March 2019 Open Thread

Our belatedly late monthly open thread. Post news tips about alt parties and independent candidates, discuss any story that should be posted here but has not yet been posted, or even delve into completely off-topic stuff.

126 thoughts on “March 2019 Open Thread

  1. Fernando Mercado

    I’ll use this time to self advertise (It’s Third Party Related so it counts):

    1. I’m (possibly) going to interview Three Third Party Presidential Candidates. (One you may know, though only one has gotten back to me)
    2. I’m (possibly) going to host a Green Party Presidential Debate, need to finalize dates and how to do so. (As well getting a couple more questions for the Town Hall Segment, If you want to ask one, go ahead)
    3. Got 88 Subs on YT (If your interested in Third Parties, you should too!)
    4. And wrote an article about NC’s Third Parties.

    But enough about me, what’s new with the rest of you.

  2. Johno

    Maybe CP can recruit Roy Moore to run for senate instead of R. Maybe Pat Buchanan or better yet his sister Bay for president.

  3. Joe Wendt

    Reform Party of Florida had its convention on March 9. Newly elected EC:

    Chair- Joe Wendt
    Vice Chair- Brian Moore
    Secretary- Paul Bachmann
    Treasurer- Austin Cassidy

  4. Johno

    Kshmana Sawant in Seattle is on the Socialist Alternative line on ballot. Is there any other like her in the country?

  5. paulie

    You’re right, it probably should. I could set JR up with a contributor account to save drafts which other IPR editors could publish if he wants one. I’m not really publishing articles right now, other than the LNC coverage thread. Couldn’t even bring myself to make the monthly open thread.

  6. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Paulie: Sounds like burnout. Take a nice florida vacation before the hurricanes and petitioning season!!

  7. paulie

    I’m considering a trip to Georgia to cover their convention next weekend. Possibly Tennessee to cover theirs at the end of the month. My burnout currently is mostly about the stupid comment lag issues. Saps my enthusiasm.

  8. paulie

    Joe Bishop-Henchman Voted 13-0 to set our final meeting of the year (the budget meeting) for November 16-17, 2019. Now considering possible locations.

    Paulie: Harlos proposing new hotel in Aurora (Denver area), CO

  9. paulie

    I’ve added you as a contributor. You should have an email which may look like spam (it’s automated from wordpress). If you don’t see it check you spam/trash folders. If you still don’t see it after about a day let me know, please.

  10. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Yup, Beto probably WOULD be the candidate taking the most votes away from LP Prez candidate, if only for his pro-pot legalization position. And maybe cause not afraid to say “capitalist.” Of course his Russiaphobia and various statist positions are ridiculous.

  11. Bill Forrest

    Pot legalization is common among Democrats by now, with many if not all being for it. It may even get pre-empted by then if the Republicans are smart in any way. While some of the Democrats call themselves socialist, most don’t.

  12. dL Post author

    Yup, Beto probably WOULD be the candidate taking the most votes away from LP Prez candidate

    Psychedelic Warlord might be an interesting candidate. Beto O’Rourke is a respectability piker.

  13. Thomas Knapp

    At the moment, ALL of the major party presidential candidates, including the incumbent, claim to favor federal legalization, and several of the Democratic candidates who are in the House or Senate are sponsoring bills to make it happen.

    If Trump is smart, he’ll get some Republicans to throw in their sponsorships as well, lobby congressional Republicans to vote for a legalization bill, sign it, then take credit for it.

    This year and next year, more states are going to legalize recreational marijuana and it will likely be on the ballot (and set to win) in several states in November 2020. If the war on marijuana was World War One, it would be about 4:30am on November 11, 1918 right now — still half an hour until the armistice is agreed to, six-plus hours until it comes into effect, and more than a year until peace is fully ratified, but everyone knows the war is ending and who won. It’s just a matter of signing the surrender.

  14. Freeman

    I just wanna see the Libertarian nominee purvey a foreign policy message of peace at least as strong as Tulsi Gabbard.

  15. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    OK, so Beto gives off a groovy edgy vibe – like obama did – that makes the young at heart want to overlook his failings. (And he’s not likely to drop dead like Bernie the Nasty Old Bastard Sanders.)

    As libertarians, it’s easy for us NOT to overlook his failings, of course.

    And please, Lib Peacenik Candidate MUCH stronger than Tulsi Gabbard. On Dem side, how about Beto/Tulsi 2020. Just to FREAK OUT the neocons.

    Ah, a decent libertarian who can WIN… a girl can dream….

    Are their any SANE libertarian technowizard billionaires??

  16. dL Post author

    OK, so Beto gives off a groovy edgy vibe

    The Cult of the Dead Cow gives off a retro 80s vibe. I only mentioned Beto in reference to cDc for nostalgic reasons.

  17. Thomas Knapp

    Here’s a possible internal LP activism function that someone might want to go to work on:

    1) As the major party contests heat up (my prediction is that Trump will NOT be successfully challenged in the GOP primary), do an issue by issue analysis of how libertarian the likely nominees are. Then:

    2) Work as hard as possible to make all the LP presidential aspirants explain — issue by issue, not just with buzz words or appeal to general principle — how and why they represent both the party and the inclinations of libertarian-leaning voters better than their likely major party opponents do.

  18. dL Post author

    2) Work as hard as possible to make all the LP presidential aspirants explain — issue by issue, not just with buzz words or appeal to general principle — how and why they represent both the party and the inclinations of libertarian-leaning voters better than their likely major party opponents do.

    No need for all that. One question will suffice. Are you down with #eggboy. That’s all you need to separate the wheat from the chaff.

  19. William T. Forrest

    That’s very unfortunate. Andy Craig explains it well on facebook:

    “I didn’t want to read the insane manifesto. I felt obligated to. I felt obligated to because I knew what I was likely to find, and I feel sick that I wasn’t even a little bit surprised to find it.

    I recall there being some frumpy harrumphing a while back when I objected to a YAL-backed Republican nominee for U.S. Senate promoting white genocide rhetoric, in particular accusing his Democratic opponent of wanting to “import” people to “repopulate” Maine with those who aren’t “our children.” One usual suspect even denounced me as “mentally ill” for it, changing it up from his preferred “low-IQ pansy.”

    Yesterday a self-described former libertarian ranting about white genocide, the great replacement, racial IQ theories, and ethnonationalism murdered forty-nine innocent people live on Facebook.

    There’s a reason I want to keep this shit as far away as possible from any organization or cause that purports to be libertarian, and for that matter as far as possible from the mainstream of our political discourse. Burn the bridge. Smash the pipeline. Erect the cordon sanitaire around it. Don’t tolerate, condone, or associate with those who mix your political agenda with appeals to alt-right white identity politics. And don’t fall for the wink-wink nudge-nudge absurdity of endorsing that narrative while stopping just barely short of explicitly embracing the racial component out loud. Because that’s where it starts, and this is where it leads to.

    I’m sure some will note, accurately, that the “eco-fascist” ideology he wound up at wasn’t libertarian at all, and was on many points avowedly anti-libertarian and anti-capitalist. Undoubtedly. It’s also true that this monster bounced around a lot among different political ideologies, including communism, before making one last leap from libertarian to blood-and-soil fascist.

    And yet somehow I still knew, to a near certainty, that I could search his rambling screed for the word “libertarian” and would find him describing how he used to be one.

    Because that’s the point of bridges, or pipelines, or other equivalent analogies to describe this demented, festering relationship that people have been cultivating for the past thirty years. They have two ends, and where one starts isn’t necessarily going to resemble where it ends. Stuff somebody into the pipeline in Alberta moose country and they may well end up in the swamps outside Houston. But it always starts with a firm push in that direction.

    Run around telling people they’re the victims of a genocidal plot to destroy civilization and sooner or later somebody’s going to take that crap seriously. They’re going to start getting drawn further and further into the implications. They’re going to go do something like this, while those who lit the fuse step back, throw up their hands, and disavow all responsibility for the consequences of their ideas.

    It is unmitigated, irredeemable, inexcusable evil. Those who perpetuate it are not my friends, not my allies, and I will never make common cause with them for any purpose whatsoever. Neither should anybody else of good will and honest intentions.

    Or as somebody once put it: tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.”

  20. William T. Forrest

    Meantime, predictably and as predicted, Weld says in Reason that he has always been a loyal Republican and excused his LP run because after all Johnson had been a Republican too as Governor. And also just as predictably and predicted, Weld gets no love from the country club Republican establishment as Jeb! says someone really ought to primary Trump (clearly Weld is not a somebody to Jeb!)….

    Isn’t it really past due for the LP and libertarian movement to stop picking up the GOP’s dregs of washed up politicians, stop catering to conservatarian fusionism, and most of all stop any and all conflation with the insane bigoted and highly terrorism prone far right? Are we ever going to learn this lesson once and for all and if so when?

  21. Jared

    WTF: “Isn’t it really past due for the LP and libertarian movement to stop picking up the GOP’s dregs of washed up politicians, stop catering to conservatarian fusionism, and most of all stop any and all conflation with the insane bigoted and highly terrorism prone far right? Are we ever going to learn this lesson once and for all and if so when?”

    A significant segment of Libertarians who yearn for respectability and recognition, not to mention politically experienced and electable candidates. There are also a few opportunistic GOP politicians who see the LP as their chance to be a shiny new, big fish in a small pond rather than a washed up, small fish in a big pond.

    The LP has tended to appeal, at least rhetorically, more to the right at least since the early wave of Objectivists flooded the party. Fusionism is a failure by all accounts. I would hardly call Weld a conservatarian, though. He is more of a modern Rockefeller Republican, politically indistinguishable from a third-way Clintonian Democrat. Libertarianism might be unpalatable to the majority of Republicans, both Trumpists and never-Trump neocons, but at least for the moment it is utterly anathema to the Democrats. The RLC, small and weak as it is, dwarfs the now-practically nonexistent DFC.

    The so-called “alt-right pipeline” seems to stem from a number of factors. Some people will jump on any anti-establishment bandwagon. We saw how many Ron Paul supporters suddenly ditched constitutionalism to become Bernie bros. or hitch a ride on the Trump train. Some people are pathologically drawn to fringe ideologies and will transition from one to another in accordance with the trending populism. Some on the far right were taken in by Rothbard’s paleo strategy and Hoppe’s neo-feudalist rendition of anarcho-capitalism, conceiving of Austro-“libertarian” anarchy as a means to reconstruct society as either a theocracy or some nativist, racialist utopia.

    I really don’t think the LP’s conservatarian outreach is to blame for unscrupulous Republican has-beens like Weld or psychologically damaged, right-wing extremists like Cantwell, but I would like to see the party concentrate its missionary efforts on the increasingly alienated center and center-left, especially where economics are concerned. Libertarians can preach about zero abortion restrictions and LGBT+ inclusiveness until the cows come home, but until the party comes out strongly in favor of public funding for Planned Parenthood, single-payer insurance covering contraceptives as well as elective abortions and sexual reassignment surgeries, and endlessly expansive anti-discrimination legislation, social leftists are not going to abandon the Democrats or Greens for the LP.

  22. Freeman

    Gabbard’s main talking point is the issue of war & peace. That’s the best thing the Libertarian candidate could do too.

  23. dL Post author

    Meet the Libertine who is de-radicalizing the alt-right

    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/qvym73/meet-the-youtube-star-whos-de-radicalizing-young-right-wing-men

    The far right is the dominant political community on YouTube. It’s a flourishing world of men’s rights activists, follow url good topics for reports http://biointegrity.org/expired-viagra-pills/ cialis uk supplier click go to site stupid essay https://www.asle.org/institute/essay-indira-gandhi/19/ viagra ili kamagra follow link https://www.xpcc.com/write-my-research-paper-for-me-for-free/ cialis 20mg online uk follow link enter site sildenafil cost ontario generic viagra websites other thigns besides viagra prednisone with out a rx bigy homework help http://www.chesszone.org/lib/thesis-format-psychology-8130.html a level essay writing philosophy papers research questions topics enter http://phillipscountymuseum.org/exhibits/life-of-pi-essay-yahoo/39/ where to buy good essays fake viagra dangers reflective essay on teaching experience Naltrexone http://www.thefoodmission.com/13096-how-does-the-dose-for-synthroid/ go here free viagra font libertarians[sigh], anti-feminist atheists, and white nationalists.

    One thing the right wing has done pretty effectively in the last few years is, they’ve managed to frame the discussion as a kind of puritan, moralistic, sermonizing left versus a kind of edgy, rebellious, punk-rock right[Ah, Nick Gillespie’s Schtick],” says 30-year-old Wynn. “And I refuse to allow them to get away with that.[Good!]

    On her YouTube channel, Contrapoints, Wynn tries to reframe the debate around issues like free speech, the alt-right, incels, and transgender pronouns in a way that “makes [the far right] reveal their puritanism and their phobias, and has me as the, like, libertine.[NOTE: libertarianism divorced from the libertine ethic will eventually embrace fascism].

    My comments: Too much blame is placed on “Google Algorithms” as a radicalization machine. People like to talk about personal responsibility, well one alone bears the responsibility for the views one holds. Do you really want the Google Bots to act like a paternalistic social studies teacher that deliberately feeds you Kant and Aristotle(instead of, say, a crackpot like Jordan Peterson) for queries on “the west.” Note: for me, Contrapoints is the second listing for a “the west” youtube search, topping any far right result.

  24. Anastasia Beaverhausen

    Hear Hear Mr. Forrest… I wholeheartedly agree.

    Meanwhile, my national LP membership is about to expire, I got a “personal” e-mail from Mr. Sarwark asking me to re-up for another year, and I can’t think of a single compelling reason to do so.

    Sarwark and I are in the same state, where the LP was kicked off the ballot last year due to a combination of more restrictive signature requirements, not-terribly-libertarian candidates running for statewide office (the guy running for Governor was advocating new taxes!) who had their ballot signatures challenged, then the party assembled a group of last-minute whack-job write-in candidates including a nutjob who’s run for office every time since statehood. I’m in a populous county in a supposedly libertarian-leaning state, and the county party’s Facebook group has all of eight people. Despite being a registered Libertarian, I’ve never had anyone from the state or county parties call, mail, e-mail or send a smoke signal. No mailings, no newsletters, no convention announcements, no nothing. I e-mailed the county party asking for information on becoming a precinct committeeperson, and got no response. As far as I can tell, the state party is completely moribund. In the last year I received perhaps three editions of LP News in the mail.

    I’d love it if someone could try to convince me that my membership $ actually did something, because I’m not seeing it from National and I’m certainly not seeing it from Arizona. I see the LNC quibbling about minutiae while Rome burns. After 38 years, am I wrong in thinking the libertarian moment has passed? Or is it still there and all the wrong people are in charge of trying to make it happen?

  25. George Phillies

    “t I would like to see the party concentrate its missionary efforts on the increasingly alienated center and center-left, especially where economics are concerned.”

    22T. Also, hopefully someday, End the Surveillance State and Peace Now! End the Warfare State.

  26. Peter White

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

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

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

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

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

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

  27. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Mr. White Man: I don’t think you’ll get libs and (decentralist) greens to agree much of his except on this:

    …. “We need radical decentralization, eliminating most of the bureaucracy of the state.”

    And I like “Abrahamic religions should be thrown on the dustbin of history,” though if done voluntarily might take five or six generations. And a new alternative based on more science based mythology and eclectic spiritual practice.

  28. dL Post author

    “We need radical decentralization, eliminating most of the bureaucracy of the state.”

    Yeah, well I doubt the massive centralized international bureaucracy necessary to enforce a global population displacement genocide is going to want to wither away into a radical decentralization.

  29. dL Post author

    Sounds a lot like the NZ terrorist’s ideas.

    The worst of trump + the worst of Marx==(post)Modern Conservatism.
    Cons==commies.

  30. paulie

    Yeah, well I doubt the massive centralized international bureaucracy necessary to enforce a global population displacement genocide is going to want to wither away into a radical decentralization.

    Yeah, didn’t work so well for the USSR or any other Marxist revolution.

    The worst of trump + the worst of Marx==(post)Modern Conservatism.
    Cons==commies.

    Yep.

    I guess one difference between the NZ terrorist and this screed, other than the scale of killing in question, is that the “modest proposal” posted here would consider whites to be “invaders” in NZ just as much as middle easterners.

  31. Jake Leonard

    Since Christopher Cantwell the cuck was mentioned earlier in the thread, he was involved in a debate, branded “Shemale vs. Nazi” in the LRN.FM studios against “The Call To Freedom” Aria DiMezzo aka the Anarchist Shemale on Friday night, hosted in the studios and aired on DiMezzo’s Twitch channel. (I think the reasoning behind it not airing on the LRN.FM Twitch channel because of the content in nature.)

    Not even an hour into the debate, they started taking phone calls to the studio and a caller called Cantwell out on his hypocrisy, Cantwell got pissed and stormed out of the studio. The elevated drama leading to his departure from the studio led to the broadcast being #2 in the Talk Shows & Podcasts category.

    Free Talk Live did a piece about the debate on their website: https://www.freetalklive.com/news/chris-cantwell-storms-out-studio-during-%E2%80%9Cshemale-vs-nazi%E2%80%9D-event

  32. Jared

    Peter: “Who can honestly not agree? Search your soul and you will know this is true in your heart.”

    One of the most inspired troll posts I’ve seen. A-

  33. Libertydave

    The comment by Peter White is a joke. Who in their right minds would forgo the technology of the last 2000 years. I mean really, who would be willing to go back to no toilet paper and outhouses?

  34. paulie

    A significant segment of Libertarians who yearn for respectability and recognition, not to mention politically experienced and electable candidates. There are also a few opportunistic GOP politicians who see the LP as their chance to be a shiny new, big fish in a small pond rather than a washed up, small fish in a big pond.

    Those who seek recognition and respectability should learn already that dumpster diving for washed up candidates who are thrown to the curb by the Republicans isn’t the way to get it. The motive of the opportunistic crossovers at least is more logical and in tune with reality. They actually get what they want out of the deal; the Libertarians who fall for their shtick don’t.

    The LP has tended to appeal, at least rhetorically, more to the right at least since the early wave of Objectivists flooded the party. Fusionism is a failure by all accounts.

    Correct on both counts!

    I would hardly call Weld a conservatarian, though. He is more of a modern Rockefeller Republican, politically indistinguishable from a third-way Clintonian Democrat.

    Also agreed.

    Libertarianism might be unpalatable to the majority of Republicans, both Trumpists and never-Trump neocons, but at least for the moment it is utterly anathema to the Democrats. The RLC, small and weak as it is, dwarfs the now-practically nonexistent DFC.

    That’s a legacy of all the conservatarian efforts over the years. It’s not doing libertarianism any favors, then or now. That will be more and more true moving forward.

  35. paulie

    The so-called “alt-right pipeline” seems to stem from a number of factors. Some people will jump on any anti-establishment bandwagon. We saw how many Ron Paul supporters suddenly ditched constitutionalism to become Bernie bros. or hitch a ride on the Trump train. Some people are pathologically drawn to fringe ideologies and will transition from one to another in accordance with the trending populism. Some on the far right were taken in by Rothbard’s paleo strategy and Hoppe’s neo-feudalist rendition of anarcho-capitalism, conceiving of Austro-“libertarian” anarchy as a means to reconstruct society as either a theocracy or some nativist, racialist utopia.

    Good points.

  36. paulie

    I really don’t think the LP’s conservatarian outreach is to blame for unscrupulous Republican has-beens like Weld or psychologically damaged, right-wing extremists like Cantwell, but I would like to see the party concentrate its missionary efforts on the increasingly alienated center and center-left, especially where economics are concerned.

    Certainly and agreed on the second part, but I do think conservatarianism has in various ways paved the way for the degree of acceptability both Weld and Cantwell have received from some libertarians. Weld because of his NSGOP past regardless of his Clintonian views and vouching, Cantwell due to his rightward drift prior to embracing full blown totalitarian nazism.

    Libertarians can preach about zero abortion restrictions and LGBT+ inclusiveness until the cows come home, but until the party comes out strongly in favor of public funding for Planned Parenthood, single-payer insurance covering contraceptives as well as elective abortions and sexual reassignment surgeries, and endlessly expansive anti-discrimination legislation, social leftists are not going to abandon the Democrats or Greens for the LP.

    It’s true that already committed leftists are less likely to switch to libertarianism. The target is more the young, immigrant and disengaged voters who are strong on peace and civil liberties issues and open minded/educable on economics, and not yet firmly entrenched in a habitual voting pattern for Democrats or anyone else. Right now the Democrats are likely to get them, or full blown socialists, or cynical non-voting. But Libertarians could reach this crowd and at times have shown some capacity to do so… just haven’t tried enough and are hampered by the lingering conservatarian baggage.

  37. dL Post author

    Since Christopher Cantwell the cuck was mentioned earlier in the thread, he was involved in a debate, branded “Shemale vs. Nazi” in the LRN.FM studios against “The Call To Freedom” Aria DiMezzo aka the Anarchist Shemale on Friday night, hosted in the studios and aired on DiMezzo’s Twitch channel. (I think the reasoning behind it not airing on the LRN.FM Twitch channel because of the content in nature.)

    The elevated drama leading to his departure from the studio led to the broadcast being #2 in the Talk Shows & Podcasts category.

    There is no “market magic” in the “marketplace of ideas.”

  38. dL Post author

    Who in their right minds would forgo the technology of the last 2000 years.

    Not many. But there certainly is a contingent who would have no problem using apartheid means to sequester some in an existence where modern technology is an impermissible luxury.

  39. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DL: quoted “We need radical decentralization, eliminating most of the bureaucracy of the state.”
    And wrote: “Yeah, well I doubt the massive centralized international bureaucracy necessary to enforce a global population displacement genocide is going to want to wither away into a radical decentralization.”

    Obviously you are replying to Mr. White who evidently naively thinks his redistribution of populations would happen voluntarily. Sounds like he’s been reading Jeff Deist’s two year old “blood and soil” rant, right before the alt-right made it clear “blood and soil” was a really bad thing, for those who didn’t know it already.

    In my writings which I hope to have time and energy to get back to now that radiation almost done, I emphasize that: A) radical decentralization is probably going to happen within a few years, after the nuclear war that’s coming when US has to first strike Russia/China before their hypersonic nukes get us and B) even in unlikely case there’s no big war, and the ideology triumphed… so that radical decentralization could come through voluntary means, most people would choose relatively diverse economic and social communities, though many people – especially those with kids – might be more selective in residential communities, more for lifestyle issues than anything else.

    Obviously in countries where there are age old religious/ethnic etc communities there might be decentralization into smaller entities, but overtime they’d probably get more diverse as the old enmities became irrelevant. Many of those hatreds were just stirred up by those seeking power over both groups.

    Hopefully those like Mr. White will GROK this and put their energy merely into starting own communities and not hassling the rest of the world with their illiberal & Unlibertarian solutions.

    A bunch of third worlders hacked secession.net last month and haven’t gotten back to putting up it’s current ONE page…. but have scads of material to put up when I get more time. And I get better security (know what it is; haven’t had energy to figure out how to install it yet).

  40. dL Post author

    radical decentralization

    You do realize the extent science, technology, communication and trade rely on centrally established international standards? I chuckle when people chirp about “radical decentralization,” as if that is somehow automatically a good thing. That fairy tale is built over a lot of unexamined assumptions.

    after the nuclear war that’s coming when US has to first strike Russia/China before their hypersonic nukes get us

    Yeah, that is how you would achieve radical decentralization

  41. paulie

    You do realize the extent science, technology, communication and trade rely on centrally established international standards?

    “Peter White” sure does… and looks forward to turning the clock back all the way to the BC era on all of them.

  42. paulie

    https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/18/the-perils-of-zero-sum-worldviews-on-the

    The Perils of Zero-Sum Worldviews on the Left and Right
    The awful ideology of the perpetrator of the recent terrorist attack in New Zealand is one of many examples of how far-right nationalists and far-left socialists have more in common than we often think. Both worldviews rest on the dangerous assumption that the we are locked in a zero-sum game in which some groups can only succeed and prosper at the expense of others.

    Ilya Somin|Mar. 18, 2019 12:50 pm

    Immigration Racism Socialism Political Ignorance

  43. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DL writes: You do realize the extent science, technology, communication and trade rely on centrally established international standards? I chuckle when people chirp about “radical decentralization,” as if that is somehow automatically a good thing. That fairy tale is built over a lot of unexamined assumptions.

    CM: What is libertarianism in general but radical decentralization of decisions and choices to the individual?

    *Libertarians are not against “international standards” but want them established voluntarily by private entities. Have you never read Rothbard? And many many other libertarians?

    *Who could be against radical decentralization of energy, if someone invented a small solar energy batter that could hold and distribute massive amounts of energy inexpensively and be place, in appropriate scale, on vehicles, homes, offices, factories. And people are working on inventing it. Other forms of decentralization of technology also are desirable. Like 3d printing for more and more consumer and other items. Or growing food in urban high rise farming, which already is happening in a number of cities.

    Radical decentralization does NOT mean one has to believe in or act on some of the purely cultural alternatives White refers to.

  44. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Just discovered Christopher Cantwell originally was inspired by Michael Badnarik.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cantwell#Ideology
    Cantwell has identified as a libertarian.[31] By his own account, he was originally radicalized in 2009 after listening to a presentation by former Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik.[32] He announced as a Libertarian Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from New York’s 1st District in 2009 but failed to collect enough signatures to get on the ballot.[14]

  45. dL Post author

    Libertarianism might be unpalatable to the majority of Republicans, both Trumpists and never-Trump neocons, but at least for the moment it is utterly anathema to the Democrats. The RLC, small and weak as it is, dwarfs the now-practically nonexistent DFC.

    Beto O’Rourke : Dems : libertarianism :: William Weld : GOP : libertarianism

    Beto is might financially out raise Sanders and Warren combined. Meanwhile Weld can’t fundraise the cost of a ham sandwich.

  46. dL Post author

    Libertarians are not against “international standards” but want them established voluntarily by private entities. Have you never read Rothbard? And many many other libertarians?

    It really doesn’t matter if libertarians are for them or not, they are like the Matrix: they are everywhere and they govern the way you interact with the world. Every piece of electronics, every piece of code, every form of digital communication, every energy source etc, etc obey the rules and standards set by the countless number of industry task forces, professional bodies/societies to achieve that which is taken for granted: consumer interoperability. The cool ways tech allows people interact peer-to-peer are only cool because they operates over layers and layers of central planning. Without the central planning, p2p is nothing more than interaction with the immediate patriarch family. I have no idea what Rothbard has to do with any of this, but it is typically Hayek that gets the credit(in libertarian circles at least) for distinguishing between planning for competition vs planning against it it.

  47. Freeman

    What Phillies said.
    “End the Surveillance State and Peace Now! End the Warfare State.”
    For national level campaigning for libertarians these ought to be the top two talking points.

  48. Be Rational

    “I did not know Beta O’Cuck is a libertarian. Then again Weld is not either so I guess that is something they have in common.”

    Did a moderator here really just censor someone for saying Robert Francis O’Rourke and William Floyd Weld are not libertarians? Wow, Orwell and Kafka have been outdone.

  49. dL Post author

    Did a moderator here really just censor someone for saying Robert Francis O’Rourke and William Floyd Weld are not libertarians?

    No, it was deleted because of the impersonation spam TOS. If one understands analogy symbolism syntax, and typically those fond of using the term “cuck” like to think of themselves of being high IQ merely by virtue of their whiteness, so I would assume such syntax would not be beyond their grasp(otherwise, a pittance IQ would be indicated), then one would immediately recognize that what I wrote was not a statement that Beto and Weld are libertarians. Instead it was a “is to” comparison, meaning that Beto in the Democratic Party is to libertarianism as Weld in the GOP is to libertarianism. The analogy holds whether one thinks Weld and Beto are libertarians..or whether one thinks they aren’t. The analogy was prompted by an earlier comparison statement claiming libertarianism is unpalatable to the GOP but to democrats, it is an anathema. Beto’s fundraising figures compared to Weld’s demonstrate that the unpalatable:anathema comparison is not valid, assuming, of course, one generally accepts my analogy.

  50. Maurice Kane

    “Your analogy falls apart because Beta O’Cuck does not claim to be a libertarian, as far as I know has never claimed to be a libertarian and doesn’t have anyone else claiming he is a libertarian as far as I have ever seen. Weld sometimes claims to be some kind of libertarian, has run as a Libertarian and a Republican, and vouched for and praised Hillary Clinton. While his status as a libertarian is at best highly suspect (he’s more of a liartarian), Beta O’Cuck’s is non-existent; therefore, how can the fact that Beta O’Cuck raises a lot more money than Bill Weld have anything to do with how much Democrats and Republicans tolerate libertarianism? That’s like asking whether rap is more accepted in Korea or Japan by introducing a comparison involving Celine Dion’s album sales. Sure, she sells a lot of albums, but is someone claiming she is a rapper now?

    Not necessarily wrong but using a juvenile name taunt like “Beta O’Cuck” is low class and stupid.

  51. dL Post author

    Not necessarily wrong

    self-identification doesn’t mean jack squat when it comes to people actually holding libertarian views. Sadly, people who are not total losers may want to avoid self-identification w/ incels who excessively jack off to cuck p0rn. In the press, O’Rourke has been frequently associated with holding libertarian views, a low tax and regulation that libertarian in contrast to an incel porn preference that libertarian

  52. Libertydave

    DL, I have a question. Were you saying that international standards will prevent nonviolent radical decentralization? I don’t understand what international standards have to do with radical decentralization.

  53. dL Post author

    Were you saying that international standards will prevent nonviolent radical decentralization? I don’t understand what international standards have to do with radical decentralization.

    I’m saying “radical decentralization” has a lot of unchecked assumptions in a technological/industrial world that depends on centralization to function like we want it to function vis a vis interoperability.

  54. Jim

    paulie “http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Beto_O%60Rourke.htm Dead center of the left-liberal quintile at 80/20.”

    Oh, cool. I didn’t realize ontheissues was doing that. I guess I just never scrolled below the descriptions of their positions.

    Tulsi Gabbard and Cory Booker are both 80-30. They seem to be the closest to the libertarian quadrant.

    I have seen some positive headlines about Tulsi Gabbard since she announced. She has come out in favor of legalizing marijuana and prostitution. I haven’t taken a close look at her, though.

  55. Freeman

    “Mike Gravel will be 89 years old this year, and struck me as somewhat senile when I talked to him in person over a decade ago.”

    Ten years ago I helped Mike Gravel with some public speaking arrangements and took him places for a few days. He struck me as sharp-witted then.

  56. paulie

    I was travelling around speaking on behalf of Kubby at some conventions. Gravel had already been going to LP state conventions as well. He told me he was for legalizing all drugs in a way that implied that he thought this position would be as unusual in the LP as it was in the Democratic Party. Overall “sharp witted” was not the description I would have used for the impression he left.

    I’ve read a lot of mixed reviews of Gabbard’s record. One thing was clear though, no one was claiming she is even close to “libertarianish” on economic issues. I haven’t seen anyone running for the Democrats’ presidential nomination who is. Can someone point to one of these candidates’ record of votes and/or vetoes in office which indicates in sum that they are for making government smaller and less intrusive when it comes to our economic lives? What specific small government policies do they advocate and what are their downsides?

  57. Libertydave

    dL, I think your confused.

    Radical decentralization is the breakup of large control groups in to smaller and smaller groups quickly. International standards were adopted to facilitate trade between different areas. This won’t change with radical decentralization so international standards will actually makes it easier, not harder, for radical decentralization to happen.

    By the way standards while they my be imposed by governments that doesn’t mean that they are the only standards used, just take a look at the English and Metric standards of measurements. English is the official standards used in the US and the metric system is the international standard. And while different areas have different standards it doesn’t matter, international trade happens and technology gets shared with no problems.

  58. dL Post author

    By the way standards while they my be imposed by governments

    I’m not talking about imposed government standards. I’m referring to industry/commercial standards bodies, ISO, IEEEE, IETF, IESG, etc, et al(I could literally spend days composing a list of all the relevant bodies in tech, engineering, the internet,…)

    Radical decentralization is the breakup of large control groups in to smaller and smaller groups quickly.

    True.

    International standards were adopted to facilitate trade between different areas.

    Actually, the reasons were interoperability, reliability and safety. Of course, facilitation of international trade would be a byproduct of that.

    This won’t change with radical decentralization so international standards will actually makes it easier, not harder, for radical decentralization to happen.

    and this is where the unchecked assumptions reside. A system of dispersed autonomy functioning over a centrally standardized technology stack is not exactly radical decentralization. Radical decentralization is government by small autonomous groups operating independently or relatively independently of one another(historically, we would call these groups clans or tribes). Today, what people mean by decentralization is dispersed autonomy where everyone nonetheless is globally connected to one another. Dispersed autonomy over the global small network(a small network is where the degrees of separation between any two people is < =6). P2P tech like, say, the blockchain is "radically decentralized" at the application layer, but it runs over underlying stack layers at the network and physical levels that are not.

    So, the unchecked premises are:

    (1) Radical Decentralization is a misnomer for “global small network dispersed autonomy.”(GSNDA)
    (2) GSNDA resiliency against soft command and control. The internet was universally viewed as a cyber-anarchist dream in the early 90s but steadily is becoming viewed more and more like a totalitarian wet dream going into the 3rd decade of the 21st century. Why is that?

  59. paulie

    Sort of. We still have the comment lag issue, but it goes away if you log in. For those of you who still have the original logins from when the site required them in 2008, or if you commented here back then, hit login and hit forgot password below the login if you forgot it, which most people would have by now. Email myself or Warren Redlich or comment here if you don’t already have a login and would like one.

    Also, I figured out a way to make manually flushing cache one click, so I am doing that more often. That’s obviously not as good as automating the process but better than the clunky system we had the last few months. Flushing cache catches up the comment lag for those who are not logged in.

  60. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    When libertarians talk about radical decentralization, they usually are talking about of self-determining units, most probably with some sort of government. And obviously we want all governances to be as libertarian as possible. However, such units inevitably will have to network and even confederate to deal with common issues like dealing with contracts and torts, pollution, water rights, mutual aid, even defense. The important thing is politically the units retain the right to secede.

    Now it would be foolish to ignore the “iron law of oligarchy” which means powermongers will always look for excuses to consolidate power and keep small units enslaved to larger centralized ones. So we always need the free process of dissent, rebellion and secession to oppose oligarchy.

    And now one is against international standards in any number of areas. Eventually different entities hopefully will come up with sensible ones. Like on size for all cell phone charger hookups.

  61. LibertyDave

    Ok, I understand where your confused dL. You seem to think that you can’t have standards without having a government to force everyone to use them. It’s much like the confusion people have about government and roads. Most people seem to think that you won’t have roads without having a government to build them. Both these assumptions are wrong.

    Standards are just a description of how something is measured, weighed, built, or functions. International Standards are just standards that are used by people in more than one nation.

    While governments may enforce the use of certain standards. That doesn’t change the fact that standards would exist even without government enforcement and have nothing to do with the size of the government.

    So you can see my premises are not what you claim and I stand by my statement that international standards will actually make it easier, not harder, for radical decentralization to happen.

  62. dL Post author

    Ok, I understand where your confused dL. You seem to think that you can’t have standards without having a government to force everyone to use them.

    The only thing I’m confused about is whether or not you read my reply. I wrote:


    I’m not talking about imposed government standards. I’m referring to industry/commercial standards bodies, ISO, IEEEE, IETF, IESG, etc, et al(I could literally spend days composing a list of all the relevant bodies in tech, engineering, the internet,…)

    Standards are just a description of how something is measured, weighed, built, or functions. International Standards are just standards that are used by people in more than one nation.

    It’s a little bit more than that, brutha.

    So you can see my premises are not what you claim and I stand by my statement that international standards will actually make it easier, not harder, for radical decentralization to happen.

    And I as I wrote, “radical decentralization” is a misnomer. Radical decentralization is Jeremiah Johnson. When any two people on the planet are separated by at most 4 or 5 degrees of separation, that’s not radical decentralization. What are you are referring to you is something like “global small network dispersed autonomy.” And as I said, things like the internet have been a double-edged sword in regards to that. I asked a (rhetorical) question, “Why is that”? Well, I will answer it(credit: Julian Assange).

    First, recall that states are systems through which coercive force flows. Factions within a state may compete for support, leading to democratic surface phenomena, but the underpinnings of states are the systematic application, and avoidance, of violence. Land ownership, property, rents, dividends, taxation, court fines, censorship, copyrights and trademarks are all enforced by the threatened application of state violence.

    Most of the time we are not even aware of how close to violence we are, because we all grant concessions to avoid it. Like sailors smelling the breeze, we rarely contemplate how our surface world is propped up from below by darkness.

    In the new space of the internet what would be the mediator of coercive force?

    Does it even make sense to ask this question? In this otherworldly space, this seemingly platonic realm of ideas and information flow, could there be a notion of coercive force? A force that could modify historical records, tap phones, separate people, transform complexity into rubble, and erect walls, like an occupying army?

    The platonic nature of the internet, ideas and information flows, is debased by its physical origins. Its foundations are fiber optic cable lines stretching across the ocean floors, satellites spinning above our heads, computer servers housed in buildings in cities from New York to Nairobi. Like the soldier who slew Archimedes with a mere sword, so too could an armed militia take control of the peak development of Western civilization, our platonic realm.

    The new world of the internet, abstracted from the old world of brute atoms, longed for independence. But states and their friends moved to control our new world — by controlling its physical underpinnings. The state, like an army around an oil well, or a customs agent extracting bribes at the border, would soon learn to leverage its control of physical space to gain control over our platonic realm. It would prevent the independence we had dreamed of, and then, squatting on fiber optic lines and around satellite ground stations, it would go on to mass intercept the information flow of our new world — it’s very essence even as every human, economic, and political relationship embraced it. The state would leech into the veins and arteries of our new societies, gobbling up every relationship expressed or communicated, every web page read, every message sent and every thought googled, and then store this knowledge, billions of interceptions a day, undreamed of power, in vast top secret warehouses, forever. It would go on to mine and mine again this treasure, the collective private intellectual output of humanity, with ever more sophisticated search and pattern finding algorithms, enriching the treasure and maximizing the power imbalance between interceptors and the world of interceptees. And then the state would reflect what it had learned back into the physical world, to start wars, to target drones, to manipulate UN committees and trade deals, and to do favors for its vast connected network of industries, insiders and cronies.

  63. paulie

    Sounds like a semantics issue. Everyone else is using decentralization in this discussion only in reference to government whereas dL is using it in reference to everything, not just government. Both are valid ways of using the word. Seems like a non-argument over nothing since no one has indicated disagreement on matters of substance or policy, just on how the word should be used.

  64. dL Post author

    Sounds like a semantics issue.

    For me, the semantics would be over the use of the “radical” adjective.

    I have 2 bones to pick with the expression. The 1st is its association with states rights apartheid, and calling central government enforcement of said apartheid an example of “radical decentralization.” The second is its association with tech triumphalism, as in: some radical decentralized tech is going to break the back of the oligarchy. Not likely. Simply because tech itself does not work by a radically decentralized process. Granted, if the state was merely some “pave the cowpaths” agency, then, yes, technology could enable radical global small network dispersed autonomy. But that is not what the state is.

  65. Freeman

    Why is it that most Libertarians are so, how should I say it, hard to like? You would think they’d be free & easy. Freedom lovers, I would think, would be open-minded & curious, accepting of others and cheerful. Instead, it seems mostly that conversation is taken as attack and counterattack, oneupmanship, a game of king-o-the-hill. I think Libertarians would do far better at advancing their cause if they were a little more humble, tolerant & friendly, and if they would just listen better.

  66. LibertyDave

    Hi Freeman,

    Just because we don’t agree with you on solutions to our problems doesn’t mean we aren’t listening. It just means we believe doing things another way would be better for all. As far as being humble, tolerant, & friendly, think about this. You come to a website were debate is encouraged, then you accuse us of acting like we are debating. When you use language like your talking to small children who don’t understand how things work when your talking to libertarians why should you expect us to be friendly?

    Remember you get what you give.

  67. dL Post author

    Why is it that most Libertarians are so, how should I say it, hard to like? You would think they’d be free & easy. Freedom lovers, I would think, would be open-minded & curious, accepting of others and cheerful.

    (chuckle)This is a message board, brutha…(chuckle)

  68. paulie

    I think you are reading more into Freeman’s comments than is there. It seems like a general observation about libertarians to me, not a specific observation about this discussion forum or discussion fora as such.

  69. dL Post author

    It seems like a general observation about libertarians to me

    herding cats…isn’t that the long standing reputation?

  70. LibertyDave

    Like I said, you get what your give.

    If your experience is that libertarians don’t listen or are unfriendly it might be because it’s how you react when you find out your talking to a libertarian. Conservatives and liberals have both twisted and lied about what libertarians believe and most people prejudge us and don’t bother to actually listen to what we are saying. I don’t know how many times I’ve been ridiculed and treated with disrespect by people when they find out I’m a libertarian. I always treat people with respect until they show me they don’t deserve it by being condescending or rude.

  71. Robert Capozzi

    LD,

    Another approach is to recognize that the condescension or rudeness is coming from some sort of emotional pain. A sincere “I’m sorry you feel that way” can sometimes wake the attacker out of his or her funk and preconceived notions. If it doesn’t, note that the conversation feels unproductive, and move on.

  72. dL Post author

    I don’t know how many times I’ve been ridiculed and treated with disrespect by people when they find out I’m a libertarian. I always treat people with respect until they show me they don’t deserve it by being condescending or rude.

    FWIW, I’ve never had that problem, at least not face to face.

  73. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    dl: Yes, some people misuse radical decentralization either by definition (states aren’t that radically decentralized) or for profit (buy my radically decentralized bitcoins NOW – before i sell all mine, make a big profit and you lose your money as bottom falls out). And whatever else.

    They misuse liberty too. And freedom. And peace. Doesn’t mean we give up on it.

  74. dL Post author

    Doesn’t mean we give up on it.

    I didn’t say give up or lay down. I’m just saying it is useful to properly define our terms. Unless one is going to go Jeremiah Johnson, radical(and the emphasis here is on radical) decentralization is a misnomer. That doesn’t mean decentralization itself is phony or that I advocate for centralized government.

  75. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    There is non-radical decentralization. Transferring a little power to some subordinate entities while the most important power resides with the central power.

    Radical decentralization means the main power lies with smaller entities – especially politically – which cede little power to higher entities they voluntarily join and can secede from at any time. It is radical change from the current situation.

    And it is a view that individuals cooperating to form – and when necessary re-form entities – is the fundamental and healthiest mode of human interaction. Per definitions below:

    Radical defined:
    1. (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
    “a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework”
    synonyms: thoroughgoing, thorough, complete, total, entire, absolute, utter, comprehensive, exhaustive, root-and-branch, sweeping, far-reaching, wide-ranging, extensive, profound, drastic, severe, serious, major, desperate, stringent, violent, forceful, rigorous, draconian
    “radical reform is long overdue”
    antonyms: superficial

    2. forming an inherent or fundamental part of the nature of someone or something.
    “the assumption of radical differences between the mental attributes of literate and nonliterate peoples”
    synonyms: fundamental, basic, essential, quintessential; More
    inherent, innate, structural, deep-seated, intrinsic, organic, constitutive, root
    “the apparently radical differences between logic and natural language”
    antonyms: minor
    (of surgery or medical treatment) thorough and intended to be completely curative.

    2.
    advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.
    “a radical American activist”
    synonyms: revolutionary, progressive, reforming, reformist, revisionist, progressivist; leftist, left-wing, ultra-left, socialist, anticapitalist;
    extreme, extremist, fanatical, militant, diehard;
    informalred;
    informalswivel-eyed;
    derogatoryBolshevik
    “a radical political movement”

  76. Freeman

    Myself, I’m a moderate libertarian. It’s been over a decade since I last paid dues to the LP, so I’m not spelling it with a big L. I forgot to state my political identity.

    I think “winning” a fight of words is overrated and calm disagreement is underrated.

  77. dL Post author

    Radical defined:

    um, the merriam-webster definition of “radical” is not what I meant. In a systems definition, “decentralization” refers to decisions or tasks by nodes or agents independent of any central processing control and typically without any knowledge of the functioning of the other nodes. Radical decentralization would refer to decentralized systems with minimal connectedness, which today would be pejoratively be referred to as a black hole. The political analog to this would be pre-industrial clans. The tech analog would be a home network with no internet connection. Decentralized systems with a high degree of connectedness are called distributed systems.. Things like TOR or the blockchain which are often referred to as decentralized systems are actually distributed systems.

    In the decentralized graph above, nodes are connected the hub nodes and the hubs orbit a main hub. That mimics decentralized internet routing. Radical decentralization would be where there is no connection between the hubs. A thousand disconnected LANs with no internet. As I said above, TOR and blockchain is (c).

    Typically, the point of distributed systems is to avoid single points of failure. A distributed system solves the problem of SPoFs within the system itself but are still subject to SPoFS from external factors, such as, say, cloud or provider failures. Those would be inadvertant failures. There are also intentional failures like outright ToS takedowns, ISP blocking, state controlled firewalls, etc.

  78. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DL: the compare and contrast distinctions are important for anyone who uses the words to know. Neither the more technical nor the more political should claim supremacy.

  79. LibertyDave

    dL,

    Your examples above, both B and C are decentralized systems. Your insisting that figure C can’t be called a decentralized system because it is also called a distributed system is like someone insisting that you can’t call a thumb a finger. As for the word radical the way it’s used it describes the degree of decentralization, and using your examples above, figure c the decentralization is the most radical.

  80. dL Post author

    Your examples above, both B and C are decentralized systems. Your insisting that figure C can’t be called a decentralized system because it is also called a distributed system is like someone insisting that you can’t call a thumb a finger. As for the word radical the way it’s used it describes the degree of decentralization, and using your examples above, figure c the decentralization is the most radical.

    Actually, it is the other way around. Decentralized is a subset of Distributed, and not every distributed system is a decentralized one. And the finger/thumb analogy is a particularly apt one to describe one such system(the human body + central nervous system) that is distributed but not decentralized.

  81. paulie

    Love the Free Pony Express. I’m encouraging the other campaigns for the nomination to do one too and/or sign up people from your campaigns to post/crosspost articles here at IPR.

  82. paulie

    Before anyone asks that offer does not extend to “candidates” who have already been banned here as trolls or anyone on their campaigns – although as far as I know none of those “candidates” have anyone except themselves and their own sock puppet accounts working on their “campaigns.”

  83. dL Post author

    Is the Free Pony Express real news? fake news?

    I assume it’s deliberate satire, but who the hell knows these days…

  84. paulie

    I’m going to post as much Vermin stuff on IPR as I can on April 1. Anyone else from the campaign want to sign up there to help? Other campaigns?

  85. paulie

    Desarae Lindsey shared an event.
    7 mins

    What other presidential candidate has yet another film coming out about them? 🙂

    From the event description: YouTube’s algorithms respond to multiple views in a single time-frame. If you want your ponies, you need to get yourself ready to watch this thing, April Fools day. 8pm EDT. Get your popcorn. The greatest 2 and a half minutes of cinema you will see all year! Featuring the music of @Dave Tree and See This World!

    I won’t be missing this – I’m definitely anxious to see what shenanigans these two were up to in 2016! <3

    https://www.facebook.com/events/2557720060969521/

  86. Peter Pendragon

    We are the most trusted name in fake news. Our alternative facts are fair and balanced. While many of our views do align with the presumptive Libertarian presidential nominee Vermin Supreme, it is entirely coincidental, and we are not affiliated with his campaign in any way. Like Mr. Supreme, we also hold that free ponies are a basic human right as central to human dignity as dental care and recreational nukes.

  87. paulie

    We are the most trusted name in fake news. Our alternative facts are fair and balanced. While many of our views do align with the presumptive Libertarian presidential nominee Vermin Supreme, it is entirely coincidental, and we are not affiliated with his campaign in any way. Like Mr. Supreme, we also hold that free ponies are a basic human right as central to human dignity as dental care and recreational nukes.

    Fair enough. But that does not substantially change anything I said 🙂 Offer remains open.

  88. NewFederalist

    I think that’s a good thing. He would be by far the most libertarian nominee since 2004.

  89. paulie

    I think that’s a good thing. He would be by far the most libertarian nominee since 2004.

    I would say Hornberger is probably more hardcore than the more constitutionalist Badnarik. From what I recall in 2000, he went hardcore after Browne, Willis et al for intra-party favoritism issues and almost caused Browne to drop out as donations dropped out, then dropped out himself and dropped back in at the convention, unexpectedly. Later when VA LP did not nominate him for Gov or Sen he ran against them as an independent in the general election. I also seem to remember him saying something like that we need to pay no attention to party infrastructure, let it take care of itself and all we need to concentrate on is having a candidate who is a good speaker and writer. I disagreed with that then and now, but don’t know if he still holds anything like that view.

    On the other hand he really is an excellent speaker and writer and – as a major plus – fluent in Spanish. He’s not shy about approaching strangers to campaign, and seems to have it together financially and imagewise. He is known to long time movement people in and out of the party and can tap those donors and fundraisers.

    I’m kind of tired of crossovers, so it would be nice to have someone who’s not one for the first time in several cycles. At the moment I am liking Vermin Supreme (IPR takeover, moneybomb and youtube watch-bomb tomorrow, April 1st) and Kim Ruff. Hornberger would be a welcome addition to the mix.

  90. Freeman

    Here are two excerpts from an interview with Jacob Hornberger in 2001 that seem to show that he’s not “napist”. He says this about some people in the LP:

    “One group of people place little or no value on ethical principles, believing that right and wrong are judged only by the libertarian nonaggression principle. In other words, as long as conduct is not violent or fraudulent, advocates of this paradigm would say that one cannot say that conduct is “wrongful” in an objective sense. Then there are those of us who believe in a paradigm that places ethics right near at the top of our values. We would say, for example, that a paradigm that permits a candidate to make payments of money to party officials is “wrong” because it violates ethical principles relating to principles of fiduciary duty and conflict of interest.”

    Then later in the interview he says:

    “I’ve come to the conclusion that there is one principle reason for failure at the national LP level: the paradigm of unethical conduct that has governed the LP for many years, including the right of LP presidential candidates to make payments of money to Libertarian National Committee (LNC) officials for “services rendered.”
    I believe that the American people have a keener sense of when something feels fishy than we give them credit for. I saw this in jury trials – jurors might not be able to understand all the complex issues in a case, such as the judge would, but they could instinctively size both sides up and arrive at a just decision. I think that many regular people size up the LP, instinctively sense that things are not right, and go elsewhere.
    If Libertarians would adopt a paradigm of ethics and integrity and combine that with libertarian principles, they’d have more success than they would know what to do with.”

  91. dL Post author

    One group of people place little or no value on ethical principles, believing that right and wrong are judged only by the libertarian nonaggression principle. In other words, as long as conduct is not violent or fraudulent, advocates of this paradigm would say that one cannot say that conduct is “wrongful” in an objective sense.

    Well, yeah, unethical conduct and criminal conduct are not the same thing(duh!), and Hornberger is correct that anyone who tries to wash said unethical conduct with an appeal to “doesn’t violate NAP” is a snake oil peddler.

    If Libertarians would adopt a paradigm of ethics and integrity and combine that with libertarian principles, they’d have more success than they would know what to do with.”

    No. Professional ethics and libertarian principles together do not guarantee any electoral success. They would only guarantee that the little pond hasn’t been polluted with snake oil.

  92. paulie

    I see nothing in that quote which says how strictly he adheres to the NAP. From his speech in Alabama in 2019 and what I remember of his speeches in the 90s and 00s he wants the LP and its candidates to stress radical solutions based on the non-initiation of force principle. He also believes that we need to stress a high level of internal adherence to rules, which he felt the LPHQ staff and Browne campaign were in violation of. If there’s some conflict between those two positions I don’t know what it is, nor do I know how the quote contradicts anything I said previously above – not that Freeman said it did.

    April thread coming up asap if no one else beat me to it.

Leave a Reply

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