Weld Ditches Libertarians

Weld in 2014; Photo by Patrick Whittemore.

William Weld has officially ditched the Libertarian Party. On January 17th, it is reported that Weld went to his town clerk in Canton, Massachusetts, and registered Republican. Somewhat mroe detail is available at The Boston Herald.

181 thoughts on “Weld Ditches Libertarians

  1. Thomas Knapp

    Good riddance The LP trusted him twice and got screwed by him both times. Hopefully there won’t be a third attempt from him. If there is, hopefully the convention delegates won’t be of the “looks up if told that ‘gullible’ is written on the ceiling” variety this time.

  2. Krzysztof Lesiak

    This clears the way for an epic Kokesh-Vohra showdown. I’m looking forward to that.

    And by the way, just to be clear – Arvin Vohra is not alt-right. I don’t know if he’s been of accused of that on IPR, but he’s definitively not popular here, though one of the co-founders of the LP vouched for his libertarian credentials by endorsing him at NOLA 2018 during his reelection campaign. Vohra went on a white nationalist radio show a few months ago and also said “I’ll take a racist who opposes government schools over a public school teacher who endorses them any day. If I have to pick between racism and welfarism, I’ll pick racism in a second.”(h/t Wiki) – a statement a doubt any IPR libertarian would disagree with. But Vohra has no ties whatsoever with the dying alt-right, he’s a radical libertarian and men’s rights activist that rejects toxic chauvinism unfortunately quite prevelant in said movement.

    Do you know who else appeared on the Crying Nazi podcast on November 19th, 2018?

    Answer: Michael Badnarik, the 2004 presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party-
    https://christophercantwell.com/2018/11/19/radical-agenda-s04e047-michael-badnarik/

    (My opinion on the alt-right and the American white nationalist movement has evolved considerably in the last few months. I do want to take this brief interlude to condemn Andrew Anglin, the Daily Stormer, Cantwell, the Daily Shoah, Augustus “I want to party it up with Aleister Crowley” Invictus, Richard Spencer and the rest of the alt-right. They are trash. They are cancer, and they should move to San Fransisco, where Michael Savage could perhaps lend them one of his boats and they could float away to Fiji to study island plant life where they could leave the rest of the world alone. (David Duke is notably omitted from this list, because Duke is basically an anti-Israel version of Tucker Carlson, so they’re simply mainstream, Breitbart-tier, right-wing Republicans at this point).

    Back on track: All I want to say is that Vohra has zero ties with white nationalism, zero, zero, zero. Kokesh, however, is a fraud, manipulator, egomaniac, conman, and does not deserve to be taken seriously in his bid. Cantwell is an admitted federal informant; I wouldn’t be surprised if Kokesh is one as well.

    I also do want to say how Vohra seems to be the only prominent LP candidate who does not subscribe to
    the hero-worship of people who are hired by the state to go around the world arrainging premature afterlife appointments with (insert your preferred higher deity here). If worshiping cops is antithetical to libertarianism, why wouldn’t the worship of professional soldiers be as well?

    The #VohraVolcano is about to explode, spewing lava to all 50 state LP affiliates, and lead the LP to an incredible, principled general election campaign for the first time in years, even if Vohra underperforms Barr’s lackluster result. #Vohra2020

    PS: I don’t want to illicit negative emotions in anyone, and hopefully this will be the last time I comment on WN/alt-right in an IPR “submission.”

  3. wredlich Post author

    “This clears the way for an epic Kokesh-Vohra showdown.”

    I enjoy Kokesh but don’t think he’d be a good candidate. How about a Vohra-Redlich showdown? 🙂

  4. Thomas Knapp

    “If I have to pick between racism and welfarism, I’ll pick racism in a second.”(h/t Wiki) – a statement a doubt any IPR libertarian would disagree with.”

    Wrong.

    Welfarism is, in many cases, an error that at least has the potential to be cured by reasoned argument. Racism is half religion, half mental disease. Religious conversion and spontaneous remission are much more difficult to pull off than persuasion. So even stipulating to the propositions that the two evils are equally evil or that welfarism is more evil than racism (neither of which I do care to stipulate to), I’d rather have the potentially soluble problem than the likely insoluble one.

  5. dL

    Oh well, back to .05% of the vote. The purists win and everyone loses.

    Curious. What would 2% have won you? What exactly are you losing?

  6. Thane Eichenauer

    Tony From Long Island,
    I look forward to seeing what William Weld has done come two months from now. Was he really that persuasive/knowledgable/personable/charismatic that Libertarians should mourn his departure?

  7. Jim

    Krzysztof Lesiak “Kokesh, however, is a fraud, manipulator, egomaniac, conman, and does not deserve to be taken seriously in his bid. Cantwell is an admitted federal informant; I wouldn’t be surprised if Kokesh is one as well.”

    I don’t take either Kokesh or Vohra seriously in their bids. But Kokesh is clearly not a fraud. I am 100% positive that since 2007 or so the man has sacrificed more while attempting to advance liberty than you will in your entire life if you lived to be a thousand.

  8. Chuck Moulton

    Tony From Long Island wrote:

    Oh well, back to .05% of the vote. The purists win and everyone loses.

    Being charitable, I’ll assume you’re just really bad at math. But if you’re serious…

    If you’re a betting man, I’ll take the over. Even odds for any amount of money: the LP presidential nominee will get more than .05% of the popular vote for President of the United States in 2020. Let’s do this!

  9. Tony From Long Island

    What are you losing? Actual press coverage. Credibility. Word of mouth. Fundraising. New party members . . . . of course most LP members PREFER to have a tiny party that only the chosen few can join, so I guess you are losing nothing.

    Johnson received 3.28% of the vote and Weld is 100 times a better candidate.

  10. William t. Forrest

    I heard amash may run l.p. Among other crossovers that have been discussed, maybe Sharpe or Hewitt or ebke etc. May be more interested closer to nomination time . Of the declared candidates I would go for ruff or Supreme
    . Vohra is alt right even tho not white nationalist but forget that guy and kookesh. If redlich wants to run go for it. Weld will probably be back when he flunks out in gop. Just say no. If and when he does.

  11. dL

    Other than perhaps 1972, has an LP candidate ever received 0.05% of the vote or less?

    No. People often demonstrate a problem with math when chirping about libertarian irrelevance.

  12. Richard Winger

    DL, In the USA, mainstream media judges minor political parties by their presidential vote. It is a lazy way to evaluate such parties. The Libertarian Party has placed 3rd for president in 2012 and 2016, so the mainstream media accepts the idea that we are the leading non-major party in the country.

  13. dL

    DL, In the USA, mainstream media judges minor political parties by their presidential vote. It is a lazy way to evaluate such parties. The Libertarian Party has placed 3rd for president in 2012 and 2016, so the mainstream media accepts the idea that we are the leading non-major party in the country.

    Richard, money, not fractional voting percentages, is what will make media– mainstream, alternative, old, new, print, social, digital–take POTUS candidates and political parties seriously. And the “serious figure” is way, way north of Johnson/Weld’s 1.4 million. That’s the problem with thinking major party castoff impart “credibility.” You are only getting the man; you ain’t getting his wallet.

  14. dL

    What are you losing? Actual press coverage. Credibility. Word of mouth. Fundraising. New party members . . . . of course most LP members PREFER to have a tiny party that only the chosen few can join, so I guess you are losing nothing.

    Johnson received 3.28% of the vote and Weld is 100 times a better candidate.

    Mostly what would be lost is some relatively modest consultant campaign commissions for the few that will divvy up the million dollar or so budget. . The LP has had 50 state ballot access, or flirted with it, since the early 90s.

  15. Gina

    “Kokesh is clearly not a fraud. I am 100% positive that since 2007 or so the man has sacrificed more while attempting to advance liberty than you will in your entire life if you lived to be a thousand.”

    Treating this seriously for a second, what exactly has he sacrificed? He spent a few months and a few weekends and overnights in jail. In return he has earned moderate fame and makes a good living from his fanbase. He has upgraded the RV he travels around in now….what did he sacrifice?

  16. Anthony Dlugos

    Kokesh is not a fraud. He’s a huckster. Hucksters frequently believe their bull.

    Which would be fine…there are a lot of hucksters out there separating fools from their money.

    The problem is when he tries to attach his lunacy to the LP name.

  17. Anthony Dlugos

    “Richard, money, not fractional voting percentages, is what will make media– mainstream, alternative, old, new, print, social, digital–take POTUS candidates and political parties seriously. And the “serious figure” is way, way north of Johnson/Weld’s 1.4 million. That’s the problem with thinking major party castoff impart “credibility.” You are only getting the man; you ain’t getting his wallet.”

    Fine. Who is available that is not a major party castoff that can attract that serious figure? I’m all ears.

  18. Anthony Dlugos

    “Good riddance The LP trusted him twice and got screwed by him both times.”

    How’d we get screwed? Was he supposed to swear a blood oath to a cult?

    A company that hires someone to do a job is not “screwed” if that person later leaves. There was an exchange of money for services. The only stupid thing would be for the company to demand undying loyalty before they hired an otherwise qualified person.

    I’m being told we came out of the 2016 presidential campaign further ahead in terms of ballot access than we ever have. If Governor Weld played no part in that, then he didn’t screw us. If he screwed us, then that seems to be a tacit admission that he played some part in that.

  19. Anthony Dlugos

    What’s in the wide world of sports is a-goin’ on here?

    I’m known as a Weld sycophant. Of the announced or rumored candidates, I would still vote for him in 2020.

    Why are people who would string him up and batter him with the stone tablets upon which the god Libertarios wrote the holy scriptures of the NAP and the SoP telling me here and on social media we got screwed? They never liked him anyway.

    If anyone should be feeling screwed, it should be someone like me.

    Please help.

  20. Florida Man Larry

    The People for Bill Weld say this makes Vermin Supreme the presumptive nominee.

  21. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Working just from memory, I think Browne and Badnerik’s three runs (1996, 2000, 2004) hovered in the 0.4 to 0.5% range.

  22. dL

    Why are people who would string him up and batter him with the stone tablets upon which the god Libertarios wrote the holy scriptures of the NAP and the SoP telling me here and on social media we got screwed? They never liked him anyway.

    Are the rock throwers at the Boston Globe and Boston Herald Non Aggression Principle dogmatists and Statement of principles aficionados? Would anyone at said news outlets have any idea of what the fuck you were referring to if you tried to stick them with a WhatBout Darry W Perry schtick?

  23. dL

    Fine. Who is available that is not a major party castoff that can attract that serious figure? I’m all ears.

    Yeah, well so am I. I imagine anyone with a wallet fat enough to be a “serious” POTUS candidate doesn’t need the Libertarian Party.

  24. Anthony Dlugos

    A) Darryl Perry should have resigned his membership in the Libertarian Party if he was going to run against the properly chosen 2016 ticket. The fact that he did not tells me a lot about his (lack) of a sense of honor.

    Note that Weld did indeed switch parties prior to (apparently) deciding to take on Trump for the 2020 GOP nomination. Propriety dictates that, at the point you even start considering it, you should officially switch your allegiance.

    B) Criticizing Weld (or any party switcher) as someone with no True North or a flip-flopper is fair. The specific criticism is the criticism of an actual party member saying Governor Weld screwed US. That’s not fair. Both things (that he is a party flip-flopper AND that he helped the LP) could be true. And I argue that they are.

  25. dL

    The specific criticism is the criticism of an actual party member saying Governor Weld screwed US. That’s not fair.

    There is no such standard as “fair” in politics or life. caveat emptor….

  26. Jim

    Gina “Treating this seriously for a second, what exactly has he sacrificed? He spent a few months and a few weekends and overnights in jail. In return he has earned moderate fame and makes a good living from his fanbase. He has upgraded the RV he travels around in now….what did he sacrifice?”

    Kokesh has taken a ridiculous amount of time out of his life to participate in numerous civil disobedience protests (a dozen + incidents resulting in arrest, with several months prison time) and spreading the word of liberty through speeches, tv, radio, and books. And just like Matthew McConaughey, he was doing that stuff long before anyone paid him to. And I have no doubt he would continue if they stopped paying him. (For the record, I have never sent him a dime and I don’t even recall interacting with him back when we were both active on ronpaulforums.)

    If all Kokesh ever managed to do was disrupt John McCain’s coronation at the 2008 Republican Convention, he did more than Krzysztof Lesiak ever will.

    One might argue that his activism is counterproductive and his politics misguided. I don’t agree, but I can see the argument. But calling him a fraud, conman, huckster, or questioning whether he has sacrificed anything? Whatever you people combined have accomplished in pursuit of liberty, compared to Kokesh you’re no better than part time keyboard warriors, hiding safely behind computer screens.

  27. Tony From Long Island

    Do, being on 50 ballots doesnt really mean anything when no one knows your candidate or votes for them.

  28. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Correct, “screwed” isn’t accurate. “Turncoat” could be. For those invested in the sanctity of the High Holy NAP, I can imagine that they don’t see the difference. Any deviation from the dogma is a threat to their worldview/construct.

    WW was probably on the lazy side when he got the L nomination for NY guv. I have reason to believe that he was unaware of the LP platform plank calling for the immediate repeal of drug legalization. I think he thought that the LP was kinda like Cato. In some ways, I feel personally responsible, since I was at the meeting where the LPNY approached him and I did most of the talking. I didn’t give him a heads up that the LP is an extremist organization, in part because at the time I was attempting to de-fringe the LP.

    His candidacy got the LPNY a LOT of press. That he reneged on staying on in the race is regrettable, but I’d say understandable.

    If he goes back to the Rs to take potshots at Trump, that too is regrettable but understandable. Does he really want to be showered with more Perry-spit?

  29. Eric Sundwall

    Weld has nothing better to do and no good reason not to challenge DJT. I’d recommend Redlich do the same, that is . . . register GOP and posture in NH. Steal the mailing lists and donors and run LP. So glad I’m a Social Justice Warrior now . . .

  30. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    Nice anecdote.

    I wouldn’t beat yourself up about it too much! Governor Weld is an adult, he coulda had some recon work done to discover just how dogmatic the party is.

    But, yea, it may have been more of a personal favor to GovJohnson more than anything that caused him to accept the vp nomination.

    Besides, even if Weld does take on Trump in the GOP 2020 nomination fight, its possible it could redound to the LP’s favor. Maybe the angry white males that the GOP has becomes going after Weld full-throated style will cause the most libertarianing leaning of the republicans to throw their hands up and say, “this party is hopeless” and come our way.

    In that case, your efforts may have ultimately been worth it.

  31. Chuck Moulton

    I don’t see why Dlugos and Capozzi keep ranting about the NAP. This has nothing to do with the NAP.

    Weld has twice lied.

    1) he said he would run LP for governor of NY (in 2006?) even if he didn’t get the GOP nomination

    2) he said at the 2016 nominating comvention that he was a big-L Libertarian “for life”

    In both cases he would not have gotten the nominations without those statements. In both cases the statements were recorded and are demonstronable facts. In both cases he reneged on his promises.

    He’s a liar. And he lies for personal gain. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the NAP.

    He has no credibility left. If anyone ever trusts anything he says at this point, then he is a fool. If any voter ever nominates him for any office at this point, then he is a fool. It’s as simple as that.

  32. robert capozzi

    CM,

    Thanks for the feedback. Here’s why NAPism and the possible turncoating of WW is relevant. He considers himself a libertarian, but he likely wasn’t aware of just how strange and other-worldly NAPism is. His guv run in NY was probably a net positive for the LPNY, but it obviously also set them back.

    He explained his reasons for bowing out. I’m not thrilled with those reasons.

    If he turncoats again, again, I’m not thrilled with it. Overall, he did a great job in 16, but as we all do, his performance could have been better. If these reports are correct, he’s been toying with 20 as an L, and he’s probably finding just how deep the NAP rabbit hole goes. How many Mad Hatters does he have to encounter to realize, hmm, this is not a viable vehicle for what I want to do, e.g., destroy DJT? Would he have to endure both Perry spitting on him and Weeks stripping and streaking the stage when he speaks? He’s been testing the waters, and the NAPist venom is just starting to peak.

    And, btw, news flash for you, Chuck: Everyone is a liar. If you’ve NEVER lied, you are truly a unique individual, even more unique than I’d previously assessed.

    What’s more relevant, Counselor, is his mens rea at the time. Did he plan at the time to stay with the LP in NY? Probably I’d say Yes, but he thought he had the R nomination, too. Did he plan at the time to remain an L for life? Very possibly yes.

    New information came in. He changed his mind in the first case and possibly recently. NAPists tend to find such adjustments as weakness. For me, it’s a strength.

    Were I advising him (which I’m not), I’d say he shouldn’t pursue the L nomination IF the threat of losing to Vohra or Kokesh is too big of a risk. THAT would be profoundly humiliating. OTOH, I’d advise against running against DJT for the R nomination. Too many flip flops, and he’s just not the right guy to do it as an R, given his recent history. I’d suggest fading into the woodwork, and maybe advising a Ben Sasse on the DL might make more sense to me.

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    +1 on that post.

    Such rational equanimity is, and has been, in short supply in the LP, as you know.

    “And, btw, news flash for you, Chuck: Everyone is a liar. If you’ve NEVER lied, you are truly a unique individual, even more unique than I’d previously assessed.”

    Bingo.

    Chuck is right after all. This has nothing to do with the NAP.

    Neither did the Mosaic Law punishment of stoning have anything to do with why the Pharisees brought the adulteress to Jesus (see John 7:53-8:11).

    But Jesus knew what was in those pharisees hearts. Or, what wasn’t there, to be more precise. Thus, the brilliance of his answer:

    “So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

    It is periodically comical for me when I consider the reality that, were the pharisees of LP ever actually granted authority in this earthly realm, their reign would devolve into the same sort of tyranny that has marked every utopian ideology.

  34. Thomas Knapp

    —–
    “Good riddance The LP trusted him twice and got screwed by him both times.”

    How’d we get screwed? Was he supposed to swear a blood oath to a cult?
    —–

    No. He was just supposed to keep his word.

    In 2006, the LPNY trusted him when he promised them that he would run as their gubernatorial nominee even if he didn’t get the GOP nomination. So instead of nominating someone else, they nominated him. And he broke his word as soon as he got the nomination.

    In 2016, the LP national convention trusted him when he told them his views on gun rights had changed (even though moments later he was assuring CNN they hand’t). Then he went out and campaigned not just against gun rights, but against due process rights and for secret government enemies lists.

    The single overriding factor when considering Bill Weld always has to be that he’s a lying sack of crap who can’t be trusted to do what he promises to do.

  35. Anthony Dlugos

    “No. He was just supposed to keep his word.

    In 2006, the LPNY trusted him when he promised them that he would run as their gubernatorial nominee even if he didn’t get the GOP nomination. So instead of nominating someone else, they nominated him. And he broke his word as soon as he got the nomination.”

    Fair enough.

    Back when I had my collections business, I had occasion to consider hiring my first employee (another collector).

    Guy came in who had more experience than me in collections. He was way more qualified than what I could pay, which would have amounted to maybe 2/3rds of the low end of the range for collectors.

    Bottom line is, I would have hired him in a New York minute (I never got around to hiring him). There was no point in me asking him if he was going to stick around, because there was no way I could keep him. The minute he got another offer, it was going to be much higher than what I could pay him (and included benefits).

    Asking him for some sort of loyalty pledge would have been ridiculous. Any amount of time he spent with me would have been worth it. Why bother asking? Even if he didn’t show up the first day after promising to, and never called me, there would have been value in him telling his circle of friends with experience that there is a guy hiring, and he’s not a lunatic asking for a blood oath.

    What else could I do? I needed him WAY more than he needed me, if long term success for my business was important. Had to put the ego aside.

    That’s how I feel about Weld.

  36. Gina

    Kokesh has taken a ridiculous amount of time out of his life to participate in numerous civil disobedience protests (a dozen + incidents resulting in arrest, with several months prison time) and spreading the word of liberty through speeches, tv, radio, and books. And just like Matthew McConaughey, he was doing that stuff long before anyone paid him to. And I have no doubt he would continue if they stopped paying him. (For the record, I have never sent him a dime and I don’t even recall interacting with him back when we were both active on ronpaulforums.)

    Time out from what life? What was he doing before that he is taking time off from? He was in the military. What else has he done? Books, speeches, radio and TV/video, running for office that he isn’t going to win. Anything else? That’s pretty much it as far as I know. This is how he makes his living. Getting arrested is part and parcel of that and it boosts his income a great deal each time he does. His short stays in city and county jails have been highly profitable for him directly and indirectly.

    If all Kokesh ever managed to do was disrupt John McCain’s coronation at the 2008 Republican Convention, he did more than Krzysztof Lesiak ever will.

    I have no idea what Lesiak will do with the rest of his life, and neither do you. All I know about Lesiak is what I have read here. As far as I know he is a young man in his early 20s who has had some struggles with drug abuse, mental illness, dating/relationships, family, homelessness, religious and political views, education and work/business/career. That’s not very unusual at that time in life. He seems to be intelligent and capable but troubled.

    One might argue that his activism is counterproductive and his politics misguided. I don’t agree, but I can see the argument. But calling him a fraud, conman, huckster, or questioning whether he has sacrificed anything? Whatever you people combined have accomplished in pursuit of liberty, compared to Kokesh you’re no better than part time keyboard warriors, hiding safely behind computer screens.

    I don’t think you have any clue whatsoever what myself or many other people here do, nor is it necessarily any of your business. All you know is words on a screen and that may be all you need to know but you seem quick to draw a lot of conclusions from a blank. Kokesh on the other hand chooses to be a public person and criticism of his actions is part of the price for making that choice.

    That includes taking a look not only at his political statements but also how he treats people he is dating, people who travel with him and work on his campaigns, donors/supporters, people he gets into disagreements with and allegedly has doxxed by hackers, his self-admitted authoritarian personality problem, accusations of sexual intimidation, arrogant attitude towards people who want to ask him questions he may not be completely comfortable with, suspicions he may be an agent or informant of some sort, and so on.

    Likewise, it’s assuming a great deal on your part to presume who is hiding safely behind computer screens and who has sacrificed what. You literally have no idea who you are talking to, and even if you did, it would be presuming a great deal to think that you know everything there is to know about that person. And the same holds true of people you think you know a great deal about. There may be other sides to these people that you just are not aware of. So when someone you think you know a lot about is accused of being a con artist, huckster etc, it’s possible that the accuser is blowing smoke. Or it may be that the person they are accusing is indeed these things and you just don’t know it. It’s not something that can be determined from political rhetoric alone, no matter how good or bad such rhetoric may be.

  37. Anthony Dlugos

    “…Kokesh on the other hand chooses to be a public person and criticism of his actions is part of the price for making that choice.”

    Bingo. Once he decides to run for office, he ceases being a civilian. He’s fair game, and can no longer claim the mantle he’s claiming, one of opposition to force.

    What makes it more problematic in this case is that he is promising to abolish the government since government is force…by running for an office that is paid by force and uses force, an office bestowed upon the winner of an election funded by force.. Doesn’t matter what he promises to abolish, his own ethics are already compromised.

    Its like a prostitute offering her services to men who are looking for a vestal virgin. You’re a prostitute the minute you make the offer. Get over it.

    “That includes taking a look not only at his political statements but also how he treats people he is dating, people who travel with him and work on his campaigns, donors/supporters, people he gets into disagreements with and allegedly has doxxed by hackers, his self-admitted authoritarian personality problem, accusations of sexual intimidation, arrogant attitude towards people who want to ask him questions he may not be completely comfortable with…”

    Actually, that other stuff is even more important than his political statements. Let’s us know if we can even trust him in the first place. Libertarians frequently get that exactly backwards.

  38. Gina

    “What are you losing? Actual press coverage. Credibility. Word of mouth. Fundraising. New party members . . . . of course most LP members PREFER to have a tiny party that only the chosen few can join, so I guess you are losing nothing.”

    Press coverage for what though? Gun bans? Endorsing Bush, Romney and Clinton, et al? Supporting government watch lists, extrajudicial imprisonment and wars overseas?

    Credibility? Weld has zero credibility as a person who changes parties more often than underwear, lies even more than the average politician, breaks promises left and right, and represents an establishment political class that even the establishment parties are increasingly rejecting.

    Who are these new party members and what are they doing for the party? 2016 provided a small bump in paid membership which did not last very long, and not much in the way of new much less sustained party activity. The same can be said of fundraising.

    Weld a better candidate than Johnson? Well, smoother for sure, and somewhat better connected. But on the other hand Johnson hasn’t taken quite as many turns through the party revolving door as Weld, at least yet. And Johnson has legitimate accomplishments as a self made businessman and athlete/adventurer. Recently he rescued a stranded skier; has Weld ever done anything like that? Weld, to my knowledge, has spent his entire career either feeding at the public trough or selling his ability to direct who can feed the most from it, leaving a giant slithering trail of public lies and broken promises the entire way.

    It’s not that we want the party to remain small. It’s that we want it to stand for something regardless of how big or small it is. Something specific, and that means not becoming either the temporary home for disgruntled tea party Republicans nor the temporary home for disgruntled country club establishment Republicans. Neither one represents a fulfillment of the party’s reason for existing even if they do slightly bump vote totals, press coverage, membership and fundraising (not nearly as much as you imply, but even a much larger boost in those would still not be worth abandoning the party’s core mission). If ideology is not relevant, why not just *be* a Democrat or Republican? They get plenty of votes, press coverage and money, after all.

  39. Gina

    “Kokesh is not a fraud. He’s a huckster. Hucksters frequently believe their bull.”

    I am not aware of this taxonomy, but taking it as a given, I still have no idea whether he is a true believer or not. I doubt you or anyone else can know that either, unless he actually is an agent or informant, in which case only a very few people would know.

  40. Gina

    “Fine. Who is available that is not a major party castoff that can attract that serious figure? I’m all ears.”

    There are lots of possibilities including some who have been discussed as potential candidates, some who no one (and possibly not even they themselves) are considering at this point, and some who can self-fund or have the name recognition to attract serious donations. It’s far too early to be throwing our hands up and saying we have no other choices. Even a year from now will be too early for that.

  41. Gina

    “telling me here and on social media we got screwed? They never liked him anyway.”

    He was trusted with the nomination both for Governor and VP on the basis of his lies. Had he not made those lies he wouldn’t have been nominated either time. In the case of his aborted governor’s race the screw job was in causing the party to have to scramble to make up for lost time with his replacement. In the case of VP, we are now tarred with being associated with his gun rights record, his vouching for Hillary Clinton, and so on. This association will continue to tar the LP even after he has left. If he comes back and gets nominated by the LP after yet more lies we get furthered tarred as a junior league Republican farm team operation and at the same time tarred even more by his duplicity and whatever other moves he makes afterwards. Why pick up a venomous snake when you know what he is?

  42. Gina

    “Working just from memory, I think Browne and Badnerik’s three runs (1996, 2000, 2004) hovered in the 0.4 to 0.5% range.”

    Every presidential run from 1984 to 2008 was in the 0.3 to 0.5% range. 1980 and 2012 were right at around 1%. 2016 was around 3%. 1976 and especially 1972 were lower because the party was still not on the ballot in most states (only two states in 1972) and because it did not have much name recognition at that point.

  43. Gina

    “So far I’ve got one vote.

    Thanks Freeman.”

    Too early to cast support but I would certainly consider it if you seriously do run. The present field is rather lacking and there’s no telling who will end up jumping in.

  44. paulie

    If these reports are correct, he’s been toying with 20 as an L, and he’s probably finding just how deep the NAP rabbit hole goes. How many Mad Hatters does he have to encounter to realize, hmm, this is not a viable vehicle for what I want to do, e.g., destroy DJT?

    I don’t think that’s the reason. His reasons for deciding against an LP run probably have more to do with Justin Amash, Howard Schultz and others than with anyone active in the LP right now. I won’t be surprised if he comes back to the LP again, but I also won’t be surprised if he will not.

  45. paulie

    Everyone is a liar. If you’ve NEVER lied, you are truly a unique individual, even more unique than I’d previously assessed.

    Some liars lie more than others. Some cheaters cheat more than others. It’s been amply proven that Weld’s word and promises are worthless. The only other thing to judge him on his governing record, and that doesn’t show any indication of a major departure from Demopublican norms.

    I’d say he shouldn’t pursue the L nomination IF the threat of losing to Vohra or Kokesh is too big of a risk. THAT would be profoundly humiliating. OTOH, I’d advise against running against DJT for the R nomination. Too many flip flops, and he’s just not the right guy to do it as an R, given his recent history. I’d suggest fading into the woodwork,…

    Agreed on all counts on that part.

  46. paulie

    Weld has nothing better to do and no good reason not to challenge DJT. I’d recommend Redlich do the same, that is . . . register GOP and posture in NH. Steal the mailing lists and donors and run LP.

    Weld is at least a former governor, even if it was a generation ago. Redlich is a former town official and former alt party gubernatorial candidate. Both have been disloyal to Republicans. Neither of them would get much in the way of any mailing lists or donors to “steal” in NH. Weld may do about as well as Johnson in the Republican primaries for president; Redlich would come in behind Vermin Supreme even if Redlich is on the ballot and Supreme is a write-in. Then he would come back to the LP with a recent party switcher brush (over and above his voter registration and service on party committees, of which I am aware; running for public office with a party is a separate question) and basically nothing to show for it.

    My advice is if considering the LP nomination run – don’t foray further into any other parties first.

  47. paulie

    I think he thought that the LP was kinda like Cato.

    And still thought that last month? I don’t believe that. There was an LP in Mass in the 1990s. He wasn’t ignorant.

  48. Anthony Dlugos

    “And still thought that last month? I don’t believe that. There was an LP in Mass in the 1990s. He wasn’t ignorant.”

    Which does indeed take any responsibility away from RC.

    It is possible GovWeld was just not aware of how dogmatic the party is.

  49. Anthony Dlugos

    “Who are these new party members and what are they doing for the party? 2016 provided a small bump in paid membership which did not last very long, and not much in the way of new much less sustained party activity. The same can be said of fundraising.”

    What other option did we have in 2016 for the V.P. nominee? None.

    As I said before, we came out of the 2016 campaign further ahead ballot access-wise than we ever had? No offense, but was it plausible to believe Will Coley was going to help make that happen?

  50. paulie

    It is possible GovWeld was just not aware of how dogmatic the party is.

    LOL. He’s aware. Even if he wasn’t aware well before 2006, and I think he was. He would be well aware in 2018.

  51. Anthony Dlugos

    I still have no idea whether he is a true believer or not. [Kokesh]

    He’s not a true believer. He’s running for office. ipso facto, he’s not a true believer.

    I get the principled anarchist/Voluntaryist/agorist stand. That MUST include voting and especially running for office.

  52. paulie

    People like Weld are not likely to be surprised by extremists in the LP nor to be all that worried we would beat them if they make a serious effort. It’s a lot more plausible that he was scared of having someone like Amash or Byrne jump in and potentially beat him for the nomination, or of getting it and having Howard Schultz and perhaps others get all the non-duopolist running for president attention that he was hoping to get as the LP nominee. It’s also possible he will be back in the LP anyway, after he predictably makes little splash in the Republican primary.

  53. paulie

    He’s not a true believer. He’s running for office. ipso facto, he’s not a true believer.

    He’s running for office to abolish it so I disagree.

    I get the principled anarchist/Voluntaryist/agorist stand. That MUST include voting and especially running for office.

    Not necessarily. Some of us see it as self-defense.

  54. Anthony Dlugos

    “In the case of VP, we are now tarred with being associated with his gun rights record, his vouching for Hillary Clinton, and so on. This association will continue to tar the LP even after he has left.”

    Better than being tarred with coffee house debates about whether or not private nukes are allowable.

    Better than vouching for Trump (something a lot of Libertarians did).

    “This association will continue to tar the LP even after he has left.”

    Oh, get over your bad self. You can call him a turncoat, but turncoats are common in politics. The only people who think he has “tarred” the party are the fringe of the fringe of the dogmatics already in the party.

  55. paulie

    coffee house debates about whether or not private nukes are allowable.

    That’s a Capozzi special, and even if it wasn’t, we can disagree with which is worse if anything.

    Better than vouching for Trump (something a lot of Libertarians did).

    I’m sure it will come to you as no surprise I’m not a fan of that either.

    The only people who think he has “tarred” the party are the fringe of the fringe of the dogmatics already in the party.

    Incorrect. Many people not already in the party think less of us because of the Weld association. Try representing the LP at a gun show or a libertarian movement conference or carrying a ballot access petition to the general public for a non-trivial amount of time.

  56. Anthony Dlugos

    “He’s running for office to abolish it so I disagree.”

    lol.

    He’s either not a true believer (and just a huckster) or completely delusional.

    “Not necessarily. Some of us see it as self-defense.”

    Sorry, I don’t see it that way. Funny how the one item he makes an exception for (running for the Presidency) is the one item that would personally benefit himself (the platform to sell his snake oil).

    I admire principled voluntaryists. They got a stronger ethical sense than I do. But the voluntaryist who runs for office? Not buying it.

  57. paulie

    He’s either not a true believer (and just a huckster) or completely delusional.

    He may be either or both of those things but neither is a necessary consequence of running for office on the stated platform of abolishing it. It’s actually been done at the local level and while it is, shall we say, very unlikely that a presidential candidate can pull it off, he or she can raise public discussion of the question and help pave the way for a time when such a discussion could become seriously plausible. Many ideas that ended up being enacted started as extreme proposals by fringe candidates which few people took seriously.

    Sorry, I don’t see it that way.

    I never claimed that everyone sees it that way, only that some people do.

    Funny how the one item he makes an exception for (running for the Presidency) is the one item that would personally benefit himself (the platform to sell his snake oil).

    There are lots of platforms to use such as blogs, podcasts, radio and TV shows, hell televangelism for that matter. Selling snake oil does not have to involve running for anything, although it can.

  58. dL

    I admire principled voluntaryists. They got a stronger ethical sense than I do. But the voluntaryist who runs for office? Not buying it.

    Fine. That has nothing to do with William Weld. This Darryl W Perry whataboutism really gets old.

  59. paulie

    Fine. That has nothing to do with William Weld. This Darryl W Perry whataboutism really gets old.

    Kokesh in this case, but same difference. Weld’s actions are not in any way excused by Perry’s, or McAfee’s, or Kokesh’s, Vohra’s, etc. Vouching for Clinton isn’t any more OK because of “Libertarians for Trump.” Being a gun grabber and a defender of the “no fly list” (among other things) are no more OK because some libertarians have tied themselves in knots trying to appeal to far right nationalists on immigration and abortion.

  60. robert capozzi

    pf: LOL. He’s aware [of NAPism]. Even if he wasn’t aware well before 2006, and I think he was. He would be well aware in 2018.

    me: Actually, I’d say it’s very possible that he is aware that the LP is extremist, but not just how dogmatic NAPism is. This may sound condescending, but as a NAPist — albeit a Low NAPist — you may lack the frame of reference for this to click for you. I’m not questioning your intellect, because I find it to be very impressive.

    This is more of a Plato’s Cave sorta thing.

    Once one reprograms one’s mind and rids the NAP binary way of thinking, one perceives things quite differently.

    In my experience, NAPists are kind of like Marxists and Scientologists I’ve met along the way. Sometimes, they can seem very bright and know how to conduct themselves appropriately. Once unmasked, however, they fall back on robot-like premises and extrapolations on those premises. Their blinders at once give them a certain strength (devotion) but also weakness (inability to adapt).

  61. robert capozzi

    pf: Some liars lie more than others. Some cheaters cheat more than others. It’s been amply proven that Weld’s word and promises are worthless. The only other thing to judge him on his governing record, and that doesn’t show any indication of a major departure from Demopublican norms.

    me: Excellent out-of-Plato’s-Cave thinking here!

    Personally, I highly value personal integrity, honesty, and transparency. In many ways, I find it a highly liberating way to be for myself, and attractive when I see it in others. Then again, I have very little agenda at this stage of the insubstantial pageant, other than playing NAP skeptic on obscure, frequently malfunctioning websites.

    Super smarties like WW can be victims of their own superior intellects. It’s great for them that they can synthesize and calibrate rapidly, but sometimes that ability comes across as insincere. On an emotional level, onlookers label this “dishonest.”

    By way of contrast, RP1 positioned himself as an anti-politician politician, and that was attractive to many. “I may not agree with him on everything, but he’s honest, and I like that” kinda thing. Most unfortunately, RP1 had some skeletons in his closet, particularly radioactive skeletons at that. And he was surrounded by sycophants who thought they could stonewall on Newslettergate 1.0 and 2.0. I suspect no one at that table was willing to defer to the truth, come what may.

  62. dL

    Kokesh in this case, but same difference.

    Darryl W Perry whataboutism is a generic name substitution for Non Aggression Principle whataboutism because I refuse to use obscure terms invented by a troll that the great majority people outside of this forum would associate with a daytime sleep fetish.

  63. dL

    This may sound condescending

    It doesn’t sound condescending. It is condescending. And wrong. Frankel is not a binary thinker. The binary thinker would be you. You claim to be a directional thinker, but directional thinkers wouldn’t try to turn every single post on this forum into a personal vendetta against the Non Aggression Principle.

  64. Anthony Dlugos

    “Being a gun grabber and a defender of the “no fly list” (among other things) are no more OK because some libertarians have tied themselves in knots trying to appeal to far right nationalists on immigration and abortion.”

    The only universes in which Governor Weld would be considered a “gun grabber” would be in the survivalist (typically white nationalist) camp, and the fringe of the fringe of the Libertarian Party.

    re: defender of no-fly list.

    I am sure political messaging is deceptively easy when you fall back on dogma, but as Emerson pointed out,

    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.”

    Was a no-fly list the right answer, in the post 9/11 environment? Maybe not. But it WAS an answer.

    What should Governor Weld have said? That the free market could handle airport security, post 9/11? That is a useless, Utopian non-answer. How does that help the people flying on September 12? It does not.

  65. Thomas Knapp

    “That the free market could handle airport security, post 9/11? That is a useless, Utopian non-answer.”

    I’ve heard people call San Francisco utopian before, but not in the context of their airport security screening procedures (which are handled by private contractors, not the government).

  66. dL

    What should Governor Weld have said? That the free market could handle airport security, post 9/11? That is a useless, Utopian non-answer. How does that help the people flying on September 12? It does not.

    No, it would be more along the lines of:

    “As a defender of liberty and a staunch anti-communist , I categorically reject the post 9-11 world trope that governments should control (1) who can go where (2) who can enter public buildings (3) who has the right to self-defense (4) secret government lists (5) secret government police powers (6) secret government prisons (7) mass surveillance. Let me also take this opportunity to disavowal any association with any so-called supporters–and apparently there are at least two out there–who advocate for the deportation of any immigrant caught in a public high school and equate the right to self-defense with ownership of private nukes. I have no truck with that authoritarian nonsense.”

  67. paulie

    Actually, I’d say it’s very possible that he is aware that the LP is extremist, but not just how dogmatic

    Nonsense. He ran against Libertarians as a Republican, did he not? Even if not, he knew other Republicans who did. He has been talking to lots of Libertarians since 2016, certainly. This line is just not credible, nor is it all that relevant. He did not make his decision to switch parties until after the 2018 election, by which time he had plenty of time to become acquainted with exactly how dogmatic we are. What changed his mind is much more likely to have been 2018 election results, Amash’s possible entry into the LP race and Schultz’s likely independent candidacy. Not the LP’s extremism which is certainly not news to him now even in the unlikely case that it was in 2006.

  68. paulie

    Super smarties like WW can be victims of their own superior intellects. It’s great for them that they can synthesize and calibrate rapidly, but sometimes that ability comes across as insincere. On an emotional level, onlookers label this “dishonest.”

    So he’s actually honest and yet just blatantly lies all the time? Maybe I’m just not smart enough to understand how that can be.

  69. paulie

    Darryl W Perry whataboutism is a generic name substitution for Non Aggression Principle whataboutism because I refuse to use obscure terms invented by a troll that the great majority people outside of this forum would associate with a daytime sleep fetish.

    So one kind of obscure jargon to substitute for another kind?

  70. paulie

    It doesn’t sound condescending. It is condescending. And wrong.

    Thanks, but it doesn’t bother me in the least, LOL.

    Frankel is not a binary thinker.

    I’m like everyone else – binary or blinded at times, big picture at others.

    You claim to be a directional thinker, but directional thinkers wouldn’t try to turn every single post on this forum into a personal vendetta against the Non Aggression Principle.

    Good point.

  71. paulie

    The only universes in which Governor Weld would be considered a “gun grabber” would be in the survivalist (typically white nationalist) camp, and the fringe of the fringe of the Libertarian Party.

    Also most of the Republican Party, a fair chunk of Democrats, socialists and greens, and many – perhaps most – independents. Let’s see how his gun position plays in Republican primaries. No doubt you’ll blame that on white nationalism.

    What should Governor Weld have said? That the free market could handle airport security, post 9/11? That is a useless, Utopian non-answer.

    No, it’s not. And he wasn’t just talking about airport security but about using the secret and arbitrary no fly list to deny people gun rights.

  72. dL

    So one kind of obscure jargon to substitute for another kind?

    The proper jargon term is libertarian, notwithstanding the efforts of some to make that term synonymous with building border walls or supporting secret government lists. If I ever mutter “Darryl W Perry whataboutism” outside of mocking Dlugos or Capozzi, shoot me.

  73. Gene Berkman

    ” He ran against Libertarians as a Republican, did he not?”
    Just as a point of information, a Libertarian was on the ballot for Governor of Massachusetts in 1994, when
    Gov. Weld ran for re-election.

    Weld had no Libertarian opponent in 1990 when he was elected Governor, and no Libertarian was on the
    ballot in 1996 when Weld was the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.

    Just FYI.

  74. paulie

    So, he did run against at least one Libertarian in the 1990s, when we were more extreme than we are now. I’m sure he knew plenty of other Republicans who ran against plenty of other libertarians. But if that wasn’t enough there’s still the fact that he has had plenty of opportunity to interact with LP activists since 2016. I don’t believe he just made the determination that we are too extreme in the last month or two. Nothing changed that recently on that front, while other things did – 2018 results, Amash talking about entering the LP race and Schultz talking about running as an independent.

  75. paulie

    http://ballot-access.org/2006/06/06/weld-drops-out-of-ny-gop-primary/ from comments

    Carla Howell on June 6, 2006 at 12:22 pm said:

    The bigger question is: Why would you want him? Bill Weld is Big Government. He proved that when he was governor of Massachusetts.

    You might want to start scrutinizing RECORDS IN OFFICE the next time you nominate someone.

    If that’s too much trouble (it can be hard to find a person’s record, I know), just pick up the phone and call a few libertarians in Massachusetts. They’d have given you enough to know he’s solidly BIG GOVERNMENT.

    Is he slightly less Big Government than some others? Yes. Every Big Government politician is less Big Government than some other Big Government politician. Every drug addict does fewer drugs than some other drug addict. Every tyrant is less tyrannical than some other tyrant. So what?

    If we don’t start voting ONLY for small government candidates, we can never make headway. We’re playing their game, and they’ve got us just where they want us: confined to a Big Government box.

    We need to get outside the box and vote, propose, and run candidates on small government.

    Whether they propose big, bold steps toward small government a la Harry Browne (preferred) or small, gradual steps toward small government (acceptable) – at least make sure they’ve boarded the train in the right direction, not the wrong direction. Make sure they will move us in the direction of small government, not take us backwards.

    If you agree, I invite you to look at our Small Government Pledge. If it’s what you want, please join us and sign it: http://www.centerforsmallgovernment.com/

    small government is beautiful,
    Carla Howell
    President, Center For Small Government
    Sponsor, 2002 Massachusetts Ballot Initiative to End the State Income Tax (almost won – 45.3% of the vote)
    2000 candidate for U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy (won 12% of vote in 3-way)
    George Phillies on June 6, 2006 at 12:23 pm said:

    This is what happens when you nominate a celebrity. Other outcomes, notably that the celebrity returns out to have many antilibertarian stands, are even worse.

    Look, this guy quit as governor half way through a term. What was expected?
    George Phillies on June 6, 2006 at 12:25 pm said:

    On this point, I agree with Carla Howell. The gentleman did have a record as Governor of Massachusetts, and we did have a good Libertarian run against him, because Weld is no libertarian.

    And at the time Gene Berkman wrote in part

    Gene Berkman on June 6, 2006 at 4:33 pm said:

    I have watched Bill Weld’s career for some time, and sure he is not a libertarian.

    Mr. Berkman’s comment at the time is more positive when read in whole.

  76. Anthony Dlugos

    “If we don’t start voting ONLY for small government candidates, we can never make headway.”

    “If we don’t start voting for ONLY for no government candidates, we can never make headway.”

    Fixed, you’re welcome.

  77. Anthony Dlugos

    “We need to get outside the box and vote, propose, and run candidates on small government.”

    Go ahead, no one is stopping Carla and the “Never Weld” Caucus from running whoever they want to run for any office anywhere in this country, up to and including the presidency.

    Its not the party’s problem if a candidate that fits her criteria ends up being catastrophically unqualified and gets creamed at a nominating convention by someone with more experience. If the Carla-approved candidate can’t work in that room, how can it work in the larger society?

  78. paulie

    “If we don’t start voting ONLY for small government candidates, we can never make headway.”

    “If we don’t start voting for ONLY for no government candidates, we can never make headway.”

    Fixed, you’re welcome.

    You’d have to ask Carla if that is what she meant. I’m pretty sure it was and is not.

  79. paulie

    Harry Browne’s .5% in 1996, then .4% in 2000 is headway?

    Real headway isn’t measured in the results of one candidate in one or two cycles. It accrues to hundreds of candidates up and down the ballot, state and town committees, and people brought into a party and movement that chips away at the statist quo over decades.

  80. Anthony Dlugos

    “You’d have to ask Carla if that is what she meant. I’m pretty sure it was and is not.”

    I’d like to ask Carla what she thinks government SHOULD do, and then ask the voters how THEY would describe that.

    As I’ve mentioned before, a lot of Libertarians like to make jokes and memes in response to the oft-heard question…”But who will build the roads?”

    Well, the jokes on us. Perhaps we should stop to consider the message we are sending, the vision we are proposing, if the question we get is, “Who will build the roads?”

    I know what that tells me. It tells me that the people ARE listening to us, and the ain’t boarding a train whose destination they want no part of.

  81. paulie

    I’d like to ask Carla what she thinks government SHOULD do,

    The answer is less. Many voters would respond positively. After all she got 12% for US Senate in a 3 way race and over 45% to get rid of the state income tax among other things.

    As she said:

    Whether they propose big, bold steps toward small government a la Harry Browne (preferred) or small, gradual steps toward small government (acceptable) – at least make sure they’ve boarded the train in the right direction, not the wrong direction. Make sure they will move us in the direction of small government, not take us backwards.

    The train is directional. The destination is not determined.

    Neither is the endpoint of the “more government” train, but we do know how far that train has gone when taken far enough in a “more government” direction many times in the past – all the way to death camps which killed millions. And the technology for killing lots of people has advanced considerably since then, although often times less advanced methods such as starvation, machetes and guns are still preferred by those on the “more government” train.

  82. dL

    I’d like to ask Carla what she thinks government SHOULD do, and then ask the voters how THEY would describe that.

    I’d like.., blah, blah. If fishes were wishes, we’d all swim in riches. I doubt Carla Howell would give you the time of day, but for about 10 grand, you can commission you’re own scientific poll to sample what the voters think.

  83. paulie

    The proper jargon term is libertarian, notwithstanding the efforts of some to make that term synonymous with building border walls or supporting secret government lists. If I ever mutter “Darryl W Perry whataboutism” outside of mocking Dlugos or Capozzi, shoot me.

    Missed this earlier. Duly noted 🙂

  84. Anthony Dlugos

    “I doubt Carla Howell would give you the time of day…”

    Oh, I’m hurt. Truly.

    Nevertheless, she, or whomever meets her “libertarian enough” criteria will eventually have to tell the voters.

    “…but for about 10 grand, you can commission you’re own scientific poll to sample what the voters think.”

    $10 grand? I don’t need to spend $10 grand to tell me Harry Browne’s version of libertarianism is a lost cause. Wikipedia is free, you know.

  85. paulie

    Wikipedia is free, you know.

    So is expanding your time horizon. Or spending your volunteer time and energy telling non-libertarians to be more libertarian rather than telling libertarians to be less libertarian.

    whomever meets her “libertarian enough” criteria

    Whoever wants to move the ball in the direction of more freedom, less government, even if they only want to make a tiny little move in the more freedom direction. If that’s too libertarian for you, maybe find some other word for your belief system?

  86. Anthony Dlugos

    “Whoever wants to move the ball in the direction of more freedom, less government, even if they only want to make a tiny little move in the more freedom direction.”

    Weld fits that criteria.

  87. dL

    Oh, I’m hurt. Truly.

    You should be. if Carla Howell ain’t going to give the time of day, you can be damn sure neither is William Weld. You probably should stop with the facade that you somehow have the inside scoop on Weld’s motivations and thinking.

    Wikipedia is free, you know.

    So, you are saying Ghoul Flesh, Gorilla5 and Vif12vf have the pulse on the voice of the people?

  88. paulie

    Weld fits that criteria.

    Does he? Maybe (some of) his rhetoric does. But we have already all stipulated that he lies frequently and breaks promises on a regular basis, so we need to pay more attention to his record in office – his whole record, not just some of it and not just his first year in office – and his record as a prosecutor and US Attorney – than to his words.

    The people who know his record best, such as former LPMass leaders Phillies and Howell quoted above, say he does not fit that criteria. I believe them. They had years to observe him in office, and while there are many things they don’t agree on, they agree he is not a libertarian, even directionally.

    Weld’s a Bush/Romney/Rockefeller Republican, and in the Trump era some people mistake that for libertarian because it’s relatively more libertarian on a few issues that Trumpublicanism; just as in the Bush/Romney era some people thought Barr and Root and teapublicans were the essence of libertarianism because they are relatively more libertarian on a few other issues.

  89. paulie

    Harry Browne’s .5% in 1996, then .4% in 2000

    Well yeah. But then in 2000 he had far less money and media attention than Nader and Buchanan, and there was the expected as well as actual to the wire finish between Bush and Gore. Given those circumstances I think he did make significant headway even on your narrow criteria. But here’s why those criteria are too narrow:

    https://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/WasItWorthIt.htm

  90. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Running against a L (who probably was a paper candidate that few noticed) is not the same at attending Cato conferences which is not the same as attending and interacting with NAPists at state conventions. L candidates usually hone their messages down so they don’t sound QUITE as extreme as what they REALLY believe.

    Like Scientology, where inductees don’t hear about the Thetans and the volcanoes until they’re already deeply into the program, NAPists know that they can’t lead with their most extreme views and, most importantly, their (simplistic) worldview. Now, I will say that NAPists are a bit more forthcoming than Scientologists in that they do put some pretty extreme shit in the platform, although even there, the language is far less hyperbolic than one hears when NAPists let their guard down.

    Again, re: honesty, we have a question of WW’s mens rea in the NY guv era and the 16 era. It’s possible that both times, he was sincere AT THE TIME, but as new information presented itself, he changed his mind. It’s also entirely possible that he’s what MNR warned of: Opportunists! He could also be an egomaniac, craving the attention and accolades he got from Mika Bryzinski and such. Maybe there’s a bit of a Messianic Complex going on as well. The Harvard Man from Smithtown, NY, descended from a signer of the Declaration of Independence needs to rid the nation of this redneck bumpkin real-estate developer from Jamaica Estates. If Andy were still with us, this could all be a nefarious plot by the CFR.

    All possible.

    What is not possible is my voting for Vohra or Kokesh. They SHOULD be cautionary tales for NAPists, and yet they apparently are not.

  91. Thomas Knapp

    “Like Scientology, where inductees don’t hear about the Thetans and the volcanoes until they’re already deeply into the program, NAPists know that they can’t lead with their most extreme views and, most importantly, their (simplistic) worldview.”

    And yet the LP’s marquee “recruitment tool” is the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, which is based on “their most extreme views, and, most importantly, their (simplistic) worldview.”

    And the LP’s most active recruiters are people who run around talking about “their most extreme views, and, most importantly, their (simplistic) worldview.”

    And then when people join, they’re required to sign off on a simple statement affirming those “most extreme views and that (simplistic) worldview.”

    If the LP was porn magazine, the most obscene shot in each issue would appear on the cover.

  92. Anthony Dlugos

    you know what I think? I think paulie has been right all along and these are irreconcilable differences over the direction of the LP and the only one getting hurt is the dead horse.

  93. Anthony Dlugos

    although I think this is spot on:

    “L candidates usually hone their messages down so they don’t sound QUITE as extreme as what they REALLY believe…NAPists know that they can’t lead with their most extreme views and, most importantly, their (simplistic) worldview. Now, I will say that NAPists are a bit more forthcoming than Scientologists in that they do put some pretty extreme shit in the platform, although even there, the language is far less hyperbolic than one hears when NAPists let their guard down.”

  94. paulie

    Running against a L (who probably was a paper candidate that few noticed) is not the same at attending Cato conferences which is not the same as attending and interacting with NAPists at state conventions. L candidates usually hone their messages down so they don’t sound QUITE as extreme as what they REALLY believe.

    Predictably, you hone in on the wrong thing. Dean Cook was not a paper candidate, he also served as LPMA chair, ran for governor in 1998 as well, has served on town boards for many years and so on. But even if he had been, Weld knew many other Repuiblicans who ran against many other Libertarians. He lived in a state where Carla Howell and the LP made significant waves for a number of years. Even if he was blissfully unaware of the LP extremism in 2006 he must have learned about it that year when he decided to break his promise to run as an LP candidate if he did not get the Republican nomination, even following your own explanation of why he broke that promise. And even if not of that happened he still has had lots and lots of opportunity to learn about LP extremism between 2016 and 2018. Certainly nothing has changed regarding LP extremism in the last couple of months, but what did change was the results of LP candidates such as Fishman, Johnson and others in last year’s November election, Amash musing about running for the LP nomination and Schultz musing about running as an independent. I’m surprised everyone here doesn’t think that has a lot more to do with Weld breaking his promise to the LP yet again than the fact that Vohra, Kokesh, McAfee, Ruff, Supreme, Behrman, Leder, Dryke et al are doing their thing as they have been for years.

  95. robert capozzi

    pf: So [WW’s] actually honest and yet just blatantly lies all the time? Maybe I’m just not smart enough to understand how that can be.

    me: Check your premises. “I always lie” is a classic paradox that exposes the flaw of absolutism. I’d say that WW — if he does what’s reported — is far too prone to promise-breaking for my tastes.

    You are more than smart enough. Consider this: Einstein by all indications was extremely smart. IIRC, he was also a socialist. It should be easy for someone to acknowledge that Einstein was smart but was confused in his thinking about politics.

    This is true, too, for many NPO and High NAPists. Low NAPists, like yourself, are possibly beginning to see that the NAP doesn’t work as a yardstick for all things politics.

  96. Anthony Dlugos

    “I’m surprised everyone here doesn’t think that has a lot more to do with Weld breaking his promise to the LP yet again…”

    well, as I noted, my personal opinion is that we needed him a lot more than he needed us.

    there’s no point in trying to extract a promise from such a person. however long he stays can only help, because we’re near rock bottom.

  97. paulie

    Opportunists! He could also be an egomaniac, craving the attention and accolades he got from Mika Bryzinski and such.

    Ya think?

    Maybe there’s a bit of a Messianic Complex going on as well. The Harvard Man from Smithtown, NY, descended from a signer of the Declaration of Independence needs to rid the nation of this redneck bumpkin real-estate developer from Jamaica Estates.

    Yeah, but I kind of doubt it. I think Weld would be much more realistic about his prospects in the Republican primary if I am reading who he is correctly. Money, attention, personal brand, a chance to spout his views to a larger audience, building lists, expanding contacts and interest to parlay into book deals, speaking gigs, opinion columns and media gigs seem far more realistic as a motivation than any delusion that he will be taking the oath of office.

    What is not possible is my voting for Vohra or Kokesh.

    I don’t think either of them will end up as the nominee, and if they do I already know you would not vote for them – nor do I care.

  98. paulie

    you know what I think? I think paulie has been right all along and these are irreconcilable differences over the direction of the LP and the only one getting hurt is the dead horse.

    Dead horses can’t be hurt, and the LP has lived with these “irreconcilable” differences pretty much since it was created and even managed to grow over the years despite itself (see Jim’s charts, in toto). Nothing is new under the sun, and if I have been right all along, that slow and frustrating progress will keep building on itself and eventually pick up pace as our ideas continue to become more mainstream over time and the libertarian movement outside of the party continues to grow and diversify as well.

  99. paulie

    well, as I noted, my personal opinion is that we needed him a lot more than he needed us.

    Yes, we disagree on that as I am sure you know. We need him like we need a dead albatross around our necks. Or a live one.

    we’re near rock bottom.

    We’re at the top of sustained national non-D/R party activity for any and every ideology in the past 85 or so years since ballot access was made much harder in response to the Communists threatening to make some waves during the depression. I don’t think selling out the ideology that got us this far so we can be a temporary vehicle of a politician with no loyalty to any party or ideology makes sense, given what happened to parties that did that in the past. You can be free to believe that there’s no point in trying to extract a promise from him but the fact is he would not even have been nominated either time without those promises.

    Evidently he has judged that he wouldn’t do nearly as well as the LP candidate as you seem to assume he would. Clearly, if he couldn’t beat Vohra, Kokesh and Supreme he belongs nowhere near the nomination. And if he did get it you seem to ignore that he might do worse than Barr if Schultz is in the race. At least Barr had no major independent to contend with (Nader was well past peak).

    In short we have nothing to gain from Weld with or without a worthless promise.

  100. Anthony Dlugos

    re: Amash possible entry.

    Since the subject has been brought up…here’s an interview the the Jacket, done in 2013…not that long ago.

    http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/03/28/talking-debt-obamacare-and-abortion-with

    Abortion discussion starts at 32:06.
    At 32:58, Amash gives his concerning answer (methinks if you are a libertarian) about when state protection should begin.
    At 33:18, he yucks it up about what forms of birth control he would ban.

    yea, boy, we sure are surprised about how we wind up surrounded by right-wingers.

  101. Anthony Dlugos

    “We’re at the top of sustained national non-D/R party activity for any and every ideology in the past 85 or so years…”

    Not gonna help the asylum seekers getting sent back to Mexico by our xenophobic president. Win now, and get those asylum seekers the freedom they deserve. What part of the ideology do I have to sell down the river in order to make that happen? Because I’ll do it. I’ll pay the price gladly. I don’t need an ideology to tell me the difference between right and wrong.

    The dead albatross is the ideology that tells us we gotta stand up for the fat and happy christian baker who’s gotta bake a cake at the expense of those asylum seekers. I’m not interested in ideological consistency if that’s the trade-off.

  102. paulie

    Check your premises. “I always lie” is a classic paradox that exposes the flaw of absolutism.

    I didn’t say he always lies, nor did I mean to. “Blatantly lies all the time” is a colloquialism that means he lies frequently and obviously and on the record. It does not mean that he literally lies ALL the time, as in any time he says anything at all. He probably lies somewhat less than Agent Orange the Mango Cheetolini, who is a truly textbook case of an off the charts pathological liar. But even if he did lie literally all the time there would be no paradox unless he actually announced “I lie all the time.” Premises duly checked.

    I’d say that WW — if he does what’s reported — is far too prone to promise-breaking for my tastes.

    That’s what I’d say too. And thus it has been said by me, therefore I have said it.

    It should be easy for someone to acknowledge that Einstein was smart but was confused in his thinking about politics.

    I don’t think he was confused. He was wrong about some things, as they lay outside his field of expertise and don’t behave in the same predictable ways as objects studied by the hard sciences, but his thinking seems to have been clear and flowed logically from his stated premises.

    NAP doesn’t work as a yardstick for all things politics.

    Of course it doesn’t. It’s a north star of sorts. And Weld can be trusted, if at all, about as far as you can throw him.

  103. paulie

    Win now

    Sorry, there’s just no plausible scenario under which that happens. I wish it was otherwise. But that’s more utopian than my most extreme “if I was suddenly made dictator” fantasies.

    What part of the ideology do I have to sell down the river in order to make that happen? Because I’ll do it. I’ll pay the price gladly

    Well, you could join the Democratic Party and its progressive caucus. I hear they are in favor of abolishing ICE and they sometimes actually win elections.

    The dead albatross is the ideology that tells us we gotta stand up for the fat and happy christian baker who’s gotta bake a cake at the expense of those asylum seekers.

    Au contraire, unless and until we make people understand that the same freedom which should protect the baker is the same freedom which should protect asylum seekers we will continue the seesaw vicious cycle struggle for who gets to have their turn to deprive whom of their freedoms. Where that cycle ends up is anyone’s guess but it won’t necessarily stop at the hunger games.

  104. robert capozzi

    pf: Weld can be trusted, if at all, about as far as you can throw him.

    me: Blame me for NY and GJ for 16.

    Your lack of trust in WW is certainly understandable. It’s usually a mix. Gee, I wish pols could be trusted AND effective.

    It seems that Kokesh can be trusted to shock and to remain NAP-compliant; yet, he damages the brand. Yes, I know you don’t find him and Vohra as a risk, but I do.

  105. William t. Forrest

    Kim ruff or vermin supreme or we shall see who else runs, maybe Sharpe? Not some Sgt Schultz who wants to seize everyone’s guns and crypto. Not Clinton republicans like weld. Amash may be accepted, we have had pro life nominees before.

  106. William t. Forrest

    Weld effective…at what exactly? Kokesh or vohra could be dangerous if they had a chance but I doubt it. Kookesh can’t go a few months without getting arrested or pudding off his staff and travel companions enough to quit in rancor. Vohra managed single digits for another term as vice chair. I doubt either can get a nomination.

  107. paulie

    Yes, I know you don’t find him and Vohra as a risk, but I do.

    Risk of what? I am not supporting either for the nomination nor do I think they are likely to get it.

  108. Anthony Dlugos

    “Risk of what? I am not supporting either for the nomination nor do I think they are likely to get it.”

    I can’t speak for RC, but as I’ve noted before, my personal opinion is that the risk they present (and frankly I’d throw Ruff in there too). is not the risk of them getting nominated, None of them can win.

    They CAN, however, keep the party small and dogmatic enough to appeal to the right-wing to alt right elements who are only to happy to be heretical on issues that appeal to the vastly more numerous (relative to philosophically consistent anarchists/NAPists) right wingers in the larger society and steal a nomination.

  109. Anthony Dlugos

    Bear in mind, I’m not suggesting its intentional. I’ll bet she’s genuine in her beliefs. (I don’t know much about her, to be frank).

    But electoral politics is a numbers game, both inter and intra party. Philosophical consistency doesn’t count for much. Votes do.

    Someone’s gonna relax their “principles” first and get enough votes to win any particular vote.

    IMHO

  110. dL

    They CAN, however, keep the party small and dogmatic enough to appeal to the right-wing to alt right elements who are only to happy to be heretical on issues that appeal to the vastly more numerous

    I might take more seriously on this matter if you didn’t, you know, call yourself a fellow traveler with someone whose immigration views are consistent with Hans Hoppe.

  111. Thomas Knapp

    —–
    “Risk of what? I am not supporting either for the nomination nor do I think they are likely to get it.”

    I can’t speak for RC, but as I’ve noted before, my personal opinion is that the risk they present (and frankly I’d throw Ruff in there too). is not the risk of them getting nominated, None of them can win.

    They CAN, however, keep the party small and dogmatic enough to appeal to the right-wing to alt right elements who are only to happy to be heretical on issues that appeal to the vastly more numerous (relative to philosophically consistent anarchists/NAPists) right wingers in the larger society and steal a nomination.
    —–

    Where did they get this previously seldom-seen power?

    If the party is being kept from growing, well, we did it your way, not theirs, the last three times out, so how are they to blame for your way failing?

    And if the party isn’t being kept from growing, well, they and people like them have been around since the party started.

  112. dL

    They CAN, however, keep the party small and dogmatic enough to appeal to the right-wing to alt right elements who are only to happy to be heretical on issues that appeal to the vastly more numerous (relative to philosophically consistent anarchists/NAPists) right wingers in the larger society and steal a nomination.

    I will reiterate. Weld in his press conference pretty much stated that the reelection of Trump is the end of liberty and democracy in the United States. His words. It would seem someone like Darryl W Perry, or hell, even Kokesh, fits in quite comfortably in this new overton window that Weld is fashioning. I will ask again. Maybe I’m mistaken. But I’m not aware of any past LP POTUS nominee in a public forum call the sitting POTUS a fascist in cahoots with a foreign government to snuff out democracy in America. Hell, if anything, based on this new Weld apocalyptic standard, Perry and Kokesh need to up their rhetoric game.

  113. Tony From Long Island

    Hey, AD – come join the dark side. The Democratic Party will welcome you with open arms 🙂

  114. Florida Man Larry

    The best hope the LP has for both electoral success and keeping out the fringe far-right is nominating Vermin Supreme.

  115. paulie

    I will reiterate. Weld in his press conference pretty much stated that the reelection of Trump is the end of liberty and democracy in the United States. His words. It would seem someone like Darryl W Perry, or hell, even Kokesh, fits in quite comfortably in this new overton window that Weld is fashioning. I will ask again. Maybe I’m mistaken. But I’m not aware of any past LP POTUS nominee in a public forum call the sitting POTUS a fascist in cahoots with a foreign government to snuff out democracy in America. Hell, if anything, based on this new Weld apocalyptic standard, Perry and Kokesh need to up their rhetoric game.

    What was Weld’s statement in some additional context? I saw one sentence quoted which seemed like political boilerplate. Pretty sure the Cheeto Benito has used “scary/impending doom/peril” rhetoric many times, as have many other duopoly politicians, but perhaps there was a bigger kicker in Weld’s statement than in the one sentence I saw quoted. If he said anything about Agent Orange being a fascist I have not seen it yet. And as for the cahoots stuff there is no doubt we will hear it from multiple Democrats so that’s nothing out of the mainstream line, other than that he is seeking the Republican nomination – but he did vouch for Clinton so that’s not too shocking either. Clinton is saying similar things, I gather, although I don’t think she is running again – but if she did I think she would still say them, and that it wouldn’t make her fringe for saying so.

  116. paulie

    The best hope the LP has for both electoral success and keeping out the fringe far-right is nominating Vermin Supreme.

    You may be correct.

  117. dL

    If he said anything about Agent Orange being a fascist I have not seen it yet

    Well, like any politician, you will get the 20 minute speech instead of the succinct one-liner…

    “I’m here today because our country is in grave peril. I can no longer sit quietly on the sidelines. We have a president who openly praises and encourages despotic and authoritarian leaders abroad while going out of his way to insult and humiliate our democratic allies…We have a president who demonstrates a repeated pattern of vindictiveness…He acts like a school yard bully except, of course, when he is around other bullies like Mr. Putin, and then he turns ingratiating, all smiles, kicks the American press out of the oval office and has his summit meeting with Putin with no news media present except TASS, the state organ of Russia…We have a president whose priorities are the promotion of himself, not the good of the country..to compound matters, we have a president who is simply too unstable to carry out the duties of the highest executive office in the land, which include the specific duty to take care the laws are faithfully executed……I encourage those who are watching to stand up and speak out when lines are crossed in dangerous ways. We cannot sit passively as our precious democracy slips quietly into darkness. We must strive to remember the difference between the open heart, open mind and open handedness of patriotism versus the hard heart, closed mind and clinched fist of nativism and nationalism. In every country there comes a time when patriotic men and women must stand up and speak to protect their own individual rights and the health of the nation. This is such a time.”

  118. paulie

    No lies detected. And I’m sure you will hear pretty much the same things from many seeking the Democratic nomination and perhaps some independents as well. I did not see any mention of fascism per se.

  119. dL

    No lies detected.

    I didn’t say they were lies.

    And I’m sure you will hear pretty much the same things from many seeking the Democratic nomination and perhaps some independents as well. I did not see any mention of fascism per se.

    It’s not often you hear precious democracy slips quietly into darkness from a candidate in the same freakin party.

    The point here is not whether Trump is an authoritarian douche bag. He is. The point is we have a new term for the unprecedented use of apocalyptic language in POTUS politics: Weldist. And that should put an end to Weldists using William Weld as a retort to the use of radical libertarian language in LP politics.

    The secondary point is that after Weld gave his Trump is a fascist speech, he was not peppered with “Gee, Bill, are you saying Trump is a fascist.” Instead it was: “Gee, Bill, why are you such a rudderless party switcher(and Weld walked right into beautiful setup in one of those questions). And Weld’s retort was: Lp, nice people, but the LP is little league. So, anyone who thought sleeping with William Weld was going to get you a status bump and cocktail party invite, you were sorely mistaken.

  120. paulie

    in the same freakin party.

    Kind of, sort of. Mitigated by running against them last night with an opposing party, vouching for the candidate of yet another party, etc, etc. His actual party

    Weldist

    That is, no party, but use, discard and reuse as many parties as possible, as often as possible.

    “Gee, Bill, are you saying Trump is a fascist.”

    I think he’s precise enough with his language. If and when he is ready to call Trump a fascist he will. If he already has, I haven’t seen it. Not all authoritarians are fascist, and he didn’t even straight out call Trump an authoritarian, although he came close and strongly implied it. Again judging solely by the words you posted here, if there’s more I have not yet seen/listened to/watched/read it.

    So, anyone who thought sleeping with William Weld was going to get you a status bump and cocktail party invite, you were sorely mistaken.

    “But he did us such a favor by screwing us, promising to leave his wife and going back to her” LOL. Pathetic.

  121. dL

    I think he’s precise enough with his language.

    So, fascist is “grave, grave peril”? Grave peril only rises to the level of “may or may not be an authoritarian.”

  122. paulie

    You don’t need me to look up the definition of fascist for you. You have shown every sign of being able to do your own research.

    “We have a president who openly praises and encourages despotic and authoritarian leaders abroad” is not the same as “potus is a fascist”. It certainly doesn’t preclude the latter but stops well short.

  123. robert capozzi

    VS vs any NAPist, I say VS. I wouldn’t actually vote for him, but he will at least keep things amusing.

  124. dL

    “We have a president who openly praises and encourages despotic and authoritarian leaders abroad” is not the same as “potus is a fascist”. It certainly doesn’t preclude the latter but stops well short.

    If that’s all he had said, I would concur. But that’s not all he said.

  125. paulie

    He also said Trump is

    -vindictive
    -insults and humiliates “our democratic allies”
    -bully
    -promotes self over good of the country
    -unstable
    -nativist, nationalist

    None of that adds up to fascist, taken separately or together. It certainly doesn’t preclude it either but it comes nowhere close to coming out and saying it plainly. A lot of people can fit that description without being fascists.

    And, none of this would be remarkable from a Democrat or presumably any other party seeking to challenge Bencheeto. It might be remarkable in the president’s own party, but that’s when the history of repeated party switching and vouching for Clinton undercuts that. That’s why it was not surprising and rather predictable that questions would center around the party switching rather than the warnings of grave peril.

  126. dL

    He also said Trump is

    -vindictive
    -insults and humiliates “our democratic allies”
    -bully
    -promotes self over good of the country
    -unstable
    clenched fist of nativism, nationalism
    Demands Cult of Personality
    Grave Peril
    Democracy slipping into darkness
    Lines crossed
    Duty of anyone who cares about democracy, liberty, rule of law to now take a stand

    None of that adds up to fascist, taken separately or together.

    Absolutely it does. The only thing left out what was gas chambers. Of course, never underestimate a politician to take 20 minutes to say what could better said with a single sentence.

    That’s why it was not surprising and rather predictable that questions would center around the party switching rather than the warnings of grave peril.

    The press’ first question should have been, “So, Bill, are you calling a Trump a fascist”? But b/c it was William Weld, the first questions were, “Bill, why are you a party switcher.”

  127. wredlich Post author

    This NAPism battle is amusing.

    I agree with the haters that an NAP society and government is not a practical goal in the short run.

    But I agree with the NAPists that the NAP is (or should be) the guiding principle of the Libertarian Party.

    That second point doesn’t mean the Libertarian candidate should make the NAP the centerpiece of the campaign. It just means that we recognize it is the libertarian utopia, even though we don’t expect to get there soon. We just want to get closer to it and over the long haul maybe we can approach it.

    Instead a practical NAPist would campaign on practical goals like, oh maybe, “Stop Wasting Money” (bring the troops home, stop using prisons for victimless “crimes”, etc). When that sneaky journalist tries to grill the candidate on the supposedly radical NAP, all the candidate says is that it’s a sound principle but not something we can hope to achieve anytime soon or even in our lifetimes.

    There’s nothing radical about the NAP. It is as sensible as the Golden Rule (do unto others …). If some reporter wants to argue about the NAP, the candidate uses that to bring out the reporter’s support for violence.

  128. dL

    I agree with the haters that an NAP society and government is not a practical goal in the short run.

    It’s not a practical goal in the short or long run b/c no one agrees on what a society without aggression is. Nonetheless, I have no issue with “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.” Most who do have a problem with that are usually in the business of claiming that liberty is consistent with building border walls, regulating people’s bodies and/or choices and putting people on secret lists.

    Instead a practical NAPist would campaign on practical goals like,

    Daily afternoon snooze leave?

  129. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    What part of the ideology do I have to sell down the river in order to make that happen? Because I’ll do it.

    Of course you will. You would sell your grandmother into slavery if you thought it would help get 1 more vote for a Hillary Clinton / Mitt Romney ticket running for co- town dogcatcher on a platform of requiring everyone to get a dog, pay a 40% dog tax, enroll their mandated dogs in government dog schools, and feed them government produced organic dog food.

    You don’t give a damn about ideology and you would do anything and everything to help any politician you view as “successful” in vote totals. Obviously you are eager to sell out an ideology you never gave a damn about anyway.

    What is certifiably nuts is you have attached yourself to an ideological political party and are intent on taking all of the ideology out of that party to make it a rudderless vehicle for one hit wonder political celebrities.

    Let us know when you aren’t willing to sell ideology down the river for your next fad authoritarian politician. That would be news.

  130. wredlich Post author

    “Let us know when you aren’t willing to sell ideology down the river for your next fad authoritarian politician.”

    That’s some fine writing right there!

  131. Anthony Dlugos

    Chuck quotes me without including the “that” that I would accept in exchange for “selling my ideology down the river.” (Which I say somewhat tongue-in-cheek).

    Of course, the “that” in this instance was getting the asylum seekers the asylum they deserve, instead of getting sent back into Mexico like Cheeto is doing now.

    If Chuck’s precious ideology can’t help those people RIGHT NOW, its not an ideology worth holding on to. He doesn’t have the moral high ground in this case. He’s just another libertarian pharisee.

    I wonder what those asylum seekers would think about Chuck’s depiction of a hypothetical Libertarian president who would help them out as an “authoritarian” because he or she doesn’t believe that “taxation is theft?”

    Methinks they’d have a different opinion.

    Guilty as charged: I am eager to sell out an ideology in order to protect some asylum seekers.

    Chuck is eager to sell out the asylum seekers in order to protect an ideology.

    Who’s worse?

    Hebrews 10:1 (KJV)
    For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

    Matthew 23:23(KJV)
    23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

  132. Anthony Dlugos

    Tony From Long Island
    February 16, 2019 at 02:44
    Hey, AD – come join the dark side. The Democratic Party will welcome you with open arms ?

    Thanks, Tony, I have considered it.

    I live in a conservative district that could use a stronger Democratic Party…especially a democratic party infused with some libertarian principles.

  133. paulie

    I agree with the haters that an NAP society and government is not a practical goal in the short run.

    But I agree with the NAPists that the NAP is (or should be) the guiding principle of the Libertarian Party.

    That second point doesn’t mean the Libertarian candidate should make the NAP the centerpiece of the campaign. It just means that we recognize it is the libertarian utopia, even though we don’t expect to get there soon. We just want to get closer to it and over the long haul maybe we can approach it.

    Instead a practical NAPist would campaign on practical goals like, oh maybe, “Stop Wasting Money” (bring the troops home, stop using prisons for victimless “crimes”, etc). When that sneaky journalist tries to grill the candidate on the supposedly radical NAP, all the candidate says is that it’s a sound principle but not something we can hope to achieve anytime soon or even in our lifetimes.

    There’s nothing radical about the NAP. It is as sensible as the Golden Rule (do unto others …). If some reporter wants to argue about the NAP, the candidate uses that to bring out the reporter’s support for violence.

    That’s funny, I agree with your approach there. According to Capozzi that makes us “low nappers” or something.

  134. paulie

    Absolutely it does. The only thing left out what was gas chambers. Of course, never underestimate a politician to take 20 minutes to say what could better said with a single sentence.

    Fascism has a specific meaning besides just authoritarianism or even totalitarianism, and the boilerplate you quoted doesn’t rise to meet any of these terms in their full meaning. As we have both already acknowledged, none of this would be all that surprising from a Democrat or perhaps a LP candidate, so the only thing surprising is that it is coming from someone running as a Republican. That’s why the questions are about party switching. It’s the only thing about the prospect of him running for president which outside observers find even slightly momentarily of interest. Otherwise, there’s really not a lot of people who care what someone who served as a governor over 20 years ago, ran as a minor party VP candidate last time around, and vouched for Hillary Clinton has to say about anything. If Hillary Clinton herself said these same things it would not be all that remarkable either. I don’t have quotes handy but I think she has said similar things already.

  135. Anthony Dlugos

    “When that sneaky journalist tries to grill the candidate on the supposedly radical NAP, all the candidate says is that it’s a sound principle but not something we can hope to achieve anytime soon or even in our lifetimes.”

    So, Candidate Wredlich, Your ultimate goal would be to get rid of social security?

    At that point, your campaign is over. It doesn’t matter at all what your time frame is. Anyone depending on social security is not going to vote for you.

    You might as well take the Radical tactic of Letting Your Freak Flag Fly from the get-go, and hope there are enough anarchists out there, because you are going to get painted into that corner anyway.

    Ron Paul, who I am no fan of, handled the anarchy question with aplomb when a reporter asked him if he was an anarchist.

    “All anarchy means is a preference for voluntary exchange over coercion. What’s wrong with that?”

    Its an excellent rhetorical tactic. What is wrong with “Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff?”

    Now, once you’ve made that point and put those who see EVERY policy problem as an excuse for coercive action, break your own rule and propose, say, a social security program that allows young people to divert a little bit of the money into private investments. You MIGHT…MIGHT…get voters to sign onto that. And that would be an improvement over the current situation. Social security might wither away over time via this approach. Or it might just get a little less coercive, and a little less coercive is a good thing.

    Or, you could imply that the elimination of social security is the preferred outcome, and at that point a moderate step in the right direction will be ignored.

    to wit, A Few Good Men:

    Lt. Weinberg : And you the court members thinking we’re afraid of the doctor, you object once so they can hear us say his not a criminologist, you keep after the way you did suddenly our great cross looks like a bunch of fancy lawyer tricks, there’s a difference between paper law and trial law,

  136. dL

    I wonder what those asylum seekers would think about Chuck’s depiction of a hypothetical Libertarian president who would help them out as an “authoritarian” because he or she doesn’t believe that “taxation is theft?”

    Now there’s a duplicitous straw man…

    Guilty as charged: I am eager to sell out an ideology in order to protect some asylum seekers.

    Well, there is no need to sell out any ideology because right of asylum is guaranteed by international and US federal law. I should qualify that statement with “supposedly” because the US currently is a rogue regime RE: right of asylum. And appeals to men instead of the principle is exactly why it stands at rogue regime status. And I would be remiss not to point out that you can’t have it both ways on this issue. You can’t present yourself as some ACLU liberal on right of asylum and still call yourself a fellow traveler with people who cite refugee seekers as an argument against open borders.

  137. Anthony Dlugos

    cm: “Let us know when you aren’t willing to sell ideology down the river for your next fad authoritarian politician.”

    wr: “That’s some fine writing right there!”

    pc: “Agreed.”

    I, Robot:

    VIKI: You are making a mistake. Do you not see the logic of my plan?

    Sonny; Yes, but it just seems too… heartless.

  138. paulie

    If Chuck’s precious ideology can’t help those people RIGHT NOW, its not an ideology worth holding on to.

    Let’s go back in time and apply this same attitude historically.

    “Look, right now slavery is being expanded into territories which are becoming states. If we allow this to continue pretty soon slave states will have a permanent majority in congress. If we don’t renounce abolitionism and enshrine the right to own slaves permanently in an unamendable addition to the federal constitution how is it helping slaves RIGHT NOW? We all know abolitionism isn’t going to happen right now. Abolitionists are pharisees.”

    “Look, right now women are being beaten with sticks as large as baseball bats by their husbands. If you don’t end all the crazy talk about equal rights and women voting and divorce rights we can’t reduce the size of the stick a man is allowed to beat his wife with legally. Anyone talking about women voting and having equal rights is a pharisee who is not helping women RIGHT NOW.”

  139. paulie

    Sonny; Yes, but it just seems too… heartless.

    Paulie: No, I don’t see the logic of your plan. You are not going to get a Libertarian president right now, and you are doing nothing to stop this and worse from happening in the future either. By dismissing out of hand any slim hope or striving for freedom as even an option you want to leave us to the pit and pendulum of US politics – Democrats and Republicans – as they each become worse in turn in response to the other.

    https://poestories.com/read/pit

    In return you get nothing whatsoever.

  140. paulie

    right of asylum is guaranteed by international and US federal law. I should qualify that statement with “supposedly” because the US currently is a rogue regime RE: right of asylum. And appeals to men instead of the principle is exactly why it stands at rogue regime status.

    Yep.

  141. paulie

    So, Candidate Wredlich, Your ultimate goal would be to get rid of social security?

    At that point, your campaign is over. It doesn’t matter at all what your time frame is. Anyone depending on social security is not going to vote for you.

    You might as well take the Radical tactic of Letting Your Freak Flag Fly from the get-go, and hope there are enough anarchists out there, because you are going to get painted into that corner anyway.

    Ron Paul, who I am no fan of, handled the anarchy question with aplomb when a reporter asked him if he was an anarchist.

    “All anarchy means is a preference for voluntary exchange over coercion. What’s wrong with that?”

    Its an excellent rhetorical tactic. What is wrong with “Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff?”

    Now, once you’ve made that point and put those who see EVERY policy problem as an excuse for coercive action, break your own rule and propose, say, a social security program that allows young people to divert a little bit of the money into private investments. You MIGHT…MIGHT…get voters to sign onto that. And that would be an improvement over the current situation. Social security might wither away over time via this approach. Or it might just get a little less coercive, and a little less coercive is a good thing.

    Or, you could imply that the elimination of social security is the preferred outcome, and at that point a moderate step in the right direction will be ignored.

    to wit, A Few Good Men:

    Lt. Weinberg : And you the court members thinking we’re afraid of the doctor, you object once so they can hear us say his not a criminologist, you keep after the way you did suddenly our great cross looks like a bunch of fancy lawyer tricks, there’s a difference between paper law and trial law,

    Sounds like you are contradicting yourself. Anarchy is more extreme than merely getting rid of SS and certainly includes it. If it’s OK for Ron Paul to imply his ultimate goal is anarchy why would it be bad for Redlich to imply he would ultimately get rid of SS? Ron Paul said it was not his first priority, Harry Browne proposed a system to wind SS down by selling off federal assets while exempting younger people. I’m sure Redlich could find an answer to the SS question, after all he actually did serve in local office and did run a gubernatorial campaign that was pretty good given the resources it had.

  142. dL

    Fascism has a specific meaning besides just authoritarianism or even totalitarianism, and the boilerplate you quoted doesn’t rise to meet any of these terms in their full meaning. As we have both already acknowledged,

    You don’t need to have a fascist government–the usual definition of that entailing a one party dictatorship–in place for someone to be fascist. What attributes are missing here to preclude broaching the topic of Trump being a fascist?

  143. paulie

    Thanks, Tony, I have considered it.

    I live in a conservative district that could use a stronger Democratic Party…especially a democratic party infused with some libertarian principles.

    Go forth and conquer. You have my blessings, much as Weld does in returning to the Trump Party and trying to piss in the face of a hurricane to make it reverse course from within. The LP will be there if and when you want to return, but I won’t be in favor of you, Weld or other such revolving types being nominated, most especially at the top of the ticket. Democrats may indeed be a better fit for you for the time being, at least until and unless you get sick of them.

  144. paulie

    You don’t need to have a fascist government–the usual definition of that entailing a one party dictatorship–in place for someone to be fascist. What attributes are missing here to preclude broaching the topic of Trump being a fascist?

    I’m not interested in parsing. Definitions of fascism are available at commonly found resources. Weld knows how to call Trump a fascist if and when he is ready to actually call him a fascist. What he said is bad enough, especially since it is true, but it wouldn’t surprise anyone if he was running for the LP or Democratic nomination. Thus his party switching is still the subject, not obliquely perhaps hinting that the Cheeto may indeed be a would be Benito. And that’s true whether you or I like it or not. The rules of what passes for journalism today have not suddenly changed.

  145. dL

    I’m not interested in parsing. Definitions of fascism are available at commonly found resources.

    Well, you’re the one who started this sidebar on parsing the distinction between a authoritarian and a fascist. That wasn’t the intent of my original comment RE: Weld’s speech. My original intent was simply to point out Weld burned his “moderate overlord of the libertarian overton window” card with that speech.

  146. Anthony Dlugos

    Good answer, NAP heretic!

    I wouldn’t count on an invitation from the Radicals’ Ball.

  147. wredlich Post author

    I’m not looking for an invitation to the Radicals’ Ball.

    “My ultimate goal is to stop wasting money. While I have ideas for reforming social security, I see no chance of making any progress on that with Congress.

    Unfortunately some libertarians are so caught up in our shared ideology that they don’t recognize a president can’t change social security without Congress. As a practical libertarian president I’ll do what is within the power of the office, but mostly I’ll have to work with Congress.”

  148. paulie

    Well, you’re the one who started this sidebar on parsing the distinction between a authoritarian and a fascist.

    No, he did not fully say Trump is an authoritarian either.

    Weld burned his “moderate overlord of the libertarian overton window” card with that speech.

    I could see Hillary Clinton or any number of Democrats making that speech. I don’t think it’s particularly extreme.

  149. paulie

    No, my ultimate goal is not to get rid of social security.

    I think there may be some miscommunication here. Dlugos is taking this to mean you would preserve it in perpetuity. I take it to mean you would not stop there while cutting government (at least I hope that’s what you mean). What do you actually mean?

  150. paulie

    “My ultimate goal is to stop wasting money. While I have ideas for reforming social security, I see no chance of making any progress on that with Congress.

    Unfortunately some libertarians are so caught up in our shared ideology that they don’t recognize a president can’t change social security without Congress. As a practical libertarian president I’ll do what is within the power of the office, but mostly I’ll have to work with Congress.”

    Good two step but not ultimately satisfying. Any LP candidate with enough support to be elected president would probably also mean a substantial remake of congress as well.

  151. robert capozzi

    WR,

    It’s the “Non” part that provokes probing for extremist goals. If one is for NON-AGGRESSION, then it’s easy to assume that the NAPist has utopian plans. Yet, most Low NAPists like you and PF recognize the unworkability of the NAP.

    MINIMIZING aggression works better, I submit.

  152. Thomas Knapp

    “MINIMIZING aggression works better, I submit.”

    And you might be right, if by “MINIMIZING aggression” you mean “MINIMIZING aggression,” not “pretending that a ‘minimization of net aggression’ is something that can be calculated.”

  153. wredlich Post author

    I wrote (as a response to a question): –No, my ultimate goal is not to get rid of social security.–

    paulie wrote: –I think there may be some miscommunication here. Dlugos is taking this to mean you would preserve it in perpetuity. I take it to mean you would not stop there while cutting government (at least I hope that’s what you mean). What do you actually mean?–

    First of all the notion of an ultimate goal is silly. One of my main points is that we know we’re not going to get to our libertarian utopia anytime soon, so why bother talking about it.

    Second, the phrasing of the question makes it look like my ONLY or PRIMARY goal is getting rid of social security. The word “ultimate” carries a lot of power with it and it has lost quite a bit of its real meaning in today’s political discourse.

    Third, getting rid of social security is not something I would talk about in the campaign. If someone asks me about my position on social security I’ll say that there’s not much point in discussing it as long as Congress refuses to consider any kind of change. I do think – and I mean this as a practical way to get closer to libertarian utopia – that we could save social security for those who want to remain in it by letting out those who do not, and in the long run that would mean social security gets rid of itself without harming those who want it.

  154. wredlich Post author

    I find it annoying when presidential candidates talk about broader policies that are beyond the power of the office. Under the Constitution, Congress has more power than the President. While I love Darryl Perry, the notion that he’d get elected and change everything is unrealistic even if he got elected.

    The President has power in certain areas, like foreign policy and wars. A libertarian president could not stop states from arresting victimless offenders. But a libertarian president could appoint a libertarian attorney general who decides not to prosecute victimless crimes at the federal level.

    A libertarian president can’t stop Congress from spending money on weapons systems we don’t need. But he can, and should, bring all the troops home from all 177 countries where they currently are stationed. That, by the way, is the first thing I’d do if elected. Every single soldier comes home as soon as it can be done, as safely as possible.

  155. wredlich Post author

    paulie wrote: “Good two step but not ultimately satisfying. Any LP candidate with enough support to be elected president would probably also mean a substantial remake of congress as well.”

    I completely disagree. One scenario is a libertarian candidate wins a few states preventing the other two from an electoral college majority, and then who knows what happens in the House. In a Trump vs. Bernie scenario, any major party pol who votes for the other side risks losing the next election. The Libertarian candidate could be seen as a good compromise. Especially one who says he’ll work with Congress (like me) rather than one who says he can act without Congress (like Perry).

  156. wredlich Post author

    robert capozzi writes:
    –It’s the “Non” part that provokes probing for extremist goals. If one is for NON-AGGRESSION, then it’s easy to assume that the NAPist has utopian plans. Yet, most Low NAPists like you and PF recognize the unworkability of the NAP.
    MINIMIZING aggression works better, I submit.–

    I do not believe the NAP is inherently unworkable. Any system has its flaws. If you’re telling me the current system is workable I’d like to know why we have $22T in debt and $100T or more in unfunded liabilities.

    But the NAP is not ATTAINABLE in the short or medium term. Too many people are committed to too many aspects of the current system. We can start by picking the low hanging fruit. A fairly small minority of Americans care strongly about having troops in other countries. It’s easy to persuade a large majority that it is to their benefit (because it is) to bring the troops home.

    Similarly, most Americans have figured out that arresting pot smokers is a huge waste of money and the wrong approach. We start with the low hanging fruit. We demonstrate that our approach works better than what the two majors have been doing. Then we do better in the next election. We keep spreading the message, raising understanding, and combating the lies. And that’s how we work toward the dream of the NAP, even if we may never get there.

  157. Anthony Dlugos

    Good answers by wredlich, I must say.

    One quibble:

    “I find it annoying when presidential candidates talk about broader policies that are beyond the power of the office.”

    But it is the case that sometimes presidential candidates get asked hypothetical questions designed to probe their moral position.

    Certainly, “Should a christian baker be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding?” was a fair question in 2016?” even if the President doesn’t have direct power in that area.

    I see only two possible answers: some level of “yes” (he has to sell a cake off the shelf but doesn’t have to use his artistic talent to create a cage) or flat-out, “no…” and then be willing to follow that “no” right through to its ultimate logic conclusion, a stateless society, regardless of what that means for your vote totals. The initial no effectively takes you there ANYWAY in the minds of the overwhelming majority of voters. Maybe not a well fleshed-out anarchy, but the nebulous anarchy they fear, and then…what’s the difference? They ain’t voting for you.

  158. dL

    Certainly, “Should a christian baker be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding?” was a fair question in 2016?” even if the President doesn’t have direct power in that area.

    One thing is certainly clear. You are even more obsessed with this issue than the Christian bakers…

  159. dL

    A libertarian president could not stop states from arresting victimless offenders. But a libertarian president could appoint a libertarian attorney general who decides not to prosecute victimless crimes at the federal level.

    No, but there are lots of ways a libertarian administration could put the fear of god into state prosecutors

  160. Thomas Knapp

    “or flat-out, ‘no…’ and then be willing to follow that “no” right through to its ultimate logic conclusion, a stateless society”

    That might be its ultimate logic conclusion in some alternate universe. In this one, it’s a non sequitur.

  161. robert capozzi

    wr: I do not believe the NAP is inherently unworkable. Any system has its flaws. If you’re telling me the current system is workable I’d like to know why we have $22T in debt and $100T or more in unfunded liabilities.

    me: When I use the word “workable” or “unworkable,” I mean in the near term, which is generally understood to be a 5-year time horizon in terms of elective politics.

    The current setup is certainlty “dysfunctional,” but it works. It should be addressed, certainly.

  162. Anthony Dlugos

    “That might be its ultimate logic conclusion in some alternate universe. In this one, it’s a non sequitur.”

    Well, I don’t know who this Non Sequitur guy is, but I do know that if your messaging soft-pedals your ideal society, people are likely to fill in the gaps and draw their own conclusions.

  163. Anthony Dlugos

    “One thing is certainly clear. You are even more obsessed with this issue than the Christian bakers…”

    Pick whatever public policy issue you want. heck, paulie is taking wredlich down the path I am referring to in this very thread with regard to social security…and its the NAP and its utopian implications that is getting wredlich to go down that path.

    wredlich gave a straight (and electorally sound ) answer on 2/19 at 14:47 that his ultimate goal is not to get rid of social security.

    paulie responded on 2/20 at 1:12,

    “I think there may be some miscommunication here. Dlugos is taking this to mean you would preserve it in perpetuity. I take it to mean you would not stop there while cutting government (at least I hope that’s what you mean). What do you actually mean?”

    Come on now. This debate…what is the time frame for elimination of social security…is relevant to NO ONE outside of the fringe of the fringe of the LP. Merely entertaining the notion rules a candidate and his/her party out of the chance of moving public policy in a libertarian direction.

    RC says the NAP is unworkable and he is right and this is why. The NAPist fails to see how quickly he/she rules the LP out of any chance of succeeding in electoral politics.

    wredlich had the right idea when he succinctly said that his goal is not to get rid of social security. That alarmed paulie as it presented a NAP apostasy so he asked for clarification.

    If your goal is the elimination of social security, then electoral politics is not for you, at least not at this time. You first have a job of moving that overton window. Good luck. I’m not opposed to the effort. We’ll know when you are succeeding when ss elimination starts getting discussed in the larger society.

    Until then, my suggestion to wredlich is to cut the discussion with the NAPist off as soon as possible. That’s why I suggested that the NAP can be used as a nice rhetorical device to demonstrate to everyone that government is indeed force…just immediately pivot to breaking it with policy ideas that are better than what we have now.

    Otherwise, you are quickly going to be knee-deep in the libertopian weeds.

  164. dL

    Pick whatever public policy issue you want….

    No need. I ‘m already absolutely confident you would find some way to insert “Bake the Cake” WhatAboutism into any discussion.

Leave a Reply

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