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/.

204 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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