of socialists. Since he didn’t answer that part, I thought maybe he agreed with the point and his only real objection was to the language of the statement of principles. But then he went back to focusing on the 7/8ths rule…

    A statement of principles is tissue paper when it comes to the pursuit and exercise of winner take all political power. A piece of paper is no defense…

  14. Jim

    It doesn’t prevent a takeover of the party, but it does provide a defense against the drift and twisting of what the party is supposed to be about, which is done simultaneously by those seeking to seize control in order to provide them with legitimacy. It denies them that bit of legitimacy and reveals them as hypocrites.

  15. dL

    The flip-side, of course, is that poor wording is forever enshrined in the LP’s core document until a super-super-majority agrees it’s worth correcting.

    The LP platform has undergone substantial revisions over the years. Simply compare the current platform to, say, the 1992 platform. Any analogy comparing platform changes to amending the US constitution are comically bogus. This thread is a one man butthurt over the fact the LP recently restored the immigration plank, removing the xenophobic friendly contradiction that was installed at Portland. No longer can the Tucker Carlson’s of the world(and the people who watch Tucker Carlson) point to the LP platform and say, “see, even the LP platform supports my position.”

  16. dL

    It doesn’t prevent a takeover of the party, but it does provide a defense against the drift and twisting of what the party is supposed to be about, which is done simultaneously by those seeking to seize control in order to provide them with legitimacy. It denies them that bit of legitimacy and reveals them as hypocrites.

    Yes, I agree. A serious SoP inoculates a 3rd party to some extent against charlatans and wreckers. But what I wrote was in response to your conjecture concerning Repubs and Dems. Winner take all politics only accommodates a 2-party duopoly. And while SoP may immunize a 3rd party from intellectual corruption, if that 3rd party became one of the 2 major parties, then that SoP will not be any guarantee against that party becoming just another version of the Dems of Repubs.

  17. robert capozzi

    J: the drift and twisting of what the party is supposed to be about,

    me: “Supposed to be about” according to whom? The 88 people at the first convention? The maybe 100 or so at the second?

    Most of these “founders” were in their 20s, which is all well and good, but the lack of maturity explains so much of the histrionical language. Further, most of them were hard-core Randians and a smattering of Rothbardians.

    L thought has evolved from these simplistic early influences, and yet the LP is still anchored/weighed down by words from nearly 50 years ago and many of the co-authors are deceased. Are you really so sure that they landed on profound, abiding truth?

  18. Jared

    dL: “The LP platform has undergone substantial revisions over the years.”

    I’m aware the LP platform has been revised. I was referring only to the SoP, which to my knowledge hasn’t been revised since 1974.

  19. Gina

    “Supposed to be about” according to whom?

    Those who built it and those who continue to build it over the years, including those who still think it should continue to be built today. Obviously that is not you, but you seem to think that they owe you the keys for some unexplained reason. Luckily, the design built a high barrier against that, but it generously does allow 7/8 to change it, which may ultimately prove too generous but luckily hasn’t yet.

    Of course those who don’t like it can always build something new that is more their tastes, but it seems they would rather just gripe that the handiwork of others isn’t simply turned over to them.

  20. robert capozzi

    G: …you seem to think that they owe you the keys for some unexplained reason.

    Me: Nope, I assure you, not even close. Nobody “owes” me nothin’. I’m not sure how you get that impression, but I’m sorry if I ever came into the neighborhood of implying such a thing.

    There are probably more lapsed LP members like myself. I do suggest that a large subset of them recognize that there IS NO CotOS. Or that NAPism is a nice sentiment, but has nothing to do with making political change in the direction of more liberty.

    Should NAPists care that they run-off non-NAPists (those who never were NAPists or those who grew out of it)?

    I’d say Yes, IF NAPists want more liberty. IF, OTOH, NAPists fancy themselves as Pontifical Swiss Guards for the purity of NAPism, perhaps not.

  21. Gina

    Any third party is going to have ex-members no matter what it does. It’s inevitable that a lot of people get impatient and frustrated at the pace of progress and decide to devote their time and money to other pursuits. Some get over their temporary disgruntlement with the establishment party of their choice, some become cynical or principled non-voters, some turn to religion or other hobbies to take the place that politics once had in their life, some get tired of the infighting, some have an ideological problem in one direction or another with the party’s stances, some end up too broke to contribute (homeless, jailed, etc). And so on.

    It’s a fantasy that any party will appeal to everyone. The LP is what it is; change it, start a new one, or piss and moan on the sidelines. We know which one Robert Capozzi will continue to choose to do.

  22. Chuck Moulton

    Gina wrote:

    Those who built it and those who continue to build it over the years, including those who still think it should continue to be built today. Obviously that is not you, but you seem to think that they owe you the keys for some unexplained reason. Luckily, the design built a high barrier against that, but it generously does allow 7/8 to change it, which may ultimately prove too generous but luckily hasn’t yet.

    Of course those who don’t like it can always build something new that is more their tastes, but it seems they would rather just gripe that the handiwork of others isn’t simply turned over to them.

    Bingo!

    I’m continuously confused why Bob thinks he is entitled to get infrastructure built over decades by people who believe one thing turned over to him who believes something else. It’s very odd.

  23. robert capozzi

    G,

    Much of what you say is true above.

    However, there is another choice beyond accept/change/start/or moan. I choose diagnose and discuss. When something is as both ineffective AND misery-inducing as NAPism is, one can throw a lifeline out to those still trapped in a deeply dysfunctional thought system. I would have been spared much mental anguish if my 60-year-old self had been able to question the premises of my 20-year-old self. Who is this “cult”? Do they really want an all-powerful state? Etc. Really look at the language and the ideas behind them, and watch the epiphanies flow.

    And, no, you don’t “know” what I will do, not tomorrow, not in a year from now. Your certitude is misplaced. Ponder that. That false sense of certitude is part and parcel with the NAPist mindset. When you realize that you don’t even know what YOU are going to do tomorrow or in a year from now (unless you are a really fucking accurate clairvoyant!), it may well pierce the veil of the NAPist construct.

  24. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    Closing in on 50 years of a NAP-limited LP reveals LOTS of data. Electorally, it’s done almost nothing through time. Influence-wise, the State is a LOT more coercive and intrusive now than it was 50 years ago.

    At an economics conference I attended a few years ago one of the speakers had a wonderful analogy about market failure analysis which I think is also apt for Bob’s analysis.

    The speaker said most market failure analysis was like a singing contest judged in the following way: There are 10 contestants. The first contestant sings a little off-key. So the judges turn to the second contestant and say “Congratulations! You win!”

    There are obviously several problems with such a process: 1) even if the first singer is bad, the judges never examine the second singer to see if he (the government in this analogy) is even worse; 2) the judges also never hear from contestants 3-10 (other non-governmental solutions) to see if they are better than contestant 1 (the status quo) or contestant 2 (the proposed government solution).

    Similarly, Bob analyzes a market failure in the LP, then refuses to engages in discussion of whether his proposal would be better or worse. Even if one accepts his premise that there is some problem with the LP statement of principles or LP messaging (which is a dubious claim at best), it’s nuts to believe his suggestions would be a better result when examined through the lens of abundant evidence that his suggestions would fall far short of the results he hopes.

    There is an easy way to collect more data: get off his ass and start a new party without the baggage he perceives. He won’t do that. Or he can put his time in candidates with messaging he likes. He won’t do that either. Or he can try to actually change the LP by amending the statement of principles or the platform or the bylaws. He won’t do that either. Instead he likes whining about how other hard working people who have invested years of their lives in a party that matches their vision should turn over the keys to someone with a contrary vision. It ‘s pretty nuts.

    Would I change some things about the LP if I were LP dictator? Of course. And I did. I got off my ass and worked for it. I helped get the platform amended. I helped get the bylaws amended. I pushed several times to dump the pledge. Bob worked alongside me for some of those things.

    But what happened when we got at least half of what we wanted (maybe more) by getting rid of most of the platform, getting more than half but less than 2/3 to dump the pledge, and getting more than 2/3 but less than 7/8 to amend the statement of principles? Carl Milstead left. Bob Capozzi left. Countless other reformers left.

    What happened after they all left? The platform has grown bigger, mode destinational, and more radical each convention.

    Don’t whine about the result when you give up and leave. It’s incredibly insulting to those of us who work hard.

    Similarly, Bob whines about candidate messaging without ever running for office himself or volunteering for a candidate. While he has sit on the sidelines, I was elected to public office, I recruited many candidates and helped them get on the ballot, and I helped several others actually get elected. The keyboard warriors whining about the SoP and messaging are not the ones actually electing people to office.

    I don’t take people seriously who don’t get off their asses and work. No one else should either. Let me know when you’ve gotten people elected or you change the SoP in convention or you start your own party and provide evidence to back up your claims. Until then it’s just whining, BS, and puffery.

    “go start your own party” is not insulting. It’s a put up or shut up challenge in this LP meritocracy that is a useful heuristic for avoiding wasting time arguing with people who have no idea what they are talking about. At every county LP meeting I’ve been to when someone has an idea, the most effective response is not dropping everything so other people can implement it or rejecting it out of hand… it is “interesting idea… go do it and report back to us”. Some put up. Others shut up. The remaining are ignored.

  25. Gina

    “However, there is another choice beyond accept/change/start/or moan. I choose diagnose and discuss. ”

    Sounds like a self-congratulatory way of characterizing piss and moan to me, but if it makes you feel better, go with it. Chuck has actually diagnosed the situation quite aptly, so it feels like the best course of action moving forward in the new year is to let Robert carry on his “discussions” without interjecting doses of reality which simply take time away from useful pursuits elsewhere and serve as foils for continued “diagnosis” by Dr. Capozzi, Q. E. D.

  26. William T. Forrest

    And, no, you don’t “know” what I will do, not tomorrow, not in a year from now. Your certitude is misplaced.

    True, but more importantly, I don’t really care unless and until you give me a good reason why I should. Your endless, repetitive comments here ain’t it. But do let me know if you jump back off the sidelines, I may be interested in seeing what you come up with if that ever happens.

  27. William T. Forrest

    Your certitude is misplaced. Ponder that.

    Robert certainly seems certain that he has diagnosed a problem in the LP and that it would be better off with his prescription. Perhaps he shouldn’t have so much misplaced certitude in that.

  28. robert capozzi

    cm: So the judges turn to the second contestant and say “Congratulations! You win!”

    me: Actually, it’s not very apt. I’d like to see an effective LP rather than a NAPist one. I’d think the first step is to lower the 7/8ths depth charges, and delete or rewrite the SoP. Beyond that, I have no real opinion. The constant rear-guard actions defending NAPism and the non-NAPist candidates offering nearer term solutions doesn’t look like it’s working so well. It’s a constant battle, and I myself don’t have the energy for it. I don’t suggest another “contestant” and I can’t prove that a de-NAPed LP would make more headway than the current, constant-warfare setup, but it makes sense to me, at least.

    cm: Similarly, Bob analyzes a market failure in the LP, then refuses to engages in discussion of whether his proposal would be better or worse. Even if one accepts his premise that there is some problem with the LP statement of principles or LP messaging (which is a dubious claim at best), it’s nuts to believe his suggestions would be a better result when examined through the lens of abundant evidence that his suggestions would fall far short of the results he hopes.

    me: Sorry, there is no such evidence, since there is no lessarchist party with ballot access in most states. I admit that mine is conjecture, but the house is divided and barely standing.

    cm: There is an easy way to collect more data: get off his ass and start a new party without the baggage he perceives.

    me: Thanks for the time management tip. It’s above my capabilities and resources to pull something like this off.

    cm: Or he can try to actually change the LP by amending the statement of principles or the platform or the bylaws.

    me: Tried and failed to delete CotOS. My current tack is to expose the many weaknesses of NAPism to NAPist as a kind of Hail Mary. Since I myself shrugged off NAPism, I know it CAN be done. Or: Even if one is a NAPist, can they loosen up their requirement that all Ls be NAPists, too?

    cm: He won’t do that either. Instead he likes whining about how other hard working people who have invested years of their lives in a party that matches their vision should turn over the keys to someone with a contrary vision. It ‘s pretty nuts.

    me: I do have some sympathy for the NAPists who’ve invested their time in keeping NAPism at the core of the LP. I suspect they find it personally satisfying. But I am suggesting they take a more high-minded approach: Even if they hold onto their NAPism, can’t they see that it’s not working and is unlikely to work? Don’t they want to see Ls with a seat at the decision-making table?

    It’s funny to me that I’m accused of “whining,” because the LP looks to me like one big whine-fest! 😉 It’s not a serious political force for change.

    cm: But what happened when we got at least half of what we wanted (maybe more) by getting rid of most of the platform, getting more than half but less than 2/3 to dump the pledge, and getting more than 2/3 but less than 7/8 to amend the statement of principles? Carl Milstead left. Bob Capozzi left. Countless other reformers left.

    me: Right. Lost cause most likely.

    cm: I don’t take people seriously who don’t get off their asses and work. No one else should either. Let me know when you’ve gotten people elected or you change the SoP in convention or you start your own party and provide evidence to back up your claims. Until then it’s just whining, BS, and puffery.

    me: I’ve always found the saying “put your nose to the grindstone” rather odd. I don’t see a lot of value in fighting a lost cause. Perhaps my assessment is incorrect, but I simply don’t see how a sandy foundation leads to a solid building.

  29. robert capozzi

    wtf: Robert certainly seems certain that he has diagnosed a problem in the LP and that it would be better off with his prescription.

    me: I indicated that it’s possible that Gina is in fact clairvoyant! 🙂

    I’m not certain of the diagnosis of why the LP has floundered for nearly five decades. I’m open to alternative theories. Do you have one?

  30. paulie Post author

    I’m not certain of the diagnosis of why the LP has floundered for nearly five decades. I’m open to alternative theories. Do you have one?

    This has been answered here many times before.

    Institutional barriers to alt parties in the US, lesser evil miscalculation, excessive infighting, giving up too easily, not doing enough to learn and teach nuts and bolts political organizing, not enough active outreach, not enough inreach (educational opportunities for LP members to learn the ideology more thoroughly), too much bending over backwards and forwards and tying ourselves in knots trying to appeal to conservatives.

    When you say floundered you have to ask compared to what. Compared to every other attempt at building a third party in the US in the 85 years or so since ballot access was made a lot harder in response to communist and socialist party organizing, the LP has had more sustained success than any of the rest of them. Jim’s charts show we continue to grow over time, so your time frame is just too short; nearly 50 years may seem like a lot but according to what I read recently the party’s founders expected it may be more like a hundred before our efforts really pay off.

    The party is finally doing the right things when it comes to organizing door to door, phonebanking, CRM and so on, so things are looking good for the future.

  31. paulie Post author

    Actually, it’s not very apt. I’d like to see an effective LP rather than a NAPist one. I’d think the first step is to lower the 7/8ths depth charges, and delete or rewrite the SoP.

    Well, lowering 7/8 won’t happen no matter how many times you repeat it here. I’d also be a lot less certain that deleting or rewriting SoP would produce the desired effect than you seem to be. Seems highly unlikely to me for reasons already belabored far too many times.

  32. robert capozzi

    pf: according to what I read recently the party’s founders expected it may be more like a hundred before our efforts really pay off.

    me: Yes, and they also thought there was a cult of the omnipotent state, so for me their judgment was poor or, if I’m feeling charitable, they were awful poets. I really can’t imagine why anyone cares what the founders thought. Well-meaning kids, is my assessment.

  33. paulie Post author

    I think they were correct on both counts. Jim’s charts show the trends. Reading Nolan’s manual, he gets a hell of a lot right. We need to get back to examining and implementing that, a lot of work remains to be done there.

  34. robert capozzi

    more…

    And, again, I’m not certain that a lessarchist party would have that much more success. I note that the high-water mark for Ls was in the 80s when there were 3 lessarchists (although Marrou turned out to be a NAPist, near as I can tell) in the AK legislature and 2016 when GJ/WW were for a time showing up as serious challengers, pre-Aleppo. I’m not certain that 50 more years of NAPism won’t bring about The Jubilee, either, but I am very skeptical.

  35. paulie Post author

    I’m not certain that a lessarchist party would have that much more success.

    Probably less based on what can be seen from other parties and the relative ups and downs of the LP over the years. You aren’t looking at enough different metrics for judging LP success. Jim’s charts, taken in totality together, paint a much more complete picture.

  36. paulie Post author

    In your opinion. I disagree, for reasons explained plenty of times already. It’s refusing to fully examine the available comparisons, trends and institutional barriers which allows your opinions to seem more plausible than they actually are. I spend a lot of time analyzing every aspect of this and field testing many aspects of it so I don’t think I am whistling in the dark here.

  37. dL

    At an economics conference I attended a few years ago one of the speakers had a wonderful analogy about market failure analysis which I think is also apt for Bob’s analysis.

    Market failure is the wrong analysis to explain why the LP has not become a major party alongside the Dems and Repubs(creating something along the lines of a 33%-33%-33% split in representation government). It is much more of a “rules of the game” fact of political science that “single-member district plurality” obeys Duverger’s Law. It has nothing to do with any SoP. The only role SoP would play in such a game would be to explain why a third party might not have to ride the coattails of a public choice analysis to a quick and inevitable extinction.

    That being said, if the rules of the game changed(i.e, a different voting/election system than SMDP), then I imagine the current SoP could be a hindrance to some version of a libertarian party becoming a player in multi-party coalition government system. It would depend on the voting system.

    Carl Milstead left.

    From what I’ve read of him, he uses his past self as a straw man to pigeonhole everyone else. Maybe he was on the Rand/Rothbard Neuro Linguistic Programming train at one point in his life, but I never was. I’ve never subscribed to the silly notion that you had to meet a threshold of X% majority of people to bow down to Ayn Rand in order to have a libertarian society.

    When he writes “most people are not political ideologues”, I actually agree with them. They’re not. Which is exactly why you don’t have to muddle up your message in order to meet an X% ideological threshold of Joe Q. public. What’s good for the neuro linguistic goose is also good for the marketing startup gander…

  38. Anthony Dlugos

    “Kokesh arrested again in Louisiana:”

    I feel pretty good about my bet with Xenophobe Andy that this dope won’t be a free man by the Convention in 2020.

  39. Anthony Dlugos

    The founding texts of the party, SoP, the CotOS, and the typical messaging of the party down through the years are the Libertarian version of Newspeak: structured (perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not) to control the thoughts of anyone caught in the gravitational pull of the party.

    From that perspective, such elements have succeeded wildly: public policy solutions that emanate from the party and its candidates generally vary imperceptibly, all of those solutions sitting far outside the frame of reference of the great mass of voters/potential voters. From inside the party, changes in the platform and/or messaging that are considered substantial are actually trivial, coffee house debates from the perspective that actually matters: those outside the party whose help we need to actually try and move policy in a libertarian direction.

    Such debates have one definite effect: keeps the party small and ineffectual. Any professional pol, any serious donor, stays the hell away. The debates themselves tells anyone serious that we aren’t serious. At least not about winning elections and moving policy in a libertarian direction.

    Affixing blame to institutional barriers and lack of nuts and bolts political organizing sidesteps the first thing that has to be done: making our product marketable, something it is clearly not right now.

  40. Anthony Dlugos

    “A statement of principles is tissue paper when it comes to the pursuit and exercise of winner take all political power. A piece of paper is no defense…”

    Good point.

    That’s why its best for moderates not to view changing the platform as the be-all, end-all of success. Don’t need to change the platform. Just need to demonstrate unified strength.

    7/8ths is unnecessary.

  41. dL

    Good point.

    Well, the point was in reference to major players in a winner take all political system. The LP is not a major player, so the point doesn’t apply.

  42. Anthony Dlugos

    You mean the point doesn’t apply to those who don’t want/doesn’t think the the LP to be a major player.

  43. paulie Post author

    Libertarian version of Newspeak:

    Robert Capozzi has it nailed it down. Haven’t seen so many new terms invented since the fall of the USSR or the last time I re-read 1984. Or was it Clockwork Orange? I can’t remember.

  44. paulie Post author

    Affixing blame to institutional barriers and lack of nuts and bolts political organizing sidesteps the first thing that has to be done

    Nope. You can’t just discount things that have kept all alt parties in the US down for 85 years regardless of ideology, including moderate and moderate-libertarian parties, all but the LP even more than the LP (except for one-state, typically fusion, parties and brief shooting stars around a cult of personality). Nor should you discount what relative successes the LP has in fact had.

  45. paulie Post author

    You mean the point doesn’t apply to those who don’t want/doesn’t think the the LP to be a major player.

    No mix of political positioning is sufficient for that. David Nolan actually did a good job of analyzing what the LP can realistically hope to achieve within the existing system and how to go about trying to be effective at that. I posted both as a link here and a separate article. I hope you read it. And anyone else even vaguely interested in these subjects.

  46. dL

    You mean the point doesn’t apply to those who don’t want/doesn’t think the the LP to be a major player.

    If wishes were fishes, we’d all swim in riches. I’m stating a fact, not a wish.

  47. Thomas Knapp

    “Yes, and they also thought there was a cult of the omnipotent state”

    Thinking, and noticing that there’s a cult of the omnipotent state, kind of go together. You can’t do the former without the latter coming up sooner or later.

  48. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Mussolini was already long dead, and the Ba’athists were half a globe away.

    Even if there were a CotOS then, is there one now, here? If so, who are these dark-robed villains blindly pining for an all-powerful state?

  49. dL

    Cult of the Omnipotent state

  50. Jared

    I take CotOS to mean, not necessarily a fetish for totalitarianism, but the prevailing notion that, while there may be some things government should not do, there is nothing in principle which government lacks the legitimate authority to do: no domain of human existence which is politically out of bounds, no relationship which the state has no ultimate right to monitor and regulate.

  51. Jim

    robert capozzi “Even if there were a CotOS then, is there one now, here? If so, who are these dark-robed villains blindly pining for an all-powerful state?”

    It is likely within the period of political awareness of every regular visitor to this site that a particular faction of the Republican party:

    * Created a program they called Total Information Awareness with the intention of surveilling everyone in the world
    * Asserted the right to classify anyone in the world as a terrorist (without have to disclose evidence), after which they could kill or torture the alleged terrorist
    * Asserted the right to pre-emptively attack foreign nations
    * Relegated protesters to free speech zones

    And let’s not forget their economics – the no bid contracts and trillion dollar crony capitalist bailouts. And the business-as-usual violations of personal liberty, such as imprisoning people for victimless crimes. If their pre-emptive wars had needed it, there should be little doubt that they would have reverted to a military draft. Bush and the NeoConservatives massively expanded the government’s role in healthcare and education, increased the number of economically significant regulations by 70%… hell, they banned incandescent light bulbs.

    NeoConservatives do not acknowledge any theoretical limit to state power. The only practical checks on state power, to a NeoConservative, is their ability to continue winning elections and their personal lack of motivation to expand government even further.

  52. robert capozzi

    J, G, and J,

    You can downplay the meaning of “omnipotent,” but political communication is a signal, NOT an insider’s meaning. The word points to a conspiracy dedicated to extreme totalitarianism.

    Yes, there are many more-archists, then and now. There are statists, then and now.

    Why come across as hysterical? And why protect such hysteria with a 7/8th depth charge?

    Seems odd to me, and I suspect most.

  53. paulie Post author

    Aspirationally omnipotent. Although there’s really no transgression that they can’t invent an excuse for already.

  54. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    That was my response.

    There are currently sitting major politicians whose response to any question regarding whether or not they legitimately have the power to do anything they damn well please is, effectively “are you serious?”

    Pelosi just happened to be the one to say it succinctly and out loud, but in any session of Congress there will be issues — real or manufactured — that come up in which members of the House or Senate will make clear that the only obstacle they see to whatever they want done is getting enough members of the state apparatus to agree that it should be done.

    The Cult of the Omnipotent State isn’t a bunch of people who say they WANT the state to be omnipotent. It’s a bunch of people who believe the state IS omnipotent. Pelosi and Company might not decide they want to pass a law requiring every American to recite the pledge of allegiance five times a day while standing on one foot and waving their hands in the air, but if they decided they wanted to enact such a law, they would assume that they had the legitimate power to do so.

  55. paulie Post author

    via fb

    According to local officials, Adam Kokesh is scheduled to be released from jail some time tonight.

  56. William T. Forrest

    Certain traditions still stand between US regime current levels of authoritarianism and, say, DPRK or Khmer Rouge, but all those safeguards are being eroded and there is no problem that some people don’t think government can solve, including people in positions of power within the state apparatus.

  57. robert capozzi

    tk: It’s a bunch of people who believe the state IS omnipotent. Pelosi and Company might not decide they want to pass a law requiring every American to recite the pledge of allegiance five times a day while standing on one foot and waving their hands in the air, but if they decided they wanted to enact such a law, they would assume that they had the legitimate power to do so.

    me: Deeply speculative assertion is my feedback. It even has a paranoid flavor to it.

    Pelosi doesn’t read the Constitution literally, along with most people these days. The question didn’t ring true to her. Now, I’m not defending Pelosi or most people, but that’s why she was taken off-guard by the question. He could have asked: “Is Social Security authorized under the Constitution?” To most, that’s an odd question, even though I don’t personally think it is authorized.

    Now, there may well be some who think the State can solve any and all problems, but for the most part, this strikes me as a caricature. I don’t believe that statists think the way you do. I DO believe they want to “solve” the issue du jour, mostly as a matter of fashion rather than a grand plan for an Orwellian future.

    But, to be fair, you and the 7/8th clause win…

  58. dL

    The CotOS is when you have Trump threatening martial law/economic shutdown to launch an all out war against an imaginary line, or Bernie Sanders browbeating a thermonuclear counterattack against the sun(and these two are the most likely 2020 major party POTUS candidates), and the response to these absurdities is not one that vacillates between dumbfounded mockery and abject horror but instead doubles down on attacking the Libertarian Party Statement of Principles. Now that’s a motherfuckin cult!!! Jim Jones has nothin on US politics…

  59. Jim

    I can’t tell if you guys like that kind of music or if you don’t care about the music and just like the girls dancing around. I’ve always been partial to a more high energy rock/punk/pop kind of sound, which can be difficult to find these days.

    Jackson Gamble – Reckless https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPDp2l2tX-o

    Hardwell – Sally https://youtu.be/Ox_rgDuyws8?t=43

    Neon Hitch – Fuck U Betta http://www.mtvbase.com/music/videos/s3ujlz/F-U-Betta-Video

    Nickelback – She Keeps Me Up https://youtu.be/IfB_K4RGtDo?t=27

  60. robert capozzi

    wtf: all those safeguards are being eroded

    me: So stipulated.

    wtf: and there is no problem that some people don’t think government can solve, including people in positions of power within the state apparatus.

    me: And here’s where NAPists go off the rails with paranoia, I submit. I suspect that VERY few believe this, at least consciously. They may well REACT to each challenge with the fashionable answer, that — in effect — the government can and should do something about the crisis du jour. But almost no one harbors totalitarian dreams.

    If they do, and they articulate these dreams, they are branded as extremists and discounted to zero by most. NAPists sound to the Normals like these extremists, even though they are anti-totalitarians.

    Now, I’ve not really gone down the Sharia rabbit hole, but I suspect that the right use the totalitarian-tone of those who advocate for Sharia in the US to trigger totalitarian revulsion. They use this revulsion to justify proposed statist “solutions.”

    You are speaking, I submit, an entirely foreign language to the Normals. You sound to them as threatening. NAPists co-validate other NAPists, creating a rhetorical bubble, where you each support your paranoid-sounding views to the point where you each agree that there’s actually a cult that wants an all-powerful state, even though there isn’t one. There ARE statists who want to expand the government, yes, of course. But, the NAPist perception cannot seem to differentiate statists from totalitarians.

    My hypothesis is this is why a NAPist doesn’t care about “Shiny Badges.” For the NAPist, the only thing that matters (or, more properly, the primary filter) is NAP compliance. This could lead the NAPist to support someone like McAfee over GJ. JMc may not have been an ideal NAPist, but he sounded to the NAPist ear as far more NAP-compliant than GJ.

    And this is why so many NAPists were RP1 supporters. He got a 95% on NAP compliance, say, AND he has a Shiny Badge. They were able to rationalize away all the hate-associations from NewsletterGate 1.0 and 2.0.

    To the Normals, this would not even be a close call.

  61. paulie Post author

    I suspect that VERY few believe this, at least consciously. They may well REACT to each challenge with the fashionable answer, that — in effect — the government can and should do something about the crisis du jour. But almost no one harbors totalitarian dreams.

    So in practical terms the same thing with the same results.

  62. paulie Post author

    Also, it’s simply not true that it’s all unconscious. The arguments for government education were at the time it became common all about standardizing the population and making for more compliant factory workers and cannon fodder with a common culture and thought process. The arguments for immigration restrictions were almost entirely open racism at the time they were imposed. Try going back and reading some of that stuff.

    The pledge of allegiance was originally made with a nazi-like salute and if you go back and read the writings of its author “nazi” is an apt description. “Total information awareness” is the stated goal of the national security state and they even have a creepy graphic of an octopus with the globe in its tentacles representing themselves. The chief justice and newest member of the supreme court alike adhere to a judicial philosophy of deferring to the popularly elected branches, eliminating judicial restraint. President Bonespur believes “he alone” knows everything and is his own best advisor and manager and invokes the idea of presidency for life, shutting down opposition journalism, national emergency to build the wall (look up presidential powers in a national emergency) and on and on and on.

    There are many, many examples of this cited here over the years.

  63. paulie Post author

    I can’t tell if you guys like that kind of music

    I like a lot of different kinds of music. Everything I post is stuff I like.

  64. Anthony Dlugos

    “I have not filed a tax return for 8 years,” McAfee wrote before calling taxes illegal and complaining about government services…In another tweet, McAfee likened the tax agency to the Nazi SS and said its beginnings are rooted as an intimidation arm of the government during Prohibition. He cited the Civil War period as an example to abolish the income tax: “prior to the civil war there was no income tax, yet we managed. Stay tuned for the truth.”

    Wow. Covered all the bases to land the radical, bro-publican, and alt-Reich factions of the likely 2020 Convention.

    Foolishly confrontational, offensively hyperbolic, faintly conspiratorial, and a dog whistle allusion to rolling back societal changes to a point before African Americans, women, and other minorities got too uppity.

    Bravo, you coked up murder suspect. Stick to that message and have the good fortune to run against Governor Weld, and you might land the 2020 nomination!

  65. William T. Forrest

    Jim – you like Nickelback… you really shouldn’t criticize other people’s music LOL

    Also…not sure why your videos only posted the links, maybe because you posted 4 to the same comment? Dunno.

  66. dL

    Wow. Covered all the bases to land the radical, bro-publican

    Bravo, you coked up murder suspect. Stick to that message and have the good fortune to run against Governor Weld, and you might land the 2020 nomination!

    Yeah, William Weld certainly dispels the image of the LP being the party of white bropublicans…

  67. Gina

    LOL pretty sure that Nickelback song is actually about cocaine. Listen to the lyrics. Nice ending to the video.

  68. William T. Forrest

    Gina, true or false?

    This one was dedicated to you just before you want 100% lez.

  69. robert capozzi

    pf: So in practical terms the same thing with the same results.

    me: Possibly. We can only know that if we got close to totalitarianism. IOW, no.

    pf: Also, it’s simply not true that it’s all unconscious. The arguments for government education were at the time it became common all about standardizing the population and making for more compliant factory workers and cannon fodder with a common culture and thought process. The arguments for immigration restrictions were almost entirely open racism at the time they were imposed. Try going back and reading some of that stuff.

    me: I’m aware of all this. I submit that you are catastrophizing. While the desire to regiment TO SOME EXTENT through government education doesn’t equal ending free speech, for ex. The racist form of statism doesn’t mean that anti-immigrants wanted to end 4A, for instance.

  70. paulie Post author

    I’m sure it’s a more gradual process. But there have been plenty of human sacrifices already, and the high priests holding all sorts of rituals ranging from the swearing in and the state of the unions to genuflecting at sporting events and schools to the military parades Agent Orange von Bonespur wants to have, Pyongyang style. Anyway, who’s catastrophizing? It was this month or last you were saying we are on the verge of dictatorial rule. As in we don’t have time to do any long term party building, or whatever. I dunno. Believe whatever you want, I have other things to do.

  71. Gina

    Yes, because the cafeteria worker employed by private federal contractor is responsible for the state and deserves to lose her job because the president has a tantrum about the wall. Granted in some ideal world maybe her company would have to find some other client but we don’t live in that world and how is that her fault?

  72. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I don’t recall using those words, but, yes, I’m concerned that we are careening toward a heavily statist setup. Indeed, it’s already quite statist now, but I do fear we may lurch into an unrecoverable situation.

    I’m glad we agree that it’s a process. NAPists seem to believe that there’s a CONSCIOUS process for enacting totalitarianism, and — after all these years — the best examples that NAPists have offered are Mussolini and the Ba’ath Party, neither of which are at play in the US. I’m still waiting for a more relevant example. Yes, there may be a Marxist Vermin Supreme out there somewhere, but even that example is not offered by the NAP camp.

    This is why not having a viable lessarchist party is so disappointing. Execution (party building) is probably as important as getting the mission right. To be successful, we’d need both. Without a serviceable, sensible, truthful mission (something other than challenging the non-existent cult of the omnipotent state), near-perfect execution is a waste of time, like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Similarly, a sound foundation is of no use if the execution is poor. Political strategists are well paid for a reason. They understand the import of BOTH.

  73. Anthony Dlugos

    “Yeah, William Weld certainly dispels the image of the LP being the party of white bropublicans…”

    By bro-publican, I refer to the Petersen crew. The young. white, christian states’ rights conservatives who call themselves libertarians insofar as it is cool to be against the war on drugs yet still provides them intellectual cover to loathe those their upbringing instructed them to loathe.

    They were no fans of Johnson or Weld, I can assure you.

    You want to call Weld one of the country club noblesse oblige WASP’s, I’ll concede one could call him that.

    On the other hand, as potentially insensitive as Governor Weld’s statement you noted is, its not as ruinous for a politician and the party he/she is associated with as McAfee’s statement is. And that’s not the only thing McAfee has said or done that has made him political kryptonite.

  74. paulie Post author

    I have 23 additional comments from during the site migration saved but it won’t let me post them as a single comment like I did in some of the other threads because of a comment length restriction which I haven’t found how to switch off. If anyone wants to post them one by one let me know and I will email you the file.

  75. dL

    I’m sure it’s a more gradual process. But there have been plenty of human sacrifices already, and the high priests holding all sorts of rituals ranging from the swearing in and the state of the unions to genuflecting at sporting events and schools to the military parades Agent Orange von Bonespur wants to have, Pyongyang style.

    From Merriam Webster:

    cult noun, often attributive

    Definition of cult
    a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such as a film or book)
    //criticizing how the media promotes the cult of celebrity

    b: especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

    Apparently, Bob denies “a cult of celebrity” or “a cult of personality” etcetera, etcetera, because neither of those things entails dressing up in hooded costumes and taking part in a planned conspiracy. Of course, hooded costumes and planned conspiracies don’t make the dictionary definition.

  76. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Thanks. I’d say that AP demonstrates — subtly so — how Objectivism is a cult. Notice the references to “Rand” that seem to establish her as a Moses. The latest Reason podcast had Jonathan Hoenig, another Randroid, and he just regurgitates statements from the tablets AR chiseled on decades ago about “Americanism.” His discussion sounded like someone who lacks any sort of self-awareness, referencing decades-old constructs as gospel.

    The LP’s founders were likely psychologically projecting when they scribed “CotOS.” They themselves were in a cult, although they didn’t recognize it.

    TC’s “family” approach is a kind of lifeline. I don’t find it compelling. It seems to be something like the conservative’s alternative to 80’s style growth-ism. The idea then was to cut marginal tax rates, which would trigger more rapid economic growth, which would accelerate GDP growth so that we could pay for the welfare state (that they’re not crazy about) and the warfare state (that they generally love).

    NPO NAPism rejects any sort of lifeline. Just hold high the banner of little to no government, and take any rollback where it can be achieved. Even if NONE is achieved, no worries…it’s the “moral” position, and that’s all that matters.

    Personally, I do think that a lifeline approach is necessary to enact a course correction. It might even require alternatives to the welfare state, something like UBI, which is, of course, blasphemous to the NPO and High NAPists. If well executed, a UBI base would also happen to allow families (and individuals) to make their way in the world without the hamster-wheel setup that has evolved since the 80s. It could be done reasonably neutrally as well, I suspect.

  77. Jared

    There is the standard definition of “cult” and the narrower, more technical, sociological definition. I’d say Objectivism falls into both categories, and Rothbardianism isn’t far behind.

  78. Thomas Knapp

    Quoth RC,

    “I’m glad we agree that it’s a process. NAPists seem to believe that there’s a CONSCIOUS process for enacting totalitarianism, and [a bunch of stuff following from that ridiculous premise].”

    There are certainly conscious processES for enacting totalitarianism (for example, Germany’s 1933 “Enabling Act”).

    But very few Omnipotent State cultists are sitting around thinking “how do I make the state omnipotent?” They just sit around assuming — because everything they’ve been told and taught all their lives leads to the conclusion — that the state IS omnipotent.

    That is, if someone suggests that the state should make rules regarding X, their thought process excludes the possibility that any rule the state makes could possibly be inherently illegitimate.

  79. dL

    “something like UBI, which is, of course, blasphemous to the NPO and High NAPists.”

    lol, based on Bob’s previous statements RE: immigration and welfare benefits, Bob Capozzi doesn’t even support universal public education, much less a UBI. Writes Bob…

    Say that immigration was fairly easy, but each immigrant was bonded, signed off they could not receive welfare benefits, and had to pay tuition for their children to go to public school? Violate any of those and the funds held in escrow were used to deport those who broke the terms of their green-card status?

    So, in lessarchistan, immigrants, “fureigners” and other undesirables who get caught attending public school w/o paying for it would be deported. Universal basic income, my ass.

    Capozzi’s a troll

  80. robert capozzi

    tk: That is, if someone suggests that the state should make rules regarding X, their thought process excludes the possibility that any rule the state makes could possibly be inherently illegitimate.

    Me: Possibly true, although we cannot know that, since we’re not mind readers. It’s also hypothetical. But even if it’s something we can somehow observe, I don’t sense that there is anyone of note who would answer the question: Should the State be omnipotent?, who would answer “yes.”

  81. robert capozzi

    tk: In your imagination, anyway.

    me: As an NPO NAPist, I would find it encouraging if you would support some form of UBI. (I do seem to recall that you are somewhat open to the idea, but I’d like to hear more.) To date, most NPO and High NAPists I’ve encountered have opposed it as theft.

  82. robert capozzi

    J: I’d say Objectivism falls into both categories (of “cult”), and Rothbardianism isn’t far behind.

    Me: Bingo!

  83. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    About a week before the AP appearance on the Tucker show that I posted, Tucker went on a startlingly populist rant, excoriating (IIRC) payday loan and drug companies for their chase of the almighty dollar in order to line the pockets of the investor class, to the detriment of real Americans.

    I thought AP did a very good job of distilling Tucker’s rant down to its base philosophical underpinnings, and provided an alternate philosophical vision. That’s why I thought any radical and/or NAPIst who watches it would be entranced.

    But again, if you have to repair to “I am not talking about anarchy,” or “an anarchist society is way down the line,” or some such caveat (as I had to do countless times in the past), well, then electoral politics and the policymaking process is not for you.

  84. dL

    I thought AP did a very good job of distilling Tucker’s rant down to its base philosophical underpinnings, and provided an alternate philosophical vision. That’s why I thought any radical and/or NAPIst who watches it would be entranced.

    No. Refuse to watch anything produced by that scumbag

  85. dL

    About a week before the AP appearance on the Tucker show that I posted, Tucker went on a startlingly populist rant, excoriating (IIRC) payday loan and drug companies for their chase of the almighty dollar in order to line the pockets of the investor class, to the detriment of real Americans.

    Unless you are a journalist of some sorts, I find it difficult to believe that an actual “William Weld moderate” would be watching that garbage. It doesn’t add up…

  86. Anthony Dlugos

    I watch bits and pieces, not whole episodes. Also, my parents are dyed-in-the-wool Faux News Trumpsters, so if I am there, it is on.

    I go back and forth between a little Fox, a little MSNBC, a little CNN.

  87. Jared

    There is the standard definition of “cult” and the narrower, more technical, sociological definition. I’d say Objectivism falls into both categories, and Rothbardianism isn’t far behind.

  88. robert capozzi

    AD,

    I saw TC’s rant. They discussed it on the Reason editor’s roundtable podcast, and I’d say they collectively got it about right. It’s all well and good to be concerned about “families” as one’s frame of reference and as a consideration, but the real issue is what that implies, policy-wise. TC’s taken to making rhetorical head fakes that might feel good, but lack a solid foundation.

    NAPists have the same problem.

  89. robert capozzi

    J,

    Yep. The most common understanding of “cult” are things like Jonestown. Randians are a weak sort of “cult,” Rothbardians weaker.

    There is no “cult” that believes either that the State should be all powerful or is all powerful. The founders of the LP stretched the meaning of these words far beyond most people’s ken. The net effect is that it sounds like zealots wrote this nonsense. Protecting this phrase with a 7/8ths clause demonstrates a keen lack of self-awareness.

  90. dL

    stretched the meaning of these words far beyond most people’s ken.

    From Merriam Webster:

    omnipotent adjective

    Definition of omnipotent
    2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence
    //an omnipotent ruler

    Welcome Merriam Webster to the fringe!

  91. paulie Post author

    This should work now, Warren said he fixed the comment length bug. Missing comments from this thread from the site migration. Sorry for formatting loss.

    pauliePost author
    January 6, 2019 at 17:45

    Edit
    robert capozzi
    January 6, 2019 at 20:05

    pf,

    Somalia, too? Are they in Mogadishu? Or in the anarchist parts of Somalia?

    I’m surprised there’s no listing for S. Korea.

    Edit
    pauliePost author
    January 6, 2019 at 20:12

    Probably southern Somalia would be my guess. Dunno why Korea would be omitted but my guess is it did not reverse these trends. There’s no timetable for the supposed withdrawal from Syria or troop level decrease in Afghanistan, so it may well be total bullshit. I’ll believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, Agent Orange von Bonespur continues to threaten a national emergency. Did you read the Atlantic article?

    Edit
    dL
    January 7, 2019 at 00:50

    I refer to the Petersen crew. The young. white, christian states’ rights conservatives

    And that’s not the only thing McAfee has said or done that has made him political kryptonite.

    Petersen is not a Christian. Neither is John McAfee, lol.

    As a reminder, Petersen exited the LP. I don’t quite get your continued hard on for the guy. Now, I too share a disdain for christian social conservatives. However, the best way to keep that contingent out is a strong, principled open borders position. Open borders chased Liberty Hangout out of the party and out of the movement after they bemoaned their failure to make any inroads converting the LP into a closed borders party. So, if you are really serious about disassociation from the Christian right, you will embrace a principled open borders position and forego calling yourself a “fellow traveler” with people who oppose open borders.

    Edit
    robert capozzi
    January 7, 2019 at 08:46

    pf,

    The Atlantic piece is disturbing. Does it refer to “omnipotent” state? No.

    Edit
    pauliePost author
    January 7, 2019 at 09:49

    How many different pieces of evidence do you need before you realize some people really do not want any limits on government power, and even if they think they do, will never do anything to impose any?

    Edit
    pauliePost author
    January 7, 2019 at 09:50

    Edit
    robert capozzi
    January 7, 2019 at 10:19

    PF,

    It sounds like you’re saying that there is a cult that does not actively oppose an omnipotent state. That might be true.

    Edit
    pauliePost author
    January 7, 2019 at 11:02

    It’s mainly institutional incentives. Most people want some parts of government to be bigger and some to be the same or smaller than now, but the parts they want to be bigger tend to have larger and more important parts in their lives (special interests is the catch-all term), whereas the parts they want to be smaller mostly tend to be diffuse in their effects.

    To the extent that some people are direct victims of government and thus have a personal stake in some part of government being made smaller, they tend to be relatively powerless, and relative not well organized. People who want more from government tend to be better organized at engaging government to seek it. It’s unsurprising that those who are victimized the most by government are most likely to be cynical and disengaged with it (or benefit from it and seek its expansion in other ways). Government cronies and rent-seekers are well connected by comparison and know how to push its levers efficiently.

    This setup doesn’t require any large number of people who want government to be drastically bigger and more intrusive in all aspects, but the net result over time is that is the institutional bias of direction of movement. Tyranny on the installment plan, one bite at a time. At times various crises speed up the process, but most of the time it’s so gradual it barely gets any notice.

    Edit
    Gina
    January 7, 2019 at 11:10

    “Petersen is not a Christian.”

    What is he, and where does he discuss his religious views?

    Edit
    Gina
    January 7, 2019 at 11:13

    “Tyranny on the installment plan, one bite at a time. At times various crises speed up the process, but most of the time it’s so gradual it barely gets any notice.”

    Not a new phenomenon by any means. It’s the same thing Jefferson referred to when he talked about watering the tree of liberty. Sally Hemmings no doubt agreed.

    Edit
    Krzysztof Lesiak
    January 7, 2019 at 11:25

    Paulie, Cody wrote a new article regarding the CP. Since the CP receives very sparse coverage in IPR, do you think this piece would be suitable for reposting on here?

    Trouble In The Constitution Party? Lawsuit & Petition Filed Against CP National Chair Frank Fluckiger, Other CP Officers And Members
    by Cody Quirk

    Recently, American Third Party Report has received information from a confidential source with additional details of an ongoing lawsuit that was filed on September 26th of last year in South Dakota by once potential Constitution Party candidate, Terry LaFleur -against National Constitution Party Chairman Frank Fluckiger, as well as the South Dakota Republican Party, along with several South Dakota GOP officers and would-be candidates thereof -which was reported here a few months ago.

    Owning to the recent infighting among rival factions of the Constitution Party of South Dakota, in which Mr. LaFleur accused Frank Fluckiger, as well as rival ‘SDCP’ faction leaders Gordon Howie (Chairman), Joe Bergan (Vice Chairman/Chairman), and Marliee Roose -a member of the State Central Committee of the Utah Constitution Party -of ‘attempting a coup de’ e’tat against the state officers of the CPSD in order to prevent the CPSD from certifying legally nominated and elected statewide candidates for the November 6th 2018 ballot’, as well as colluding with the named South Dakota Republican Party officials in the lawsuit, including SDGOP State Chair Dan Lederman, and Matt Johnson.

    http://www.american3rdpartyreport.com/2019/01/trouble-in-constitution-party-lawsuit.html

    Edit
    pauliePost author
    January 7, 2019 at 11:27

    Paulie, Cody wrote a new article regarding the CP. Since the CP receives very sparse coverage in IPR, do you think this piece would be suitable for reposting on here?

    Yes, it’s been on my list, I just haven’t done it yet. I have a long list of articles I want to post. Would be nice if I had more help.

    Edit
    Anthony Dlugos
    January 7, 2019 at 11:40

    -“Petersen is not a Christian.”

    -What is he, and where does he discuss his religious views?

    I didn’t mean born-again christian, I meant ethically Christian and pre-disposed to enacting that morality into public policy.

    He and his followers in the run up to, and at, the 2016 convention were strongly pro-life, regularly repaired to “states’ rights” on moral issues, and were just as upset as anyone at Gary’s “Bake-the-Cake” answer. They were big fans of Ron & Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Thomas Massie. All of who are also pre-disposed to enacting christian morals into public policy.

    Edit
    Krzysztof Lesiak
    January 7, 2019 at 11:46

    I agree with you on that. It’s too bad I burned my bridges with IPR and ATPR before the 2016 election. It’s nice to see Fernando posting on here – he posted a few articles for ATPR back in the day. I believe he lives in Italy, which is cool, since not many foreigners follow let alone know about the existence of U.S. third parties.

    With the 2020 race about to commence, it sure seems like both IPR and ATPR have the potential to bring in new readers and commentators. I think candidate interviews are great.

    By the way, this is a stupid question, but if I did an interview with a third party candidate for my new site, ilobserver.com, would you or anyone at IPR consider reposting it, or is that avenue also something that I disqualified myself from? I’m pretty sure the answer is no, I may have asked this before, but I’d just like to get confirmation. I truly regret the fiasco I created at ATPR, which caused the site to plunge from 1,622,000 on Alexa to 3 million, and when I most recently checked, the site was at 15,000,000, but nonetheless I appreciate the fact that Cody and a few others are slowly building back up the site. My controlled demolition of ATPR is one of 3 things I regret in life the most, along with dropping out of high school and not “scoring” with a super cute 19 year old, AFD supporting German blonde tourist that I spent a whole day with in downtown Chicago this July. That was a real fuck up.

    By the way, I’m supporting Arvin Vohra for the LP nomination. Get the motherfucker in 1600 Pennsylvania to replace Trump! Back in the early 2010s I used to like Kokesh -however, I’ve realized he is a total and complete fraud – look up campaign finance misuse, actions by former campaign manager Ben Farmer, death threats by the campaign, sexual assault – Kokesh is an egomaniac and a narcissist (the LP version of Trump, I guess). He also showed how much he cares about longtime third party activists by completely ignoring IPR’s interview request. I doubt that Vohra would not reply to an IPR questionnaire. Peace out everyone, Happy New Year.

    Edit
    Anthony Dlugos
    January 7, 2019 at 13:23

    “Now, I too share a disdain for christian social conservatives. However, the best way to keep that contingent out is a strong, principled open borders position. Open borders chased Liberty Hangout out of the party and out of the movement after they bemoaned their failure to make any inroads converting the LP into a closed borders party. So, if you are really serious about disassociation from the Christian right, you will embrace a principled open borders position and forego calling yourself a “fellow traveler” with people who oppose open borders.”

    While I agree that free migration should be a pillar of the LP platform/messaging, especially given the current political environment, and while the change in the platform plank on immigration was the best thing to come out of the 2018 Convention, I have to say that the problem with the christian social cons and right-wing entryism in general going back many, many years is not JUST about immigration, even if it is issue du jour.

    I would even agree that, among right-wing entryist issues, immigration is probably the chicken noodle soup: always near the top or at #1 on the charts.

    The real problem is the NAPist platform/messaging and its bastard stepchild, No Particular Orderism.

    As long as the LP attempts to apply theoretical answers to real world public policy issues, we’re going to be susceptible to right-wing entryism, with only the particular issues changing.

    Its Last In, First Out politics, and explicitly so. Whatever groups are most powerful and most recently aggrieved by state coercion gets our attention, because we’re obsessively concerned with making sure voters understand the principle involved.

    As has been discussed on this site previously, the platform stresses that, due to our stance against aggression of any kind, taxation is theft, and so, yes, we support “any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax, and oppose any increase on any tax for any reason.”

    As we saw in 2016 during the Bake the Cake controversy, there is a substantial segment of this party that thinks…no matter what litany of aggressions came before that left a white, christian baker in a privileged position….our presidential candidate’s campaign is going to come to a complete stop until everyone understands that yes, no matter what problems are more pressing in this country, that cakeshop owner’s problem now takes precedence, as does, in theory, the racist restaurant owner in Mississippi and his freedom of association.

    There is something more deeply problematic going on than just the previously poor immigration plank.

    IMHO, its a guarantee we’re gonna end up with a social con problem until such time that we make it clear to the right wingers that, due to the historically privileged positions they held, the aggressions they feel most aggrieved are at the bottom of our to-do list.

    I am self-aware enough to concede the reality that, since I have chosen to the arena of electoral politics, I can no longer make a principled stand against aggression. At that point, it just a matter of which aggressions I am going to prioritize. I’m okay with that.

    This is why I’m okay with a Libertarian who might be to the right of me on immigration but is an admitted NAP apostate to a thoroughgoing NAPist/radical/anarchist who might be closer to me on immigration.

    In the real world the thoroughgoing NAPist is a much bigger problem. I’m not even saying the NAPist is wrong. I am just saying they are in the wrong arena.

    Edit
    robert capozzi
    January 7, 2019 at 14:05

    PF: It’s mainly institutional incentives.

    ME: Yes! The Public Choicers have it right.

    But you make my point, perhaps inadvertently. There is no “cult.” Rather, the institutional setup lends itself to expanding statism, but there’s no dark-robed cabal marching us to serfdom or worse.

    Edit
    pauliePost author
    January 7, 2019 at 14:50

    Same thing in net effect. It’s a stylistic preference; you think references to it in that manner are off-putting, others think they are educational. If either of you think it has much to do with the success or lack thereof of the LP in the real world, IMO the real world is not where your mind is at. I understand the counter arguments and disagree with them for reasons that have been belabored here more than enough in the past already. Shane Cory is much closer to the mark in the Archimedes thread: the LP doesn’t draw more members because it simply waits for people to come to it rather than trying to go out to get them.

    Between that and Nolan’s manual you have 99% of the answer. Combine it with Jim’s charts and it should be crystal clear.

    Edit
    pauliePost author
    January 7, 2019 at 14:58

    I didn’t mean born-again christian, I meant ethically Christian and pre-disposed to enacting that morality into public policy.

    He and his followers in the run up to, and at, the 2016 convention were strongly pro-life, regularly repaired to “states’ rights” on moral issues, and were just as upset as anyone at Gary’s “Bake-the-Cake” answer. They were big fans of Ron & Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Thomas Massie. All of who are also pre-disposed to enacting christian morals into public policy.

    So Xian as commonly understood for practical social and political purposes in the US today. I know William Blake said most self-declared Christians actually worship (something closer to their stereotypical concept of) the devil, and he had a point. And that Luciferians have a point that the Angel of Light, rebel that he was, wasn’t such a bad guy in biblical lore if we really consider the original words. But with those caveats – Petersen is a Christian, not an Atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan, Jew, etc, correct? I don’t know this for a fact, it just seems likely.

    McAffee, on the other hand, could be anything, but I would not be at all surprised if he does not claim to be Xian, and if he does, it’s with an excellent sense of irony that recognizes the massive helping of hypocrisy inherent in virtually any such claim when it comes to using it as a political yardstick to judge others.

    Edit
    Anthony Dlugos
    January 7, 2019 at 15:03

    “If either of you think it has much to do with the success or lack thereof of the LP in the real world, IMO the real world is not where your mind is at.”

    Me?

    I think RC and I have agreed the lack of LP success is overwhelmingly due to voter inertia.

    IIRC, we put the figure at at least 80%, and some portion of the remaining due to 3rd party obstacles.

    Edit
    pauliePost author
    January 7, 2019 at 15:21

    I agree with you on that. It’s too bad I burned my bridges with IPR and ATPR before the 2016 election.

    I would be in favor of you being able to save articles as drafts and said as much to Warren the last time you got booted. I think his concern was that you were also going around brandishing your “IPR writer” credentials in person at, say, the Chicago LP meeting while having one of your antisemitic mental health breaks. Can’t speak for Warren though, but personally I don’t see the harm in saving articles as drafts. If you also used a pseudonym and disguised your IP through a VPN I don’t see how either of us would know ?

    . It’s nice to see Fernando posting on here –

    Agreed.

    With the 2020 race about to commence, it sure seems like both IPR and ATPR have the potential to bring in new readers and commentators. I think candidate interviews are great.

    Also agreed.

    By the way, this is a stupid question, but if I did an interview with a third party candidate for my new site, ilobserver.com, would you or anyone at IPR consider reposting it, or is that avenue also something that I disqualified myself from?

    Not a stupid question, and not a problem for me personally. My bigger problem is having enough people willing to post all the stuff I already have in the hopper. For the most part practically speaking it’s just me. I can’t speak for Warren and if you want his opinion email him directly, since he makes no guarantees about reading these comments.

    I truly regret the fiasco I created at …

    LOL. You should know by now, I’ve created more than a few of those in multiple places myself, and not just online. I don’t live my life in the rear view mirror but I do try to learn from it…as best I can.

    …on Alexa …

    Unless something has changed that’s mostly a function of downloading the Alexa toolbar and bothering to game the ratings, and widely dismissed as a valid barometer of anything that has real world value of any sort. If someone knows otherwise let me know what’s new. As far as I know it’s as valid as one of those vote however many times you want online polls.

    dropping out of high school

    They have general diplomas if you don’t have one yet. If you are missing the high school social scene, sorry, at this point you are a dirty old man. Not nearly as much as me but still, too old for the jailbait chicks. Here, have a video …

    If you want a degree, or a social scene… go to college, starting with community college and then transfer if you make it that far. You are not nearly too old for the social scene and high school will be soon forgotten. Trust me on this.

    My controlled demolition of ATPR is one of 3 things I regret in life the most, along with dropping out of high school and not “scoring” with a super cute 19 year old, AFD supporting German blonde tourist that I spent a whole day with in downtown Chicago this July. That was a real fuck up.

    I say, I say…. if I can get racist skinbirds on this Kosher salami (and I have), you should have no problem at all with your Polish kielbasa. Just don’t act desperate, it should be a breeze, LOL.

    By the way, I’m supporting Arvin Vohra for the LP nomination.

    Four years ago I would have agreed. Now not so much.

    I doubt that Vohra would not reply to an IPR questionnaire.

    Send me questions and answers, I’ll put them up.

    eace out everyone, Happy New Year.

    Shalom aleikhem.

    Edit
    Anthony Dlugos
    January 7, 2019 at 16:25

    “But with those caveats – Petersen is a Christian, not an Atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan, Jew, etc, correct? I don’t know this for a fact, it just seems likely.”

    Not sure if he is a christian or just knew his market.

    Which, like you said…maybe the same thing as an actual christian.

    The concern is that there IS a market for that mindset in our party.

    Edit
    pauliePost author
    January 7, 2019 at 18:24

    Edit

  92. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    No, I don’t support a UBI (although I know some people who would likely fall under whatever your definition “NAPist” is this week who have tried, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to make an argument for it). The “NAPist” types I’ve talked with who can stomach a UBI do so on Georgist/geoist grounds, which solve for a definition of “theft” that doesn’t include a tax scheme on land use.

    There’s a difference between not supporting something and considering it “blasphemous.” I have at least two reasons aside from NAP considerations to oppose a UBI:

    1) It would only be “universal” in the same sense as “universal suffrage.” That is, people the state wanted to get it would get it, and people the state didn’t want to get it wouldn’t get it. Which, of course, would quickly make it a tool of control. Be a good boy, Bob, you wouldn’t want that check to stop coming, would you?

    2) To the extent that it “worked” — that is, as advertised, provided a bare minimum safety net income for everyone — it would immediately come into use as a way of forestalling any effort to stop, or even slow, the growth of the state. Put 300 million people on a monthly “free” check, and see how far they will let you go when you tell them the check will have to stop if they don’t get whatever they want. And it could never be taken back short of complete state collapse. Dan Rostenkowski got chased down the street by rock-throwing geezers for having the gall and temerity to suggest that they pay $11 a month for a catastrophic health coverage add-on to Medicare. What do you think the younger crowd would do to any politician who suggested ending, or even slowing the automatic growth of, a stipend they’d received since birth?

  93. dL

    Yes! The Public Choicers have it right.

    They have it wrong. There is no state in public choice, much less any ideological fetish for the thing. It’s all individual, self-interested actors…methodological individualism. But, clearly, there is such a thing called a state. And for such things as national security, there is an organized, colluding interest that acts very much like a singular firm.

  94. dL

    Dan Rostenkowski got chased down the street by rock-throwing geezers for having the gall and temerity to suggest that they pay $11 a month for a catastrophic health coverage add-on to Medicare. What do you think the younger crowd would do to any politician who suggested ending, or even slowing the automatic growth of, a stipend they’d received since birth?

    In the Georgist conception of UBI, the check is not a welfare payment transfer. However, in the way that it would almost certainly be implemented, it would be, and it would end up competing with other welfare transfer programs like SSI, etc

    Basing a UBI on something like a “carbon tax” is absurd. A carbon tax is a pigouvian tax, and ostensibly, a pigouvian tax is supposed to equal the marginal damage costs, meaning it should drive down the consumption of thing that is producing the negative externality. So how does one propose generating a “robust” social insurance stream from an increasingly dwindling consumption of a pollution producing resource? A robust social insurance stream would be dependent on robust pollution…catastrophic, climate changing pollution, or so we’re told. Huge incentive incompatibility problem.

    A UBI based on Georgist rent, however, has no such incentive incompatibilities. It naturally increases along with the population size/economic development. The Henry George theorem shows that a single tax is not only efficient, it is also the only tax necessary to finance public expenditures. A “single tax” may or may not a libertarian violation, but it is not a liberal violation. However, sans liberal violations, libertarianism becomes an extraneous exercise.

  95. dL

    Trump’s Big Libertarian Experiment:

    Krugman as dishonest interlocutor. I find it tragically laughable(tragic b/c we have to live through it) that libertarianism–a philosophy and party that has no political power–continually gets scapegoated for the failures of the state controlled by progressives and conservatives.

  96. Anthony Dlugos

    Justin Amash

    ?@justinamash
    Follow @justinamash

    “Both parties mislead, misdirect, employ double standards, and lie. When you point this out, each side attacks you for suggesting their team is anything like the other team. Wake up, partisans—you are a mirror image of the other side, just with different biases and blind spots.”

    The guy is pretty good.

  97. paulie Post author

    Trump’s Big Libertarian Experiment:

    Not so much. Krugman’s not wrong about Republican hypocrisy. And it’s true that it would take some time for libertarian market alternatives for things like food safety to become well known enough to saturate demand. As usual his only solution is more government no matter how much it fails.

    Trump is just throwing a tantrum because the Democrats are not giving him *enough* funding for his favorite pet big government boondoggle. The government employees – don’t get me wrong, are hurting now because they are not getting paid today and have bills to pay right now, not later – but will get their money in back pay so they’ll just end up with a not so fun, stress filled paid vacation at taxpayer expense while creating headaches and lack of “services” that still have to be paid for later. Others are having to work without pay in the meantime but will get their pay later. Taxpayers will gain nothing. The government boot will be just as much on everyone’s neck and won’t cost any less. All the “services” that constitute a government gun in someone’s face or a red tape boondoggle are “essential” and will continue.

  98. Anthony Dlugos

    “As usual his only solution is more government no matter how much it fails.”

    True.

  99. paulie Post author

    We can have fun fantasizing about TSA calling in sick, but in reality some of them will show up and passengers will just have longer lines to wait in. What if the entire TSA walked off the job? The military is still getting paid other than the coast guard. Would you prefer to be patted down by armed active duty military personnel? Because that will happen way before you get to go through the airport without TSA or TSA-like screening.

    You can fantasize about all federal prison guards walking off the job due to delayed pay and letting the prisoners out like so: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2019/01/things-i-like-to-hear.html But in reality some of the guards and staff will show up and the prisoners will just be on lockdown due to some of the guards calling in sick. Some may be ill or die to some of the medical staff not being there. Again, you’ll get military filling in for prison guards way before you get prisoners just being let out on the streets. For that matter you’ll probably have prisoners being shot as the last guards leave or left locked up to starve and attack each other before you’d see them just released for lack of guards. Some would go to state and county jails, but I don’t know how many states and counties would take without being paid (they have crowding issues too).

    None of this shit is anything like a libertarian solution to anything.

  100. paulie Post author

    Jess Mears shared a link.
    12 mins

    Say the partial government shutdown were to last forever. What are the Libertarian solutions for the services to continue without funding via theft (tax dollars)?

    Can you weigh in and provide examples of how services could be provided? Do you have policy experience?

    Let’s crowd source this project and start getting our ideas out there!

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/18oqHKygbrcHDuNRS_XDeYQx0Y1l9kfcHdDLdhykk4wE/edit?usp=sharing&fbclid=IwAR1BM6-UD-z1JO2cCgTeRfaTSvtkMpFuCK_1X4CqWCOpNK_d8v1vRQ3TcKQ

  101. paulie Post author

    Not sure how well this is going to work as a shared doc with people just going over and altering other people’s suggestions, but it’s a good discussion to have. We just need a solution for compiling the answers better first

  102. robert capozzi

    tk: There’s a difference between not supporting something and considering it “blasphemous.” I have at least two reasons aside from NAP considerations to oppose a UBI:

    me: Point taken. The control issue doesn’t trouble me, as there’s a muddled line between “standards” and “control.” It would make sense to me that only citizens would get UBI.

    And the second point is definitely a valid concern. I’d like there to be excellent lessarchist pols at the table to minimize the risks of it becoming a runaway giveaway program vs a just one. Unfortunately, there are no lessarchist pols at the federal level, aside from perhaps Amash and RP2.

  103. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    My concern is not that it would become a “runaway program.”

    Let’s assume that the program “works” as intended. I don’t think it would, but for the sake of argument:

    The UBI replaces all “welfare” programs. Each citizen receives a monthly stipend sufficient to cover basic reasonable living expenses, e.g. housing, food, health care. People can work if they want to, and the benefit is not reduced; some choose to take jobs to live better, others to do work that they couldn’t have found a way to get paid for (e.g. the arts) otherwise and are now free to follow their muses, etc.

    Politician: “Look, nobody wants to invade Saudi Arabia, but if we don’t, the oil crisis to come because of [justifying rehtoric], the monthly UBI checks are going to eventually have to be cut by 20%.”

    UBI recipients: “Nuke their ass and take the gas! For the love of God, you can’t expect me to live on 20% less UBI.”

  104. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Thoughtful point, but I’m skeptical that UBI would necessarily align citizens in the way you suggest. It might work the OTHER way: We could increase UBI dividends if we close bases in Germany and Japan. That’s why we need skillful lessarchist pols at the table. The LP cannot elevate any to that level of influence IMO because of the self-sabotaging NAPist albatross.

    Of course, I’m coming from a semi-Georgist perspective, so I’d say that citizens are OWED their dividend, regardless of potential statist-allegiance enhancement. And I add that property rights require a justice system, and yet a justice system is not perfectly just since more billable hours and better lawyers can often prevail over those who cannot afford them.

  105. paulie Post author

    Full 1958 Trackdown episode. Con man Trump tells a Texas town he alone can save them with a wall. Will he skip town with everyone’s money ahead of the Sheriff?

  106. dL

    The UBI replaces all “welfare” programs.

    yeah, but that’s not going to happen. Talk about fantasyland delusion. You would have a better chance abolishing the DEA,CIA, IRS and FDA over abolishing social security and medicare.

    Politician: “Look, nobody wants to invade Saudi Arabia, but if we don’t, the oil crisis to come because of [justifying rehtoric], the monthly UBI checks are going to eventually have to be cut by 20%.”

    No, it would be:

    Politician One: “Look, we ain’t paying the abled-bodied youth to sit around on their ass and smoke weed while reading Marx. If you don’t work or you’re not in school, you must enter mandatory national service.

    Politician Two: “Look, we ain’t paying anyone to smoke weed, period! Mandatory piss testing!

    Politician Three: “Look, we ain’t paying “illegals,” period! You must be RealID verified to receive any income benefits.

    Politician Four: There are migrant caravans of illegals on their way to receive free money, smoke weed and read Marx, and diss our military. We need to beef up RealID, E-Verify, and build the Wall around Mexico and Canada.

    Unequivocally, that is what would happen. Absolutely no doubt. And there wouldn’t be much resistance to that type of generated moral panic. Ceteris paribus, people are generally “live and let live.” That is, until someone thinks someone else is reaching into their pocket to finance something they don’t approve of. Then they become vigilant moral puritans. And you really wouldn’t have much choice but to go along with it or else face the prospect of an unsubsidized life where you are paying the full price for that 600 dollar carbon taxed light bulb.

    My number one pet peeve is immigration restrictionists calling themselves libertarians. Number two are these UBI schemes trying to expropriate Georgism. Eventually, the Social Cons might figure out that welfare-transfer UBI would be a wonderful social control mechanism. And if/when they do, that’s when you will get it. And good luck with that.

  107. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anti-war Tulsi Gabbard runs for Dem Prez. https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/01/11/breaking-news/tulsi-gabbard-tells-cnn-she-is-running-for-president/

    OK, Libertarian AND Green Parties. Time to step up your anti-war game. Maybe mention that accidental nuclear war within a few years is inevitable, what with hypersonic nuclear cruise missiles insuring NO warning time of attack and that increased reliance on AI and computers to decide if MAYBE an attack is about to happen.

  108. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Well, Gabbard NOT the perfect peace candidate – which LP candidate COULD be.

    The exposes already started: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/01/tulsi-gabbard-is-running-for-president-can-she-shake-her-ties-to-dictators-and-nationalists

    Considering US/Trump was invading or about to invade/bomb Syria at the time, the Syria trip is not as big a deal, despite the connections. The Modi connection more questionable. (She is of Indian descent.) But then most of Congress refuses to speak out strongly against Israel human rights abuses of Palestinians.

    Re: Modi: ” In 2002, an outbreak of violence resulted in the deaths of more than 1,000 Muslims in the state where he was chief minister. In December 2013, Gabbard opposed a House resolution calling on Modi to protect “the rights and freedoms of religions minorities.” According to the Intercept, Gabbard later protested that “there was a lot of misinformation that surrounded the event in 2002.”
    Indians and Muslims don’t need a lot of excuses to killing each other, unfortunately.

    In any case, the DEEP STATE Democrats don’t want any candidates daring to swerve from the US Dominance, suppress Russia and China – only a big more gently than GOP – agenda.

  109. Jared

    As far as I know, the Georgist citizen’s dividend is the only basic income proposal with a built-in incentive to keep unnecessary spending to a minimum, since it is funded by surplus revenue from the captured rental value of land. The less waste, the less overhead; the greater the surplus, the higher the dividend.

  110. Peter White

    It looks like the Republicans may be about to push Iowa white nationalist Congressman Steve King out. I can see far right conservative third parties such as the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party and American Freedom Party taking advantage of this in in a couple of ways. One would be to run him for President like the did with past far right Congressmen such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Virgil Goode. But, since they already have a President who is very much along their lines politically in Donald Trump, it may be smarter if these parties united and pooled their resources to keep him in Congress or perhaps elect him Governor.

  111. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    I can’t tell if “Peter White” is a white nationalist King fan pushing this or a leftist insulting the Libertarian Party especially.

    Yeah, King wants to run on the sex work and heroin party. Why do you think we talk about those issues so much. To chase those types AWAY…

  112. Peter White

    Good morning Carol Moore, thank you for your interest. I am a pan-nationalist, not a whites only nationalist. I do think Congressman King is good to stand up for his race and nation although I am no less proud of members of Indigenous, Afrikan, Arabic, Persian, Aborigine, First Nations and others in being nationalists, decentralists, and secessionists as well.

    I would even extend this to the Ashkenazis, but I don’t think they should be given Palestine or any other country which already had people living there. Perhaps Antarctica could be the new Israel? If that is unacceptable my second suggestion would be Birobijan, an area that Comrade Stalin designated for Ashkenazis in Siberia, although it does have at least some native population so Antarctica would be better IMO.

    I also appreciate the Congressman’s honesty, because I believe there are dozens if not hundreds of members of congress who have the same thoughts but are too politically chicken livered to say the same things in politics. It’s that sort of candor which will push a politician outside the Democratic and Republican folds and create an opportunity for third parties as it did with Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Virgil Goode and I should add Cynthia McKinney, another brilliant African-American nationalist who is not afraid of the financial media powers that be and the US-Israel “special relationship” lobby.

    To be perfectly honest, I have not studied Congressman King’s views on drug policy or the legal status of sex work and do not know where he stands on those issues. If his views on them are stereotypically Republican, perhaps that is because those are his genuine views which he is not open to changing or perhaps he was only “going along to get along” with his party on those issues, or might have an open mind on them if others have an open mind about him. I don’t know.

    I was honestly under the impression that after the nominations of Congressman Bob Barr and Governor Gary Johnson that the Libertarian Party no longer chases conservative Republicans away with issues like legalizing heroin and prostitution. I did not see Barr or Johnson pushing those issues, although Johnson did push for legalizing marijuana and Congressman Barr changed his mind at least somewhat about medical marijuana and joined the Medical Marijuana Project and ACLU to lobby to change some of the strict anti-medical marijuana laws he himself pushed through Congress. That’s the sort of thing I mean by how a politician can surprise you on some issues when he or she changes parties.

    Since the Presidential candidates of the Libertarian Party in the last three elections had all been recent conservative Republican politicians, in addition to Congressman Paul in 1988, I had really classified them as at this point no different from the Constitution Party and the American Freedom Party as a conservative far right third party and thought it was really just nitpicking which prevents those parties from merging at this point.

  113. Peter White

    As for my own views: I have a plan that I hope libertarians and greens can unite around. First of all we need to respect biodiversity, including human biodiversity. We need radical decentralization, eliminating most of the bureaucracy of the state. Neofeudalism and neotribalism would bring things back to a more human scale. We should voluntarily forego the technology developed in the last 2000 years, thus guaranteeing full employment and vastly reducing pollution and carbon use.

    Before we get rid of modern transportation technology we should repatriate everyone to their ancestral homelands of 2000 years ago: whites to Europe, blacks to Africa, east Asians to the far east, middle easterners to the middle east, and so on. Australia and the Americas should be given to their natives.

    Abrahamic religions should be thrown on the dustbin of history, with those following Christianity and Islam chucking those to embrace their ancestral pagan faiths. Without antibiotics and other technology to prop them up, 90% or so of humans would die, reducing human population to sustainable levels. Only the strongest would survive, allowing natural selection to pick the best of the best to carry on the species.

    Family, extended family, and community would be strengthened. People would have a much more direct, immediate and persistent connection with nature. We would stop killing off so many other species, and they would be allowed to replenish and thrive. Giant government bureaucracies, soulless cubicle employment for megacorporations, faceplanting into little screens, global wars with weapons of mass destruction, reserve armies of the unemployed and homeless…many evils would be banished and all but forgotten. Usurious banksters, rapacious and debased media moguls, and many other such parasites would no longer run our lives. We would breathe fresh air, eat organic natural foods…what could be better?

    Instead of hundreds of millions of lemmings picking leaders financed by global capital to expertly sell lies and keep viewers tuned in to commercials for useless junk to clutter their unnatural dwellings so they can spend many hours a day away from their families to afford this garbage, leadership would be natural and from among people you know, families would work and play together, entertainment would be live and in person by people you know personally, homes would be built by their dwellers and their friends and neighbors of natural and functional locally sourced organic materials.

    Sure some sacrifices would have to be made, literally as well as metaphorically, but it would be well worth it. Who can honestly not agree? Search your soul and you will know this is true in your heart. Vow to your ancestors to help make it reality.

  114. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    My website Secession.net used to start per the below. I moved it to wordpress and it’s been one damn thing after another for me to totally update it from year 2000 to 2019.

    One of issues is that radical decentralization, which I’ve been promoting since early 1980s, has become a bit TOO ethnocentric/racial centric/ etc. It exists and IS one way of organizing people of similar views on adjacent small properties/regions. However, I wanted to make sure I was stressing libertarian views on human and property rights.

    There always will be personalities who rise to power promoting intolerance and hatred of other groups. Like Donald Trump. And they tend to start conflicts and wars, ignoring attempts to respect individual rights and engage in nonviolent conflict resolution. (This is one of a number of my objections to Ms. Harlos who does a variation on this with her attempts to ban or purge individuals and groups to appeal to certain other constituencies.)

    In short, I’m always looking for dog whistles to less than tolerant and libertarian individuals. For example, I recently discovered that pink hair actually is a dog whistle to statist anti-abortionists per this article. See three of them here: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/cover_story/2016/10/the_future_of_the_pro_life_movement.html

    I skimmed your article and am feeling tired right now. I’ll read your your longer explanations out loud later and see if my dog notices anything. 🙂

    Anyhoo, here’s how last version of my old website started:

    QUOTE At least 5,000 racial, ethnic, linguistic and cultural groups are lumped together into only 189 nation states. Most of the world’s violent conflicts are related to struggles for dominance within or independence from some large, multi-national nation state. A large percentage of the world’s people (especially in populous India, China, Indonesia and Africa) would choose to secede from their respective nation states if given the opportunity.

    Millions of activists worldwide are committed to national, ethnic, religious and regional secessionist movements described variously as: self-determination, independence, autonomy, sub-national, micro-national, separatist, sovereignty, indigenous, homeland, Fourth World. Ideological movements explicitly or implicitly promoting individual, community or regional rights to secession include: libertarian, anarchist, anti-authoritarian, decentralist, devolutionist, cantonal, green, bioregional, “small is beautiful,” communal, survivalist, radical pacifist or futurist. While these latter movements may promote differing social and economic goals, their commitment to individual liberty is strong.
    ENDQUOTE

  115. Anthony Dlugos

    From the 2009 movie Law-Abiding Citizen:

    Judge Laura Burch: I can’t supersede the penal code. You’ve already got him in solitary. A half-decent paralegal will have him out of there by next week.

    Jonas Cantrell: We just want to limit his options; give him less contact, less access, even if it’s just rescinding his mandatory exercise period for a week.

    Judge Laura Burch: Under what cause?

    Nicholas “Nick” Rice: Whatever cause you want. Wrap it around whatever piece of legal doctrine that helps you rationalize it. Your Honor.

    I know nothing more than the bare rudiments of Georgist thinking. (hardly a fatal defect for modern American politics).

    I’d agree that abolishing all welfare and replacing it with a UBI is almost certainly fantasy.

    Then again, its probably less utopian than the radical and/or NAPist programme or many other policy ideas that are bandied about in libertarian circles. (Bring all the troops home from everywhere!)

    However, the primary benefits of LP support for the UBI is that it

    1) can be sold to the uninitiated at the theoretical level as a comprehensible way to make government less intrusive without arguing for thunderdome.

    2) the process of selling it has great potential to upset the right people and intrigue the right people.

    Now, if your a member of the LP, wrap it around whatever libertarian philosophy helps you rationalize your apostasy.

  116. dL

    I know nothing more than the bare rudiments of Georgist thinking.

    Georgism is:

    (1) the replacement of all taxation on capital and labor with the single land value tax for the provision of public goods. It is motivated by the moral principle that while people own the value they produce themselves, economic rents derived from land belong equally to all members of society. This may or may not an entail a UBI.

    (2) laissez faire in governance

    Georgism may differ from the “Geo” prefix in that the various geo prefixed ideologies may not include or emphasize the (2) part.

    hardly a fatal defect for modern American politics

    Well, the relative obscurity of Georgism today is a fatal indictment of modern politics. In the late 19th century, Georgism was very poplar, and George’s book was a best seller. Henry George didn’t conceive his ideas from the bowels of academic obscurity nor did he require any think tank rent-a-pundits to sell it to the “uninitiated.”

    1) can be sold to the uninitiated at the theoretical level as a comprehensible way to make government less intrusive without arguing for thunderdome.

    The UBI schemes being advanced today have nothing to do with Georgism. They’re mere welfare transfers bribery that would entail a great deal of social control stipulations if implemented. The LP ought to thoroughly reject economic rent transfers derived from the taxation of labor and capital. Old wine in new wine skins.

    Lastly, I’m not aware of anyone arguing for the thunderdome, which was the Mad Max post-apocalyptic society in the aftermath of global thermonuclear war.

  117. DJ

    UBI? LOL- when shit is free shit loses its value- and, who decides who gets how much where? I’m presuming the U stands for universal- really? Basic? Who determines basic? Basic needs are air, water, food, clothing and shelter with clothing and shelter being optional- what happens when Basic for you is determined to not be Basic for others?

    Where is all this “money” coming from? SMH- the more equal? – in this “equality” scheme? Good lord.

  118. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    If libertarians are pushing universal basic income it makes liberals laugh cause how can we be against all other big govt programs.

    And it horrifies independents and libertarian conservatives who know TANSTAAFL

  119. robert capozzi

    AD,

    I certainly agree with #1. On #2, who are the “right people” to upset? I see UBI — well structured — as a win/win/win. I’d think the only people who’d get upset are government employees…is that who you are referring to?

  120. Anthony Dlugos

    RC.

    With #2, I was referring more to the more dogmatic within the LP, and in the gravitational attraction of the party. (Along with those who hide their vile beliefs and intentions behind a veneer of dogmatism.)

  121. Jared

    Carol: “In short, I’m always looking for dog whistles to less than tolerant and libertarian individuals. For example, I recently discovered that pink hair actually is a dog whistle to statist anti-abortionists per this article.”

    Not sure how pink hair qualifies as a “dog whistle” if these women are perfectly open about where they stand. A pro-life orientation is not so culturally unacceptable that esoteric signaling is needed to identify and rally like-minded people. It is more mainstream than support for zero-restriction abortion on demand. Maybe pink hair has become a trend for the new generation of pro-life activists, but it isn’t a dog whistle.

  122. paulie Post author

    It just means that they are not all religious traditionalists who are socially conservative in all aspects. I doubt it’s more prevalent among pro-life women than among pro-choice women; more likely the other way around. It just means people are less monolithic than they used to be. In other news, both life and choice in non-abortion related matters are becoming more popular, as more people do more to live longer and reduce various death risks, while craft and custom is spreading everywhere from beer to furniture to beliefs to hairstyles and beyond.

  123. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    When someone who used to have a christian anti-abortion ministry and was a big anti-abortion activist enters the party, dyes their hair pink and acts like a big radical, even calling themselves “sex positive”, even as they do their best to recruit anti-choicers and get rid of the abortion plank, I think it’s a bit of a dog whistle to younger abortion prohibitionists outside the party.

    Since I’d just discovered that article a couple hours before, I may have been exaggerating the importance, given newness of the info.

    Of course, Ms. Harlos’ pink hair usually gets a lot of criticism for not representing a serious image to the LP. So maybe it’s only a tiny dog whistle to some prohibitionists, even as it as big Tornado Warning Alarm to more serious people who might be interested in the party.

    Pro-choice libertarians of course promotes the meme PINK IS PRO-CHOICE. 🙂

  124. paulie Post author

    When someone who used to have a christian anti-abortion ministry and was a big anti-abortion activist enters the party, dyes their hair pink and acts like a big radical, even calling themselves “sex positive”, even as they do their best to recruit anti-choicers and get rid of the abortion plank

    All of these things can and do genuinely coexist, and increasingly do. She was also a death metal rocker who had an abortion before she became a Christian so was her conversion to Christianity also not genuine? I see no reason to question that she is radical, sex-positive, Christian as she sees it, and what she considers pro-life. It’s not impossible that she is not genuine about some of these things but I see no reason to assume that she is. As far as I know her views are exactly what she says they are and there is no reason they couldn’t be. How she dyes her hair is a matter of personal choice which has nothing to do with her views on abortion, radical libertarianism or her religion; it’s an independent variable.

    You could just as easily have a beehive hairdo wairing moderate conservative pro-choice woman who is a Laveyan Satanist. It doesn’t happen often but it could. We are an individualistic and idiosyncratic bunch in the LP, and increasingly in society as a whole. And why shouldn’t we be?

    Not everything is some nefarious conspiracy.

    “Of course, Ms. Harlos’ pink hair usually gets a lot of criticism for not representing a serious image to the LP. “

    Mainly from you and a bunch of fuddy duddies. Most people either see it as a good thing or completely irrelevant.

    ” big Tornado Warning Alarm to more serious people who might be interested in the party.”

    Yeah, I don’t think anyone who is serious is going to be seriously chased off by a hairstyle that is becoming increasingly commonplace among people who are younger than Carol (and a few who are not). The kind of conformist judgmental and intolerant individuals who would be *that* put off by someone else’s personal hairstyle choices would most likely be more of a detriment than a benefit to the LP anyway.

    Really, if I was her I’d tell you to get off my nuts. That wouldn’t apply here in a literal sense so maybe get off her tits?

    Pro-choice libertarians of course promotes the meme PINK IS PRO-CHOICE.

    That would be a better idea to promote than “we are anti-choice on hair color, your hair color needs to be what we consider serious. And oh yeah you should probably wear a burka and hide your tits while you’re at it.”

  125. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    It has become apparent to a few of latel that Harlos’ appearance/color branding is just a distraction for the real issues more and more people have with her: lying, manipulating, position hogging, banning, purging, hypocrisy, histrionics, dramatics, etc etc.

    See the meme: which is on Facebook but just in case want to distribute it elsewhere see: http://carolmoore.net/harlos-issues-meme.png

    If the abortion issue wasn’t such a TRIGGER for me and she wasn’t so successful in working towards getting rid of the platform plank (more tokens vs. it last 3 conventions), I certainly wouldn’t get so annoyed. She’d be just another power tripper one watches pass through, not get their way, and eventually quit the LP.

    Of course, now she used her big lie that I repeatedly sexually propositioned her online and used it to get me banned from LP National Facebook page and she’s really gotten me pissed. Her leading the charge to kick people off LNC and purge socialists and now use her power to ban people from FB groups is just disgusting. To me such public lies are fraud on the public and me. I’m all for defamation suits if I think their house is worth at least $300,000 to make it worth my while. Hmmm. I should check on Zillow. ha ha ha.

  126. paulie Post author

    Nice graphic Carol. Many people have said a lot of the same things about you. To be fair a lot of them have also been said about me.

    I’m pro-choice, albeit much more nuanced in my position on the issue than you are. CAH has seemed to me to be fair minded in her efforts on behalf of her position on the issue, making sure that the party’s current plank is respected and all bylaws and procedures. I do not believe she has misused her positions as national platform committee chair, social media volunteer, national secretary, state party officer etc to push for her abortion position outside of proper channels.

    To me such public lies are fraud on the public and me. I’m all for defamation suits

    Kicking you off private property is not defamation. Neither is saying you sexually harassed her unless you can prove you did not, and we all know it’s not possible to prove a negative like that. She can reasonably say she failed to keep proof that you did and it will be her word against yours.

    I think their house is worth at least $300,000 to make it worth my while.

    Sounds like a threat, most likely an empty one but we shall see. Personally I don’t have jack shit so that one will not work on me.

  127. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Oh, yes, it tweaks the NAPists, fer shur. GJ’s “prebate” did so as well. Of course, NAPists cannot be satisfied with anything other than NAPism-compliance.

  128. Anthony Dlugos

    “The UBI schemes being advanced today have nothing to do with Georgism. They’re mere welfare transfers bribery…”

    Even better. I’d rather not the LP try and take on the task of first educating the voters on Georgism, THEN proposing a Georgist UBI scheme.

    OTOH, I’m all for some libertarian outlet doing the necessary education work to make a Georgist UBI electorally possible. Until then, wealth transfer bribery it is. (I submit I could be wrong. If there is a Libertarian out there that thinks a Georgist UBI is electorally viable, by all means, prove me wrong.)

    “…that would entail a great deal of social control stipulations if implemented.”

    That depends on the construction of the UBI. A UBI-supporting LP elected official would have every reason to back out of supporting a proposed UBI if he feels it does not properly defend itself against social control stipulations.

    RIght now, I am just trying to get people to start saying “yes” to the Libertarian Party. Not some version of, “you’re freakin’ nuts.”

    The thunderdome I am referring to is the one the voters we are trying to appeal to envision when Libertarians typically talk. I mean, I know “privatize social security and end the drug war, release all nonviolent drug offenders” has a nice ring to it to us, but not so much to the voters.

  129. Jared

    Carol: “It has become apparent to a few of latel that Harlos’ appearance/color branding is just a distraction for the real issues more and more people have with her”

    If CAH’s hair color is an attempt to distract from her dastardly positions on the real issues, then why do you take the bait by drawing so much attention to it?

    “If the abortion issue wasn’t such a TRIGGER for me and she wasn’t so successful in working towards getting rid of the platform plank (more tokens vs. it last 3 conventions), I certainly wouldn’t get so annoyed.”

    Libertarians can disagree in good faith on the abortion issue, and there is a wide spectrum of opinions, basically in proportion to the general population. I’m not even aware of any uniquely libertarian lines of argument in this debate. We as a party might tend to lean more pro-choice only because “erring on the side of caution” for many people means protecting innocent human life over respecting bodily autonomy, while libertarians tend to default to government non-involvement with respect to gray areas.

    That being said, there is no push for a pro-life platform, only the removal of the muddled abortion plank we currently have. It comes across as disingenuous to acknowledge a range of principled libertarian views on the matter and then officially adopt the most radical pro-choice position on the table.

  130. Fernando Mercado

    Oh Darryl Perry, I wondered what happened to you. It’s me the guy who made your Wikipedia. 2 questions:
    1. How do you accomplish your version of Libertarianism?
    And 2. Are you running for Not-President in 2020, or does Kokesh have your base covered?

  131. Anthony Dlugos

    “That being said, there is no push for a pro-life platform, only the removal of the muddled abortion plank we currently have. It comes across as disingenuous to acknowledge a range of principled libertarian views on the matter and then officially adopt the most radical pro-choice position on the table.”

    There isn’t a push for a prohibitionist plank because it has zero chance of succeeding. Thus, deletion of the plank is the only viable option for the prohibitionists. Which means removal would be full victory.

    I’ll leave aside the idiocy of a party taking no stance on such an issue, which would only engender the schizophrenia of contradictory messaging by our candidates, not silence.

    I’ll also suggest that, given a couple, few more mass shootings in this country, the idea of deleting the self-defense plank would be met with a level of vitriol not seen before in the party. (As an aside, transferring the language of the last sentence of the self-defense plank into the abortion plank would be a decent idea.)

    The mistake was ever giving the prohibitionists an inch on the matter. They’re on a religious mission. They won’t stop until its made clear they are better off back in the GOP.

  132. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Paulie wrote (edit down to important parts):

    CM wrote: To me such public lies are fraud on the public and me. She LIED to LNC chair/members/staffers/volunteers to get me kicked of LP national facebook page. Whatever. Now she knows she can get away with it… good luck critics of Harlos…

    Paulie wrote: Kicking you off private property is not defamation. Neither is saying you sexually harassed her unless you can prove you did not, and we all know it’s not possible to prove a negative like that. She can reasonably say she failed to keep proof that you did and it will be her word against yours.

    CM wrote: LYING to LNC members/staffers/volunteers to get someone banned is defamation and fraud. Who is next? Maybe you’ve heard of INNOCENT TIL PROVEN GUILTY? Or can she make any lie about about you and you’ll say the same thing? And since she said I did it on Facebook so I should find out what kind of subpoena I need to prove she didn’t.

  133. paulie Post author

    I’m not a court of law, and you are not being criminally charged with sexual harassment. If you were, I agree that innocent until proven guilty would be the correct legal standard. If it was a civil case it would be preponderance of evidence. As it is it’s neither of those things, no one is seeking to deprive you of liberty or property. Revoking your welcome guest status on any piece of private property can be based on a lower “suspicion” standard. If you want to claim defamation the burden of proof shifts to you. If you want to call her a liar it’s your word against hers.

    If you make up lies about me you won’t be the first one, lots of people have been spreading lies about me lots of places. I’m not even sure why they bother, I’ve done plenty enough bad things that just telling the truth should be good enough, but I guess they feel compelled to repeat and embellish bullshit because reasons. If you want to find out what you have to do to subpoena facebook, you’ll have to ask them, or someone who knows more about it.

    I think that covered all the points there. Let me know if there is something I missed.

  134. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Jared Wrote: If CAH’s hair color is an attempt to distract from her dastardly positions on the real issues, then why do you take the bait by drawing so much attention to it?

    CM: Like other people who’ve made funny memes vs Harlos, I don’t wants to spend hours researching/writing up/distributing info about someone’s many frauds. (Though I do anyway in a disorganized fashion.) It’s easier to join others and make fun of their appearance. ALSO: Eventually these types of annoying power trippers DO out themselves.

    Harlos was REALLY pissed cause I made fun of her in memes and was effective. So she turned to bald face lies to stop me. Now I’m tempted to organize all the other people who know she’s a liar to deal with her. What a time waster over one little psycho. Hopefully she’ll realize she’s not getting the thousands of hits on her videos, etc. she EXPECTS and find some other activity where she’ll get all the attention she desperately craves.

    Jared wrote: Libertarians can disagree in good faith on the abortion issue, and there is a wide spectrum of opinions, basically in proportion to the general population. .. That being said, there is no push for a pro-life platform, only the removal of the muddled abortion plank we currently have. It comes across as disingenuous to acknowledge a range of principled libertarian views on the matter and then officially adopt the most radical pro-choice position on the table.

    CM wrote: All we have to do is remove the PANDERING to antis intro and the PANDERING to antis ending and keep the “Libertarians believe in keeping the govt out of the abortion issue.” That’s what pro-choicers have to push for next platform committee, which Ms. Harlos should not chair.

    Of course, given that I’m still undergoing treatment for a kind of cancer that could go metastic and kill in a year or two, I’ve really got to focus on getting my own projects done for posterity. 🙂 And let fertile young women fight for their rights. If they don’t care, or want to wait til it’s too late, then they’ll have to organize then. And you guys will get a lot less sex until abortion is legal again, if those women are smart.

    Meanwhile, I’ll continue to just have a little fun mocking Ms. Harlos – (the Wayne Root of the 20-teens) – among the growing number of people who think she’s a problem. Can’t do it on LP National FB any more (or share lots of libertarian wisdom there from 36 years of experience) but there are lots more forums. Unless I get bored with it or some other person takes up the challenge.

    Of course, her life DOES make an interesting story, Elmer Gantry meets Tammy Faye Baker meets Wayne Root. Well, after I finish my own autobiography I’ll write her bio. ha ha ha

    See links in my STILL not updated to wordpress site:
    http://carolmoore.net/HarlosLiesOnSexualHarassment.pdf
    https://carolmoore.net/Remove-Harlos-Ban-of-Moore-LPFacebookPage.pdf

  135. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    paulie Post author
    January 16, 2019 at 14:03

    Paulie wrote: If you make up lies about me you won’t be the first one…

    CM actually wrote Paulie wouldn’t like it if HARLOS made up lies, like he assaulted her in a hallway or some such nonsense. She’ll have to pump it up for the next lie, now that she’s succeeded with first one.

  136. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anthony wrote: “The mistake was ever giving the prohibitionists an inch on the matter. They’re on a religious mission. They won’t stop until its made clear they are better off back in the GOP.”

    CM: You are correct sir! The polite prohibitionists who don’t make too many waves can be let off easy. The blatant anti-abortionists who keep changing their stories, won’t put it writing, say you are lying when you present transcripts, and claim they merely “sympathize” with all sorts of laws vs. abortion are going to get their butts kicked. No matter how much they may try to pretend they are reasonable. Cause as fanatics they ARE chronic liars…

  137. paulie Post author

    Paulie wouldn’t like it if HARLOS made up lies

    I don’t like it when anyone makes up lies about me, it doesn’t matter who they are. The truth is bad enough as it is.

    I have seen no evidence she lied about you. It’s possible, but I don’t know. It’s a case of she said, she said. (As an aside, if we were to adopt a “women must always be believed” standard as some have suggested, who are we supposed to believe when one woman accuses another woman?)

    As far as I know Caryn Ann has always been honest about me. I’ve never seen anything I know to be lie that she has said abput anyone else either. Is she lying about you? Dunno, but as far as I know I have not known her to be dishonest.

  138. dL

    wealth transfer bribery it is. (I submit I could be wrong. If there is a Libertarian out there that thinks a Georgist UBI is electorally viable, by all means, prove me wrong.)

    Well, I wrote “welfare transfer bribery,” not “wealth transfer bribery.” Regardless, an unconditional welfare transfer UBI is even less “electorally viable” than a Georgist UBI. Good luck…

  139. paulie Post author

    CMoore, CAH did not ban you from FB/L, yes she did have authorization to had she so chosen (the rule is she would have had to post a screenshot with the alleged offense and an explanation and the rest of the team could decide to reverse her action). Instead she sought a decision about it from the powers that be. She did not use or abuse her LNC title in doing so. Another volunteer chose to act on her request and the rest of the team did not choose to reverse it, at least so far.

    As for your other claims:

    There’s nothing contradictory or illogical about being sex-positive and being anti-abortion. There’s masturbation, non-reproductive sex acts, contraception, and yes having a lot of kids is also an option for some people and not contradictory to sex-positivity – it’s absurd to believe that the only way to be sex-positive or provocative is to also be OK with abortion.

    So, there’s simply no hypocrisy in CAH or anyone else flauting her boobs and opposing abortion. You just made that up. There are however a non-trivial number of radical feminists who are not anti-abortion and are sex-negative, ban erotica types. Are they hypocrites too?

    Additionally, I disagree with your contention that CAH downplayed her abortion emphasis to win national Secretary. She has been Secretary for the better part of a year and has not picked up that emphasis more. If anything as far as I can tell she is evolving past making that a political emphasis period.

  140. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Paulie wrote: “CMoore, CAH did not ban you from FB/L, yes she did have authorization to had she so chosen (the rule is she would have had to post a screenshot with the alleged offense and an explanation and the rest of the team could decide to reverse her action). Instead she sought a decision about it from the powers that be. She did not use or abuse her LNC title in doing so. Another volunteer chose to act on her request and the rest of the team did not choose to reverse it, at least so far. ”

    Oh, duh, I just remembered the LP National FB page lists you as an ADMIN. So are you telling me the above in your admin capacity? I will be quoting you to another forum or two discussing this, so please do tell.

    Well, I heard from others involved that they and others thought the “doxing” business was nonsense, as well as the sex proposition B.S. being B.S. The rest of the team obviously doesn’t want to get on Harlos side, given her penchant for trying to get LNC members kicked off, socialists purged, etc. And this just proves it. Neither do LNC members?

    Someone with that much power is dangerous, don’t you think? I do.

  141. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Correction to my post above to add “BAD”: The rest of the team obviously doesn’t want to get on Harlos BAD side, given her penchant for trying to get LNC members kicked off, socialists purged, etc. And this just proves it. Neither do LNC members?

  142. paulie Post author

    So are you telling me the above in your admin capacity? I will be quoting you to another forum or two discussing this, so please do tell.

    Nope, it was not me. Strictly personal.

    Well, I heard from others involved that they and others thought the “doxing” business was nonsense, as well as the sex proposition B.S. being B.S. The rest of the team obviously doesn’t want to get on Harlos side, given her penchant for trying to get LNC members kicked off, socialists purged, etc. And this just proves it. Neither do LNC members?

    Someone with that much power is dangerous, don’t you think? I do.

    Wow, you just had a whole conversation with yourself, LOL. No, no one is “afraid” of anyone, people on the social media team and the LNC argue with CAH all the time, and it’s no big deal. The reason another volunteer’s decision (not hers and not mine) to act on her request to ban you has not been reversed is because some people people agree with that decision, some don’t care, and the rest don’t think it is important enough to start an argument over.

    I’m in the don’t care category. It’s so far down on my priority list whether you are allowed to comment on the national LP facebook page or not I can’t even see that far down. Rest assured I would have no problem at all challenging Caryn Ann if she did or said anything that really bothered me. She has no power over me, I am a volunteer as is she. That is all.

    There are times she and I disagree. It’s just not a big deal.

  143. paulie Post author

    UBI would encourage people to think they are getting something for nothing from government, oppose any move to cut government as an attack on muh UBI, would probably lead increasing numbers of people to choose not working over time (free rider problem) and would become a back door for social controls. Even if originally passed as a “clean bill.”

  144. Jared

    AD: “There isn’t a push for a prohibitionist plank because it has zero chance of succeeding. Thus, deletion of the plank is the only viable option for the prohibitionists. Which means removal would be full victory.”

    I’m sure there are some party members who would like to see a pro-life plank, but the major reasons for seeking its removal are (1) it is a controversial issue on which there is no single, cut-and-dried libertarian position, regardless of how and (2) it alienates a good 30-40% of people who self-identify as libertarian and feel strongly about the issue (who doesn’t, one way or another?) and discourages them from participating at any level.

    “I’ll leave aside the idiocy of a party taking no stance on such an issue, which would only engender the schizophrenia of contradictory messaging by our candidates, not silence.”

    Idiotic, how? There are plenty of gray areas where libertarians have room to disagree, even intensely. Take monetary reform, for example, or preferred voting methods. The party doesn’t need a official catechism detailing policy positions on every issue so that candidate messaging is uniform. Silence doesn’t mean we don’t care. It means we’re flexible and open to a variety of perspectives, grounded on principle, held by candidates and activists who may care very much.

    “The mistake was ever giving the prohibitionists an inch on the matter. They’re on a religious mission. They won’t stop until its made clear they are better off back in the GOP.”

    IOW, “Radical pro-choicers only. Pro-life and moderately pro-choice libertarians not welcome. Please vote for and donate to Republicans instead.” FWIW, the Republican Liberty Caucus, a predominantly pro-life group, has opted to remain silent on the issue, “leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

    CM: “All we have to do is remove the PANDERING to antis intro and the PANDERING to antis ending and keep the ‘Libertarians believe in keeping the govt out of the abortion issue.’ That’s what pro-choicers have to push for next platform committee, which Ms. Harlos should not chair.”

    I don’t see how the final clause “panders” to pro-lifers. I know you disagree with the introductory remark–you’ve made it clear you believe pro-life libertarians are bad people operating in bad faith–but the meat of the plank gives you everything you want: an official statement in support of legal abortion through the third trimester without condition or restriction. Would you really amend the plank only because you feel the language is too kind to dissenters?

  145. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Paulie Post author
    January 16, 2019 at 17:05
    Quoting Carol: So are you telling me the above in your admin capacity? I will be quoting you to another forum or two discussing this, so please do tell.
    Paulie: Nope, it was not me. Strictly personal.

    CM: It looks like the LP National FB page has at least people listed as admins who don’t know they are listed or don’t care if they are listed, even if others have admin powers and they don’t?? (Not clear.) That doesn’t look like transparency to me.

    Who makes these decisions? I don’t know. Where’s the transparency?

    I just heard from three people that the Chair and other LNC member(s) were against declaring doxing/sex propositioning on the word of Harlos. Where’s the transparency in that decision?

    People are supposed to be WARNED before being banned and TOLD they were banned. Neither done in my case. No transparency there.

    How many other people have been banned on lesser cause – or will be in the future? Do members get transparency on that one?

    Now who is the BIG LNC PROPONENT OF TRANSPARENCY who should take this issue on? Didn’t they make a video about it?

  146. paulie Post author

    CM: It looks like the LP National FB page has at least people listed as admins who don’t know they are listed

    LOL. I know I am listed. Facebook asked if I wanted to be and I said OK. You asked if I am acting as a spokesman for the team and I said no. Only for myself. I thought you might have been implying I was the one who booted you so I was making clear also that it was not me nor very important to me.

    As for admin. There are various levels. I am not at the top one. I forget what my current level is and it keeps changing. I did recently schedule Jill’s IPR article about Kevin Shaw winning a free speech lawsuit on the national LP page. I think the last one I did before that was Warren’s IPR article on gun rights. I have scheduled one that has not come out yet. If APRC or other schedulers don’t pull it I have one that will post on Friday about the Alabama and Louisiana LPs passing a resolution against Trump’s wall and for open borders.

    Who makes these decisions?

    Lots of people including Caryn Ann *can*. I think that includes me but I haven’t looked. The only stipulations I saw were post a screenshot of the offense and an explanation of why. The rest of the team can take it up if they care. Some people may have disagreed with the decision but didn’t care enough to try to overturn it.

    People are supposed to be WARNED before being banned and TOLD they were banned.

    Not to my knowledge. But I’ve never banned anyone over there so I don’t know for sure.

  147. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Jared wrote:
    CM: All we have to do is remove the PANDERING to antis intro and the PANDERING to antis ending and keep the ‘Libertarians believe in keeping the govt out of the abortion issue.’ That’s what pro-choicers have to push for next platform committee, which Ms. Harlos should not chair.”
    His reply: I don’t see how the final clause “panders” to pro-lifers. I know you disagree with the introductory remark–you’ve made it clear you believe pro-life libertarians are bad people operating in bad faith–but the meat of the plank gives you everything you want: an official statement in support of legal abortion through the third trimester without condition or restriction. Would you really amend the plank only because you feel the language is too kind to dissenters?

    CM replies: Actually, looking at the platform there is quite a bit of pandering to NON-libertarian special interest groups in there that needs to be exposed. But if pandering is going to be done, I think after pointing it out I’ll list some pandering to real libertarians that needs to be done. A fun essay.

    Only about a third of libertarians call themselves “pro-life” and a good percentage of them only are opposed to abortion in last trimester when few abortions happen, except for medical reasons. I don’t mind ONE pandering phrase just to shut them up, either the first or the second. But not TWO. Absurd.

    At least you are defacto admitting there’s something like pandering going on and not just calling it a confusing muddle as if there was no reason for the language at all.

    And I don’t think all anti-abortionists are bad, just the fanatics who promote themselves and their views and lie about pro-choicers to help them promote a state force enabling agenda. I hope you aren’t one of those. Doris of Libs for Life was a fanatic, but she was an honest one. So we got along well and I socialized with her at parties at her house. Some of today’s “libertarian” pro-life leader(s) prove through their lies that they themselves are gross distortions of any concern for human life, especially the life of the mother.

  148. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Paulie: Thanks for clarifying the deep level of NON-transparency in that particular decision making body. Who even knows what group or email list you saw the posting on? And you don’t even know about the protocol for warning people. Or who makes what decisions. Etc.

    In any case will re-read later and figure out just what you were saying for a GENERAL complaint to members and the LNC about the lack of transparency and accountability in what might be the most fequently visited public face of the Libertarian Party.

    And of course ask others on that mystery list with knowledge of the routine for their information and opinions.

  149. dL

    I’m sure there are some party members who would like to see a pro-life plank, but the major reasons for seeking its removal are (1) it is a controversial issue on which there is no single, cut-and-dried libertarian position

    The single, cut-and-dried libertarian principle via a vis abortion is the self-ownership principle. Abortion is not a difficult problem. Even if one were to concede life begins at conception(which I don’t), “life” does not trump the SOP, otherwise libertarians would have to be pacifists instead of, say, radical advocates of the right to own deadly firearms.

    The difficult problem is children, that is, children rights vs parental obligation. AoD solves the parental obligation problem. Parenthood would then imply a conscious choice to bear the responsibility of parenthood, whereas I have no idea how one can derive a contractual basis for parental obligation under a state compulsion to carry a pregnancy to term.

    The rights of children, that is, the point where a child’s own moral agency supersedes the implied authority of the parent, is a problem that has no cut and dried formula.

  150. paulie Post author

    There’s a case, I’ve seen it argued before many times, even been on that side at one time. I don’t feel like making it though.

  151. Anthony Dlugos

    Jared writes,

    “…the major reasons for seeking its removal are (1) it is a controversial issue on which there is no single, cut-and-dried libertarian position, regardless of how and (2) it alienates a good 30-40% of people who self-identify as libertarian and feel strongly about the issue…”

    Wrong.

    I do something that you don’t do: I take the abortion prohibitionists at their word.

    Now, I have come to the conclusion that many Libertarians have so thoroughly suppressed their patriarchic tendencies, that its difficult to tell the difference between an outright prohibitionist and someone who has some misguided vision of grand compromise which tells them that deleting the plank will solve the problem. Consequently, I find it prudent to just assume the “Delete the Plank” crowd is just as prohibitionist as their self-aware prohibitionists fellow travelers are.

    In any event, there is one legitimate Libertarian position, 100% pro-choice, and there is one group of very misinformed, willfully deluded Libertarians. Worse, they are deluded with the approval of their own conscience, which makes them dangerous. The self-righteous always are.

    There is no controversy. There is one side where women ultimately have bodily autonomy, and there is another side where they and/or their doctors are thrown in jail for miscarriages, where women who’s lives are in danger due to a pregnancy are told by doctors, “I can’t help you,” and where countless abortifacients are prohibited as part of a drug war that would warm the cockles of every DEA agent’s hearts. (this all happens in countries where abortion is prohibited.)

    Its comical to me that substantial portions a male-dominated party will take…or not disavow…multiple extreme positions that have no support whatsoever in the larger population (well, maybe private nukes is something to discuss!) but will stop on a dime when a woman’s sexual and reproductive freedom are involved and say, “now, this is a controversial issue that there are multiple good-faith arguments on, so we should probably officially stay silent.” Such a fine time for pragmatism! Its just women’s rights, though.

    As I said, I take the prohibitionists at their word: they believe abortion is murder. THAT is the major reason they want the plank deleted. Tactically, they know a pro-life plank is impossible right now, but the primary drive is not tactical, its moral. There is ZERO reason to believe someone who thinks abortion is murder would stop at silence. Deletion is Step One, an explicitly pro-life plank is Step Two, after all the Libertarians are gone. This is not some conspiracy theory. As I said, I take the prohibitionists at their word: they believe abortion is murder. Why would they ever stop? Who stays silent in the face of state-sanctioned murder?

    There are grey areas as you point out. But it strains credulity that anyone even remotely interested in politics can believe a touchstone issue like abortion is one of those “grey areas” like, say, monetary farm. Frankly, I distrust anyone who tries to equate the abortion issue with tax policy or monetary reform, because they are either extremely unaware or simply an outright prohibitionist revealing their cards.

    “Pro-life and moderately pro-choice libertarians not welcome. Please vote for and donate to Republicans instead.”

    Those who would toss women under the bus because of (likely) religious-based patriarchy (latent or otherwise)? Yes, you gotta go. I have no problem saying that in a party that regularly takes hard-line positions and goes on witch hunts. This is one witch hunt that is justified.

  152. dL

    Its comical to me that substantial portions a male-dominated party will take…or not disavow…multiple extreme positions that have no support whatsoever in the larger population

    Well, to be fair, it is not accurate to claim the the pro-life[sic] position has no cachet in the larger population. It is on par with the support for the pro-choice position. Ironically, the polling data suggests support for the respective positions inversely tracks who occupies the white house. If a republican is in power, support for the pro-choice position relative to the pro-life[sic] position goes up. Conversely, if a democrat holds power, the pro-life position gains.

    In any event, there is one legitimate Libertarian position, 100% pro-choice,

    What happened to the electoral politics standard for determining the correct libertarian position? I agree with you here, but abortion is one of those issues that is legitimately conflicted if we go by the standard of public sentiment. Of course, I don’t rely on that standard when it comes to self-ownership.

    The LP unequivocally was a 100% pro-choice party in the 80s & 90s(reference, e.g, the 1992 platform), but around the same time the platform was de-radicalized, tolerance for the pro-life position began to seep in based in no small part on an argument of electoral viability with conservatives.

  153. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Paulie: Trump’s a gemini, so both evil and stupid, depending which of his subpersonalities showing through.

    Occasionally quite reasonable and correct and that always amazes me. Of course, watching him yap about foreign policy today, he was quite smart saying Europe should pay for own defense, and pay US back for it. Of course, was he ignoring or just ignorant of fact paying for their defense keeps US top imperial power.

    Yo no se.

  154. Jared

    dL: “The single, cut-and-dried libertarian principle via a vis abortion is the self-ownership principle. Abortion is not a difficult problem. Even if one were to concede life begins at conception(which I don’t), ‘life’ does not trump the SOP, otherwise libertarians would have to be pacifists instead of, say, radical advocates of the right to own deadly firearms.”

    The right to own deadly firearms does not trump or come into conflict with the right to life. That biological life begins at conception is simple, incontrovertible fact. Pro-choicers are better off denying that it is a relevant fact, e.g., contending that a woman also owns her immature offspring’s bodies (cf. Benjamin Tucker) If self-ownership implies unlimited bodily autonomy, then perhaps we should revisit the libertarian position on physical assault. Why should the location of your nose have anything to do with my absolute right to wave my fist wherever I damn well please? Libertarians have generally adopted “prohibitionist” attitudes toward

    “The difficult problem is children, that is, children rights vs parental obligation. AoD solves the parental obligation problem. Parenthood would then imply a conscious choice to bear the responsibility of parenthood, whereas I have no idea how one can derive a contractual basis for parental obligation under a state compulsion to carry a pregnancy to term.”

    Yes, if Rothbard’s views are any indication, libertarians definitely struggle to accommodate children’s rights and parental obligations. We tend to operate in a thoughtworld of cognizant, fully autonomous adults where positive legal responsibilities exist only within contractual arrangements.

    “The rights of children, that is, the point where a child’s own moral agency supersedes the implied authority of the parent, is a problem that has no cut and dried formula.”

    The moral agency of the child is not at issue. Newborns are not moral agents. Animals are not moral agents either, but most libertarians oppose to the legal torture of pets. The issue is whether children, born or unborn, have a moral status that warrants legal recognition and protection.

  155. dL

    There’s a case, I’ve seen it argued before many times, even been on that side at one time. I don’t feel like making it though.

    A duty to give birth and post-birth parental obligations are not the same thing. I haven’t read any convincing argument for parental obligation given a condition of compulsory birth. I put the [sic] on “pro-life” because that position argues much more than a mere duty not to kill. It’s pro-compulsory parenthood.

  156. dL

    The right to own deadly firearms does not trump or come into conflict with the right to life.

    The right to self-defense certainly trumps the right to life, otherwise you would owe restitution if you were to use deadly force in protection of person or property. If life trumped self-defense, then the use of deadly self-defense to protect against, say, rape would be prohibited.

    That biological life begins at conception is simple, incontrovertible fact

    And the mere fact of biological life is an incontrovertible irrelevance. The very act of breathing kills biological organisms. The issue would be a sentient life with a moral agency that trumps the moral agency of the mother carrying/sustaining the thing in her body.

    The issue is whether children, born or unborn, have a moral status that warrants legal recognition and protection.

    And It’s not much of an issue. The embryo, or even the fetus for that matter, does not have a moral agency that trumps the moral agency of the mother that is carrying the thing in her body. Any argument to the contrary would invalidate any claim to private ownership with regards to person and property.

    A claim that humans have an impersonal duty to give birth would not establish any parental obligation on the part of the unwilling mother post-birth. So, a moral status that warrants legal recognition and protection would shift the welfare burden to society. And if society bears the welfare burden, then society would probably want to have say in how children are raised. The pro-life, pro compulsory parenthood position ultimately is a collectivist position.

    contending that a woman also owns her immature offspring’s bodies (cf. Benjamin Tucker)

    yes, Tucker thought parents had the right to discard their children. He would be right if the parents lived in a regime where abortion was prohibited(compulsory birth regime). However, an abortion on demand regime establishes a willing contractual obligation on the part of the parents not to do that.

  157. Jared

    “In any event, there is one legitimate Libertarian position, 100% pro-choice, and there is one group of very misinformed, willfully deluded Libertarians. Worse, they are deluded with the approval of their own conscience, which makes them dangerous. The self-righteous always are.”

    Then I guess you and Carol are on the same page: anyone who does not enthusiastically support a zero-restriction abortion policy is a deceitful, viciously ignorant, likely fanatically religious, misogynistic pseudo-libertarian. This attitude is not only offensive to pro-life and less radically pro-choice libertarians. It is offensive to anyone who at any time held or sympathized with a more mainstream view. It’s Vohraesque rhetoric which does the LP no favors.

    “There is no controversy. There is one side where women ultimately have bodily autonomy, and there is another side where they and/or their doctors are thrown in jail for miscarriages, where women who’s lives are in danger due to a pregnancy are told by doctors, “I can’t help you,” and where countless abortifacients are prohibited as part of a drug war that would warm the cockles of every DEA agent’s hearts. (this all happens in countries where abortion is prohibited.)”

    It’s one thing to take a strong position and another to deny altogether that woefully misguided alternatives exist. Denying the controversy doesn’t make the it go away. Do you believe pro-lifers, especially those of a libertarian persuasion, want to see anybody jailed for a miscarriage? Do you think moderate pro-choicers would tolerate it? Pro-life legislation has consistently targeted abortion providers, not abortion seekers. The U.S. has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. I’ll be more sympathetic when pro-choice feminists stand up for the many women who are coerced into abortions by controlling parents and abusive boyfriends.

    “Its comical to me that substantial portions a male-dominated party will take…or not disavow…multiple extreme positions that have no support whatsoever in the larger population (well, maybe private nukes is something to discuss!) but will stop on a dime when a woman’s sexual and reproductive freedom are involved and say, “now, this is a controversial issue that there are multiple good-faith arguments on, so we should probably officially stay silent.” Such a fine time for pragmatism! Its just women’s rights, though.”

    Abortion legality is not about sexual freedom, unless I suppose ones considers abortion at any stage of gestation a “birth control” method. Abortions do not prevent reproduction. That’s what contraceptives so. Abortions terminate offspring after reproduction has been accomplished. Contrary to popular progressive belief, pro-life people actually want to protect developing babies from being dissolved or dismembered to death in what should be a safe natural environment, not keep the womenfolk from being too free.

    “As I said, I take the prohibitionists at their word: they believe abortion is murder. THAT is the major reason they want the plank deleted. Tactically, they know a pro-life plank is impossible right now, but the primary drive is not tactical, its moral. There is ZERO reason to believe someone who thinks abortion is murder would stop at silence. Deletion is Step One, an explicitly pro-life plank is Step Two, after all the Libertarians are gone. This is not some conspiracy theory. As I said, I take the prohibitionists at their word: they believe abortion is murder. Why would they ever stop? Who stays silent in the face of state-sanctioned murder?”

    I believe it constitutes a rights violation (certainly into the second and third trimesters), effectively if not consciously an act of murder, but I am perfectly open to being persuaded it should remain entirely legal. If, for example, there are compelling reasons to believe that the abortion rate would increase or remain as it is with such legal restrictions in place, then I’d change my mind. I’m not a fan of symbolic legislation that virtue signals to conservatives. I care about actually reducing rights violations in both the public and private sectors.

    “toss women under the bus because of (likely) religious-based patriarchy (latent or otherwise)? Yes, you gotta go. I have no problem saying that in a party that regularly takes hard-line positions and goes on witch hunts. This is one witch hunt that is justified.”

    How many purely religious arguments do you hear from pro-life activists, let alone from Libertarians who dislike the abortion plank? “Taking an innocent human life should not be legally permissible. Abortion takes an innocent human life. Therefore, abortion should not be legally permissible.” I fail to see how this argument is theological in nature. Did you mean to be ironic, denouncing the specter of religious patriarchy and then advocating a witch hunt?

  158. Jared

    CM: “At least you are defacto admitting there’s something like pandering going on and not just calling it a confusing muddle as if there was no reason for the language at all.”

    You have a liberal definition of pandering. I would call it a clumsy attempt to be diplomatic.

  159. dL

    “Taking an innocent human life should not be legally permissible. Abortion takes an innocent human life. Therefore, abortion should not be legally permissible.

    “Innocent” is a bogus qualifier that does not magically allow one to support the right to self-defense and self-ownership in a general sense but then deny each in the specific case of abortion.

    An example to illustrate this. X,Y,Z are at a party. Y secretly spikes X’s drink with a drug that temporarily causes X to lose control of his faculties. X, while under the influence of this drug, then proceeds to try to rape Z. Z shoots and kills X in self-defense. Make no mistake, X do not willfully choose to ingest the drug. X is “innocent” and would probably escape any criminal culpability for the act by pleading temporary insanity. But just because X is “innocent” doesn’t mean Z has the obligation to be raped under a concocted legal prohibition of taking an “innocent life.”

    How many purely religious arguments do you hear from pro-life activists

    “Innocent” human life is almost entirely a religious talking point and usually refers to original sin innocence.

    let alone from Libertarians who dislike the abortion plank?

    They usually resort to the Ron Paul canard that you can’t protect liberty without first protecting life. But that is nonsense because you can’t enforce violations against taking a life without first defining the moral constraints of liberty. Specifically, what constitutes self-defense? That would differ based on the regime.For example, in a private property regime, private property trespass could be grounds for perceived threat to person and property that would justify the use of deadly force. But in a commune, there would be no self-defense grounds rooted in property trespass.

  160. Anthony Dlugos

    “What happened to the electoral politics standard for determining the correct libertarian position? I agree with you here, but abortion is one of those issues that is legitimately conflicted if we go by the standard of public sentiment. Of course, I don’t rely on that standard when it comes to self-ownership.

    The LP unequivocally was a 100% pro-choice party in the 80s & 90s(reference, e.g, the 1992 platform), but around the same time the platform was de-radicalized, tolerance for the pro-life position began to seep in based in no small part on an argument of electoral viability with conservatives.”

    I think electoral politics has to be a blend of what can muster voter support, and some philosophical consistency (e.g., self-ownership). Too much of one or the other is counter-productive.

    I’ll concede that I have frequently argued something along the lines of “winning is all that matters,” but, in all honesty, that’s because I think the LP pendulum has been for quite some time swung way to far towards philosophical consistency. Anyone arguing for philosophical consistency given our lack of success may not have the stomach for electoral politics, IMHO.

    I agree with what you are saying about the platform getting de-radicalized about the same time tolerance of the abortion prohibitionist position started seeping in. I’ll also agree that one of the arguments used was electoral viability with conservatives. But I think the conservatives coming in was the horse and tolerance of the prohibitionist position was the cart.

    My opinion is that a pure NAPist or pure self-ownership position, when applied in the real world, ends up appealing to those who either were the beneficiary of previous government aggression, or sympathizers with the beneficiaries of previous aggression. Inadvertently or not, you’re gonna draw in right-wingers, and thus abortion prohibitionists.

    In any event, arguing that philosophical consistency demands a pro-choice position is one way to handle this never-ending debate in the party.

    On the other hand, as I mentioned before, why doesn’t the pro-choice majority assert itself, and say not only is the party officially pro-choice, but we are also opposed to targeted reduction in federal funding for abortion services (or some such language). Right leaning Libertarians are free to propose ways to reduce government involvement in health care funding, up to and including elimination, just as long as it doesn’t target the powerless first.

    We’ll see how committed they are to free market health care then.

  161. Anthony Dlugos

    “Innocent” human life is almost entirely a religious talking point and usually refers to original sin innocence.

    As suspected, Jared’s language in his last few posts tells me his interest in this matter goes well beyond any diplomatic concerns for a grand compromise here.

  162. Anthony Dlugos

    “Abortion legality is not about sexual freedom…”

    Bullsh*t it isn’t.

    Many prohibitionists, when pushed hard enough, will frequently resort to some form of “she should have kept her legs closed” when the possible penalties for abortion in a prohibitionist regime are brought up.

    Other prohibitionists may not be as hung up on sexual empowerment for women, but that just makes them ignorant of implications of abortion prohibition, as opposed to those implications being the intended consequence.

    In any event, given that no form of contraceptive is 100% guaranteed, sexual freedom will be compromised in a prohibitionist regime. Any woman of childbearing age would have to be worried about potential child rearing anytime they had sex. I can’t think of a more intrusive police state.

    But, maybe that’s the point.

  163. Jared

    dL: “Well, I wrote ‘welfare transfer bribery,’ not ‘wealth transfer bribery.’ Regardless, an unconditional welfare transfer UBI is even less “electorally viable” than a Georgist UBI. Good luck…”

    Agreed. A Georgist-type rent dividend is the only basic income proposal with a snowball’s chance in hell of getting bipartisan support. I think it draws a lot of suspicion because it is so attractively simple, principled, efficient, and uniquely able to appeal to libertarians, progressives, and conservatives alike. So of course it must be deeply flawed somehow because complex problems can only have complex, ideologically polarizing solutions.

  164. paulie Post author

    Trump’s a gemini, so both evil and stupid

    LOL OK. I actually agree he can be both evil and stupid at times, but that’s because of astrology? K. BTW I am cusp of Gemini and Taurus so what does that make me…evil, stupid and stubborn? LOLOL

  165. paulie Post author

    I think electoral politics has to be a blend of what can muster voter support, and some philosophical consistency (e.g., self-ownership). Too much of one or the other is counter-productive.

    Just so long as we are uncompromisingly hardcore on the issues *you* want to be uncompromising on and jelly soft on the ones you want to be soft on and not some other configuration. Because that’s exactly how it’s guaranteed to work out, all actual evidence from the real world notwithstanding.

    I agree with what you are saying about the platform getting de-radicalized about the same time tolerance of the abortion prohibitionist position started seeping in. I’ll also agree that one of the arguments used was electoral viability with conservatives. But I think the conservatives coming in was the horse and tolerance of the prohibitionist position was the cart.

    My opinion is that a pure NAPist or pure self-ownership position, when applied in the real world, ends up appealing to those who either were the beneficiary of previous government aggression, or sympathizers with the beneficiaries of previous aggression. Inadvertently or not, you’re gonna draw in right-wingers, and thus abortion prohibitionists.

    Therefore, if we decide we will be hardcore on some issues and will compromise on others, the result of this dynamic is that the issues we are more likely to compromise on, and the ones we aren’t, will most likely be sort of the opposite of your own preference. No?

    , why doesn’t the pro-choice majority assert itself, and say not only is the party officially pro-choice, but we are also opposed to targeted reduction in federal funding for abortion services (or some such language).

    If you think there’s anything even remotely approaching a majority in the LP that is even going to consider that seriously, I think you’ll find otherwise, but go ahead and try and see what kind of response you get.

    Honestly, I don’t think realpolitik is your strong suit, whether it be intra-party or bigger picture. Maybe you think it is but I’m not seeing it.

  166. Jared

    dL: “‘Innocent’ is a bogus qualifier that does not magically allow one to support the right to self-defense and self-ownership in a general sense but then deny each in the specific case of abortion.”

    It seems to be a necessary qualifier given that pro-choice libertarians may concede, at least for the sake of argument, prenatal humanity and/or personhood, but insist the violence of abortion is nevertheless justified because the moment the child becomes unwanted, he/she becomes a parasite “guilty” of trespass.

    “‘Innocent’ human life is almost entirely a religious talking point and usually refers to original sin innocence.”

    Right. Uh, no. If anything, you’d have original sin enthusiasts replying that not even babies can be called innocent. An innocent person is a person who is not guilty of wrongdoing and, thus, deserves to have his or her full rights respected. Straightforward enough. I don’t think it’s a sinister religious buzzword or a “dog whistle” as Carol would have it.

  167. Jared

    “As suspected, Jared’s language in his last few posts tells me his interest in this matter goes well beyond any diplomatic concerns for a grand compromise here.”

    You can reply to me directly if you like. Not sure what compromise you thought I was proposing. I disagree with any abortion plank–for or against–no matter who is in the majority. If you find it unacceptable caving to pro-lifers to state their position and arguments charitably, as they themselves understand the issue, (because, you know, they are bad people and don’t deserve to be heard) then perhaps we have nothing to discuss. I’m not the least bit interested in arguing the rightness or wrongness of abortion in this or that case. The matter of retaining, amending, or removing the plank is its own issue with its own positions and arguments.

  168. paulie Post author

    From Ballot Access News:

    Although the term “centrist” is somewhat vague, it appears there were eleven states in 2018 that had nominees of centrist parties on the ballot:

    Colorado Unity; Florida Reform; Louisiana Independent Party; Minnesota Independence; Mississippi Reform; New York Independence and also Reform; Oregon Independent Party; Rhode Island Moderate; South Carolina Independence and also American; Utah United Utah; and Vermont Green Mountain.

    The best showings for these parties, for either Governor or U.S. Senator (for candidates who were not also the nominees of a major party), were for the Oregon Independent Party and the Rhode Island Moderate Party. The Oregon Independent Party gubernatorial nominee, Patrick Starnes, got 2.86% of the vote even though he announced shortly before the election that voters should not vote for him, but for the Democratic nominee. The Moderate Party gubernatorial nominee, William H. Gilbert, received 2.71%.

    For U.S. House, the best showing was United Utah Party’s nominee in the First District. Eric Eliason received 11.62% in a race with both a Democrat and a Republican.

    For state legislature, the best showing was also a United Utah nominee. Michelle Weeks, nominee for State Representative, 51st district, received 39.05% of the vote in a two-person race.

  169. robert capozzi

    AD: In any event, arguing that philosophical consistency demands a pro-choice position is one way to handle this never-ending debate in the party.

    Me: Not sure about this. If “consistency” => legal 9-month abortions in which the almost-baby is purposely killed, then I’d submit that some premises need to be checked.

    While I remain pro-choice, the question remains for me: When does the potential human being deserve legal protections? There is not an obvious answer for me. In the most extreme, a pregnant woman can commit suicide and kill the fetus in the process, so I don’t see the point of attempting to outlaw that. She can engage in dangerous behavior that leads to a miscarriage, and I again don’t see the point in banning that.

    Personally, I think the Supremes came up with a pretty good formula for fetus protections. It’s mostly a legal interpretation directed at DOCTORS, not pregnant women.

    While I don’t agree with them, I can’t say pro-lifers (including pro-life Ls) are “wrong” about when the fetus gets co-equal legal protections as their would-be mothers. I’d say they’d need to convince super-majorities of their viewpoint.

  170. dL

    It seems to be a necessary qualifier given that pro-choice libertarians may concede, at least for the sake of argument, prenatal humanity and/or personhood,

    I don’t concede the embryonic stage as personhood. Maybe in the later fetal stages. However, the libertarian position, or at least my libertarian position, doesn’t depend on a personhood assessment. Of course, I would be remiss not to point out we currently have a compromise on that, Roe v Wade, that allows prohibition in the later fetal stages that most liberals and libertarians are willing to live with but conservatives are not.

    but insist the violence of abortion is nevertheless justified because the moment the child becomes unwanted, he/she becomes a parasite “guilty” of trespass.

    Most terminated pregnancies are unplanned and aborted before 90 days. There usually isn’t much of a flip of the switch going on where a pregnancy is planned and wanted and then suddenly midway through, nah, we’ve decided against it.

  171. dL

    Agreed. A Georgist-type rent dividend is the only basic income proposal with a snowball’s chance in hell of getting bipartisan support. I

    I say that because Alaska does have a Georgist citizen’s dividend UBI(derived from petroleum reserves) whereas traditional unconditional federal income transfers to the poor were phased out 25 years ago with the 1994 Welfare Reform bill. You can’t even get food stamps, no matter how poor, unless you’re working in some capacity or have child dependents. Republicans even want to attach a work requirement to medicaid. Americans are only fine with unconditional income transfers if you’re old and all the joy of life has been sucked out of you.

  172. dL

    If you think there’s anything even remotely approaching a majority in the LP that is even going to consider that seriously, I think you’ll find otherwise, but go ahead and try and see what kind of response you get.

    It would be an unpleasant one. The 1992 platform was unequivocally pro-choice, but it was also unequivocal in its opposition to any federal abortion subsidy. State subsidy of abortion has zero cachet in American libertarianism.

  173. paulie Post author

    Alaska does have a Georgist citizen’s dividend UBI

    Looked it up real quick; ” In 2015, with oil prices high, the dividend totaled $2,072 per person, or $8,288 for a family of four.” Suggesting it is lower now. Not exactly a UBI, if UBI is supposed to be enough to live on.

  174. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Paulie: Sun AND moon signs together are most revealing. (And often when 3 plus planets in one signs.) It’s all electromagnetic planetary fields influencing the biological field of the human at birth, influencing some important traits for a lifetime. A)

    Anyway, Trump’s moon is in Leo so he has to BROADCAST whichever of his moods/personalities is most prominent.

    I’m a taurus with moon in aries and four planets in leo. So when I get pissed about something I stubbornly and angrily rant on about it for years, let EVERYONE know it, leading movements if necessary. Like the Committee for Waco Justice and my Waco book. Or the abortion issue in the LP.

  175. dL

    Looked it up real quick; ” In 2015, with oil prices high, the dividend totaled $2,072 per person, or $8,288 for a family of four.” Suggesting it is lower now. Not exactly a UBI, if UBI is supposed to be enough to live on.

    No, the main tenet requirement for UBI is an unconditional income stream paid equally to everyone without a means test. An income stream sufficient to pay all your bills is not necessarily implicit in the definition.

  176. paulie Post author

    You’re right. For some reason I don’t remember I thought it was supposed to be enough to minimally survive on without other means of support.

  177. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Seeing the abortion discussion above, I’m thinking more about the politics of it in the LP.

    Ms. Harlos has taken so much grief because she’s the only high profile and proselytizing anti-abortionist who worked her way quickly into party leadership.

    There was Austin Petersen who was up front about it, but there were so many other issues, and he WAS running for Prez candidate. Now he’s GOP.

    There is former LP secretary Ms. Mattson, helped by her husband Aaron Starr, who barely talked about it – even as he’d push abolition of the plank on the platform committee and from the floor. (Of course, a couple pro-choicers HAVE wondered if as secretary she boosted the number of alleged tokens against the plank while she was secretary.)

    Who else? For most of 2000s there wasn’t much organized opposition to those who wanted to gut or delete the platform. We had a leaflet of LP supporters of plank at 2002 convention. Barr/Root in 2008 were the most successful, with the platform committee coming up with current obscenity. Then Ms. Harlos got us so ticked off we started Pro-Choice Libs FB groups and re booted http://pro-choicelibertarians.net and organized again at conventions.

    There’s pro-life libs FB group which seems to be mostly people who say they won’t join LP til get rid of the plank. And Libertarians for Life FB group which is extension of Doris Gordon (RIP) website. Doubt organizers or commenters on either are involved in LP.

  178. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    In my conversion from pro-life to pro-choice, late term abortions was the last rampart in my mind.

    But I figured if I was wrong about everything else with regard to the issue, I better check into whether what I believed about late term abortions was actually true or not.

    Turns out I was wrong about late term abortions too. Besides being exceedingly rare, women don’t wake up one morning in the third trimester and decide they don’t want a baby after all. There is quite typically something catastrophically wrong with the pregnancy, and the woman involved desperately wanted a healthy baby.

    Its also true that late-term abortions (and parental approval for minors wanting an abortion), are the thin edge of the wedge pro-lifers use to restrict abortions across the board.

    Maybe the Supreme Court split the baby Solomon-like in the Roe decision, but yea, I think the prohibitionists are wrong, Libertarian and otherwise. The decision should be up to the woman involved’ her doctor, and whomever else she wishes to involve.

  179. Anthony Dlugos

    Jared writes,

    “If you find it unacceptable caving to pro-lifers to state their position and arguments charitably, as they themselves understand the issue, (because, you know, they are bad people and don’t deserve to be heard) then perhaps we have nothing to discuss.”

    Yes, I find it unacceptable caving.

    You know who agrees with me on that? The Prohibitionist Libertarians. Because when I’ve suggested to them I’d be in favor of deleting the self-defense plank in order to appeal to the significant segment of society that is in favor of some gun control, being the wolf-in-sheep’s clothing conservatives that they are, they go apoplectic at the thought of the LP being silent on the issue of gun rights, and point out to ME that that would allow “gun grabbers” to plausibly run for office as Libertarians and the party could do nothing about it, not even assert that the person is running in opposition to the platform.

    I didn’t say the Prohibitionists are bad people. As I noted, its worse than that. They are good people who are terribly wrong. As Louis Brandeis once said, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”

    Silence on the issue is not an option. I agree the plank is mangled right now. So, strengthen it by removing the elements that patronize Prohibtionists, or change to a full-on pro-life party so Libertarians can leave and the party can truly become GOP 2.0. But not silence.

    ‘I’m not the least bit interested in arguing the rightness or wrongness of abortion in this or that case. The matter of retaining, amending, or removing the plank is its own issue with its own positions and arguments.”

    Typical Libertarian prohibitionist tactic. Pretend the two are not related. That way, when the plank gets deleted and the prohibitionists run on a full-on, “life-begins-at-conception-lock-up-the-harlots” position, you can look around smugly and say, “Who me? I had nothing to do with that.”

  180. dL

    You’re right. For some reason I don’t remember I thought it was supposed to be enough to minimally survive on without other means of support.

    A “livable” UBI annual outlay in the US would be $2*10^4(dollars) * 3*10^8==6 * 10^12==6 trillion/yr. In other words, an outlay larger than the current US federal budget by a factor of two, an outlay roughly 40% of current GDP. Good luck. Partial UBIs are not even politically tenable in the Nordic European countries. Finland’s modest little experiment didn’t make it past 3 years.

    The thing with Georgism is that someone like Jeremiah Johnson gets nothing…if you live in a large urban area, then you would get access to public services w/o having to steal from the labor of others. But it is much more of a localized thing than a federal program administered over a broad geographical area.

  181. Libertydave

    I have explained this in the past but people forget that having a baby is not a stroll in the park, it is dangerous to the mother and baby. That’s why abortion shouldn’t be considered murder, because it is self defense on the part of the woman. Let me repeat this.

    Abortion is not murder. It is self-defense.

    In the USA it is more dangerous to become a mother than it is to become a cop. Per capita more women die from complications from pregnancy and child birth than cops die while being a cop, for any reason.

    My hat is off to all the women who choose to accept this danger to their lives to bring another person into the world, but in no way should any women be forced to accept this danger to her life against her will.

  182. dL

    Speaking of Georgist utopian fantasies, Atlas Shrugged (after all, Galts Gulch was a Georgist single-tax community) has hit Amazon Prime video. C-list bad movie cinema. lol. I can’t believe Reason Mag tried to put a polish on that turd. Well, on second thought, I can believe it. The thing is, Trumpism vs Pelosi, government shutdown theatre, is Atlas Shrugged to a “t.”

  183. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Women already are being investigated for natural abortions, even in states without stricter abortion laws.

    Just imagine how bad it would be in states where abortion largely outlawed? Womens eating, drinking, working, lifestyle habits all would be under investigation for criminally causing deaths of fetuses.

    Prosecutors looking to make a name for themselves would be all over it.

  184. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Main problem with Atlas shrugged is they didn’t openly advocate for liberty and secession.

    In any case, after the NUKE WAR that’s coming by 2022 or so, there will be lots of little Galt Gulches all over the country. Of course, they’ll most be boonie christian nut job or military outlaw survivors running them. With a couple independently operated FEMA camps here and there.

    I turned into Trump’s defense speech yesterday just as he said “and 3, hypersonic cruise missiles. We have the best in the world… blah blah” When only 6 months ago we were well behind china and russia? (Hypersonics go 5 to 10 x speech of sound. Cruise missiles can create any path they want, with AI more creatively than ever.)

    In any case, govts used to have 1/2 hour to decide if it was a REAL nuclear attack. Then more recently 8 minutes. Now we – and China and Russia in more advanced form – have cruise missiles that can come from any direction at 5 – 10 times speed of sound and can weave and bob. They can come right over the border wall with Mexico, there is NO WARNING TIME. So that means you have two options, first strike your enemy or pretend you are under attack and THEN first strike your enemy. Oh, or let AI computers decide if you are under attack…

    See particularly second Klare article: https://original.antiwar.com/michael_klare/2018/12/18/the-coming-of-hyperwar/

    So who will first strike first?

  185. dL

    Main problem with Atlas shrugged is they didn’t openly advocate for liberty and secession.

    I’m pretty sure Galt’s Gulch was a secession.

    In any case, after the NUKE WAR that’s coming by 2022 or so,

    I don’t know about that, but the complete unaccountability of the government in regards to militarization and military spending explains why people instead opt to be distracted by pie in the sky UBI schemes. What else are they going to talk about? No one is paying anyone to move their lips about being hopelessly dominated by an unjust military machine.

  186. Krzysztof Lesiak

    IPR admins: please fix IPR. With 2020 on the horizon, I’d really like to be able to comment here, but every comment I’ve made recently has not gone through.

  187. paulie Post author

    I see the same comment posted twice in the Kokesh thread. Zero comments in spam or trash. If you have additional questions email Warren. I’ve already let him know about the issue of comments not appearing for hours in some of my browsers. Not sure what is causing the lag. Apparently it depends on some kinds of settings, as some people at least are able to have conversations.

  188. dL

    I see the same comment posted twice in the Kokesh thread. Zero comments in spam or trash. If you have additional questions email Warren. I’ve already let him know about the issue of comments not appearing for hours in some of my browsers. Not sure what is causing the lag. Apparently it depends on some kinds of settings, as some people at least are able to have conversations.

    I haven’t experienced any lag…

  189. paulie Post author

    I’m getting it in 2 of 3 browsers that I have open. Not sure if the people who are having that issue are giving up and not commenting (because it looks to them like their comments are not posting) or if they will even see it and respond but curious who all is having this problems and what browsers and OSes you are using. I’m in ubuntu, having the problem in Chromium and Opera but not in Firefox.

  190. Jim

    Jared “I think it draws a lot of suspicion because it is so attractively simple, principled, efficient, and uniquely able to appeal to libertarians, progressives, and conservatives alike. So of course it must be deeply flawed somehow because complex problems can only have complex, ideologically polarizing solutions.”

    That isn’t why most libertarians reject it at all. An income tax or a sales tax relies on your actions for the tax to occur. That is frustrating, but tolerable relative to the alternatives of a property tax or land value tax. A land value tax taxes you on the actions of others. Even if you do nothing, your tax can go through the roof because of what others around you have done. And if you are unwilling or unable to work to make the improvements necessary to monetize your land fast enough to keep up with what your neighbors are doing, your tax can rise to the point where you can no longer keep your own property. It amounts to a tax on existence, which is marginally closer to slavery than an income tax, which merely taxes your productive action, rather than your existence. A land value tax forces you to labor for the state* and, unlike a sales or income tax, there is no way at all to avoid it. I work for cash often enough and I buy untaxed goods whenever possible. But there is no way to avoid a land value tax. Which, I suppose, is part of the appeal to a progressive. But why any libertarian supports it is beyond me.

    * I understand that there is a minor faction of GeoLibertarians who seek to enforce the LVT through social ostracism rather than state force. I have no objection to them because I believe that, absent a government, there would be enough people who reject the idea that they can be ignored.

  191. dL

    An income tax or a sales tax relies on your actions for the tax to occur. That is frustrating, but tolerable …

    A land value tax taxes you on the actions of others. Even if you do nothing, your tax property value can go through the roof

    You got it ass backwards, Jim. A tax on your productive labor is the thing that is not tolerable. A tax on profiting from idleness of land that could be put to more productive use is the thing that is tolerable. But you are right, Georgism does incentivize vertical land development to meet growing demand. So, a Georgist regime would never have a problem with mass labor influxes.

    Which, I suppose, is part of the appeal to a progressive.

    If San Francisco is a guide, Georgism has little appeal to progressives these days. They prefer to use the power of city government via zoning regulations to permanently freeze any change to the development landscape and then use the case of rampant homelessness, feces on the street, and private tech buses(b/c the tech labor can’t afford to live in the city) to argue for increased state socialism RE: labor and capital because of the cruelty of competition[sic].

  192. Jim

    dL “A tax on your productive labor is the thing that is not tolerable. A tax on profiting from idleness of land that could be put to more productive use is the thing that is tolerable.”

    I don’t agree. If one wanted to be as charitable as possible, a tax on income could be seen as the price for participating in society. To a limited extent, it is avoidable, legally or otherwise. But a land value tax *forces* participation in society, whether one wants to participate or not. Both are indefensible, but the totally unavoidable nature of the land value tax I don’t find tolerable at all. And the idea of taxing people for doing nothing I find morally repugnant. It’s on par with Obama’s individual mandate and taxing people for not buying insurance.

    dL “If San Francisco is a guide, Georgism has little appeal to progressives these days.”

    Thankfully, Georgism has little appeal to anyone these days. But, let’s face it: Henry George was a Progressive and borderline socialist. He didn’t just advocate for a land value tax as the only government revenue stream. He also advocated a government monopoly on the sale of alcohol and government ownership of all railroads, telegraphs, and gas and other natural monopolies. He supported William Jennings Bryan, but didn’t think Bryan went far enough with an inflationary silver standard. George wanted to switch to paper money and wanted to print lots of it to help fund the government. His land value tax scheme (which amounts to a rejection of property rights) fits very well with the rest of his views and there is a good reason why his party was flooded with socialists. Were he alive today, I would not be surprised at all to see him in the Sanders/AOC wing of the Democratic Party.

    But given that they don’t want to use government force, the GeoLibertarians who wish to enforce a land value tax through social ostracism cannot be considered Progressives.

  193. Jim

    Paulie – I’ve had the lag issue using 2 different versions of Windows, both using Firefox. It isn’t just my comments that aren’t appearing for many hours, other people’s comments aren’t showing up, either. When I made my comment at 1/19 11:47 the most recent visible comment was dL’s at 1/18 16:26. The in-between comments by Krzysztof Lesiak, you, dL, and you again didn’t show up until I checked this site again hours later.

  194. robert capozzi

    Definitely getting a lag here. I use Chrome, fwiw.

    pf: UBI would encourage people to think they are getting something for nothing from government, oppose any move to cut government as an attack on muh UBI, would probably lead increasing numbers of people to choose not working over time (free rider problem) and would become a back door for social controls. Even if originally passed as a “clean bill.”

    me: This is why we need more skilled L pols and fewer dogmatists. How a UBI-type of system is structured is important, vitally so. Fixating on the gross dollars “spent” seems to me less important than the idea that we are all — in a sense — in this together in a neutral way. If the UBI crept up past the poverty line, I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing, so long as it’s paid out in a neutral manner.

    Right now, $22K per annum is the load that we all get taxed for government. Even if that number crept up under a UBI, is that such a bad outcome?

    I’ll wait patiently to see this actually posted! 😉

  195. dL

    I don’t agree. If one wanted to be as charitable as possible, a tax on income could be seen as the price for participating in society.

    Really? You are going to go with a “taxes are the price we pay for civilization” rejoinder? I guess the most charitable interpretation would then mean that you are a progressive.

    But a land value tax *forces* participation in society, whether one wants to participate or not.

    Well, there is no single land tax for Jeremiah Johnson. But a single land tax is not the price of civilization. The urban civilization comes before the single tax. But the single tax probably is the price you pay for a civilization rooted in peaceful commerce that minimizes the role of the interventionist state in the conduct of said commerce. Otherwise, state Socialism/Capitalism invariably follows land injustice like stink on shit.

    But, let’s face it: Henry George was a Progressive and borderline socialist.

    Nope. George never uttered taxes on labor and capital are the price we pay for participating in society. That would be you…among others, of course.

    He also advocated a government monopoly on the sale of alcohol and government ownership of all railroads, telegraphs, and gas and other natural monopolies.

    In his New York mayor candidacy announcement, he proposed public utility management for telecommunication and transportation in the cases where businesses relied on exclusive right-of-way land privilege. Nothing about a government monopoly on alcohol, however. Does that make him a state socialist? He answered that charge in his speech.


    But what do we propose to do about it? We propose, in the first place, as our platform indicates, to make the buildings cheaper by taking the tax off buildings. We propose to put that tax on land exclusive of improvements, so that a man who is holding land vacant will have to pay as much for it as if he was using it, just upon the same principle that a man who goes to a hotel and hires a room and takes the key and goes away would have to pay as much for it as if he occupied the room and slept in it. In that way we propose to drive out the dog in the manger who is holding from you what he will not use himself. We propose in that way to remove this barrier and open the land to the use of labor in putting up buildings for the accommodation of the people of the city. I am called a Socialist. I am really an individualist.

    His land value tax scheme (which amounts to a rejection of property rights)

    No, Georgism satisfies the 3 conditions for a property right to be a property right.
    (1) exclusivity of use
    (2) the right to earn income
    (3) the right to transfer title/ownership

    There is one caveat. The price of (1), exclusivity of use, is the opportunity cost of the next best use of the property, Georgist rent.

    The caveat of the current system revolves around (1), too. Exclusivity of use, to use the property as you see fit, requires permission in the manner you want to use it. If you use it in a way that is not permitted, you can be fined, go to jail or have the property seized. Of course, not to mention, you are probably paying property taxes, to boot.

    Were he alive today, I would not be surprised at all to see him in the Sanders/AOC wing of the Democratic Party.

    Why would you claim that? Geroge killed his chance at a political career because he wouldn’t compromise with the labor unions on the principle of labor protection tariffs. So, why would you compare someone who never held office with someone who has held some form of political office for 40 years? Nonsense.

  196. dL

    Right now, $22K per annum is the load that we all get taxed for government. Even if that number crept up under a UBI, is that such a bad outcome?

    How does one in principle oppose free (elementary and secondary) public education for immigrants but yet support an unconditional UBI to the tune of 6 trillion/year. I don’t get it.

  197. paulie Post author

    Anyone have any theories as to what could be causing the lag? I’m thinking some kind of cache issue but I’m only guessing.

    I’ve tried clearing cache, it does not seem to help. It has me stumped. Looked thru every setting I can find and not seeing anything.

  198. Jared

    AD: “Yes, I find it unacceptable caving.”

    Letting the people with whom you disagree define their own beliefs and arguments is not caving. It’s treating them respect. You don’t do your side any favors by refusing to engage civilly.

    “You know who agrees with me on that? The Prohibitionist Libertarians. Because when I’ve suggested to them I’d be in favor of deleting the self-defense plank in order to appeal to the significant segment of society that is in favor of some gun control, being the wolf-in-sheep’s clothing conservatives that they are, they go apoplectic at the thought of the LP being silent on the issue of gun rights, and point out to ME that that would allow ‘gun grabbers’ to plausibly run for office as Libertarians and the party could do nothing about it, not even assert that the person is running in opposition to the platform.”

    1. You deliberately frame pro-lifers and non-radical pro-choicers as “prohibitionists” because you enjoy the negative connotation, but last time I checked libertarians believe in prohibitions on the initiation of force, both minarchists and anarchists. The internal debate hinges on whether abortion ever constitutes an act of aggression. 2. I agree the self-defense plank is overextended and simplistic. From a purely Constitutional standpoint, I don’t see how the registration of firearms or monitoring of sales violates the Second Amendment. The plank rejects pacifism outright, which as far as I can tell is fully compatible with libertarianism; it fails to differentiate between defensive violence (during the aggressive act) and disciplinary violence (administered after the act has occurred); and it has nothing about proportionality.

    “I didn’t say the Prohibitionists are bad people. As I noted, its worse than that. They are good people who are terribly wrong. As Louis Brandeis once said, ‘The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.'”

    So because they mean well and want to save lives, they are even more worthy of scorn. Do you feel the same utter disdain for well-intentioned progressive paternalists as you do for conservatives, libertarians, and moderate liberals who would place some restrictions on abortion?

    “Silence on the issue is not an option. I agree the plank is mangled right now. So, strengthen it by removing the elements that patronize Prohibtionists, or change to a full-on pro-life party so Libertarians can leave and the party can truly become GOP 2.0. But not silence.”

    You’re suggesting that abortion is the defining dogma of libertarianism and a pro-choice plank is the only thing that distinguishes the LP from the GOP.

    “libertarian prohibitionist tactic. Pretend the two are not related. That way, when the plank gets deleted and the prohibitionists run on a full-on, ‘life-begins-at-conception-lock-up-the-harlots’ position, you can look around smugly and say, ‘Who me? I had nothing to do with that.'”

    I didn’t say the two are unrelated. I said they are separate issues with separates cases to be made. A Libertarian can be radically pro-choice while opposing a plank declaring such a view the party’s official position. David Nolan disagreed with an abortion plank; moreover, he believed second-trimester abortions should be restricted and third-trimester abortions should be prohibited. Somehow I doubt he conspired to Republicanize the LP and launch a Puritanical “war on harlotry”, but what do I know?

  199. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Jared: Don’t forget Karl Hess originally wrote “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” Self-defense by born womena nd men who support them against the ideology of those who favor fetus’ rights over adult women rights is perfectly libertarian. Babble your rationalizations for aggression to the heavens. We’ll respond verbally to a certain degree. But in the end we will defend our liberty loudly and proudly against male and female oppressors who seek power to enslave women.

  200. dL

    You’re suggesting that abortion is the defining dogma of libertarianism

    The self-ownership principle certainly is

    a pro-choice plank is the only thing that distinguishes the LP from the GOP.

    A consistent, strong affirmation of self-ownership certainly is a major distinguishing factor from the GOP(and the Dems). If you start removing planks, is that a statement of “any omission of any issue or position from the above is not an endorsement of state regulation pertaining to such omission,” or is it, “any omission from the above is a welcome invitation to those with a pet authoritarianism for whatever is not clearly stated”?

  201. Jared

    dL: “The self-ownership principle certainly is.”

    Libertarians who find the 100% pro-choice position objectionable also affirm that principle. They have no need to smuggle in conservative political values. If there are two selves, two human beings with discrete human bodies, directly affected by the decision to terminate a pregnancy, then the matter becomes more complicated than simply, “My body, my choice. Agree or disagree?” The self-ownership principle can be meticulously maintained, without cognitive dissonance, by libertarians on all sides of the debate. The difference lies in application.

    “A consistent, strong affirmation of self-ownership certainly is a major distinguishing factor from the GOP(and the Dems).”

    I can go along with that.

    “If you start removing planks, is that a statement of “any omission of any issue or position from the above is not an endorsement of state regulation pertaining to such omission,” or is it, “any omission from the above is a welcome invitation to those with a pet authoritarianism for whatever is not clearly stated”?

    I agree the platform shouldn’t be too vague, and it shouldn’t be too detailed: narrow enough to exclude non-libertarians from active involvement or at least urge them to reevaluate their political presuppositions, flexible enough to allow philosophically serious libertarians to differ on policy specifics, especially when it comes to issues that require us to engage in heavy metaphysical speculation. Zealots are more likely than moderates to be turned off by a party that takes no official position on their pet issue.

  202. Fernando Mercado

    “It’s nice to see Fernando posting on here – he posted a few articles for ATPR back in the day. I believe he lives in Italy, which is cool, since not many foreigners follow let alone know about the existence of U.S. third parties.”

    I don’t know if this all relates to me of if the line indicates they’re two different statements, but I think you have me confused with someone else

  203. dL

    They have no need to smuggle in conservative political values.

    That “two selves, two human beings with discrete human bodies” applies to embryos inside the uterus as an absolute trump but ceases to apply to any person outside the uterus who may be threat to another’s body or property(i.e, the right to self-defense) is conservative contraband.

  204. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DL wrote: That “two selves, two human beings with discrete human bodies” applies to embryos inside the uterus as an absolute trump but ceases to apply to any person outside the uterus who may be threat to another’s body or property(i.e, the right to self-defense) is conservative contraband.

    AND: DL Wrote: A consistent, strong affirmation of self-ownership certainly is a major distinguishing factor from the GOP(and the Dems). If you start removing planks, is that a statement of “any omission of any issue or position from the above is not an endorsement of state regulation pertaining to such omission,” or is it, “any omission from the above is a welcome invitation to those with a pet authoritarianism for whatever is not clearly stated

    Excellent statements. Will have to read through this whole thread lately and find out what can be merged into http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/principles as rationales for abortion rights various (unnamed) libertarians have advanced.

    Conservatives want to conserve males’ ability to control women’s bodies and … I haven’t read who’s trying to get rid of gun rights why above, but I’m sure that conservatives are trying to control someone…

  205. Seebeck

    There is another, perfectly valid reason that a lot of LP Convention delegates want to get rid of the Abortion plank. That includes me:

    We’re sick and tired of arguing about it.

    That simple. The plank attempts to split the difference between pro-choice and anti-abortionist sides, and fails spectacularly.

    Hell, I tried to rework the thing on last term’s PlatCom into a better plank by explicitly affirming Casey and taking (what I didn’t know at the time was) an evictionist (Block) stance, but got soundly roasted for even trying. If that’s any indication, the LP membership simply doesn’t want to mess with that plank, and the increased numbers to imply toss it tend to bear that impression out.

    We live in a modern world where abortion is already almost if not completely technologically obsolete, but the political will to implement that tech hasn’t caught up. As someone who has lost a wanted child at 38 weeks and subsequently held his dead body, yeah, it’s a little personal, I admit that, but the simple reality is that in order for a pregnancy to be addressed in a fully responsible manner, be it abortion, eviction, carry to term and give up for adoption, carry to term and keep, or whatever path is taken, all full options need to be both made available and presented in order to make a fully responsible decision. Right now, that isn’t the case. However, for most (not all) cases, the people producing that life knew perfectly well that it could happen, and accepted that risk, and should have the self-responsibility to deal with it accordingly. That’s a personal responsibility position fundamental to libertarianism, not to mention simple moral justness.

  206. Anthony Dlugos

    If you want someone to blame about the unending abortion argument, blame the clear minority in the party that keeps trying to get the plank deleted for chrissake.

    You’re not ending anything by getting it deleted. Get it deleted, and the pro-choice majority will start working to get it re-instated, period.

    The gall of a minority of the party to demand deletion of the plank is beyond me. Leave it alone.

  207. Anthony Dlugos

    “However, for most (not all) cases, the people producing that life knew perfectly well that it could happen, and accepted that risk, and should have the self-responsibility to deal with it accordingly. That’s a personal responsibility position fundamental to libertarianism, not to mention simple moral justness.”

    And there it is. As always, the Prohibitionist mindset , focused on government enforcement of THEIR morality.

    Funny, someone earlier tried to tell me it wasn’t about sexual freedom.

  208. Jared

    Jim: “If one wanted to be as charitable as possible, a tax on income could be seen as the price for participating in society.”

    No, it’s the price we pay for working.

    “To a limited extent, it is avoidable, legally or otherwise. But a land value tax *forces* participation in society, whether one wants to participate or not.”

    If I hold legal title to a desirable plot of land whose market value exceeds an equal share, then I’m participating in society whether I care to or not. I’m imposing a cost on others, as industrial pollution imposes a cost on others even if large-scale polluters would just prefer to be left alone. Land is not a commodity like any other. It’s necessary for human life, let alone political economy.

    “Both are indefensible, but the totally unavoidable nature of the land value tax I don’t find tolerable at all. And the idea of taxing people for doing nothing I find morally repugnant. It’s on par with Obama’s individual mandate and taxing people for not buying insurance.”

    We already pay the tax, but we pay it to private landowners any time we purchase a piece of property. Renters don’t pay the LVT. If the system could be fine-tuned, then landholders whose land’s rental value falls below the threshold (total aggregate value ÷ number of residents) would pay nothing, and their dividend would equal the difference. LVT is not a tax on existence. It’s a subscription fee for the privilege to exclude from the natural commons.

  209. Jim

    dL “Really? You are going to go with a “taxes are the price we pay for civilization” rejoinder? I guess the most charitable interpretation would then mean that you are a progressive.”

    It isn’t my position. I don’t support an income tax, or any tax, unlike yourself. I believe taxation is theft regardless of what form it takes. And didn’t say civilization, I said society. Any tax could be claimed to be the price we pay for civilization, by those who make the argument, if civilization is a relatively high level of technological development or a level of urban comfort. I said it was for interacting with society, by which I meant, other people.

    dL “Well, there is no single land tax for Jeremiah Johnson. But a single land tax is not the price of civilization. The urban civilization comes before the single tax.”

    Urban is relative, I suppose. But even rural areas have governments and governments need tax revenue.

    dL “But the single tax probably is the price you pay for a civilization rooted in peaceful commerce that minimizes the role of the interventionist state in the conduct of said commerce. Otherwise, state Socialism/Capitalism invariably follows land injustice like stink on shit.”

    I don’t consider forcible taxation to be peaceable.

    dL “Nope. George never uttered taxes on labor and capital are the price we pay for participating in society. That would be you…among others, of course.”

    Taxes on labor and capital are not the means to define a progressive. The definition I use for progressive, which is drawn from the definition on wikipedia, is in two parts: a progressive is someone who identifies problems in society and believes that only government force can fix those problems.

    … And I haven’t advocated for either taxes on labor or capital. All I have said is that, were I to rank taxes – none of which I support – I would order them sales, income, then land or property. And I rank them that way because that is the order in which they are easiest to avoid.

    dL “In his New York mayor candidacy announcement, he proposed public utility management for telecommunication and transportation in the cases where businesses relied on exclusive right-of-way land privilege. Does that make him a state socialist?

    Yes.

    dL ” Nothing about a government monopoly on alcohol, however.”

    Quoting Henry George from Protection or Free Trade:

    “The issuance of paper money, a function belonging properly to the General Government, would, properly used, yield a considerable income; while independent sources of any needed amount of revenue could be found in various taxes, which though not economically perfect, as is the tax on land values, are yet much less objectionable than taxes on imports. The excise tax on spirituous liquors ought to be abolished, as it fosters corruption, injuriously effects many branches of manufacture and puts a premium on adulteration; but either by a government monopoly, or by license taxes on retail sales, a large revenue might be derived from the liquor traffic with much greater advantage to public health and morals than by the present system. There are also some stamp taxes which are comparatively uninjurious and can be collected cheaply and easily. But of all methods of raising an independent Federal revenue, that which would yield the largest return with the greatest ease is a tax upon legacies and successions. In a large population the proportion of deaths is as regular as that of births, and with proper exemptions if favor of widows, minor children, and dependent relatives, such a tax would bear harshly on no one, and from the publicity which must attach to the transfer of property in death or in view of death it is easily collected and little liable to evasion. The appropriation of land values would of itself strike at the heart of overgrown fortunes, but until that is accomplished, a tax of this kind would have the incidental advantage of interfering with their transmission. Of all excuses for the continuance of any tariff at all, the most groundless is that it is necessary to secure Federal revenues. Ever the income tax, bad as it is, is in all respects better than a tariff.”

    So there, all nicely condensed, we have the advocacy for paper money with inflation, a government monopoly on the sale of alcohol, a tax on inheritance, and a ranking of taxes inverse from my ranking (land, income, sales) and for the exact opposite reason: that is the order in which they are least liable to evasion. And, we have a progressive motivation: the leveling of wealth through government action.

    dL “No, Georgism satisfies the 3 conditions for a property right to be a property right. (1) exclusivity of use
    (2) the right to earn income (3) the right to transfer title/ownership There is one caveat. The price of (1), exclusivity of use, is the opportunity cost of the next best use of the property, Georgist rent. The caveat of the current system revolves around (1), too. Exclusivity of use, to use the property as you see fit, requires permission in the manner you want to use it. If you use it in a way that is not permitted, you can be fined, go to jail or have the property seized. Of course, not to mention, you are probably paying property taxes, to boot.”

    The current system also is a denial of property rights.

    dL “Why would you claim that? Geroge killed his chance at a political career because he wouldn’t compromise with the labor unions on the principle of labor protection tariffs. So, why would you compare someone who never held office with someone who has held some form of political office for 40 years? Nonsense.”

    AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) hasn’t held office for 40 years. Not even 40 days. And George did run for office and was a cheerleader for various campaigns. But all of that is beside the point, which is that he would belong to the Sanders/AOC faction of the Democratic Party because he subscribed to the idea of economic leveling of wealth through government force.

    So that’s why I refer to Georgists as quasi-socialist economic Progressives, even though I know it drives them nuts. But I can’t say the same for the GeoLiberatarians who only want to enforce their land tax through social ostracism because they don’t fit the definition of Progressive.

  210. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anthony Dlugos wrote: If you want someone to blame about the unending abortion argument, blame the clear minority in the party that keeps trying to get the plank deleted for chrissake.

    CM: It’s mostly the “outlaw abortion from conception” and their enabler types, plus conservatives wanting more conservatives in the party, pushing it. They are divisive jerks and deserve to have their red/blue/pink/purple asses kicked. Since the biggest activists are too fucking ignorant to get their consciousnesses raised. Happily, many of those questioning abortion after 5 or 6th month are more open to LP position.

    In any case, women -and male supporters- will fight for their liberty even if some people are tired of hearing about it. Cause, honey, you don’t even want to KNOW how much you’ll hear about it if the plank is removed – starting with ALL the liberal media for WEEKS after the convention. And LNC members whining about all the members quitting and wanting their money back.

  211. dL

    We live in a modern world where abortion is already almost if not completely technologically obsolete

    Technology has not made abortion “obsolete.” If anything, technology has allowed a more thorough medical study of pregnancy to conclude that spontaneous abortion is a lot more common than previously thought. There is significant and predictable abortion cost of human reproduction outside of any human decision to consciously terminate a pregnancy.

    However, for most (not all) cases, the people producing that life knew perfectly well that it could happen, and accepted that risk, and should have the self-responsibility to deal with it accordingly.

    Well, if you are going to argue that the sexual act binds one to parental responsibility in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, then expect a pushback to that nonsense. That’s akin to saying that if you buy a house, accept the responsibility to do nothing if a trespasser shows up.

  212. robert capozzi

    AD: The gall of a minority of the party to demand deletion of the plank is beyond me. Leave it alone.

    Me: Are you being sarcastic here? Because it strikes me that any healthy institution would allow for respectful dissent. I’ve voted for a lessarchist L (RP1) in 88 despite the fact that I disagree with him on abortion. I disagree with lessarchists who happen to believe that life should be protected at or around conception, but I don’t want to toss them out of the tent.

    The current plank is certainly inartful, and possibly sub-optimal in content. While it’s not nearly as dysfunctional as the SoP, it certainly could be better than it is.

    Are there IMO bridges too far? Sure. Haters and lunatics come to mind. But pro-life lessarchism is a respectable view, as I see it.

  213. dL

    It isn’t my position. I don’t support an income tax, or any tax

    Well, you probably then shouldn’t write:

    If one wanted to be as charitable as possible, a tax on income could be seen as the price for participating in society.

    as a rejoinder to my statement:

    A tax on your productive labor is the thing that is not tolerable.

    Otherwise, one might ascertain that while you may not positively support taxation, you nonetheless find it tolerable, and one hence might adduce the following proper libertarian credo regarding taxation:

    Taxation is Tolerable!

    unlike yourself

    Technically, the single tax is not a “tax” in the usual sense. As Jared mentioned above, it is the market price payment(==the land’s opportunity cost) for the privilege of the exclusive use of land(to take it out of the commons for private use). Unlike, say the government’s cut of your labor or capital good’s investment, the single tax is more like someone throwing money through your window while you sit on your butt doing nothing…and you have to to give it back if you want to continue to enjoy the privilege of the exclusive use of the property. That’s not theft. The textbook economic supply/demand curve analysis backs that up. Unlike taxes on labor and capital goods, the single tax on the inelastic supply of land produces no deadweight loss. Economically, thievery always carries a deadweight loss.

    The definition I use for progressive, which is drawn from the definition on wikipedia, is in two parts: a progressive is someone who identifies problems in society and believes that only government force can fix those problems.

    Well, the wikipedia definition of “progressivism” is advocacy for the improvement of society by reform. Yes, by that definition, George would embrace the term(who wouldn’t?). Your definition:

    someone who identifies problems in society and believes that only government force can fix those problems

    No, he would not embrace that. George’s advocacy for government reform pertained to problems created by government in the first place. And modern progressivism by and large embraces “unfettered competition” as the root of societal problems, wheres George placed the root of societal injustice on lack of competition.

    Quoting Henry George from Protection or Free Trade:

    This is where it begins to be difficult to take you seriously. George’s Protection or Free Trade is considered a classic defense of free trade; it is available on every online libertarian library and generally extolled by libertarians who don’t even have much use for George’s single land tax. In the historical context, George’s book was first a defense of free trade, meaning the abolition of protective tariffs, which at the time was the primary fiscal source of the federal government. The second part of the book dealt with replacement government revenue sources, if the protective tariffs were to be abolished. George is certainly guilty of not being an anarchist, and while one certainly doesn’t have to agree with every one of George’s positions RE: revenue sources, it is nonetheless ludicrous to take a few passages out of the book to draw a line to Ocasio-Cortez and is only one step up from taking a passage out of Thomas Paine’s Agrarian Justice to draw a line to Nancy Pelosi.

  214. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    Not being sarcastic.

    No one is trying to stop respectful dissent, least of all me. Frankly, if it were a choice between Amash and Weld in 2020, I’d have to go with Amash, as long as he made some concession to not overturning Roe.

    However, arguing for deleting the abortion plank is more that asking for respectful dissent. Obviously, if the plank is deleted, the prohibitionist would rightly be able to argue the LP and its platform is an anti-choice document.

    You and I both know we have an unusually dogmatic party, more so than the GOP for sure.

    Vis a vi abortion, that present a unique problem: the only thing holding the Prohibitionists back from arguing the most extreme anti-abortion positions, positions that would make a republican blanch, is that plank.

    In other words, deleting the plank wouldn’t draw in pragmatic, Roe-is-a-decent-compromise Republicans, it would draw in, as I noted before “throw the harlots in jail” extremists with the bedside manner of a Vohra. Hell, they are in the party now.

  215. Anthony Dlugos

    “Or any other kind of Republican.”

    IF they are up for the nomination of the party, they are no longer a Republican, they are a Libertarian, by definition.

    Let’s not make this political party more of a cult then it already is.

  216. Anthony Dlugos

    Carol,

    Unfortunately, as I noted to Robert C, given that the LP is a particularly dogmatic party, we have way too many of the “outlaw abortion from conception” types.

    Frankly, if I thought for a second we might wind up with a few more liberal republicans by dropping the abortion plank (without losing the chance to grab more disaffected democrats), I might consider it.

    But there is no doubt deleting the plank will draw out the most virulently anti-choice “lock in the harlots up” types that are in the party already. As you point out, they can easily poison the well enough with their over-the-top misogyny/sexism to permanently inoculate the party from attracting any disaffected Democrat for the foreseeable future.

    The real problem, as I see it, is that the Prohibitionists in the party pay no price for their temerity. They might as well try and get the plank deleted every two years. The worst that can happen is that we wind up right back where we are now, with a mealymouthed phrase in the platform like abortion being a “sensitive issue” and allowing for “conscientious consideration” of what would be the most egregious infringement of a women’s control of her own body that I can think of, and the consequent erroneous belief that there are good arguments within the party on both sides of the issue. They’re aren’t.

    If I thought for one second that the Prohibitionist would leave well enough alone, I would be fine with the platform plank as it exists, clumsy as it is. But they won’t. They’ll keep trying until the pro-Choice majority in the party goes on the offensive and poses a real threat to make the plank even stronger than it is (which it should be).

    Fear of the pro-Choice majority flexing its muscle will be the only language they understand.

  217. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    robert capozzi wrote re: AD Writing: AD: The gall of a minority of the party to demand deletion of the plank is beyond me. Leave it alone.
    RC: Are you being sarcastic here? Because it strikes me that any healthy institution would allow for respectful dissent.

    CM: So saying the punishment for unintended pregnancy is forcing you to have the kid, have a back alley abortion and go to jail is RESPECTABLE in libertarian circles?

    We think a kid stealing candy is wrong. Is a year in prison TOO much of a sentence. Some “libertarians” probably think that’s fine too.

    Women and men who support them should rebel against such SEXIST inhumanity as anti-abortion laws. Which only a small percent of libertarians support anyway. Just the noisy prohibitionists.

    They should become MORE libertarian. Even the Arch-Anti-Abortionist Ms. Harlos stated in her latest abortion video that she was sympathetic to – supported – women having abortions if their contraceptive failed. https://youtu.be/2pmi52Dtvb4

    But isn’t that what happens all the time anyway? Or at least that’s what a woman would claim if that was a legal justification for abortion. So isn’t she a pro-choicer now? Ha ha ha

    Respectful dissent on a host of issues where people want more government just waters down the party. I mean because of all the “respectful dissenters” (and some not very respectful ones like Steve Givot circa the 1990s/early 2000s) the LP platform already has given up defaulting on the govt debt and all those big govt and military pensions. So the party really has gone down the tubes and doesn’t even know it.

  218. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anthony D. wrote: But there is no doubt deleting the plank will draw out the most virulently anti-choice “lock in the harlots up” types that are in the party already.

    CM: Even Ms. Harlos – whose been in bed with the anti-abortion crazies for years – admits she’s afraid getting rid of the plank will bring in all those crazies. Of course, she wants to do it anyway. See her latest antiabortion video. https://youtu.be/2pmi52Dtvb4

    I wish there WERE more anti-abortionists to quote to prove their many failings, but unfortunately MS. H. is about the only consistently and high profile vocal one since Ms. Merrissa Hamilton went back to the GOP.

  219. Jared

    AD: “Frankly, if it were a choice between Amash and Weld in 2020, I’d have to go with Amash, as long as he made some concession to not overturning Roe.”

    Presidents don’t overturn Supreme Court decisions. Do you mean that his SCOTUS picks must vow to uphold Roe v. Wade as rightly decided, established law? Even many pro-choice people acknowledge the Roe decision was arbitrary and poorly reasoned in terms of Constitutional interpretation.

    “Vis a vi abortion, that present a unique problem: the only thing holding the Prohibitionists back from arguing the most extreme anti-abortion positions, positions that would make a republican blanch, is that plank.”

    Roe declared abortion a Constitutional right if performed during the first trimester. The LP abortion plank covers all three trimesters and is pro-choice from conception to birth, admitting no conditions or restrictions. So let’s not pretend it’s about checking only the “most extreme” anti-abortion positions.

    “In other words, deleting the plank wouldn’t draw in pragmatic, Roe-is-a-decent-compromise Republicans, it would draw in, as I noted before ‘throw the harlots in jail’ extremists with the bedside manner of a Vohra.”

    As I pointed out before, David Nolan was no wingnut conservative, crypto-Republican infiltrator. He wasn’t even pro-life, but he opposed an abortion plank. Should the LP’s principal founder have been unwelcome in the party?

  220. Anthony Dlugos

    “I wish there WERE more anti-abortionists to quote to prove their many failings, but unfortunately MS. H. is about the only consistently and high profile vocal one since Ms. Merrissa Hamilton went back to the GOP.”

    If Merissa is gone, imagine how strident the remaining obsessive Prohibitionists are.

  221. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anthony: There are some strident anti-abortionists – mostly guys – on various general libertarian facebook groups. But not really organized into active groups, which is when they become more of a problem. (Besides when they have a very public leader, even if that leader IS pandering to pro-choicers and becoming effectively pro-choice.)

    Whoever runs https://www.facebook.com/ProLifeLibertarians/ doesn’t even mention his/her name(s) and just posts a lot of articles and some smirky comments.

    I somehow ended up friends with Phillip Anderson, Region 6 Alternate at Libertarian National Committee
    Chairperson at Libertarian Party of Wisconsin. If you are or become friends with him you can read a article about March for “Life” he posted that generated some push back, as well as some strident support. https://www.facebook.com/1338743586/posts/10213969710820390/

  222. Jim

    dL “Well, you probably then shouldn’t write: If one wanted to be as charitable as possible, a tax on income could be seen as the price for participating in society.”

    Saying “if one wanted to be as charitable as possible…” should have told you that I don’t agree with it.

    dL “Technically, the single tax is not a “tax” in the usual sense. As Jared mentioned above, it is the market price payment(==the land’s opportunity cost) for the privilege of the exclusive use of land(to take it out of the commons for private use). Unlike, say the government’s cut of your labor or capital good’s investment, the single tax is more like someone throwing money through your window while you sit on your butt doing nothing…and you have to to give it back if you want to continue to enjoy the privilege of the exclusive use of the property. That’s not theft. The textbook economic supply/demand curve analysis backs that up. Unlike taxes on labor and capital goods, the single tax on the inelastic supply of land produces no deadweight loss. Economically, thievery always carries a deadweight loss.

    Ah. So if someone hands me $100 even though I haven’t done anything, it isn’t a tax when the government takes it? Fuck off, thief.

    Except that isn’t even a good example, because you’re taxing people on unrealized gains. That’s more burdensome than an income tax.

    dL “Well, the wikipedia definition of “progressivism” is advocacy for the improvement of society by reform. Yes, by that definition, George would embrace the term(who wouldn’t?). Your definition: someone who identifies problems in society and believes that only government force can fix those problems No, he would not embrace that. George’s advocacy for government reform pertained to problems created by government in the first place. And modern progressivism by and large embraces “unfettered competition” as the root of societal problems, wheres George placed the root of societal injustice on lack of competition.

    You had to read slightly more than the first sentence, although it’s still in the wikipedia intro: Contemporary progressives promote public policies that they believe will lead to positive social change. Public policy means government. If they’re looking for positive social change, that means they identify problems, currently. Hence, a progressive is someone who identifies problems in society and believes that only government can fix them.

    And yes, George does fit that definition, as he wanted the government to fix the “problem” of wealth inequality.

    dL “This is where it begins to be difficult to take you seriously. George’s Protection or Free Trade is considered a classic defense of free trade; it is available on every online libertarian library and generally extolled by libertarians who don’t even have much use for George’s single land tax. In the historical context, George’s book was first a defense of free trade, meaning the abolition of protective tariffs, which at the time was the primary fiscal source of the federal government. The second part of the book dealt with replacement government revenue sources, if the protective tariffs were to be abolished. George is certainly guilty of not being an anarchist, and while one certainly doesn’t have to agree with every one of George’s positions RE: revenue sources, it is nonetheless ludicrous to take a few passages out of the book to draw a line to Ocasio-Cortez and is only one step up from taking a passage out of Thomas Paine’s Agrarian Justice to draw a line to Nancy Pelosi.”

    I was pretty clear in pointing out that George didn’t like tariffs. So what? Lots of progressives of his generation opposed tariffs. Good for them – they got one right. But then they go and advocate for something worse, like income taxes and land value taxes.

    If George had said that we needed a more progressive form of taxation to fund a universally available public benefit – public education, universal healthcare, etc. – I would call him a left wing Modern Liberal. But when he starts talking about taxing people in order to “strike at the heart of overgrown fortunes”, that pushes him over into quasi-Socialist economic Progressive territory.

  223. dL

    Fuck off, thief.

    dL: “A tax on your productive labor is the thing that is not tolerable.”

    Jim: “I don’t agree. If one wanted to be as charitable as possible, a tax on income could be seen as the price for participating in society.

    Taxation is tolerable! Put that on your bumper sticker…

  224. William Saturn

    https://rwm4prez2012.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/possible-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion-in-2012-election-by-robert-milnes-at-the-plas-place/

    Here’s Robert Milnes doing the job of Robert Mueller. He has evidence of Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia, not to interfere in the 2016 election, but in the 2012 election. Apparently, Trump and Russia worked through the Boston Tea Party to prevent Milnes from becoming the party’s nominee and then, naturally, being elected President of the United States. The evidence consists of an off hand comment on IPR about Trump and Putin.

    And BTW, I am still kidnapped and/or murdered.

    Good read.

  225. robert capozzi

    AD,

    If we had a blank slate, and we were to remake the LP as a lessarchist vs a pure NAPist political vehicle, it might have a plank along the lines of:

    “While a minority of Ls believe that human life deserves full legal protections at or near the moment of conception, most Ls believe in a woman’s right to choose her own reproductive rights. Similarly, there is a range of opinion among Ls as to when the fetus later in the term of pregnancy begins to deserve legal protections.”

    I think that this is an accurate reflection of “the” L position, which is that there isn’t one — and there’s certainly not “one” absolutely correct position on the matter. NAPists might bristle at this lack of precision and definitiveness, in part because NAPists seem to believe that politics is like Newtonian physics — a fatal flaw in their thought system, I submit. Sometimes nuance and open-mindedness is the best available answer.

    Such language addresses your (and my) concern as well, in that it’s clear that a lessarchist L party would be positioned as pro-choice distinct from the GOP. I suspect most pro-life Ls could live with this level of respect for their view, too.

    _____

    Amash all else equal is probably the optimal pick in 2020. Maybe WW would be VP again! That would be more formidable that GJ/WW, as JA is far more articulate than GJ. I would hope that THIS time they get their stories straight, as GJ and WW’s public disagreements on policy was awkward.

  226. Anthony Dlugos

    “Do you mean that his SCOTUS picks must vow to uphold Roe v. Wade as rightly decided, established law?”

    Yes, that’s what I mean. And he would have to be pretty clear, because his position on reproductive freedom is terrible as it stands.

    I think the chances of Amash running as a Libertarian are slim to none anyway. Its one thing for a retired republican (or democrat) to defect to the LP. A sitting politician? It would be political suicide, not to mention he’d be coming to a party that has frankly demonstrated no ability to defend a held seat even in state houses.

    “Even many pro-choice people acknowledge the Roe decision was arbitrary and poorly reasoned in terms of Constitutional interpretation.”

    Who are these pro-choice people? I’d need to see an example to see what their argument is.

    Many (Most?) Supreme Court decisions are arbitrary, I’d say. I’ll agree that, as RC alluded to, the decision was at some level political. That’s better than the alternative of back alley abortions in the Bible Belt.

    “Roe declared abortion a Constitutional right if performed during the first trimester.”

    The Supreme Court’s calculations are different than those of a political party. The LP (as any political party) is an intentionally biased advocacy organization.

    “The LP abortion plank covers all three trimesters and is pro-choice from conception to birth, admitting no conditions or restrictions.”

    Wrong. The LP abortion plank rejects any STATE restrictions. It allows PERSONAL restrictions. As it should. The only problem with the plank is that it offers an unwarranted olive branch to people in favor of state intrusion into womens’ uteri and sexual freedom.

    “So let’s not pretend it’s about checking only the “most extreme” anti-abortion positions.”

    Pro-Life Libertarians are not ashamed about their position. They make it quite clear that life begins at conception, no exceptions. Couple that with a dogmatism that is unremarkable in our party, and we’ll be faced with the lunacy of a party that has candidates arguing for women’s reproductive rights, and other candidates arguing for murder charges for women who use RU486 pills, and the pharmacist who prescribed them.

    “As I pointed out before, David Nolan was no wingnut conservative, crypto-Republican infiltrator. He wasn’t even pro-life, but he opposed an abortion plank. Should the LP’s principal founder have been unwelcome in the party?’

    a) I like the 1982 plank on abortion as a start. I would drop the last three sentences immediately:

    “Recognizing that each person must be the sole and absolute owner of his or her own body, we support the right of women to make a personal choice regarding the termination of pregnancy. We oppose the undermining of that right via laws requiring consent of the pregnant woman’s parents, consent of the prospective father, waiting periods, or compulsory provision of indoctrination on medical risks or fetal development. However, we also oppose all tax funding for abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. We also condemn state-mandated abortions.”

    b) Platforms shouldn’t be fixed in stone. They need to be flexible to respond to the current climate. We have a right-wing problem within the party, and the country at large has a problem with continued attacks on reproductive freedom for women via unreasonable regulation that needs to be countered.

  227. Seebeck

    S: We live in a modern world where abortion is already almost if not completely technologically obsolete

    dL: Technology has not made abortion “obsolete.” If anything, technology has allowed a more thorough medical study of pregnancy to conclude that spontaneous abortion is a lot more common than previously thought. There is significant and predictable abortion cost of human reproduction outside of any human decision to consciously terminate a pregnancy.

    Wrong. We live in a modern world where the medical conditions that in the past would lead to an abortion are now addressed by in-utero surgery. We are literally at the point where the only reason for abortion is a means for birth control. Or did you think RU-486 and Plan B exist just to occupy shelf space at Walgreens instead of the women’s makeup? In a world of in-utero surgery, Save-haven dropoffs at fire stations and hospitals, and enough pre-natal health information and products avaialbe to fill up a typical grocery store, the ability to not only avoid an abortion but have a healthy full-term child is at its greatest in western history. Sure, miscarriages still happen. My wife had one at 38 weeks, and don’t think for a second that I’m discounting them. But that isn’t the point either, since here we’re talking about the CHOICE to abort, not having Nature thrust it upon people. In this modern world, there is absolutely zero rational reason to abort a pregnancy, since there are plenty of ways to both avoid doing so, and if there is a deire to not take on the responsbility of parenthood post-natal, then there is always options to give up the child for adoption.
    Abortion *simply is not necessary.* That doesn’t mean outlawing it. But it does mean that respect for life means that continuing to nudge the public opinion meter towards making the act undesired while still legal is a good idea. That is, after all, what moving public policy in a libertarian direction means, and respecting individual rights to life is at the base of libertarian philosophy, politics, and policy.

    S: However, for most (not all) cases, the people producing that life knew perfectly well that it could happen, and accepted that risk, and should have the self-responsibility to deal with it accordingly.

    dL: Well, if you are going to argue that the sexual act binds one to parental responsibility in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, then expect a pushback to that nonsense. That’s akin to saying that if you buy a house, accept the responsibility to do nothing if a trespasser shows up.

    Yes, I do argue that, both as a responsible libertarian and a parent of two kids who were both wanted and chosen to have, no accidents. You makes your choices and accepts your responsibilities. If there’s pushback against being responsible, then that’s on those immature persons. And no, it’s not akin to any bullshit trespasser analogy, either. A burglar shows up not through any choice you make. A baby generally does show up through a choice you make (but not always) .

  228. Anthony Dlugos

    “We are literally at the point where the only reason for abortion is a means for birth control.”

    The reasons for a woman getting an abortion are absolutely NOT your concern, nor the state’s.

    Its either that or you can wipe your ass with the Constitution.

  229. dL

    Wrong. We live in a modern world where the medical conditions that in the past would lead to an abortion are now addressed by in-utero surgery

    Not wrong. “Medical conditions that in the past would lead to an abortion are now addressed by in-utero surgery” is an obvious statement, but it is not the same thing as claiming medical technology can now render any and all incidents of abortion obsolete.

    A burglar shows up not through any choice you make. A baby generally does show up through a choice you make (but not always) .

    It most certainly is a choice. If you don’t build or buy the house, then no burglar will show up. When you built/bought the house, you certainly must be cognizant of the fact that this opens up the possibility that a burglar/trespasser may show up in the future. Under the pretext of the sanctity of life, you are thus obligated to accommodate the demands of the unplanned trespasser, or at the very least, follow the Block Eviction protocol to ensure no harm comes to a fellow human life. If you don’t like it, then don’t buy/build the house. “You makes your choices and accepts your responsibilities.”

    If you think that’s bullshit, well, it’s the same order of bullshit that having sex obligates one to parenthood in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.

  230. Jared

    AD: “Who are these pro-choice people? I’d need to see an example to see what their argument is.

    Many (Most?) Supreme Court decisions are arbitrary, I’d say. I’ll agree that, as RC alluded to, the decision was at some level political. That’s better than the alternative of back alley abortions in the Bible Belt.”

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/honest-pro-choicers-admit-roe-v-wade-was-a-horrible-decision

    See this list of high-profile pro-choice legal scholars who acknowledge the Roe decision is bad law. It is one thing to be ideologically committed to legal abortion. It is another to argue the Constitution itself already guarantees abortion rights in the first trimester because of an implicit right to privacy. Perhaps you don’t care about legal reasoning and precedent-setting judicial interpretation, as long as the ruling coincides with your political views, but many people do.

    “Pro-Life Libertarians are not ashamed about their position. They make it quite clear that life begins at conception, no exceptions.”

    As I said, you’d be better off conceding that easily demonstrable fact (consult your nearest medical dictionary), opting instead to argue that it’s not an ethically or legally relevant fact. Even so, not everyone who identifies as pro-life, or who identifies as pro-choice but favors limits on abortion in the second or third trimester, or on the basis of viability or fetal pain, believes a human zygote is a person fully endowed with natural rights.

    “Couple that with a dogmatism that is unremarkable in our party, and we’ll be faced with the lunacy of a party that has candidates arguing for women’s reproductive rights, and other candidates arguing for murder charges for women who use RU486 pills, and the pharmacist who prescribed them.”

    It’s one thing to argue that abortion is not a Constitutionally protected right, or that it (at least in some cases) violates the non-aggression principle, and quite another to prescribe punishments for women seeking abortions. Even if it were philosophically consistent to prosecute abortion seekers as well as black market providers, it would not be politically viable or straightforward to implement. I know the LP has its fair share of “practicality be damned” dogmatists, but I think you are getting a little bit ahead of yourself on this slippery slope. Pro-life and moderately pro-choice libertarians are not callous monsters groping for excuses to attack people in delicate situations with the national party’s blessing.

    “I like the 1982 plank on abortion as a start. I would drop the last three sentences immediately:”

    Is it because you actually favor taxpayer-subsidized abortions, or because you want to play down libertarian positions that might offend progressive Democrats–even if it means driving away people in the “politically pro-choice, personally pro-life” category? On what libertarian grounds could state funding for abortion possibly be justified?

    “Platforms shouldn’t be fixed in stone. They need to be flexible to respond to the current climate. We have a right-wing problem within the party, and the country at large has a problem with continued attacks on reproductive freedom for women via unreasonable regulation that needs to be countered.”

    So a right-wing political climate is your reason for wanting to double down on the abortion plank. I thought you were committed to it as a matter of principle.

    Not to be nitpicky, but as with “sexual freedom”, abortion rights are not about securing “reproductive freedom”. If there is someone or something to abort, then sexual reproduction has already occurred. The individual right to an abortion, whether morally justified or unjustified, NAP-compatible or incompatible, simply and neutrally is the right to kill one’s prenatal offspring, thereby ending a pregnancy.

    The abortion controversy has more than its share of value-laden, rhetorically charged, political buzzphrases (on both sides) designed to discredit without argument. Libertarians, of all people, should be able to have a spirited internal debate, grounded in our principles, without trying to corner our opponents using prejudicial language.

  231. Jared

    AD: “Wrong. The LP abortion plank rejects any STATE restrictions. It allows PERSONAL restrictions.”

    I think you know perfectly well I meant legal restrictions.

  232. robert capozzi

    AD: We have a right-wing problem within the party, and the country at large has a problem with continued attacks on reproductive freedom for women via unreasonable regulation that needs to be countered.

    Me: My sense is that the “right-wing problem” is fueled by right-wing NAPism, which in turn is fueled by NAPism itself. I say, Strike the Root! Probably most of the right-wing problem goes away when NAPism is closely examined and it collapses on its untrue foundation.

    As for the attacks on reproductive freedom, I disagree with them, but I respect that they hold their position based on their honest conscience. I don’t, however, appreciate how some of them chip away at reproductive rights. I prefer they focus on consciousness-raising (from their perspective).

  233. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anti-abortionists with libertarian leanings grabbed on to NAP as excuse for anti-abortionism.

    Here and there they’ve even convinced a few real libertarians of it.

  234. Libertydave

    I have a question for everyone discussing abortion here. What is the difference between a positive right and a negative right and how does this relate to the abortion debate?

    Also it doesn’t matter which browser I use the recent comment section show comments that don’t show up when I click on them.

  235. paulie Post author

    IF they are up for the nomination of the party, they are no longer a Republican, they are a Libertarian, by definition.

    Tell that to Amash and Weld, whose comments indicate otherwise. Or, say, Bob Barr and Wayne Root. Did Gravel truly become a Libertarian, or was it a momentary convenience? Etc.

  236. dL

    I have a question for everyone discussing abortion here. What is the difference between a positive right and a negative right and how does this relate to the abortion debate?

    A negative right is “freedom from,” a positive right, “freedom to.” The pro-choice position would be a negative right. The pro-life position would also claim to be a negative right, but it also usually entails a welfare positive right of parental obligation. It’s not merely that the embryo or fetus has a right to be born; the female(and the male) must also carry a parental obligation for any unplanned pregnancy.

    Some might say the negative right of self-ownership vs the negative right to live are in conflict vis a vis abortion. But no more than the right to self-defense puts to two in conflict once one is outside the uterus. The only consistent libertarian pro-life position would be complete pacifism, which means the pacifist foregoes the right to self-defense. But even the pacifist pro-life position can’t demand a post-birth parental welfare obligation for an unwanted pregnancy.

  237. Anthony Dlugos

    Carol writes,

    “Anti-abortionists with libertarian leanings grabbed on to NAP as excuse for anti-abortionism.”

    The NAP is a fine sentiment.

    Its counterproductive as the basis of a political party, however. (Or maybe a particularly dogmatic application of it is).

    In the real world, attempting a philosophical education during competitive electoral politics, treating all aggressions as equal, acting as if elections result in a completely blank slate for the winners means its inevitable that we will descend into apologists for those who got to this point with the greatest head start. Hence, “republicans who want to smoke pot.”

    So, IMHO, the proximate problem for the LP isn’t a reading of NAP that leads one to believe in prohibiting abortion. The real problem is at the margin: abortion prohibitionists will use the NAP to say, “hey, using my tax money to fund abortions is an aggression!”

    At that point, the party has an option:

    1) hang onto the dogma, agree with the Prohibtionists that such tax funding is a NAP violation, and create a special carve out for them.

    2) tell the Prohibitionists that, aggression or not, tax funding of Planned Parenthood is NOT this biggest problem this country is facing. not even close. In fact, given the historical advantages certain classes have enjoyed and given who benefits from tax-funded Planned Parenthood services, such an issue will probably never be something that we get around to. If the Prohibitionist can’t see that calculation or refuse to accept it, then electoral politics is not for them. I’m not saying they are wrong, I am saying they are in the wrong arena. Not sure what else someone thinks is gonna happen if we respond to the triviality of Planned Parenthood funding by elevating its importance.

    Drop the dogma or drop the right-wingers, the choice is that simple. Hold onto the dogma, and no matter how much hard work genuine NAPists do, they’ll find themselves surrounded by right-wingers, and chasing away the people some of them claim they want to attract.

    The first lesson here is one of humility and listening to our potential customers. Telling the powerless that in a perfect world the free market will handle it is a sure way to…to end up where we are now.

  238. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “My sense is that the “right-wing problem” is fueled by right-wing NAPism, which in turn is fueled by NAPism itself. I say, Strike the Root! Probably most of the right-wing problem goes away when NAPism is closely examined and it collapses on its untrue foundation.”

    100% agreement, see above.

  239. Anthony Dlugos

    Jared writes:

    “I think you know perfectly well I meant legal restrictions.”

    I know you do. I’m just surprised you’re admitting that you are in favor of incarceration for the woman, doctor, pharmacist, fines for everyone concerned, SEC/FTC investigations of companies selling drugs that just HAPPEN to also be abortifacients, and so on and so on.

    Usually, prohibitionists take a position similar to those opposed to drug legalization, where the focus is on stopping The Bad Thing and not on the implications of the state trying to stamp out The Bad Thing.

  240. Jared

    LD: “I have a question for everyone discussing abortion here. What is the difference between a positive right and a negative right and how does this relate to the abortion debate?”

    Hi Dave,

    I’m not sold on the “freedom from” vs. “freedom to” explanation. Certain rights, such as freedom of speech, could really be framed either way: negatively as freedom from censorship or positively as freedom to speak one’s mind. I prefer to understand negative rights as proscribing others’ behavior (“Thou shalt not”) vis-a-vis the rights-bearer and positive rights as prescribing others’ behavior (“Thou shalt”). So both pro-life and pro-choice libertarians are coming at the issue from a negative rights perspective.

    That being said, libertarians who deny that positive rights can emerge outside of contract will have a difficult time justifying parental obligation in general. Rothbard is case in point. His consistency led him to the radical conclusion that parents ought to be free to starve their born children to death, as birth is no more contractually binding than conception.

    I don’t go along with dL’s reasoning that consistent pro-lifers would be pacifists and reject the right to self-defense. If aborton is unjustified violence, it doesn’t follow that all violence is unjustified. No pro-life libertarian (that I know of) would try to argue that terminating, e.g., an ectopic pregnancy is unjustifiable. Necessitas inducit privilegium quoad jura privata.

  241. robert capozzi

    J: Perhaps you don’t care about legal reasoning and precedent-setting judicial interpretation, as long as the ruling coincides with your political views, but many people do.

    Me: I am pro-choice and yet troubled with the process the Supremes used in Roe. My contention is that the Constitution is too difficult to amend. The bar should be higher than legislation, but I believe the Framers went too far. With the bar as high as it is, the government has a lot of incentives to ignore the Constitution when it’s inconvenient to the perceived just outcome.

  242. Anthony Dlugos

    Several of the scholars in the Washington Examiner article Jared provided (RBG most prominent) said in the except itself that they are pro-choice. They probably are all pro-choice.

    If Jared is okay with it, I’d let RBG re-write the LP abortion plank as she thinks it should read and we could live with the consequences.

    Its also not true that it is conclusive obvious when life begins, not that that should be the overriding concern anyway. its probably more true that Prohibitionists focus on “when life begins” was designed to push state intrusion into the uterus to as early as possible, a perfect moving target.

    https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/amp

    “But make no mistake, the ultimate question is, when does a fetus become a person—at fertilization, at birth, or somewhere in between? Here, modern science offers no clarity. If anything, the past century of scientific advances have only made the answer more complicated. As scientists have peered into wombs with ultrasound and looked directly at sperm entering an egg, they’ve found that all the bright lines they thought existed dissolving.”

  243. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Definitions are subjective. The question for the collective is not: When does “life” begin? It’s probably more something like: When is it appropriate for a potential life in the womb to be protected by law?

  244. dL

    Certain rights, such as freedom of speech, could really be framed either way: negatively as freedom from censorship or positively as freedom to speak one’s mind.

    No, it can’t. Speech is not a positive right in the “freedom to” sense, unless you’re PBS or NPR.

    That being said, libertarians who deny that positive rights can emerge outside of contract will have a difficult time justifying parental obligation in general.

    That’s easy. Abortion on Demand establishes that a pregnancy carried to term was done w/o compulsion and hence defines an implicit contract of parental welfare obligation. It is debatable whether AoD is sufficient to establish said contract, but it is a necessary condition. “positive rights emerging outside of contract” is gobbledygook for compulsion. If the point is that parental obligation is a “societal contract,” well that also means the state has a vested interest in regulating the parent child relationship outside the uterus.These emergent, mysterious positive rights wouldn’t suddenly evaporate.

  245. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    I would change your question slightly to: When is it appropriate for a potential life in the womb to be protected by law, if at all?

    But don’t the Prohibitionists continually reveal their hand that they either intend that to be as far back as possible, or their only consideration (similar to the drug war), is the thin veneer of stopping The Bad Thing, with no thoughts regarding when that state protection starts, who gets prosecuted, and what the crime is?

    We have to save the babies! Never mind that 92% of abortions occur by 13 weeks, and at that time the fetus weighs less than an ounce and is two inches long, and can’t by any reasonable medical appraisal to be judged as deserving of state protection as the woman is.

    IMHO, the fact that fertility clinics destroy embryos all the time without a word from the Prohibitionists leads me to an inescapable conclusion: this whole thing is an attempt to control female sexuality. Don’t you worry, they are quite earnest about it. But the “baby” is a facade.

    A woman enjoy an orgasm free and clear of any religious connections. By god, we can’t have that.

    “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
    H.L. Mencken

  246. Jared

    dL: “No, it can’t. Speech is not a positive right in the “freedom to” sense, unless you’re PBS or NPR.”

    I know it’s a negative right. I said it could be framed positively as a “freedom to” right, which is why I prefer a more exact formulation.

    “That’s easy. Abortion on Demand establishes that a pregnancy carried to term was done w/o compulsion and hence defines an implicit contract of parental welfare obligation.”

    Three principal objections. 1. If so, then drawing the line at birth is arbitrary. Along the same lines, one could argue that by waiting until the second or third trimester, a woman has implicitly agreed to carry the child to term. 2. In cases of botched abortions where the baby survives the procedure, there can be no legal ramifications to discarding it, since the woman expressed the intention to terminate while pregnant. Likewise, a mother who, until the moment she gives birth, was unaware she was even pregnant, would have no obligation to care for her newborn. 3. While the validity of contracts with minors is generally recognized when it comes to necessities such as medical services, the fact remains that breach of contract is a civil matter and doesn’t justify criminal prosecutions for child neglect or endangerment.

    “‘positive rights emerging outside of contract’ is gobbledygook for compulsion. If the point is that parental obligation is a ‘societal contract,’ well that also means the state has a vested interest in regulating the parent child relationship outside the uterus.These emergent, mysterious positive rights wouldn’t suddenly evaporate.”

    Children’s positive rights emerging in the natural context of the parent-child relationship is no more mysterious than any negative natural right arising in an adult-adult social context (cf. Max Stirner’s ethical “spooks” or Jeremy Benham’s “nonsense on stilts”), and I find this reason for parental obligation more compelling than a contractarian view reminiscent of “we implicitly consent to live by society’s laws by not moving away”-type social contract apologetics.

  247. Libertydave

    Jared

    I think your confused on positive rights and negative rights. A negative right is a right that you don’t need anything from anyone to exercise. A positive right requires someone else to do something to exercise. The right to speak can only be considered a negative right because you don’t need anybody to do anything to allow you to speak. When people say you have a right to health care, that can only be considered a positive right because it requires someone else to provide that care.

    I have been told that libertarians believe that the only job of the government is to protect negative rights not positive rights.

  248. dL

    If so, then drawing the line at birth is arbitrary.

    That’s where you draw the line between when a human being enjoys full immunity from any self-defensive action and when that full immunity evaporates.

    Along the same lines, one could argue that by waiting until the second or third trimester, a woman has implicitly agreed to carry the child to term.

    No, As you pointed out:


    Likewise, a mother who, until the moment she gives birth, was unaware she was even pregnant

    It’s a phenomenon called cryptic pregnancy, although we’re talking up to about 6 months, not the full term. Rare. But it does happen. So, no, 6 months is not a sufficient condition for a willful contract. Neither is 6 months sufficient to guarantee that medical circumstances will not change at 7+.

    2. In cases of botched abortions where the baby survives the procedure, there can be no legal ramifications to discarding it, since the woman expressed the intention to terminate while pregnant.

    That is what insurance is for.Whomever assumed the responsibility, the insurance company would be footing the bill.

    Children’s positive rights emerging in the natural context of the parent-child relationship is no more mysterious

    Children’s positive rights, i.e, a parental welfare obligation, is natural by contract. However, by “societal contract,” i.e, by compulsion, said rights are not necessarily so naturally emergent. Google search “Ceausescu’s orphanages” as an example.

  249. dL

    tell the Prohibitionists that, aggression or not, tax funding of Planned Parenthood is NOT this biggest problem this country is facing. not even close.

    No, it is not. And it should be pointed out that PP doesn’t receive any tax funding to perform abortions. However, if one tried to advance the position of government subsidy of abortion within the LP, that issue probably would be the biggest problem of one’s campaign. Government subsidy of abortion has zero cachet in American libertarianism.

  250. Jared

    AD: “Several of the scholars in the Washington Examiner article Jared provided (RBG most prominent) said in the except itself that they are pro-choice. They probably are all pro-choice.”

    That is the point. I gave you what you asked for.

    “Its also not true that it is conclusive obvious when life begins, not that that should be the overriding concern anyway. its probably more true that Prohibitionists focus on ‘when life begins’ was designed to push state intrusion into the uterus to as early as possible, a perfect moving target.”

    Ah, a vast right-wing conspiracy.

    https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

  251. Anthony Dlugos

    “That is the point. I gave you what you asked for.”

    Come on, man, Its disingenuous to imply those folks disagree with Roe because they are pro-life or suggest the constitution is silent on reproductive rights for women.

    I got no problem if you want to get together and design an abortion plank for the LP that is opposed to Roe for some reason but also absolutely explicit in defending a woman’s right to choose.

    “Ah, a vast right-wing conspiracy.”

    Brother, you are not helping your cause providing a link to the American College of Pediatricians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians

    “The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States.[1] The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP’s support for adoption by gay couples.[2][3] As of 2016 the group reported their membership at “over 500 physicians and other healthcare professionals.”[4][5]

    The organization’s view on parenting differs from the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which holds that sexuality has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[5][6][7] ACPeds has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for “pushing anti-LGBT junk science”.[8] A number of mainstream researchers, including the director of the US National Institutes of Health, have accused ACPeds of misusing or mischaracterizing their work to advance ACPeds’ political agenda.[2][9]”

  252. Anthony Dlugos

    Jared,

    The first couple sentences of the abstract alone for the American College of Pediatricians article should have caused you to question the objectivity of such an organization.

    In any case, it is imperative that Libertarian Party members understand the danger in the seemingly innocuous, fair-minded request by Prohibitionists to just delete the abortion plank due to the “reasonable’ positions on both sides of the issue. There’s nothing reasonable about it. Delete it, and we’ll be overrun with right-wingers running for office demanding state protection from the moment of conception. Once that happens, arguing that we are a pro-choice party or “Pro-Choice on Everything” will be gone. No woman…or anyone…who cares about reproductive freedom could ever trust us or anyone running as a Libertarian. If you think we have a right-wing problem now, just wait until the media would get a hold of the news that the Libertarian Party dropped its long-standing support of a woman’s right to choose.

    I do have to agree with you on one thing, Jared. On January 20, 2019 at 03:11, you wrote:

    “From a purely Constitutional standpoint, I don’t see how the registration of firearms or monitoring of sales violates the Second Amendment.”

    So nice job there.

    So I am offering you an olive branch that you can take back to your fellow “Pro-Life Libertarians.” Leave it alone, man, There’s enough wiggle room in the plank as it exists for a Pro-Life Libertarian to run a pro-life campaign. You’re being unreasonable for a party that’s 71% Pro-Choice (per iSideWith)

  253. Jared

    AD: “I’m just surprised you’re admitting that you are in favor of incarceration for the woman, doctor, pharmacist, fines for everyone concerned, SEC/FTC investigations of companies selling drugs that just HAPPEN to also be abortifacients, and so on and so on.”

    I haven’t “admitted” anything of the kind. If you’re under that impression, then you haven’t read my replies very carefully.

  254. noted sadly in passing

    Bob Capozzi,

    You have spent years – wasted years – on the 7/8ths debate.
    Stop. It’s a waste of your time and everyone else’s time.
    The SOP has no bearing on the success or failure of the LP or its candidates – except to the extent that we waste time debating its existence or changing it.

    You still have time to get a life and do something useful. Otherwise, after your name and the years of your existence in this world, your tombstone will sum up your life:

    7/8 wasted

  255. paulie Post author

    NAPists seem to believe that politics is like Newtonian physics

    I certainly don’t, speaking only for me. I seem to recall you classify me as minimally nappiest or something like that.

  256. dL

    My sense is that the “right-wing problem” is fueled by right-wing NAPism, which in turn is fueled by NAPism itself.

    Right-wing relative to whom? Support for reproductive and immigration rights are higher within the LP than, say, the general population. What fuels the apparent right-wing extremism of joe six-pack?

  257. dL

    NAPists seem to believe that politics is like Newtonian physics

    It’s actually politicos who treat politics like classical physics. They continually chirp about solving problems, and every problem can treated as a simple mechanical system that can be easily or straightforwardly solved.

  258. William T. Forrest

    ““My sense is that the “right-wing problem” is fueled by right-wing NAPism,”

    Nonsense. I run into rightwing “pragmatic”/moderate libertarians all the time, and some right wing “libertarian” fash who also don’t like the NAP – they want freedom for themselves and others like them but not for everyone else.

  259. dL

    Ah, a vast right-wing conspiracy.

    https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

    Well, the ACPed is a right-wing conspiracy but not a particularly vast one. It’s a relatively small group of pediatricians with right-wing social views. Citing a group that wants the government to restrict both abortion and adoption doesn’t exactly allay the opinion that the “pro-life” position is much more about regulating human behavior than it is about fostering “positive rights emanations.” Also, it should be noted, the AMA’s anti-abortion position in the 19th century was for political economic reasons, not scientific ones. Abortions laws were used as a a restraint of trade measure to restrict competition.

  260. robert capozzi

    PF,

    You are in my classification system a “Low NAPist.”

    NSIP,

    I enjoy the conversation. I sometimes wonder if NAPists enjoy their conversations. We both are certainly ineffectual. The difference is: I know it! NAPists seem to think they’re involved in a centuries-long jihad for the One True Way. 7/8ths depth charges are a mere manifestation of a very broken thought system, which is why they don’t even try to defend it. They just, rather, say Tough, them’s the rules as The Founders wanted them. Now, mind you, I’m not a mind reader, but since NAPists simply won’t defend the excesses and rigidity of NAPism, I have to assume some other motive.

    To be a lessarchist of any stripe is to be quixotic, particularly when the only political vehicle putatively dedicated to maximizing liberty is engaged in obvious self-marginalization.

    AD,

    I take your “if at all” modification.

    As for the motive of pro-lifers, I dunno. Maybe some are cultural control freaks. I suspect many are in fact sincere in their belief that life begins at or near conception. Were you overstating, or is it your sense that most pro-lifers are control freaks?

  261. dL

    NAPists seem to think they’re involved in a centuries-long jihad for the One True Way. 7/8ths depth charges

    If anyone has a singular preoccupation with the Non Aggression Principle, it would be you. A Moby Dick’s Captain Ahab fanaticism to bag and kill the SoP. Captain Bob!

  262. Libertydave

    Both Jared and Anthony Dlugos agree that from a purely Constitutional standpoint, They don’t see how the registration of firearms or monitoring of sales violates the Second Amendment, and they are right about it not violating the second amendment. It violates the fifth amendment. You know, the one about self incrimination.

    For those who can’t see any harm in the registration of firearms or the monitoring of sales should see the documentary “Innocents Betrayed”. The registration of firearms is the first step a government takes when it wants to disarm a segment of its own population so that they can enslave and murder that segment.

  263. Jared

    “I think your confused on positive rights and negative rights. A negative right is a right that you don’t need anything from anyone to exercise. A positive right requires someone else to do something to exercise. The right to speak can only be considered a negative right because you don’t need anybody to do anything to allow you to speak. When people say you have a right to health care, that can only be considered a positive right because it requires someone else to provide that care.”

    I wasn’t saying that free speech is a positive right. I said the popular “freedom from” vs. “freedom to” explanation is an unsatisfactory way to identify negative and positive rights, respectively, because it allows certain rights, such as free speech, to be MISconstrued as a positive right. We are on the same page.

    “I have been told that libertarians believe that the only job of the government is to protect negative rights not positive rights.”

    That may be true to a point, but if we enter a contract and I agree to perform a service for you, then you have an enforceable positive right to that service. An important question is whether libertarianism allows for enforceable positive rights outside of (explicit or implicit) contract, such as in the case of a child’s positive right to basic parental care.

  264. dL

    For those who can’t see any harm in the registration of firearms or the monitoring of sales should see the documentary “Innocents Betrayed”. The registration of firearms is the first step a government takes when it wants to disarm a segment of its own population so that they can enslave and murder that segment.

    I dunno, I think the United States is exhibit A that you don’t have to disarm the population to control it.

  265. Jared

    AD: “The first couple sentences of the abstract alone for the American College of Pediatricians article should have caused you to question the objectivity of such an organization.”

    You posted a Wired article, an opinion piece from a progressive magazine with no bibliography, no pertinent academic references, to substantiate the claim that the science is unsettled on when life begins. I posted an article from an albeit conservative association of medical scientists, replete with citations of medical dictionaries, embryology textbooks, and peer-reviewed academic journals. I’m not sure what about the abstract you find biased compromisingly subjective. ACPeds might be a socially conservative advocacy group, but the article itself is argued apolitically from the perspective of medical professionals and, in fact, agrees with the gist of your Wired article. The difference is that the Wired writer critically confuses human life and personhood.

    “In any case, it is imperative that Libertarian Party members understand the danger in the seemingly innocuous, fair-minded request by Prohibitionists to just delete the abortion plank due to the ‘reasonable’ positions on both sides of the issue. There’s nothing reasonable about it. Delete it, and we’ll be overrun with right-wingers running for office demanding state protection from the moment of conception.”

    Is any person who supports even a single legal restriction on abortion, at any stage of gestation, necessarily a right-winger? The U.S. is more permissive than most European countries on the matter of abortion. I’m usually denounced by conservative-leaning libertarians as a leftist or quasi-socialist because I’m also strongly and openly committed to Georgism. If conservatives dismiss you as a progressive, and progressives dismiss you as a conservative, then you might be a libertarian. If left-libertarians dismiss you as a right-wing imposter, and right-libertarians dismiss you as a left-wing imposter, then maybe you’re just a plain old centrist libertarian. I’m OK with that.

    “Once that happens, arguing that we are a pro-choice party or ‘Pro-Choice on Everything’ will be gone. No woman…or anyone…who cares about reproductive freedom could ever trust us or anyone running as a Libertarian. If you think we have a right-wing problem now, just wait until the media would get a hold of the news that the Libertarian Party dropped its long-standing support of a woman’s right to choose.”

    To be perfectly honest, I very much doubt the mainstream media cares or even notices whenever the LP amends its platform. The absence of a “100% pro-choice from conception to birth” abortion plank would not be reason for even the staunchest of pro-choicers never to trust the LP or its candidates. Even the 2016 Democratic Party platform, explicit in its support for continued public funding for Planned Parenthood, does not go so far as the current LP platform.

    “I do have to agree with you on one thing, Jared. . .
    Nice job there.”

    Thanks…? I’m not activistic in my legal interpretations. I really only try to be reasonable.

    “I’m offering you an olive branch that you can take back to your fellow ‘Pro-Life Libertarians.’ Leave it alone, man, There’s enough wiggle room in the plank as it exists for a Pro-Life Libertarian to run a pro-life campaign. You’re being unreasonable for a party that’s 71% Pro-Choice (per iSideWith)”

    I agree no Libertarian candidate should have to be in total agreement with the national platform to run on the party ticket, as long as they are open about any points of dissent (when it matters), but the statement of principles is another story.

  266. dL

    That may be true to a point, but if we enter a contract and I agree to perform a service for you, then you have an enforceable positive right to that service. An important question is whether libertarianism allows for enforceable positive rights outside of (explicit or implicit) contract, such as in the case of a child’s positive right to basic parental care.

    No, Personal duties(duties owed to one another) are not positive rights. You are conflating the two things. A simple example to demonstrate this. Marriage entails a personal duty. However, marriage is not a positive right. Neither is marriage an impersonal duty(i.e, a duty owed to no one), as in, say, everyone has a duty to get married.

    I, myself, prefer impersonal vs personal duties as a clearer way to view things than positive vs negative rights. “Thin” libertarianism is usually expressed in terms of the Non Aggression Principle. But I don’t look at it in that way. Instead, I look at it as libertarianism is very thin regarding impersonal duties. Pretty much zero. I’m told that that way of viewing things is alien to most people. But if that was the case–if impersonal duties and positive rights were so naturally woven into the human fabric–then politics wouldn’t be the life and death struggle that it is so often depicted as. And while I’ll agree that is easy for people to say you have a right to this, this, this and that, it is countered by the fact that it is pretty much unAmerican to stand up and pontificate about a laundry list of impersonal duties that Americans should owe to no one. Indeed, people will usually take offense if you accuse them of doing that.

  267. Anthony Dlugos

    Jared,

    The Wired article isn’t an opinion piece, its a piece of reporting, reporting what experts like Scott Gilbert (a developmental biologist), Harvey Flormann (fertilization researcher), Diane Horvath-Cosper, (OB-GYN) , and Edward Bell, (neonatologist) have to say about what the evidence from their PARTICULAR FIELD of expertise has to say about when life begins.

    Moreover, each of those experts say (comporting with the title of the piece), that it is looking more and more like we will NEVER be able to say conclusively when life begins.

    To wit, Mr. Gilbert in the first paragraph:

    ‘What troubled Gilbert, who is a developmental biologist, was the assertion that “scientists know.” “I couldn’t say when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty scientists don’t have a consensus,” he says.’

    OTOH, the tendentious “scientific paper” that you posted is apparently from a group of pediatricians, who have no particular expertise regarding fetal development, and they CERTAINLY have no expertise in adoption issues. What’s worse is that this paper suggests that the evidence is clear that life begins at conception, a much stronger claim than “we just don’t know.” Its odd that a developmental biologist wouldn’t know such a conclusive fact.

    It also concerns me that the this “American College of Pediatricians” describes themselves as “over 500 physicians and other healthcare professionals.” Healthcare professionals? What does that mean? That’s way too vague.

    “The difference is that the Wired writer critically confuses human life and personhood.”

    Wrong. The writer clearly indicates that even people in the field of fetal development not only have no idea when life begins, they further indicate that NO ONE knows.

    “Is any person who supports even a single legal restriction on abortion, at any stage of gestation, necessarily a right-winger?”

    I’d have to know when this person thinks such legal restrictions should begin. If the person in question posts a link to an “article” suggesting human life begins at conception, its going to alarm me, because the obvious implication is that such protection should begin at conception, If not, then when? And you’ll also have to tell me what the rationale is for beginning the protection at point X. Vagaries will only alarm me more.

    Vis a vi the Libertarian Party, it is clearly relevant that those arguing for a deletion of the abortion plank tell us when exactly they think state protection should begin. The pro-choice majority in the party deserves to know exactly what willbe advocated for in our name.

    “I’m usually denounced by conservative-leaning libertarians as a leftist or quasi-socialist because I’m also strongly and openly committed to Georgism. If conservatives dismiss you as a progressive, and progressives dismiss you as a conservative, then you might be a libertarian.”

    This isn’t some esoteric debate about tax policy. Reproductive rights affects 1/2 the population directly, and the other 1/2 in a secondary manner. All the right stances on tax issues and, say, guns, can be undone by a position like abortion prohibition that can create a police state that would dwarf the drug war’s accomplishments.

    As Sam Harris famously said to Ben Affleck on Bill Maher’s HBO show when Ben soft peddled Islam: you are defending the motherlode of bad ideas here. A state that can insert itself into reproductive freedoms can insert itself ANYWHERE.

    “To be perfectly honest, I very much doubt the mainstream media cares or even notices whenever the LP amends its platform.”

    They care enough to report that the LP has dropped its long-standing pro-choice stance. At that point, people opposed to gay adoption will find their way into the party. You didn’t even know (I presume) that the organization you posted a link from was opposed to gay adoption…in 2017!

    “Homosexual men and women are reported to be promiscuous, with serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships. Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,substance abuse, suicidal tendencies and shortened life spans.”
    —“Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for A Change?” updated July 2017, available on ACPeds website

  268. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “As for the motive of pro-lifers, I dunno. Maybe some are cultural control freaks. I suspect many are in fact sincere in their belief that life begins at or near conception. Were you overstating, or is it your sense that most pro-lifers are control freaks?“

    Most are probably well-meaning, but without understanding.

    OTOH, there’s no more regularly marginalized class in human history than women. If Jared could get pregnant, we’re not even having this discussion.

  269. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, as Lennon said, “Woman is the n_word of the world.”

    But I note that about half of fetuses ARE potential women. For me, the pro-life position is not “wrong,” I just happen to disagree with it.

  270. Jared

    “The Wired article isn’t an opinion piece, its a piece of reporting, reporting what experts like Scott Gilbert (a developmental biologist), Harvey Flormann (sic) (fertilization researcher), Diane Horvath-Cosper, (OB-GYN) , and Edward Bell, (neonatologist) have to say about what the evidence from their PARTICULAR FIELD of expertise has to say about when life begins.”

    Scott Gilbert says there is no scientific consensus about when personhood begins. Obviously that is true, but when life begins is a different question. Harvey Florman (one “n”) only comments that fertilization is not immediate, which also has nothing to do with when human life begins. Horvath-Cosper notes that many fertilized eggs do not implant (she doesn’t actually state the rate, but I believe it’s around 50%) and says the mother “gets to decide” when personhood begins, which is relativistic nonsense, but still doesn’t address the issue. Ron Paul is an OB/GYN, too, and doesn’t share that opinion. Bell notes advances in technology have pushed back the point of viability and agrees that the beginning of personhood–although the writer supplies the word “life” because she doesn’t acknowledge a difference between personhood and life, and so uses those terms interchangeably–is a philosophical rather than scientific question. The title of that article, “Why Science Can’t Say When a Baby’s Life Begins,” is confused and misleading. Zhang’s handful of choppy quotes simply don’t back up her assertion.

    “OTOH, the tendentious ‘scientific paper’ that you posted is apparently from a group of pediatricians, who have no particular expertise regarding fetal development, and they CERTAINLY have no expertise in adoption issues. What’s worse is that this paper suggests that the evidence is clear that life begins at conception, a much stronger claim than ‘we just don’t know.’ Its odd that a developmental biologist wouldn’t know such a conclusive fact.”

    IOW, you also fail to distinguish human life from personhood. “‘As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell.” J.T. Eberl goes on to say–and this is really the debate: ‘However, what is controversial is whether this genetically unique cell should be considered a human person.'” This quote cited in the article you’re lambasting fundamentally agrees with the statements from the article you posted. The difference is that the Wired staff writer is drawing the unwarranted conclusion that, because it is beyond the scope of medical biology to address when personhood begins, then science has no answer for when life begins.

    “It also concerns me that the this ‘American College of Pediatricians’ describes themselves as “over 500 physicians and other healthcare professionals.” Healthcare professionals? What does that mean? That’s way too vague.”

    I wish you would quit playing dumb. You find it disconcerting that they don’t spell out what “healthcare professionals” means?

    “Wrong. The writer clearly indicates that even people in the field of fetal development not only have no idea when life begins, they further indicate that NO ONE knows.”

    The writer clearly needs to take an introductory course in bioethics and look up the term “non sequitur”, as do you if you believe that article demonstrates that no one knows when life begins. I honestly don’t know why you are hammering this issue. Many serious pro-choicers are willing to concede the point, at least for the sake of argument, because they believe abortion should be legal regardless of when life begins, regardless even of when personhood begins. Murray Rothbard and Judith Jarvis Thompson spring to mind. And–getting back to the central issue–if human life and personhood emerge at any stage of development prior to birth, then the LP plank, because it admits zero restrictions on abortion, supports the legality of killing living persons and will need to defend its position on grounds of justifiable homicide.

    “I’d have to know when this person thinks such legal restrictions should begin. If the person in question posts a link to an ‘article’ suggesting human life begins at conception, its going to alarm me, because the obvious implication is that such protection should begin at conception, If not, then when? And you’ll also have to tell me what the rationale is for beginning the protection at point X. Vagaries will only alarm me more.”

    If you recall, I posted my “article” in response to your “article” (since we’re using scare-quotes). I have consistently maintained that life’s beginning at conception–it is, after all, the conception of something, namely a new human organism–does not necessarily imply personhood in a descriptive metaphysical or prescriptive legal sense. You must think it does, evidently because you can’t fathom how they are distinct, or else you wouldn’t react so negatively and object so strenuously. Heavens, I certainly wouldn’t want to further alarm you. In the context of a plank which settles on the position that a child should have no legal protections until he or she has successfully exited the birth canal, I don’t see what difference it makes. If you think abortion ever, at any time or in any circumstance, constitutes the unlawful killing of an unborn baby, then your position is at odds with the current platform.

    “Vis a vi (sic) the Libertarian Party, it is clearly relevant that those arguing for a deletion of the abortion plank tell us when exactly they think state protection should begin. The pro-choice majority in the party deserves to know exactly what willbe advocated for in our name.”

    No, not every person who disagrees with the plank is on the same page. They shouldn’t have to submit their own beliefs to be scrutinized by self-anointed witch hunters just because they’d prefer the platform to be silent on this issue.

    “This isn’t some esoteric debate about tax policy. Reproductive rights affects 1/2 the population directly, and the other 1/2 in a secondary manner. All the right stances on tax issues and, say, guns, can be undone by a position like abortion prohibition that can create a police state that would dwarf the drug war’s accomplishments.”

    Sure, because prior to 1973, pregnant women were subject to mass incarceration under a dystopian police state. Dark times.

    “They care enough to report that the LP has dropped its long-standing pro-choice stance. At that point, people opposed to gay adoption will find their way into the party. You didn’t even know (I presume) that the organization you posted a link from was opposed to gay adoption…in 2017!”

    No, I didn’t know they had a position on same-sex adoption. It isn’t relevant to that particular article on the conception of human life. I posted it because of its academic medical references and objective, scientific description of the process of fertilization. I see you copy-pasted that quotation of the article on homosexual adoption from the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center. As a side note, after having read the full ACPeds article, I happen to agree on one point: professional organizations have often been too quick to weigh-in on hot-button issues and endorse policies based on very limited research. And no, I think you overestimate media interest in LP platform specifics. If the party were to drop its radically pro-choice plank, electing to adopt no official position, I’d be shocked if a single major news media outlet ran a story on it. Your concern that silence on an issue that remains controversial among the most principled libertarians would result in a takeover of the party by non-libertarian social conservatives is unfounded.

    “OTOH, there’s no more regularly marginalized class in human history than women. If Jared could get pregnant, we’re not even having this discussion.”

    What bigoted, condescending garbage.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

  271. Krzysztof Lesiak

    “The news was first reported by WCVB’s On The Record co-anchor Janet Wu, who
    has learned any possible run would be made as a Republican.

    The news makes Weld the first who could create a primary challenge for President Donald Trump in 2020. Former Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake said Tuesday he wouldn’t challenge President Trump in 2020, putting to rest months of speculation about what’s next for one of the GOP party’s most prominent Trump critics.”

    https://www.wcvb.com/article/former-mass-gov-william-weld-to-announce-possible-run-for-president/26092546

  272. dL

    The news makes Weld the first who could create a primary challenge for President Donald Trump in 2020

    Don’t worry, the LP will still be on standby for sloppy seconds…

  273. George Phillies

    Some problem with posting:

    They say: Weld is mulling a run for president and may announce a run or an exploratory committee on Thursday. Sources say he has taken a leave of absence from his law firm. Credit WCVB’s On The Record co-anchor Janet Wu, who has learned any possible run would be made as a Republican.

  274. Anthony Dlugos

    “Scott Gilbert says there is no scientific consensus about when personhood begins. Obviously that is true, but when life begins is a different question”

    Prohibitionist claptrap.

    When “life” begins is beset with the same unanswerable problem of definition as is the question of when “personhood” begins is. They are functionally equivalent. That’s why, after the first paragraph quoting Gilbert as to when personhood begins, the second paragraph starts with:

    “When life begins is, of course, the central disagreement that fuels the controversy over abortion.”

    Not only does that demonstrate the equivalency, it also disproves the prohibitionist position that there is unanimity in the scientific community about when life begins. This is not surprising, since there is there is no consensus on what is meant by “life.” You’re talking metaphysics at that point.

    Any Prohibitionist definition of when life begins is clearly biased, designed with their endgame in mind. Its not an objective definition; an objective definition is impossible. The only thing that is clear is that the Prohibitionist will use whatever facts are necessary to ensure continued state jurisdiction…in whole or in part…over the reproductive rights of women.

    “‘As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell.”

    Utter bullcrap.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

    “There isn’t even consensus amongst scientists as to whether there’s consensus. However, Scott Gilbert’s paper lists embryologists who support each of the major viewpoints belying the common and oft repeated assertion that there is consensus amongst embryologists, let alone scientists.”

    I can guarantee you this supposed “moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell” DOES NOT EXIST. Like everything else about fetal development, it will turn out, as scientific knowledge advances, that its a gradual process.

    “I wish you would quit playing dumb. You find it disconcerting that they don’t spell out what “healthcare professionals” means?”

    Yes, I do. they are making scientific claims, I want to know if they have the background to make such claims. There’s nothing controversial about that. This would be true even if the organization was a legitimate, objective organization. The American College of Pediatricians is not even close to that. The list of reprehensible anti-LGBT and misogynistic positions they have held within even the last few years makes anything produced by them suspect. Now I DEFINITELY want to know who these “health care professionals” are if they are producing crap like this:

    “Driving in this morning I began to wonder. Why isn’t the movement of LGBT not the PLGBT movement: ‘P’ for pedophile? …In one sense, it could be argued that the LGBT movement is only tangentially associated with pedophilia. I see that argument, but the pushers of the movement, the activists, I think have pedophilia intrinsically woven into their agenda. It is they who need to be spoken to and against.”
    —Blog post on ACPeds website, July 15, 2015

    “The writer clearly needs to take an introductory course in bioethics and look up the term “non sequitur”, as do you if you believe that article demonstrates that no one knows when life begins. I honestly don’t know why you are hammering this issue.”

    I honestly don’t know why you’re hammering home the idea that there is agreement about when life begins if it has no bearing on when personhood begins.

    “And–getting back to the central issue–if human life and personhood emerge at any stage of development prior to birth, then the LP plank, because it admits zero restrictions on abortion, supports the legality of killing living persons and will need to defend its position on grounds of justifiable homicide.”

    Now we find out WHY you are hammering home the irrelevant: As with all Prohibitionists, you don’t make any distinction between when life begins and when personhood begins. Your argument is a ruse designed to ensure state infringement on womens’ reproductive rights. This is why I react so strenuously, as you point out. Not because I think there is a difference, or even because YOU think there is a difference, but because your argument is a parlor trick, plain and simple.

    Let’s review:

    1) There is no consensus on when life begins.

    2) There can never be a consensus on when life beings.

    3) Even if there could, it doesn’t matter.

    #3 in no way attenuates the truth of #1 or #2.

    “I have consistently maintained that life’s beginning at conception…”

    I haven’t met a Prohibitionist in the party that thinks otherwise. Which should be a MAJOR concern for the party. Its quite relevant information.

    “Sure, because prior to 1973, pregnant women were subject to mass incarceration under a dystopian police state. Dark times.”

    What an ignoramus you are. Anything short of incarceration is apparently okay when infringing on womens’ rights?

    https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/7/3/17530862/brett-kavanaugh-abortion-roe-v-wade

    “The social and economic impacts of making abortion illegal cannot be overstated. In those decades before Roe v. Wade, roughly from the mid-19th century until the early 1970s, women could not be full citizens. If they had heterosexual sex, they could not reliably plan their education or their work lives. Many women did not know where to find help, were too ashamed or afraid to ask, had no money, or were scared off by stories of the back alley. Many attempted self-abortion…Employers and school officials drew on these vulnerabilities to treat females as unreliable employees who deserved lower pay.”

    “When district attorneys and police departments periodically decided to mount crusades of moral purity against “vice,” thousands of women were hauled into courtrooms and forced to testify against practitioners who had helped them and were now being tried for performing abortions.Newspapers covered these public spectacles, where women in court would be pressed to answer such questions as “How many men did you have sex with?” and “Why did you have sex if you weren’t willing to have a baby?” and “During the abortion, how far apart were your legs spread and what tools were put into which of the holes in your body?””

    “Many hospitals set up “abortion boards,” where women went to beg panels of male physicians to allow them to terminate a pregnancy, which was only possible if granted an exception due to extraordinary circumstances. Many of these women had to plead insanity or say their pregnancy was causing them to consider suicide — two of the few permissible justifications for obtaining permission. Public humiliations like these were common in the pre-Roe era.”

    “In the decades before Roe, authorities took upon themselves the right to punish girls and women for not managing their sexuality and fertility in ways the government approved — and the punishments and social control varied by race. Authorities forced hundreds of thousands of unmarried, unwillingly pregnant white woman to give up their babies for adoption; meanwhile, poor women of color were evicted from public housing, lost their welfare benefits, and, in some states, were threatened with jail if they had another baby outside of wedlock.”

  275. Chuck Moulton

    I’m pro-choice, but Jared’s point about the distinction between life and personhood seems clear, rational, and scientific to me. I think Dlugos is being deliberately obtuse.

    I’m a pro-choice attorney, but I think Roe vs. Wade was badly written and rests on very shaky constitutional grounds. I agree that there should be a right to abortion… that doesn’t mean I automatically think any decision which arrives at that result is a well reasoned judicial opinion.

  276. Anthony Dlugos

    What’s the distinction between life and personhood?

    I don’t see Jared make any distinction, other than to say there is a distinction.

    As I mentioned to Jared earlier, if you want to rewrite the abortion plank to say women have reproductive rights, including abortion rights, but base it in some other part of the Constitution, I’m all ears.

  277. dL

    I’m a pro-choice attorney

    What exactly is a a pro-choice attorney? Are you doing volunteer legal work for a pro-choice advocacy group? If so, I imagine you would be the only who thought Roe v Wade is bad law.

  278. robert capozzi

    My guess:

    A fetus is “life.” “Personhood” is when a “life” has legal protections against harm, whether in the womb or out.

  279. George Phillies

    Weld says the report is wrong. He is at work and not declaring today. The Republican bit is not based on anything he said, he says.

  280. Anthony Dlugos

    “Democrats Must Reach Out to Moderates in 2020 — By Waging a Vicious Class War”

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/2020-primary-warren-biden-democrats-should-be-pragmatic-and-wage-class-war.html

    Hmmm….

    “Piston’s research affirms a broader insight of contemporary political science: Most human beings view politics through the lens of group identity, not ideology. Ordinary voters do not develop an intellectual attachment to some abstract philosophy of government, and then join the party whose platform best represents their theory of the state. Rather, the average voter is born into a variety of social groups (a religion, a “race,” a class, etc.), and then joins whichever party appears to best represent her people.

    This theoretical framework helps explain why voters in the ANES surveys were less likely to complain about the GOP’s indifference to “inequality,” than about the party’s undue deference to the rich: Inequality is an ideological abstraction, “the rich” is a widely resented social group.”

  281. dL

    “Piston’s research affirms a broader insight of contemporary political science: Most human beings view politics through the lens of group identity, not ideology. Ordinary voters do not develop an intellectual attachment to some abstract philosophy of government, and then join the party whose platform best represents their theory of the state. Rather, the average voter is born into a variety of social groups (a religion, a “race,” a class, etc.), and then joins whichever party appears to best represent her people.

    Well, that insight is not all that contemporary; it’s the ancient view of politics(as opposed to the liberal view of politics). That piece is basically the progressive analogue to, say, the Rothbard/Rockwell paleo strategy. Now, there is no disputing that partisan Repubs and Dems behave like identity tribes. But most people aren’t partisan Repubs and Dems. Ossified at birth group identity politics doesn’t explain how the same electorate could elect both Obama and Trump in succession.

    RE: “vicious class war.” Absolutely. Some on this board have been advocating for a genuine left-wing libertarian populism for years(as counter strategy to both Gary Johnson mushy centrism and Ron Paul’s paleo smooching). But Elizabeth Warren is a phony class warrior. She was a primary TARP administrator for god’s sakes. And after it was over, she declared it be a fine success under her competent management. Nice trick if you can get away with it.

  282. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    A fetus is “life.” “Personhood” is when a “life” has legal protections against harm, whether in the womb or out

    Probably the way the Prohibitionists would frame it.

    I think its major attraction to the Prohibitionists is that using the term “life” muddies the waters. Any sign of “life” can be utilized to imply THAT is when personhood begins. Furthermore, only anti-choicer are insistent on this faux distinction.

    But don’t take my word for it, I’ll just re-quote Jared:

    “And–getting back to the central issue–if human life and personhood emerge at any stage of development prior to birth, then the LP plank, because it admits zero restrictions on abortion, supports the legality of killing living persons and will need to defend its position on grounds of justifiable homicide.”

    Note the slight of hand.

    In any case, RC, lest you think I am being intransigent on the issue of abortion within the LP, I would implore you to reassess the situation, and this time view it from our agreed upon vantage point that the party is too dogmatic.

    Deleting the plank will not draw in moderates on the issue from the larger population. It’ll draw in…and draw out from within the party…the most dogmatic Prohibitionists. It’ll draw in disaffected virulent anti-choicers from the GOP that think their current party is not dogmatic enough on the issue. They will be as unyielding on abortion as they are when they say, “Taxation is Theft.”

    I hear a more moderate tenor from Republicans in my family on the issue than I do from “Pro-Life” Libertarians.

  283. dL

    A fetus is “life.” “Personhood” is when a “life” has legal protections against harm, whether in the womb or out.

    Bob, you smell like a pro-lifer. And there is no such thing as “legal protections against harm.” The state is under no obligation to protect anybody from harm. That was even codified by the Supreme Court in Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

  284. Jim

    Just from a media attention standpoint, it would make sense to start out challenging Trump in the Republican primary, then switch over to the Libertarian Party, as long as he makes the switch early enough to avoid a 2012 Michigan situation. Ron Paul in 2008, Paul and Johnson in 2012, and to a lesser extent Rand Paul in 2016 certainly gave the LP a boost by getting on that Republican primary debate stage.

    Just the other day I was hoping Larry Sharpe entered the Democratic Primary. They’re going to have a dozen debates, each split into two nights, with no undercard debate. The participants will be split up randomly, rather than on polling data. If they have no polling criteria, that is a great opportunity to get a Libertarian on stage with Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

    If Weld provides suitably libertarian rhetoric while challenging Trump in the Republican primary – while it is repeatedly pointed out by the media and Republican operatives that Weld was the LP VP candidate in 2016 – and Sharpe is simultaneously being awesome in front of a big Democratic primary audience, that might give the LP it’s biggest growth year ever. And given how close we were to the Presidential debates in 2016, a big growth year now might get the LP candidate there in 2020, even if it doesn’t end up being Weld or Sharpe.

  285. Anthony Dlugos

    “Just from a media attention standpoint, it would make sense to start out challenging Trump in the Republican primary, then switch over to the Libertarian Party, as long as he makes the switch early enough to avoid a 2012 Michigan situation.”

    Problem is, I don’t think he can defect BACK to the Republicans, then BACK to the LP again. That’s just way too much switching, given his history.

    On the other hand, if he was intending on running for the LP nomination but wanted to make a play for disaffected liberal republicans, letting this sort of story leak out and then retracting it DOES sound like a decent play politically.

    “Just the other day I was hoping Larry Sharpe entered the Democratic Primary.”

    I don’t know if he is left-leaning enough to do such a thing. You can’t walk into a Democratic primary with any hint of right leaning libertarian dogma.

  286. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Since so may pro-choicers here, please note:

    *Pro-Choice on Everything!* is one of 58 theme choices for the LP Convention 2020 in Austin.

    It came in second in 2018 to “I’m that Libertarian”.

    The more money raised per theme, the more likely this theme rises to the top. Start voting $$$$… The money roles over, but lowest ones do get shut out. Vote $5 OR MORE per theme you like here. The one with most vote$ will be 2020 Convention theme!

    For peaceniks, MILITARY HOME, PEACE NOW is also ne of the 58 final potential LP themes.

    Other good ones include TANSTAAFL – Anti-war Party – The Future of Freedom – The Future will be Free –

    See full details and full list and contribute at this link: https://libertarianconvention.org/2020-pay-to-play-libertarian-national-convention-theme-contest/

  287. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DL: Show LP the money!

    It took a couple grand to win last time; pro-choice libs was second with about 2/3 of that number of grands.

  288. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, I share your concerns about dogmatists of various stripes.

    If the LP’s platform read something like the following, it would be a shield against dogmatism:

    ===“While a minority of Ls believe that human life deserves full legal protections at or near the moment of conception, most Ls believe in a woman’s right to choose her own reproductive rights. Similarly, there is a range of opinion among Ls as to when the fetus later in the term of pregnancy begins to deserve legal protections.”===

  289. dL

    ===“While a minority of Ls believe that human life deserves full legal protections at or near the moment of conception, most Ls believe in a woman’s right to choose her own reproductive rights. Similarly, there is a range of opinion among Ls as to when the fetus later in the term of pregnancy begins to deserve legal protections.”===

    That’s not a position. The LP platform is not a narcissistic document to appease Bob Capozzi’s antipathy to taking a clear stand on issues.

  290. Jim

    Anthony Dlugos “I don’t know if (Sharpe) is left-leaning enough to do such a thing. You can’t walk into a Democratic primary with any hint of right leaning libertarian dogma.”

    Not normally, but you can this time. They said they don’t want to rely exclusively on polling data. They will also use fundraising. All Sharpe would have to do is place in the top 20 or so of the Democratic field in dollars raised. And he is good at fundraising. And if he gets in once, I’ll bet a lot of Republicans would even donate to keep him there, just to mess with the Democrats.

    Besides, fair’s fair. Sam Seder is running as a Libertarian for President.

  291. Tony From Long Island

    Jim: Just the other day I was hoping Larry Sharpe entered the Democratic Primary

    You honestly think that if LARRY SHARPE ran for POTUS as a democrat that he would even sniff a debate stage? Do you realize how many actual name recognized democrats are going to ultimately run? Even some of them might not make the stage.

  292. paulie Post author

    Ossified at birth group identity politics doesn’t explain how the same electorate could elect both Obama and Trump in succession.

    Electorate changes. Some people died, some people became citizens or old enough, some people moved state to state which changes electoral college dynamics (Trump lost popular vote by 3 million), some people lost or regained voting rights, some people left the country. Both Obama and Trump energized different groups of people who typically stay home to vote. A few people voted for both Obama and Trump, but not very many. The swing voter is fairly elusive. Most people will generally either vote D or R fairly reliably if they vote at all. Even most of the ones who claim they are independents.

  293. paulie Post author

    gave the LP a boost by getting on that Republican primary debate stage.

    Trump will not be attending any primary debates regardless of who runs.

  294. paulie Post author

    I don’t know if he is left-leaning enough to do such a thing. You can’t walk into a Democratic primary with any hint of right leaning libertarian dogma.

    He’s also not a big enough name. There will be a few dozen “name” Democrats vying for a spot in the two night debates and some will be left out. There were will be hundreds who will get no invite. Guess which group Sharpe would be in if he went that route?

  295. paulie Post author

    Not normally, but you can this time. They said they don’t want to rely exclusively on polling data. They will also use fundraising.

    There will also be an ideological filter, and he’s not going to be competitive with the top 20 Democrats in fundraising.

  296. paulie Post author

    You honestly think that if LARRY SHARPE ran for POTUS as a democrat that he would even sniff a debate stage? Do you realize how many actual name recognized democrats are going to ultimately run? Even some of them might not make the stage.

    Yep.

  297. Chuck Moulton

    dL wrote:

    What exactly is a a pro-choice attorney? Are you doing volunteer legal work for a pro-choice advocacy group? If so, I imagine you would be the only who thought Roe v Wade is bad law.

    I see you have decended to troll status. A pro-choice attorney is someone who is pro-choice (supports a right to abortion) and an attorney (has graduated law school, studied the law, and been licensed go practice law).

    Pundits without legal traning often lack understanding of judicial decisions. I’ve read Roe v. Wade and many other Supreme Court decisions, unlike many others who talk about Roe v. Wade for the sentiment rather than the opinion itself.

  298. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    What’s the distinction between life and personhood?

    The dictionary (many, but for these purposes, I’ll cite Miroam Websters) says life is “characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction”.

    This includes single-celled organisms, fungi, plants, and animals. A fertilized embryo metabilizes oxygen in its mitochondria. It grows and reacts to stimuli. It “reproduces” in the sense of creating new cells with the same DNA (asexual reproduction), but not cells with different DNA. However, if we are strict on the reproduction criteria, then humans wouldn’t be “alive” until puberty, when they are capable of sexual reproduction.

    Personhood is less scientific and more philosophical. When is a glob of cells considered a person?

  299. Anthony Dlugos

    “He’s also not a big enough name.”

    I definitely agree with that, paulie.

    I guess I was showing approval of the more general idea that it would be a good for libertarians to try and reach out to Democrats, even going so far as running as one.

  300. dL

    I see you have decended to troll status. A pro-choice attorney is someone who is pro-choice (supports a right to abortion) and an attorney (has graduated law school, studied the law, and been licensed go practice law).

    Ok, sort of like a pro-choice baked potato chip eater…

    Pundits without legal traning often lack understanding of judicial decisions. I’ve read Roe v. Wade and many other Supreme Court decisions, unlike many others who talk about Roe v. Wade for the sentiment rather than the opinion itself.

    Chuck, if you are going to play the argument by important authority card, it helps to have a deck to draw from.

  301. Jim

    Tony From Long Island “You honestly think that if LARRY SHARPE ran for POTUS as a democrat that he would even sniff a debate stage? Do you realize how many actual name recognized democrats are going to ultimately run? Even some of them might not make the stage.”

    I’m sure many Democrats running for President won’t make it into the debates. There are going to be literally hundreds of them running. 165 have already filed. Which is exactly why they aren’t going to use polling data. They would have to exclude people based on tenths or hundredths of a percent in polls that have margins of error well in excess of that. And then there would be the people who weren’t included in the polls at all. Instead, they are going to use fundraising data (perhaps some combination of number of contributors and total raised.) And with the Democratic field split between, say, 10 strong candidates, Sharpe only has to place in the 11 – 20 range. He’s pretty good at fundraising. He got like $500,000 running for Governor and I think a “get Larry Sharpe in the Democratic debates” moneybomb would match that in about 9 hours.

    paulie “There will also be an ideological filter, and he’s not going to be competitive with the top 20 Democrats in fundraising.

    There is no chance the Democrats are going to have an ideological filter after the shitstorm they just had with Bernie supporters.

    I don’t think Sharpe would want to make the attempt, anyway. It was just a passing thought that I had.

  302. robert capozzi

    Dogmatic L: And there is no such thing as “legal protections against harm.” The state is under no obligation to protect anybody from harm. That was even codified by the Supreme Court in Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

    me: While I generally avoid commenting and responding to a certain anonymous poster, I offer this feedback to all dogmatic Ls.

    “Protection” is not the same thing as a “guarantee.” The laws against murder, for ex., are an institutional signal and shield against murder, and yet people still get murdered.

    Steering the argument into a L talking point proves nothing. It’s transparently obvious to be irrelevant. Using such nonsense is why L-ism needs a rethink…badly.

  303. t

    I said You honestly think that if LARRY SHARPE ran for POTUS as a democrat that he would even sniff a debate stage? Do you realize how many actual name recognized democrats are going to ultimately run? Even some of them might not make the stage.

    Then Paulie said Yep

    Paulie, were you agreeing with me or were you saying that Mr. Sharpe would be taken seriously by dems?

  304. dL

    Since the Feb. open thread isn’t up yet, I’ll just post this and hope that no IPR readers have their crypto-currencies with this company:

    I would hope anyone would keep their majority of one’s crypto in their own wallets…

  305. dL

    Dogmatic L:

    Yes.Dogmatically opposed to right-wing entryists who want to make the LP platform hospitable to the wingnuts on immigration and abortion.

    While I generally avoid commenting and responding to a certain anonymous poster,

    No, pseudo-anonymous site moderator. Bitching about pseudo-anonymity is the bromide of the butthurt and was a favorite pastime of a certain poster who was recently banned.

    “Protection” is not the same thing as a “guarantee.”

    Full Protection without a guarantee isn’t protection. Try selling a life insurance policy or a product warranty without a guarantee. Or try selling a security detail without a guarantee that they won’t run away if the shit hits the fan.

    The laws against murder, for ex., are an institutional signal and shield against murder, and yet people still get murdered.

    Ah, “institutional signals.” Let’s amend your previous statement. It goes from no position to pro-life virtue signaling.

    ===“While a minority of Ls believe that human life deserves government signals that abortion is murder at or near the moment of conception, most Ls believe in a woman’s right to choose her own reproductive rights. Similarly, there is a range of opinion among Ls as to when the fetus later in the term of pregnancy begins to deserve said government signals===

  306. Chuck Moulton

    dL wrote:

    Chuck, if you are going to play the argument by important authority card, it helps to have a deck to draw from.

    More trolling. I graduated law school, am licensed to practice in 3 states, have undergone extensive legal training (including law school, CLE, and independent study), and in the course of that have read hundreds of supreme court opinions. It is not an argument by important authority; rather, it is a point about competence. This is the same reason people find a medical doctor’s diagnosis more credible than the musings of some random dude with no medical training.

    When people talk about whether Roe vs. Wade was a well reasoned opinion, it helps to have read hundreds of other opinions and have extensive legal training rather than just agreeing that abortion is good. I comtinue to stand by that statement.

    This reminds me of the oft quoted Rothbard quip about people with opinions about economics.

  307. dL

    I graduated law school, am licensed to practice in 3 states, have undergone extensive legal training (including law school, CLE, and independent study), and in the course of that have read hundreds of supreme court opinions. It is not an argument by important authority; rather, it is a point about competence.

    Competence? What areas of the law do you specialize in with your practice? I certainly wouldn’t try to tell, say, a tax attorney his/her business RE: the tax code, but by the same token I could give a rat’s ass what a tax attorney thinks about Roe v Wade. Your contention that a plebe sans educational certification lacks the competence to understand SCOTUS decisions is bullshit. Not to mention, illiberal.

    This is the same reason people find a medical doctor’s diagnosis more credible than the musings of some random dude with no medical training.

    Last time I went to a general practitioner, I had to tell her to what to prescribe for my relatively minor(but somewhat chronic) condition, which she then verified by doing a google search on her phone. It’s hardly an indictment of the competence of the clinician. After all, any reasonable intelligent person should be familiar with their own body and avail themselves of the instant information online RE: helpful treatments. Obviously, serious conditions that require specialists is another matter. But in this instance, I just needed the script and would hav been quite perturbed if the doctor had responded with: “who are you, untrained plebe, to advise me what to prescribe. I have XYZ education, 2 years residence, blah, blah.

  308. paulie Post author

    And with the Democratic field split between, say, 10 strong candidates, Sharpe only has to place in the 11 – 20 range.

    He’s not capable of coming close to that. Sorry. I wish it were otherwise.

    He’s pretty good at fundraising. He got like $500,000 running for Governor and I think a “get Larry Sharpe in the Democratic debates” moneybomb would match that in about 9 hours.

    500k is chicken feed at the level you are talking about. I wish you were correct but you are simply not. It’s not close.

    There is no chance the Democrats are going to have an ideological filter after the shitstorm they just had with Bernie supporters.

    They will, It will just be adjusted to include Berniecrats.

Leave a Reply

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