November-December 2019 Open Thread

Welcome to November, 2019. It’s too bad she won’t live; but then again, who does?

128 thoughts on “November-December 2019 Open Thread

  1. LibertyDave

    If you want a flying car, build yourself one.

    To find out how just do a google search for “DIY Manned Quad-copter”.

  2. dL Post author

    Where the hell are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars!

    Blade runner only promised the pigs would have spinners…

  3. dL Post author

    If you want a flying car, build yourself one.

    Those DIY copters look more like something HG Wells promised

  4. Gene Berkman

    Kentucky is holding elections for Governor and other state-wide Constitutional officers today.
    With almost 97% of precincts counted, the Democrat is leading incumbent Republican Governor Matt Bevin by less than the vote cast for Libertarian candidate John Hicks:
    Map Percent Candidate Party Votes Winner
    49.3% Andy Beshear Dem 689,162
    48.7% Matt Bevin* GOP 680,343
    2% John Hicks Libt 27,482
    96.6% of precincts reporting (3,533/3,659) *Incumbent
    1,396,987 total votes
    Louisville
    Lexington
    source:https://www.politico.com/election-results/2019/kentucky/

  5. Gene Berkman

    Politico is reporting that 100% of Precincts have been counted in the Kentucky election for Governor:
    Percent Candidate Party Votes Winner
    49.2% Andy Beshear Dem 711,955
    48.9% Matt Bevin* GOP 707,297
    2% John Hicks Libt 28,475

    With a result this close there will probably be a recount. With the current numbers, John Hicks received more than 6 times the difference between Bevin and Beshear.

    Congratulations to the Kentucky Libertarian Party for putting up statewide candidates and actually influencing the election for Governor.

  6. dL Post author

    Covered in red tape.

    Science fiction in the past simply made the mistake of overestimating the expansion in human mobility. As it turns out, the future is to better simulate the present and the past. There will be no martian colonies. But the video games will continue to get a lot better. I don’t know if you can simply chalk all that up to “the bureaucracy.”

    As I alluded to above, in Blade Runner, the flying cars–the spinners, as they were called–were licensed largely only to the police. I imagine something similar will play out here over the next 20 years or so. A very restricted licensing regime for commercial vertical takeoff and landing(VTOL) vehicles.

  7. Chuck Moulton

    We elected a lot of Libertarians to public office in PA this year. Full results will take a few weeks as the write-ins are counted. I’d estimate at least 25, at most 60 were elected Tuesday.

  8. Gene Berkman

    At Newsmax conservative journalist John Gizzi is blaming Libertarian candidate John Hicks for the
    Republican loss in the Kentucky Governor race.
    https://www.newsmax.com/john-gizzi/bevin-kentucky-beshear-libertarian/2019/11/06/id/940369/

    He correctly notes that Matt Bevin, the incumbent Republican lost by 5,333 votes, much less than the 28,436 cast for John Hicks, the Libertarian candidate. He fails to note that the Libertarian candidate for Auditor received 46,549 votes, and the Libertarian candidate for Commissioner of Agriculture received 44,584 votes. In both races the Republican candidate beat the Democrat by a substantial margin.

    Mr Gizzi makes a reference to the 2013 race for Governor of Virginia, in which Republican Ken Cuccinelli lost by less than the vote cast for the Libertarian candidate. He fails to note that in two other statewide races in Virginia that year – for Lt. Governor and Attorney-General – Democrats beat Republicans in two-way races, with no Libertarian candidate to “split the vote.”

  9. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    One problem with flying cars is that accidents would be far more destructive. Imagine if everyone in Los Angeles had a flying car. The sky would be filled with a million cars flying over the city.

    Imagine the congestion — the “sky rage” as people zoom in and about, ignoring air traffic regulations. Imagine all the daily collisions. Only this time, when there’s a pile-up, the vehicles would come crashing down to earth.

  10. paulie

    Science fiction in the past simply made the mistake of overestimating the expansion in human mobility. As it turns out, the future is to better simulate the present and the past. There will be no martian colonies. But the video games will continue to get a lot better. I don’t know if you can simply chalk all that up to “the bureaucracy.”

    I think you are underestimating how much red tape has held back evolution.

  11. paulie

    Mr Gizzi makes a reference to the 2013 race for Governor of Virginia, in which Republican Ken Cuccinelli lost by less than the vote cast for the Libertarian candidate. He fails to note that in two other statewide races in Virginia that year – for Lt. Governor and Attorney-General – Democrats beat Republicans in two-way races, with no Libertarian candidate to “split the vote.”

    I’ve written extensively about the persistent falsehood that LP votes come primarily from Republicans or belong to Republicans.

  12. Gene Berkman

    If anybody has seen Sen Rand Paul calling for outing the identity of the Ukraine scandal whistleblower, and wants to let Sen. Paul know how repugnant this idea is to advocates of freedom, you can use the email
    form on his Senate website https://www.paul.senate.gov/connect/email-rand

    I sent a message about his succumbing to what Jean-Francois Revel calls the “Totalitarian Temptation.”
    I encourage others to share their thoughts.

  13. Gene Berkman

    Paulie – it is incontrovertible that many who vote Libertarian used to vote Republican. And many still vote split tickets, including Republican candidates. And it is clear that aside from getting votes from committed philosophical libertarian, disenchanted Republicans provide the next largest pool of potential Libertarian voters.

    That said, if someone votes Libertarian, they probably did not want to vote for the Republican anyway. And if someone votes against an Incumbent politician – like Gov. Matt Bevin – they made a deliberate choice, probably based on the incumbent’s record. In Kentucky, many who voted for Matt Bevin 4 years ago, voted Democrat this time, and others voted Libertarian. And many who voted Republican this year for other offices, voted Democrat for Governor to make sure Matt Bevin would be defeated.

    Disenchanted Republicans and former Republicans turned Independents are a growing part of the electorate, and the Libertarian Party has to get more votes from these people. I don’t see any other part of the electorate that can provide as many new votes for LP candidates.

  14. Starchild

    In San Francisco, the LPSF-backed progressive candidate for district attorney, Chesa Boudin, is neck-and-neck with the more establishment candidate currently serving as interim D.A. He was behind by only 240 votes out of over 100,000 cast, though I think the current gap has widened to 879 votes.

  15. dL Post author

    I think you are underestimating how much red tape has held back evolution.

    What’s the red tape on private space flights, orbiting hotels & planetary colonization?

  16. dL Post author

    One problem with flying cars is that accidents would be far more destructive. Imagine if everyone in Los Angeles had a flying car.

    They generally wouldn’t be flying in urban areas. That’s why flying cars are technically called vertical takeoff and landing(VTOL) vehicles. Still, they obviously wouldn’t not be “driven by humans” while inflight. And that’s part of the reason for the slow development. The infancy of driverless cars is enough of a problem right now.

  17. dL Post author

    Disenchanted Republicans and former Republicans turned Independents are a growing part of the electorate, and the Libertarian Party has to get more votes from these people. I don’t see any other part of the electorate that can provide as many new votes for LP candidates.

    Running candidates to the right of republicans on abortion in order to cow in the media about being a republican spoiler is pretty much my definition of losertarianism.

  18. dL Post author

    If anybody has seen Sen Rand Paul calling for outing the identity of the Ukraine scandal whistleblower, and wants to let Sen. Paul know how repugnant this idea is to advocates of freedom, you can use the email

    Gene, a republican is what a republican does. Why are you surprised that a partisan republican is acting like a partisan republican?

  19. dL Post author

    Why not?

    To avoid finding out Trent Reznor ripped The Downward Spiral from a dweeb blaring the Downward Spiral from his delorean?

  20. RiddleMeThis

    Don’t let those flying cars hit 88 MPH

    Why not?

    At 88 mph your DeLorean will take you …
    Back to the Future

  21. paulie

    LOL, OK. I would also suggest putting quotes, italics, or something around whatever you are responding to in order to keep conversations from getting confusing to the readers.

    Or like this

    X said:

    Y said:

    X replied:

    However you do it please don’t just put back and forth from yourself and others without distinguishing who said what.

  22. paulie

    What’s the red tape on private space flights, orbiting hotels & planetary colonization?

    Tons of it on every step of running a business doing research and development, logistics or anything else. A lot of it is not readily visible. Innovation suffers the most because it is more discretionary in a company’s budget.

  23. paulie

    James Ogle is a liar.

    We usually disallow anything by or about Ogle here, but I thought this was relevant enough to make an exception. If anyone besides Ogle wants to respond or follow up in any way, there’s a quarantined thread for that. Search for his name in the IPR search box if you feel the need.

  24. paulie

    it is incontrovertible that many who vote Libertarian used to vote Republican.

    And it’s incontravertible that many used to vote Democrat (myself included) or did not vote at all, or regardless of how they used to vote, would not vote Republican now. The actual opinion surveys of LP voters is that most would not vote at all without us on the ballot, and of the rest the split between D and R would be about even. This includes both pre election and exit polls in various states and races. Depending on the particular race our voters might break slightly D or slightly R in our absence, depending on the particular candidates (our as well as theirs) and the dynamics of the particular race. I’ve posted numbers and sources many times and don’t care to again. It’s in the archives.

    In the Sarvis race, his absence would have helped the Democrat, not the Republican, and not enough to affect the outcome either way. Republicans kept making a stink assuming the opposite but posted zero empirical evidence. I posted empirical evidence to the contrary in both articles and comments here. You’ll have to find the links yourself if you care enough to look it up. I have not studied the KY race enough to say but based on others I have it’s unlikely we made the difference in that one either. Whether it would have been a good thing or not if we had is a separate question.

    Disenchanted Republicans and former Republicans turned Independents are a growing part of the electorate, and the Libertarian Party has to get more votes from these people. I don’t see any other part of the electorate that can provide as many new votes for LP candidates.

    I disagree. I think former and would be Democrats, independents and non-voters are by far a better potential audience for reasons I have also explained extensively many times in the past and don’t care to repeat again. Again it’s in the archives in both articles and comments. At some point I lose patience for repeating myself and I have passed that point some time ago.

  25. paulie

    Running candidates to the right of republicans on abortion in order to cow in the media about being a republican spoiler is pretty much my definition of losertarianism.

    Agreed!

  26. paulie

    One problem with flying cars is that accidents would be far more destructive. Imagine if everyone in Los Angeles had a flying car.

    This is based on some erroneous assumptions. The first is that they would have to be driver operated, without any automated safeguards against crashing into each other, crashing into other things or crashing in general. I see no reason to assume that and tend to think the opposite would most likely be the case.

    Supposing however even that they would be solely driver/pilot operated, you must think that neither the government (through licensing) nor the free market (through insurance, torts or whatever means) could insure that pilots would be adequately trained in safety to prevent frequent crashes from being a regular thing, and at the same time that no technological fix on the machine end could be discovered. That seems like a failure of imagination.

  27. paulie

    And that’s part of the reason for the slow development. The infancy of driverless cars is enough of a problem right now.

    True, but why is technological development on this and many other fronts so far behind? Red tape plays a huge ways in many ways big and small, most of which are not readily apparent unless you think about it in some detail.

  28. dL Post author

    True, but why is technological development on this and many other fronts so far behind? Red tape plays a huge ways in many ways big and small, most of which are not readily apparent unless you think about it in some detail.

    Red tape is pat answer to why reality doesn’t match certain science fiction prognostications. Take driverless cars, for example. There’s a good reason why its not full speed ahead on that front. There is no consensus on whether or not these vehicles should be connected to the internet. Some manufactures want fully internet controlled/connected vehicles. Others do not. Internet controlled vehicles introduces an obvious security risk. Personally, I don’t everything should be on the internet and have no interest in absorbing the externalized security costs of making the internet safe(i.e, hack proof) for driverless vehicles

  29. George Phillies

    Our Libertarian Party had a Presidential candidate debate on Saturday November 2. There was a straw poll, people being asked who did best in the debate. Among LP members who were present, the outcome was

    LP Member percentages
    Kim Ruff 62%
    Jo Jorgenson 17%
    Adam Kokesh 11%
    Vermin Supreme 6%
    Ken Armstrong 4%
    Dan Behrman 0%

    Yes, Jo Jorgenson, our 1996 VP candidate, is back.

  30. paulie

    you can use the email
    form on his Senate website

    Or urinate into the face of a strong wind, with equal effectiveness. He has cast his lot with Trumpenfascism, and not out of ignorance. He wrote/spoke quite eloquently about what it was an is prior to the nomination. And lest anyone think he just “sold out” at that point, he had a very mixed record well before then, many parts of it detailed and discussed in these pages.

  31. C. Al Currier

    “Covered in red tape.”
    The government regulates the airspace. Always.
    In 1982 ‘Lawnchair-Larry’ got arrested by the Long Beach Police Dept. for flying a lawnchair.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight
    ———
    In the early 60’s I had a major run-in with the Pasadena Police Department who came out in force (with guns and handcuffs) at ‘Victory Park’ to make me take down a kite. They claimed it was interfering with the Pasadena Police helicopter, and I was violating regulated airspace. I had about 1200 feet of line extended, but I doubt that the kite exceeded the ‘sacred-height’ of 1000 feet.
    ——–
    In the 80’s I had a major run-in with FAA for flying over “restricted-air-space” of the Annenberg Estate.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnylands
    Ronald Reagan came to visit Walter Annenberg. I left the airport early in the morning and the “restricticted-air-space” did not become active until after the control tower opened, which was after I already left. I was one of many pilots who ran afoul of the FAA and Ronald Reagan, who made frequent unannounced visits across the US with unannounced restrictions. On the same day of the “air-space” incident I came close to smacking ‘Marine-One” (unoccupied by the Prez)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_One
    which was flying the wrong way down a taxi-way. When you’re the government you don’t have to follow the rules but can simply enforce the rules to whatever and whenever you want.

  32. George Phillies

    To this we may add the list of candidates, ranked by how much money they have raised in the last two years.

    The percentages are the South Carolina votes. Some press sources are circulating truly bizarre dollar numbers that do not agree with FEC filings.

    Dan Behrman 0% $34,187.82
    Adam Kokesh 11% $24,809.84
    Vermin Supreme 6% $18,541.71
    Ken Armstrong 4% $13,198.49
    Kim Ruff 62% $5,885.98
    Jo Jorgenson 17% – just entered race

  33. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Paulie: Supposing however even that they would be solely driver/pilot operated, you must think that neither the government (through licensing) nor the free market (through insurance, torts or whatever means) could insure that pilots would be adequately trained in safety to prevent frequent crashes from being a regular thing, and at the same time that no technological fix on the machine end could be discovered.

    We have all that — licensing, insurance, torts, training, technology — to ensure the safe driving of cars — and yet, accidents still happen. Sometimes fatal.

    Similarly, I doubt that any fixes would prevent accidents among privately owned flying cars. The difference is, when flying cars do collide, or just have mechanical failures, the damages would be exponentially greater when those flying cars crash to earth.

  34. paulie

    We have all that — licensing, insurance, torts, training, technology — to ensure the safe driving of cars — and yet, accidents still happen. Sometimes fatal.

    They have become less frequent and less frequently fatal even though there are more cars spending more time on roads. This is due to technological advancement, which would be much more rapid without all the red tape holding it back.

    Similarly, I doubt that any fixes would prevent accidents among privately owned flying cars. The difference is, when flying cars do collide, or just have mechanical failures, the damages would be exponentially greater when those flying cars crash to earth.

    Yes, it would just be so rare as to make any such damage much less overall than what happens now.

  35. paulie

    Red tape is pat answer to why reality doesn’t match certain science fiction prognostications.

    It is the correct one.

    Personally, I don’t everything should be on the internet and have no interest in absorbing the externalized security costs of making the internet safe(i.e, hack proof) for driverless vehicles

    You’re missing a much, much larger picture. The advancement of technology without all the different ways it is bound in red tape can be so much more rapid as to render any concerns we have now with our present level of technology completely irrelevant. We’re already a major evolutionary leap behind where we should be currently.

  36. dL Post author

    We’re already a major evolutionary leap behind where we should be currently.

    Where should we be? Without government(i.e, organized violence), most of North America would still be mostly Indian tribes. Even if we were to assume your one evolutionary leap lag, things like solar system colonization and planetary terraforming are way beyond one leap.

    If you watch Blade Runner or Back to the Future, you ask: where are the flying cars? But if you watch, say, Star Trek, things like desktop computers and communicators–things that were hypothesized to be 23rd century tech–are already obsolete.

  37. paulie

    Where should we be? Without government(i.e, organized violence), most of North America would still be mostly Indian tribes.

    You are assuming a lot. Trade and migration would have happened even without conquest. Technology would have spread and been adopted although not quite in the same way as it did.

    ven if we were to assume your one evolutionary leap lag, things like solar system colonization and planetary terraforming are way beyond one leap.

    Not even close. I’m talking about a bigger leap than that. How much have you read about transhumanism, singularity, etc? Terraforming and space colonization are small potatoes in the bigger picture.

  38. Eric Sundwall

    When I I hit the railroad tracks fast enough on Rapp Rd. in the 2002 325xi it almost takes flight. Great beater.

    Recall a zogby poll i was in, circa 2006, “took” from both sides equally. 2.5% only 3 months officially in it. Now Sillybrand runs for potus . . . tisk tisk

    still . . . I’d rather be kicking about as a free anarchist upstate, then a dweedle on some board, panel, commission or committee.

    I do drive safer when nor wearing a seat belt or not have inspection.

    Patsy beat Peter, but there was like one LP candidate in a 100 mile range. Bunch of fusion messes not worth discussing . . . Gloversville

  39. dL Post author

    You are assuming a lot. Trade and migration would have happened even without conquest.

    And you assume trade and migration automatically implies technological progress. Trade and migration, yes. But no transcontinental railroad. At least not one built anywhere near the timeframe it was actually constructed.

    How much have you read about transhumanism, singularity, etc? Terraforming and space colonization are small potatoes in the bigger picture.

    Enough. lol. The singularity is AI and transhumanism is a philosophical embrace of human enhancement with AI. The future prospect of an AI explosion is the thing that is small potatoes compared to terraforming other planets.

  40. Jim

    George Phillies “To this we may add the list of candidates, ranked by how much money they have raised in the last two years. The percentages are the South Carolina votes. Some press sources are circulating truly bizarre dollar numbers that do not agree with FEC filings.
    Dan Behrman 0% $34,187.82
    Adam Kokesh 11% $24,809.84
    Vermin Supreme 6% $18,541.71
    Ken Armstrong 4% $13,198.49
    Kim Ruff 62% $5,885.98
    Jo Jorgenson 17% – just entered race”

    That is how much they raised since January 1, 2019. The FEC 2 year cycle is for 2019 and 2020. Kokesh began raising money in December 2017 and raised a lot in 2018. He also has basically matched contributions from others. If you include the 2017-2018 two year cycle, Kokesh’s campaign total is $202,871.

    All of the other candidates started in 2019, so that doesn’t effect anyone except Kokesh.

    Measured from the start of their campaigns, minus personal contributions and loans (in other words, individual contributions from other people):

    $100,515 Adam Kokesh
    $16,442 Vermin Supreme
    $11,313 Ken Armstrong
    $7,767 Dan Behrman
    $4,836 Kim Ruff
    $0 Jo Jorgenson

  41. paulie

    And you assume trade and migration automatically implies technological progress.

    I mostly meant the other way around. That is, technology developed in Europe or Asia would have spread to America. It’s likely that European, Asian and eventually African population would have as well, even if it hadn’t been as conquerors and slaves. However, what you are claiming here as my assumption, even though it wasn’t, is also correct: trade and migration helps the pace of technological progress because it helps wealth, investment, availability of human capitals and the spread and mixing of ideas.

    But no transcontinental railroad. At least not one built anywhere near the timeframe it was actually constructed.

    It might have happened even faster.

    The future prospect of an AI explosion is the thing that is small potatoes compared to terraforming other planets.

    We’ll have to disagree about that, although they are connected.

  42. dL Post author

    I mostly meant the other way around.

    Well, that’s obviously not true. Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany and Maoist China all made technological progress w/o trade and migration. That is to say, technological progress is not a sufficient condition to show trade and migration.

    It might have happened even faster.

    Again, clearly not true. The government granted millions of acres of land to railroad companies that belonged to various indian tribes. AFAIK, the Pawnee were the only tribe that cooperated w/ the railroad construction. It’s why the military was brought in. The transcontinental railroad is certainly a part of the American history of indian conquest.

  43. paulie

    Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany and Maoist China all made technological progress w/o trade and migration.

    They did not. They had trade and migration, just not as much as they could or should have. They benefited in their technological development from the former and were hurt in it by the latter. They had access to scientific and technological knowledge as it developed. Absent conquest, Indian nations would have as well.

    That is to say, technological progress is not a sufficient condition to show trade and migration.

    I never claimed or implied it was. What I said was that with trade, migration, and absence of red tape it happens faster. I also said that thanks to trade and migration technology would have spread to the “new world” even without conquest. There is no reason to believe Native Americans would be living now as they had 500-some years ago even if they had remained a majority in the Americas.

    Again, clearly not true. The government granted millions of acres of land to railroad companies that belonged to various indian tribes. AFAIK, the Pawnee were the only tribe that cooperated w/ the railroad construction. It’s why the military was brought in. The transcontinental railroad is certainly a part of the American history of indian conquest.

    I realize that’s how it happened. I don’t concede it’s the only way it could have happened. If the entire history of European-Native contact had been peaceful immigration and trade rather than conquest, robbery, rape, genocide and ethnic cleansing, things may have happened very differently, including Native opposition to transcontinental railroads perhaps.

  44. dL Post author

    They did not. They had trade and migration, just not as much as they could or should have.

    Surely, you are not claiming Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany or Maoist China were relatively open societies. Perhaps we should more rigorously define “trade and migration.” By trade, I don’t mean comrade Stalin’s planned trade exchange with the DDR, and by migration, I do not mean Chairman’s Mao’s forced migrant relocations to the agricultural country-side. Those were closed societies where any “trade and migration” activities were conducted under the iron fist of central planning.

    I never claimed or implied it was. What I said was that with trade, migration, and absence of red tape it happens faster. I also said that thanks to trade and migration technology would have spread to the “new world” even without conquest.

    (a) I used the native Americans as a falsifying counter example to the general claim that technological progress necessarily follows open trade and migration. A 1000 tribes populated the North American continent for thousands of years. For them, the “new world” wasn’t so new. They freely practiced open trade and migration. However, the technology progress through the various native american archeological periods was uneven and very gradual.

    (b) I used the transcontinental railroad as a falsifying counter example to the specific claim that government intervention always throttles technological progress. If the transcontinental railroad could have built faster w/o government intervention, it would have been built w/o government intervention. The end objective was to connect the Atlantic to the Pacific as quickly as possible. It wasn’t to herd the plains indians onto reservations. That was a means to an end.

    I cite (a) and (b) above as a cautionary objection to the pat reference to gubmint to explain why reality hasn’t matched sci-fi projections. Government sometimes facilities technological progress; other times it throttles it. Hayek’s “planning popular creative essay ghostwriting sites for school viagra use paypal ampicillin in pregnancy source link microbiology lab report example https://greenechamber.org/blog/example-resume-for-hr-job/74/ essay exam tips writing term paper help https://thejeffreyfoundation.org/newsletter/reimanns-hypothesis/17/ follow link free application essay https://groups.csail.mit.edu/cb/paircoil2/?pdf=essay-writing-format example college essays 365tabs paraphrasing machine watch click here write my art term paper retin-a 0.05 english essay writing help norvir 100 mg tablet viagra good diabetes essayhelpdesk com help with a thesis statement creative writing tasks ks3 apa style research paper example essay on advantages and disadvantages of internet in urdu how to write a junior thesis resume consultants how do i set up my email on my ipad pro go site physic essay for competition vs “planning against competition.” The more interesting question regarding State + technology is whose ends–in the end–end up being served The difference between utopia(mutually beneficial for everyone) and dystopia(benefits only the few at the expense of everyone else). Blade Runner had the flying cars. But it was a sci-fi dystopian flick, after all.

  45. paulie

    My apologies, I have been ill (asthma and bronchitis) and totally forgot to do the coverage this weekend. I had to move out of the poolhouse where I was staying and trying to work in Mississippi to my parents house in Alabama until I get better (I need to go back to Mississippi to complete a job there), following a brief hospitalization in Mississippi with asthma related issues. I had been off the computer for several days and just turned it back on now so I just realized I missed the meeting this weekend. If it’s on ustream I can attempt to do it after the fact.

    The computer is in fact having issues – sound doesn’t work and the battery and cord replacements have been ordered but not yet arrived – but I should be able to listen to the meeting on my phone and type on the computer. However, I am sleeping most of the time and honestly forgot. I’ve been keeping the computer off because I tend to be less stressed when it’s disconnected, which right now is any time it is not plugged in. My blood pressure was something like 183/113 even with medication when I went to the hospital, so I have been trying to reduce stress. While I’d like to say covering an LNC meeting is the only thing I neglected to do lately – actually, I have been neglecting other things such as working and showering. There was even one day when I forgot to eat, and that’s one thing I never forget to do.

    I feel bad, this is two in a row I have neglected to cover. The last one at least I had a state exec com which I had to attend instead. This one was just a screw up on my part. Oddly I had not missed any since I think 2007, and now I have missed two in a row. Then again the part of me that wants to walk away from politics in general has been getting louder in my head. There’s still a part of me resisting that but that part is feeling unusually weak, and more and more so. I’m not sure yet, but I may be about done.

  46. Chuck Moulton

    I was unable to cover it myself because the LNC has an annoying habbit of scheduling its fall meetings the same weekend as the frderalist society national lawyers convention, which I attend every year for my continuing legal education requirement.

    As far as I know they have ended ustream broadcasting and are now using YouTube. Hardly seems worth watching after the fact unless something really crazy happened there.

    I look forward to reading the minutes.

  47. George Phillies

    Technological progress in mesoamerica. From a very small population base, America’s first immigants worked up through hunter-gatherer culture to agriculture, plant and animal breeding, trade, and metal working, at the top end in a limited area bronze weapons, the invention of the zero for mathematics, sophisticated pre-telescopic astronomy, a written syllabic language in one area, and the ability to administer extremely large areas (the Andes).

  48. dL Post author

    I feel bad, this is two in a row I have neglected to cover.

    If you’re not getting paid to do it, you are under no obligation to feel bad about it.

    My blood pressure was something like 183/113

    L-arginine…a relatively inexpensive supplement. Of course, I have no idea how it might interact w/ medications. But that sucker will lower blood pressure and resting heart rate.

  49. paulie

    If you’re not getting paid to do it, you are under no obligation to feel bad about it.

    It’s a self imposed obligation, something I like doing and have done for dozens of times over the course of a dozen years and which people have come to expect me to do. I was also asked and said I expected I would do it if there were no computer problems. I did not anticipate that health and memory issues would be a problem instead. I wouldn’t feel as bad if it was not two in a row after a long perfect attendance streak, although the first one was for a more legitimate reason.

    L-arginine…a relatively inexpensive supplement. Of course, I have no idea how it might interact w/ medications. But that sucker will lower blood pressure and resting heart rate.

    Thanks, I’ll try to keep it in mind. I’m not currently in a position to get a ride to anywhere it’s sold but will try to remember it whenever I get someone else to ask for rides. Also not sure how long I’ll be here so I am not ordering anything for delivery.

  50. paulie

    Surely, you are not claiming Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany or Maoist China were relatively open societies.

    Of course not.

    Perhaps we should more rigorously define “trade and migration.” By trade, I don’t mean comrade Stalin’s planned trade exchange with the DDR, and by migration, I do not mean Chairman’s Mao’s forced migrant relocations to the agricultural country-side. Those were closed societies where any “trade and migration” activities were conducted under the iron fist of central planning.

    I’ll rigorously define that their levels of actual trade, visitation, technological cross-fertilization and to a limited extent in and out migration were non-zero with countries outside their sphere of control. That is, despite being limited, they existed. Their technological development was not limited to discoveries made in their own countries. When scientific and technological advances took place in any part of the world, they benefited from them – not as much as they could have if they had actually been free and open societies, but far more than if they had been completely isolated.

    As bad as they were, all these countries had people working, studying and visiting other countries, people from other countries working, studying and visiting theirs, some degree of foreign trade and aid, and some limited degree of in and out migration alike. There was communication with those in other countries – by no means unfettered, but it existed.

  51. paulie

    I used the native Americans as a falsifying counter example to the general claim that technological progress necessarily follows open trade and migration. A 1000 tribes populated the North American continent for thousands of years. For them, the “new world” wasn’t so new. They freely practiced open trade and migration. However, the technology progress through the various native american archeological periods was uneven and very gradual.

    Many native societies did not in fact practice open trade and migration. They were relatively closed societies which relied heavily on their own group. Many had different property norms which did not contribute as well to technological development. However, they were not entirely closed to trade and migration either, and could have learned beneficially from the best of what Europeans and others had in a way other than conquest. They may have contributed more to the overall development of humanity under those circumstances as well had they not been genocided, enslaved, and beaten down to a great degree. Some Native cultures did have a great deal of technological development, so they were certainly capable of it.

  52. paulie

    I used the transcontinental railroad as a falsifying counter example to the specific claim that government intervention always throttles technological progress. If the transcontinental railroad could have built faster w/o government intervention, it would have been built w/o government intervention. The end objective was to connect the Atlantic to the Pacific as quickly as possible. It wasn’t to herd the plains indians onto reservations. That was a means to an end.

    It’s a separate issue. Natives were herded unto reservations in other parts of the US and the Americas as well. I don’t agree that there is no way that the railroad could have been built otherwise. For one thing Native tribes may have been much more open to cooperating if there had been a positive 300 something years of trade with Europeans preceding that, rather than the actual history of enslavement, forced conversion, ethnic cleansing and genocide. For another, absent the shackles of government, railroad technology may have developed quicker, or perhaps automobile or airplane technology would have developed even faster and beat the railroads to it.

  53. paulie

    I cite (a) and (b) above as a cautionary objection to the pat reference to gubmint to explain why reality hasn’t matched sci-fi projections. Government sometimes facilities technological progress; other times it throttles it.

    The ways it throttles far, far outweigh.

  54. dL Post author

    I don’t agree that there is no way that the railroad could have been built otherwise.

    I didn’t say it would never have been built under a policy of peaceful co-existence.. The question was would it have been built sooner w/o government intervention in the context of your general claim that government is a sufficient condition for slower technological progress.

  55. paulie

    I said it may have, due to faster technological progress unencumbered by red tape and extortion based resource misallocation. I also later qualified that development of automobile or air transportation may have jumped the queue.

  56. paulie

    John Phillips Jr. is with Erin Adams and 12 others.
    Yesterday at 9:57 AM ·

    Thoughts on the November 16th and 17th meeting in Miami.

    Let me start with the fact that a meeting that had the potential to be extremely challenging and contentious went far better than I was afraid of or expected. Thank you to my colleagues for that.

    Things of note.

    We passed a balanced budget for the second year in a row.

    We approved Apollo Pazell ‘s Frontier Project.

    We approved a big increase in staff time and resources for candidate and affiliate training and resources. Look for some announcements from Cara Schulz of upcoming training and recruitment.

    We passed a motion that greatly restricts the availability of funds raised by Convention ticket sales and other revenue in order to ensure funds are available pay convention bills in a timely manner.

    We are pursuing or helping pursue lawsuits related to ballot censorship and rights violations.

    We kept the CRM project funded, and more things are coming with that.

    We have a members only section of the website in development that will provide a large amount of information, training, and accessibility that we have not had institutionally before.

    Now to achieve that combination required a few sacrifices and some big commitments.

    A big donor agreed to fund a large part of of the Frontier Project.

    I and Joe Bishop-Henchman proposed a Give or Get goal for LNC members of $2000/year for LNC members and $1000/year for alternates (both split for election years in the event someone was not re-elected) to raise an additional $42,000 to cover the costs of some of this. For a variety of reasons, some very valid and reasonable, a few members and a member of the gallery objected to parts of this.

    Our chair, Nicholas J. Sarwark, volunteered to step up and take the burden of raising those funds ( in addition to the substantial amount he already committed to raising in the budget ) in order to overcome those objections. While I did not think this should be necessary, nor did several other members, I motioned this compromise in order to make it happen and be able to provide the services that I believe we as a party owe our affiliates and candidates of all levels.

    I also verbally committed to helping the chair with his goal and promised to help fundraise at least $5000 of that money. After that I challenged the other LNC members to step up and commit to a helping as well.

    I know Erin Adams, Justin O’Donnell, and Joshua Smith are already stepping up, as I am sure others intend to as well when they get settled back home and recover from jet lag.

    I need your help with this. I need your help to help support our candidates/affiliates and give them the resources they need to continue building our wins across the country. I need your help to help fight for our candidates to be able to exercise their right to run for office. No amount is too small to help, nor to large (within FEC limits of course). One time donations are great of course, but I really encourage you to sign up as a member and see all the great things we have upcoming, as well as access to the members website when it goes live. The best possible thing you can do is sign up for a recurring donation, of any size. Recurring donations are incredibly important for maintaining consistent levels of service and access.

    Please do as much as you can, if you want it focused on on particular area (like candidate support or ballot access) please note that in the comments section, if you tell us we will only put your money where you want it to go.

    https://www.lp.org/john

  57. paulie

    Steven Nekhaila – Libertarian
    18 mins ·

    Region 2 Recap
    11/19/2019
    Steven Nekhaila & Paige Sexton

    This past weekend (Nov 19th-20th) the Libertarian National Committee met in Miami, FL for our quarterly business meeting, which is also our budgetary meeting for the proceeding year. The LNC accomplished its mission of establishing a balanced budget for our 2020 fiscal year, which is also an election year, and budgeted more conservatively than our 2016 budget year as revenue for 2016 was unusual higher than the historical average. We place on paying off our mortgage for our Alexandria, VA headquarters, which should save us $30,000 a year in mortgage costs moving forward, and potentially open up the door for expanding our HQ as the need arises in the future. An amendment was made to not allow the LNC to spend convention funds until all liabilities for convention are closed out, which in effect dissuades the LNC from using convention revenue to cover other costs, unless overturned by a majority vote of the Executive Committee (made up of the LNC officers). Another amendment to our policy manual also more accurately reflected the true $ amount of necessary for our reserve, which is higher than past year targets. I am satisfied with our balanced budget and our dissuasion towards deficit spending, current reserves are particularly low and deficit spending in 2020 would be dangerous, we need to rebuild our reserve base and continue to invest in our Development Department (fundraising department).

    The Libertarian National Committee has hired two full time Development Dept members, both of whom I am pleased with and look forward to working with. Tara Desisto is the lead of the team and will be focusing primarily on operations. Tara brings a wealth of institutional knowledge that the LP simply does not possess, with it she hopes to build her team and create a bench for future fundraisers while training the LNC to fundraise and particularly make sure our staff and LNC members comfortable with being uncomfortable in the pursuit to raise funds. Her department should pay for itself quickly while providing a substantial boost in income for the Party.
    The eCanvasser CRM and canvassing software is being considered for adoption by the LNC as a part of a nationwide service to affiliates with the potential to be used in 100 select races annual at a cost of $3,500 a month on election years and roughly half on off years. We are looking into a shared program for affiliates as well.

    A membership only site is in the works and should launch in Q4 19’/Q1 20’ which features polling features to gain important metrics on how to better serve and represent our members, including single/priority issue data for our members who only wish to receive communication pertaining to the issues they care about.

    A learning management system is in the works, the IT committee is leaning towards Moodle and I am hoping to make the push as well. Moodle is currently being adopted in Florida, which is an opensource software specifically designed from the ground up as an LMS. An LMS is a content hosting website for learning resources related to the Party, think of an online classroom/database to contain our proprietary institutional knowledge. I am very excited about this development.

    Special council, Oliver B Hall, has an expansive report of participating litigation, a few interesting items to note: Arizona Libertarian Party vs Reagan, in which the State of AZ drastically increased signature requirements for Libertarian Party candidates seeking access to AZLP’s primary ballot. Cowen v. Raffensperger, in which Georgia candidates for State House must nomination petitions with signatures equal in number to 5 percent of the registered voters in the last election. No candidate has ever complied with that requirement since the law was enacted in 1943. Plaintiffs are individual voters and the Libertarian Party of Georgia. Level the Playing Field vs FEC, in which the FEC failed to act upon the Commission for Presidential Debates’ in-kind access of national media to only Republican and Democrat candidates. Libertarian National Committee vs FEC, in which a large bequest form a deceased donor is being blocked by the FEC from being obtained in a lump sum by the LNC, and instead must remain in a trust where the yearly maximum donation is given to the LNC. Libertarian Party of Maine v. Dunlap, in which the LP MN is challenging current minor party requirements which require 5,000 members by the 2016 election, and 10,000 members by the 2018 election. The Party registered over 6,100 members by 2018, and thus was forced to unregister all members and start from scratch. Libertarian Party of Minnesota v. Choi, No. 1:19-cv-02312 (D. Minn. 2019): This case challenges a statute requiring that signers of a minor party candidate’s nomination petition swear that they will not vote in the primary election. Violation of the statute is a felony, perjury, punishable by five years in jail and $10,000 in fines. Signers of major party nomination petitions do not swear to the same or any similar oath.

    The Libertarian Frontier project has been funded for 2020, which includes candidate and infrastructural support for many viable races in States including Wyoming and affecting much of Region 1. These races have been handpicked by our candidate support team and include State and municipal races with a high degree of impact. I am much in support of this project, as winning upper ticket races can not only make a huge impact in those States but give credence to Libertarians nationwide.

    The LNC has selected The Nugget in Reno, NV as our pick for the 2022 Libertarian National Convention. The site not only made the most economic sense in terms of our contractual obligations, but logistically makes the most sense to attendee’s over the Indianapolis option. Rooms are a bargain and parking and other services are complimentary. Nevada is also a gun friendly State, which the presenters made abundantly clear. I was impressed with their research into our organization. Most flights may include layovers in Las Vegas and include many major airlines. A slight increase in ticket prices compared to Indianapolis is overshadowed by the sharp increase in savings at the venue.

    The LNC has preliminarily recommended and will review the contract for DC in 2024. The site is the Washington Hilton. Being an election year in DC, the media attention around such an appearance is huge, with most major media outlets with correspondents in DC the coverage should surpass 2016. The hotel was excited about hosting their first ever nominating convention at their venue, the hotel is routinely used for major DC parties and events in which the media is very accustomed to setting up. Interestingly, the site also contains a bunker built during the Cold War.

    Sincerely,

    Steven Nekhaila
    Region 2 Representative
    Steven.Nekhaila@LP.org

  58. paulie

    Jess Mears
    4 hrs
    Humble brag opportunity!
    I’m looking for the BEST OF 2019 from your county/state Libertarian Party affiliate.
    What was the BEST THING that happened to it in 2019? The content will be published in The Liberty Pledge News.
    It is mailed to every monthly recurring donor to LP National.
    Please write a few sentences to 200ish words on THE BEST THING that happened to your county/state affiliate in 2019.
    Email this content with high resolution photos (if sending via cell phone, select the largest size possible) to: jess@lphq.org
    Deadline: Wednesday, November 27, 2019
    This is a great opportunity for Libertarian leaders to recognize the work of volunteers.

  59. Skylar Covich

    This article from Front Porch Republic praises third parties and includes an interview of the American Solidarity Party’s presidential candidate, Brian Carroll.

    As it happens, Carroll mentions the building of railroads as a big reason for federal government expantion, as discussed in this thread.

    https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2019/11/presidential-politics-pseudo-choices-and-a-third-party-worth-considering/?fbclid=IwAR0NhLKJlTJyA3W3LVh_Zr0bAkFsZNMxsHVq6QJKNol4znzEgeXNX_AkrcE

  60. Chuck Moulton

    In Pennsylvania news, on top of the LPPA’s 23 on ballot local office wins, we so far have added 11 write-in wins. Over half of the counties we recruited from still have not reported write-in results, so we forecast another 5-15 wins in the coning few weeks.

  61. dL Post author

    Btw, Pauli, any particular reason why the wordpress fence plugin was installed to block twitter embed code?

  62. Chuck Moulton

    I’m not sure how many were contested. Probably none — if you don’t count write-ins. The whole point of our candidate recruitment drive was to get people on the ballot where there were no D’s or R’s running.

  63. NewFederalist

    I think that’s an intelligent strategy! Before you get to the major leagues you go through rookie leagues then A ball then AA ball then AAA ball! You gotta start someplace!

  64. paulie

    Btw, Pauli, any particular reason why the wordpress fence plugin was installed to block twitter embed code?

    Paul, or Paulie. The i and the e are a package deal.

    The wordfence plugin was installed as an added spam protection tool, recommended by one or more of our other writer/editors on our email list, which I highly suggest you get on if you are not already. Akismet was allowed to expire even though I paid $59 to keep it alive. Apparently there was something called an “API key” which I did not click thru enough to forward to the list so someone could fix it to finish fixing what I paid to fix while I was off the computer for a week. And no one bothered to call or text me that whole time even though I explained the issue on the list.

    As for any details on the configuration of plugins I have no earthly idea. Ask Warren Redlich. He rarely reads these comments so email would be better to get a hold of him. His contact info and the rest of ours in the about tab at the top of the page.

    I am now going thru thousands of comments that are incorrectly posted as spam, pending or trash. Fun fun fun. Some legit posters were or are in trash or spam, but all of almost all 3 is all spam. Someone is also apparently keeps erasing Jim’s legitimate comments. Not the same Jim as we banned from comments as a malicious troll.

    Anyone want to post December thread? We are now on the 6th.

  65. Jim

    In the last few cycles, the presidential year bump in signature members and donors to the Libertarian Party began in:

    February, 2016
    July, 2012
    May, 2008

    It appears to have begun early this cycle – in October, 2019.

    https://i.imgur.com/sgTIVw6.png

    +1,023 donors in October/November 2019.
    +1,267 signature members in October/November 2019.

    Although, someone on another forum offered an alternative possible explanation. Apparently Tom Woods, Dave Smith, and that crowd have been pushing their listeners to join the LP, lately. They really want Sarwark out as Chair and Hornberger in as the Presidential candidate.

  66. Jim

    That one month spike in donors in December 2007 was likely due to the LNC urging Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian Presidential nomination. That resolution was issued on December 9th, 2007.

  67. Jim

    Nicholas Kasoff, the Libertarian in the special election for Missouri’s state representative district 74, got 42.67% last month.

    That is the 9th time a Libertarian candidate has been in the 40% – 50% range for state legislature. Kasoff is #6 on the list. 5 of those 9 (56%) have occurred since 2012.

    LP candidates for state legislature have gotten in the 30% – 40% range 26 times since 2012. I’m uncertain of a couple from the early years of the party, but that means approximately 47% of all candidates to get in that range have done so since 2012.

    In elections with only one opponent, at least, there is an obvious greater willingness to vote for Libertarians in recent years than in the party’s first 40 years.

  68. George Phillies

    Some Virginians are upset about proposed new gun laws in the state.

    gunrightswatch DOT com/news/2019/11/24/virginia/virginia-has-become-an-overnight-tidal-wave-of-second-amendment-sanctuaries/

    There would appear to be a recruiting opportunity for political parties that suppose the Right to Keep and bear Arms, all one of them.

  69. paulie

    Out of hospital since Wednesday, just got back online today. Slowly getting better at adjusting to new meds. Getting a CPAP has become more urgent so I am working on getting that money together. It’s about $2k so won’t be right away. Staying in Tuscaloosa with family next few weeks for holidays and recovery. Then we’ll see. Anyone is welcome to call or text me any time 205-534-1622. Email or messenger should also work now but phone is still better/preferred. For voice calls for the time being I can’t do them between about 9 pm and 6 am central while I am at family castle. But I can text any time. I’m mostly on that same early to bed early to rise schedule while I am here though, or at least for now.

    I got a bit of cabin fever while I’m here so calls are great in the daytime 🙂 I’ll take texts, emails and messenger messages in lieu for those of you who hate talking on the phone or can only do it at night.

    Will start looking at IPR back end again soon…I think. Looked at front end briefly, did not look like hardly any articles or even new comments. Thanks CAH for sending to list.

  70. paulie

    Quit alcohol, coffee, and other unprescibed stimulants. Also changed blood pressure meds after 6 years. mong many other things. Sepsis almost killed me this past week but once again, nope, survived again. This time it involved multiple shocks to restart my heart. I think they lost count. I only remember the first one since I was sedated for 12 hours after that as they somehow brought me back.

  71. NewFederalist

    Geez, paulie! I had no idea you were in such bad shape! I sure hope you get ahead of this thing. Are you in afib?

  72. paulie

    Thanks, feeling much better already. I got sloppy and stayed at a cigarette smoking place, and the inadequate treatment the first two times at the hospital led to it getting out of hand. But I feel much better now.

  73. dL Post author

    Is today November 50th?

    The site for a period of time this month dropped its spam protection. I wasn’t going to bother starting a new comment thread in that event. However, It looks like spam protection has been turned back on.

  74. Paulie

    At this point I don’t think we need a new monthly thread this month. The reason to have a new one every month was so the load time would not get too long with a large number of comments. It isn’t particularly large in this thread and the month is most of the way over. I retitled the thread to include December. Let’s do a new one in January please.

  75. NewFederalist

    Merry Christmas to all posters here! Especially for paulie (yeah I know he is Jewish) as he gets on top of his health issues.

  76. paulie

    Thank you NF, you too. I’m (mostly) Jewish by ancestry. I was raised secular, and have an ecumenical personal religion which draws from religions all over the world and personal mystical/transcendent experience, not all of it involving plants or chemicals of any sort. I’ve attended a wide variety of religious services with friends and family over the years. Most of my ancestors did practice Judaism but it was beaten out of our family a generation or so before the oldest I ever met (my grandparents) by the Soviet and Nazi regimes, which also killed off the vast majority of my extended family. Season’s greetings and happy holidays everyone, whatever you celebrate this time of year.

  77. paulie

    open letter to LNC:

    Hello again LNC. My apologies for writing you all so frequently about this but I’m not sure whether anyone else is going to raise these points otherwise in your discussion or not. I’m again requesting a forward to the public list.

    1) “”The Libertarian Party does have requirements to become a member. Most importantly:

    • ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
    1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

    Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this person is in prison for violating the individual rights of several people, and that is clearly a violation of the certification. Until acquitted / found innocent, or until this person has served time and offered something to the people whose rights he violated, this is a fact and must be taken into consideration.””

    Actions which constitute the initiation of force are not necessarily the same thing as supporting the initiation of force **to achieve social and political goals**. There are various ways the latter can be interpreted. Taken in historical context, many have claimed that this was merely a cover our butts statement to assure the government we were not planning to engage in terrorism on behalf of our radical agenda of social change, and if any LP member did, that we would have their membership pledge to prove that it was not in line with what we are about as an organization. To keep this in perspective the party was created in the early 1970s when there was a rash of politically motivated domestic terrorism from the far left, much as there now is from the far right.

    Another plausible explanation is that it is a certification of opposition to initiation of force as seen in libertarian philosophy to achieve social and political goals, which would amount to an anarchist pledge or endless debates over whether various minimal government proposals are somehow not initiation of force. Although I’m an anarchist myself, I would not want a pledge that excludes all non-anarchists from the party, Nor would I want endless purge trials over whether any members have expressed support for policies which initiate force to achieve social or political goals or not. I hope we can all agree on that.

    One thing the pledge does **not** say is “I will not engage in initiation of force for any reason.” It’s an admirable standard and one I would aspire to, but have fallen short of myself, regrettably. It does not even say “I will not stand convicted in a court of law of criminal activity stemming from actions which initiate force.” That’s a far different pledge than the one we all took, and while it’s also an admirable standard, I’m also not the only party member who has regrettably fallen short of this standard. If we retroactively reinterpret the existing pledge as being that, and enforceable (whereas to my knowledge it never was before) my expulsion trial ought to be scheduled as well, along with an expensive audit of all other memberships and who knows how many other such trials. All the more so if we also have to investigate all potential new members as well.

    However one interprets the membership pledge, there is no enforcement mechanism in it, nor to my knowledge anywhere else in bylaws. The historical and bylaws experts can correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge we have NEVER had such a mechanism at the national level. I think this is probably because people realized that having one could open a huge can of worms. Such a process has existed and been used at the state level in various states, to my knowledge only in a small handful of cases. However, even those trials often prove to be very divisive and time consuming, eating up much time and good will at the state and local level and causing many other members to quit or scale back involvement regardless of the outcome.

    2) “• (Roberts rules) Art. XIII. Legal Rights of Assemblies and Trial of Their Members.

    72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its Members. A deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and enforce its own laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however, being expulsion from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a permanent society, it has the right, for its own protection….”

    However, this does not say what happens if the matter is not addressed in the bylaws of an organization (“its own laws”). Since our bylaws don’t have an expulsion provision, I don’t see how this section creates one for us. It just says we have the right to make and enforce such a bylaw, but we have not done it. If something in Roberts creates a right to expel members, this is not it.

    3) Gift memberships: Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that gift memberships are not valid unless the person being gifted signs the membership pledge of their own free volition, and is a person capable of informed consent, regardless of who pays the attending fee. Otherwise it’s just a fundraising tool, but does not create a true membership.

    As a reminder I also sent a second email which as far as I know was never forwarded to the list, correcting a factual matter in my first email:

    Thomas L. Knapp quoting my first letter: “As US Attorney, prior to LP membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage boy for having consensual sexual activity with a teenage girl and privately videotaping it. As part of the prosecution Mr. Barr’s office made that video public, allowing unrelated adults to watch the two underage children engaging in sexual activity.”

    TLK: My recollection is different — or perhaps we’re referring to different events. {p: no, error is mine; I misremembered what I read Knapp write about this, and he corrects it here p}

    TLK: My recollection is that the incident happened after Barr left Congress, when he no longer held public office, and possibly while he was affiliated with the LP. And my recollection of the incident is this:

    In Georgia, trial evidence is a “public record.”

    A newspaper filed a request for the evidence in the case you mention — a cell phone video.

    A judge denied that request because of the content.

    As an op-ed columnist, Barr held that the law required the release of the evidence, and that if anyone didn’t like that, they should get the law changed.

    Which, as a side note, made Barr, not Mary Ruwart, the 2008 presidential candidate who was on public record as supporting government provision of child pornography on demand.

    But he was also right. “Don’t like the rules, ain’t gonna go by them” is not a reasonable position for a judge, a bureaucrat, an office-holder — or a party’s national committee. (TLK)

    Paulie: OK I mangled that, will need to correct. But that brings up another good point of consideration: Is merely *advocating* for the initiation of force to serve political or social goals (or some specific types of force involving teenagers, sex and or video) enough for the potential revocations/denial of membership being considered? Or does it have to involve personal actions? In other words, the way I remembered what you wrote involved an actual action under color of law. This refreshing of my memory makes clear it was mere advocacy in a newspaper column.

    In the case that stirred the current brouhaha on the LNC, I am not aware that the guy in prison who is trying to join the party is *advocating* for making what he is convicted of legal. In fact I do not know what he thinks. He may be sincerely sorry and have turned a new leaf, he may have been railroaded, he may think he did nothing wrong, he may just believe he had to do what he had to do due to economic reality. In another case someone both practices and advocates routinely initiating force and normalizing it, and obviously fits both criteria – action and advocacy. In the corrected version, Barr engages in advocacy but to my knowledge no action, at least none that I know of evidence for. How many of these qualify for membership revocation under whatever standard people are proposing here?

    For reference earlier I wrote:

    As you may know, I read all your public emails, but try to write you sparingly (otherwise you’d get more emails from me than you do from your own current members, and if I was going to do that I should have run for a new term on your committee; I was on as an alternate in 2012-4). I think the membership purge/donation return issue is one that merits my input. I hope you’ll agree and share my thoughts with the public list.

    Emotional cases make bad law, and those who sexually abuse, exploit and videotape teenagers are certainly a very emotional case. The more fundamental question however is whether LNC has *any* authority to refuse a membership pledge and donation from *anyone* regardless of what reprehensible things they may have done in the past or even do in the present or future. One answer is that the bylaws give LNC no such power, and thus it would be improper to refuse or refund a membership donation and pledge from anyone no matter who they are. I understand that this is the current ruling of the chair. The other answer I have seen is that Robert’s Rules say that in the absence of such a bylaw the governing body does have the right to remove members for cause or refuse membership donations. I don’t remember the exact citation and I am not a parliamentarian so I’ll leave it to the parliamentarians among you to hash out, along with ferreting out where in Roberts that is, since (I apologize) I do not remember a specific cite, only being told that it’s there.

    A few things to consider:

    1) if you do open the door to membership revocation, it could well snowball. There have been many historic cases in other parties and organizations where it started small with a tiny number of obvious cases and then gradually grew to wide ranging membership purges that devastated those respective organizations and crippled them over time.

    2) But, it doesn’t always have to. I am aware of a handful of state LPs which have revoked a very small number of individual memberships over the years, typically after some sort of internal judicial procedure, and as yet I am not aware that they have devolved into massive membership purges of the sort I would be concerned about.

    3) It’s also an undeniable fact that individual members who both advocate and practice initiation of force in violation of their membership pledge and tout their LP membership publicly can and have cause the party embarrassment in traditional and social media and among our own actual and potential membership as a result; most of the public does not understand that we may not have the power to dissociate from members in the way they assume any organization can.

    4) This could potentially be an issue to take to the judicial committee. But, as at least those of you who have been on the board since the start of the term are aware, it’s questionable whether we have one which was impaneled in accordance with our bylaws right now. For those of you on bylaws committee, please do something to fix the voting system which caused this, even if it’s just going back to the prior one.

    5) If you do open the door to membership removal/rejection in this manner, please consider what precedents you set. For example, do we want to establish the principle that once someone has been convicted of a real crime with victims they can’t have a change of heart and honestly sign the membership pledge, or that we should assume they don’t mean it? What if someone does mean it, but despite best intentions does in fact violate their pledge — but does not make it an ongoing pattern of behavior, nor advocates for it as policy (I can be included in that)? If the grounds for membership revocation include actions taken before the pledge is signed, do they include cases where those actions were done under color of law, yet amount to the same exact actions from our moral perspective? Example: As US Attorney, prior to LP membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage boy for having consensual sexual activity with a teenage girl and privately videotaping it. As part of the prosecution Mr. Barr’s office made that video public, allowing unrelated adults to watch the two underage children engaging in sexual activity. His actions were legal, but should they have been? Would setting this membership removal precedent open up grounds for someone else to request a membership revocation for our past presidential candidate and life member (if my memory serves correctly) on this basis?

    6) It sounds like regardless of what you do this matter is likely to be taken up by the national convention in May. That may be the best venue to hash this out, especially in the absence of a universally recognized judicial committee.

    Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings, if you did. I hope they are of some help to you in considering these matters.

    Paul Frankel
    205-534-1622 currently open for voice calls 6 am – 9 pm central, text any time
    secretary@lpalabama.org (not writing in my state party capacity but I hope we’ll see some of you at our state convention Feb 28-Mar 1 in Birmingham https://lpalabama.org/event/2020-lp-alabama-state-convention-2020-02-28/)
    https://www.facebook.com/paulie.cannoli

  78. NewFederalist

    Wow! This could stir up a hornets nest. I would guess that any official in the US who swears an oath to the Constitution could be guilty of violating the pledge.

  79. dL Post author

    I am not aware that the guy in prison

    Who are we talking about here that is prompting this discussion?

  80. dL Post author

    Who are we talking about here that is prompting this discussion?

    Never mind. I found it over at TLK’s site. “Child sex trafficking” hysteria.

  81. paulie

    To: Daniel Fishman
    Executive Director, Libertarian Party

    From: James W. Lark, III
    Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

    Subject: List of Events and Dates in 2020

    To assist our outreach efforts, I have prepared a list of events and dates to which the LP may wish to draw attention in 2020. It may be useful for LPHQ to issue press releases (or refer to these events in our releases), help provide representatives for media interviews, and assist state and local affiliates in outreach efforts on or about some of these dates.

    In some of the entries listed below, I have included supplemental information and suggestions for your consideration. I hope you find this material to be helpful.

    Several of the events are included because I know something about them, or because I suspect they will be of interest to those who are sympathetic to the libertarian perspective. Some of the events and dates have been included at the suggestion (or request) of LP colleagues. A few of the dates and events are included because I came across information about them while looking for other information.

    Please note that inclusion of an event on the list does not imply I believe the event is especially important or that the LP should commemorate it in some manner. Similarly, failure to include an event does not imply that I consider it to be unimportant or unworthy of commemoration.

    I have endeavored to verify the accuracy of most of the listed items; however, in some cases I have used Wikipedia or other web resources. Thus, if you use information from the list, you should seek to verify the accuracy of the dates and associated information.

    Please note also that I shall send this document to my LNC colleagues. Since I do not have access to the State Chairs’ list, I would appreciate it if you would send the document to that list. I hope LNC members and State Chairs’ list subscribers will review the list and offer suggestions about additional events and dates, along with any corrections that should be made.

    As you probably know, several websites provide information about events that took place on a given day. (I don’t know which sites are the most accurate.) These websites include:

    http://www.brainyhistory.com/
    http://www.calendardate.com
    http://www.hisdates.com/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_anniversaries
    http://www.brownielocks.com/month2.html
    http://www.holidayscalendar.com/
    http://www.daysoftheyear.com/

    At this time, it is unknown upon what dates the following events will occur during 2020:

    Tax Freedom Day (http://taxfoundation.org/tax-topics/tax-freedom-day) (on April 16 in 2019)
    Cost of Government Day (Americans for Tax Reform has promoted the observance of this day in the past. The most recent observance of which I am aware occurred on July 6, 2014. I do not know whether Cost of Government Day was observed in 2015-2019.)

    As far as I am aware, there are relatively few “big anniversaries” in 2020. “Big anniversaries” are those that are multiples of five years (especially multiples of ten years), such as the 25th anniversary, 50th anniversary, 100th anniversary, etc.

    January:

    6: Pres. Franklin Roosevelt delivers his “Four Freedoms” speech (1941)

    10: Thomas Paine’s Common Sense published (1776)

    16: Ratification of the 18th Amendment (1919)

    17: Prohibition takes effect (1920) (Note: Some sources list Jan. 16, 1920 as the date the 18th Amendment took effect. Other sources note that the enabling legislation passed by Congress (the Volstead Act) took effect as of midnight on Jan. 17, 1920.) 100th ANNIVERSARY

    17: U.S. citizens prohibited from owning gold certificates (1934)

    19: Birthday of Lysander Spooner (1808)

    20: Martin Luther King Day observed

    21: Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission case (2010)

    26 (through Feb. 1): National School Choice Week (schoolchoiceweek.com)

    27: Melvin Laird (Secretary of Defense) suspends the military draft (1973)

    February:

    3: Ratification of the 16th Amendment (1913)

    4: State of the Union address

    17: Presidents’ Day observed (Suggestion: Distribute a press release describing the requirements for a good president from a Libertarian perspective.)

    19: Pres. Franklin Roosevelt orders internment of Japanese Americans (1942; http://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/this-day-in-politics-february-19-1942-416028)

    20: Congress proposes the 21st Amendment for state ratification (1933)

    March:

    1: Ratification of the Articles of Confederation (1781)

    9: Pres. Franklin Roosevelt’s Emergency Banking Act passed (1933)

    16: Liberty Day (birthday of James Madison in 1751)

    19: Start of second U.S. war against Iraq (2003)

    20: U.S. invasion of Iraq (2003)

    20: Tonie Nathan passed away (2014)

    23: Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech (1775)

    April:

    5: Pres. Franklin Roosevelt signs Executive Order 6102 prohibiting gold ownership by citizens (1933)

    7: National Beer Day (Cullen-Harrison Act enacted, allowing sale of “low-alcohol” beer prior to end of Prohibition) (1933)

    13: Birthday of Thomas Jefferson (1743) (New style calendar)

    15: Protests in Tiananmen Square begin (1989)

    15: Tax Day (Federal income taxes due for most Americans)

    16: Emancipation Day celebrated in Washington, DC (signing of Compensated Emancipation Act by Pres. Abraham Lincoln in 1862; celebrated on Apr. 16 except when that day falls upon a Saturday or Sunday)

    19: Battles of Lexington and Concord (1775). Patriots’ Day celebrated in Wisconsin (may be observed on Apr. 20).

    20: “420” or “4/20” (referred to as “Four-Twenty”): Several organizations that oppose Drug Prohibition conduct events this day

    20: Patriots’ Day (commemorating the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775) celebrated in Massachusetts (The same event is celebrated as Patriot’s Day in Maine.)

    22: Earth Day

    25: Supreme Court decision in United States vs Carolene Products (allowed greater latitude for Congress to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause) (1938)

    May:

    3: World Press Freedom Day

    4: Kent State shootings (four people killed by Ohio National Guard) (1970) 50th ANNIVERSARY

    16: Armed Forces Day observed (celebrated on the third Saturday in May)

    16: House of Commons passes repeal of the Corn Laws (1846)

    21 (through May 25): Libertarian Party national convention

    24: Supreme Court decision in Helvering vs Davis (allowed Congress to interpret “general welfare” broadly; Social Security doesn’t violate 10th Amendment) (1937)

    25: Memorial Day observed. Birthday of Karl Hess (1923).

    27: Supreme Court decision in Schechter vs US (National Recovery Act ruled unconstitutional) (1935)

    31: Passage of Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Resolutions, supposedly the first local resolutions supporting independence; declared British laws null and void (1775)

    June:

    4: Tiananmen Square Massacre (1989)

    5: Birthday of Adam Smith (1723) (Old style calendar)

    12: Formal adoption by Virginia Constitutional Convention of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason (1776)

    14: Peter McWilliams passed away (author of Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Society) (2000)

    15: Magna Carta agreed to by King John (1215) (Note: Evidently a formal document was created to record the agreement on July 15, 1215.)

    16: New Deal announced (1933)

    16: Birthday of Adam Smith in 1723 (New style calendar)

    17: Pres. Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs initiated (1971)

    17: Watergate break-in (1972)

    18: Congress passes Naturalization Act (1798)

    19: “Juneteenth” celebration (announcement in Texas of the end of slavery) (1865)

    21: Constitution ratified by New Hampshire (thus making it the “law of the land”) (1788)

    23: Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs City of New London (2005)

    25: Birthday of George Orwell (Eric Blair) (1903)

    25: Congress passes Alien Act (1798)

    26: Anniversary of Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs Heller, which held that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms for self-defense (2008)

    27: Passage of the National Labor Relations Act, known as the “Wagner Act” (1935)

    28: Supreme Court decision in McDonald vs Chicago, which held that the Second Amendment is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment (2010)

    28: Supreme Court decision in “Obamacare” case(s) (2012)

    July:

    2: Vote by Congress to declare independence from Great Britain (1776)

    3: Decriminalization Day (celebrated since 1976?)

    4: Independence Day: Declaration of Independence approved by Congress (1776)

    4: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) signed (1966)

    6: Congress approves Alien Enemies Act (1798)

    7: Birthday of Robert Heinlein (1907)

    14: Pres. John Adams signs the Sedition Act (1798)

    22: Bretton Woods Agreements signed by Bretton Woods Conference participants (1944) (The agreements established rules and procedures for regulation of the international monetary system, along with institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.)

    31: Congress ratifies Bretton Woods Agreements Act (1945)

    August:

    5: Pres. Abraham Lincoln signs the Revenue Act of 1861 (imposed a tax upon income)

    15: Imposition of wage and price controls, along with suspension of convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold on international markets (“closing the gold window”), by Pres. Richard Nixon (1971)

    15: Public Law 93-373 passes, which legalizes private ownership of gold (1974) (The law didn’t take effect until Dec. 31, 1974.)

    27: Revenue Act of 1894 becomes law (1894) (Also known as the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act; it reduced tariffs, but instituted an income tax that was found unconstitutional in 1895.)

    29: Individual Rights Day (celebration of the birthday of John Locke in 1632)

    September:

    5: Jury Rights Day (fija.org)

    7: Labor Day (as celebrated in the U.S.)

    11: Anniversary of “9-11,” now known by some as “Patriot Day” (2001)

    16: Pres. Franklin Roosevelt signs Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 (first peacetime conscription?) (1940)

    17: Constitution Day (Constitution signed by delegates to Philadelphia convention in 1787)

    20 (through Sept. 26): Banned Books Week NOTE: These dates have not been confirmed; it may be scheduled for Sept. 27 – Oct. 3. Banned Books Week took place on Sept. 22-28 in 2019.

    21: International Day of Peace (sometimes known as “World Peace Day”)

    25: Congress approves 12 amendments to the Constitution and sends amendments to states for ratification (1789)

    October:

    1: Beginning of federal government’s 2021 fiscal year

    14: Pres. Jimmy Carter legalizes the home brewing of beer (1978)

    21: Revenue Act of 1942 passes (1942) (Among other things, the Act imposed a “Victory Tax” of 5% on individual income over $624.)

    22: Pres. Lyndon Johnson signs the Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968)

    25: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (1978) (Note: Powers under the Act were expanded under the USA Patriot Act.)

    26: Passage of the USA Patriot Act (2001)

    26: Passage of the “Bank Secrecy Act” (1970) 50th ANNIVERSARY

    27: Statue of Liberty unveiled in 1886 (on Oct. 28?)

    28: Resistance to the Townshend Acts (1767) (A meeting at Boston Town Hall took place at which it was suggested that residents and merchants voluntarily boycott British goods.)

    28: Passage of the National Prohibition Act, known as the Volstead Act (1919)

    29: Massachusetts Resolves written by Samuel Adams (1765)

    November:

    3: Election Day

    4: Alexanderplatz demonstration in East Berlin (1989)

    9: Berlin Wall opens (East German Politburo allows East Germans to leave) (1989)

    9: Supreme Court decision in Wickard vs Filburn, which greatly expanded Congressional power to regulate economic activity (1942)

    11: Remembrance Day observed (marks the date upon which general hostilities in World War I ended)

    15: Articles of Confederation approved by Continental Congress (1777) (Note: The Articles were not ratified until March 1, 1781.)

    16: International Day for Tolerance

    16: First Kentucky Resolution is passed by the Kentucky legislature (1798)

    21: David Nolan passed away (2010)

    26: Thanksgiving

    December:

    3: The Second Kentucky Resolution is passed by the Kentucky legislature (1799)

    5: Ratification of 21st Amendment (repeal of Prohibition) (1933)

    6: Ratification of 13th Amendment (end of chattel slavery) (1865)

    10: Supreme Court decision in McConnell vs Federal Election Commission, which ruled that most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is constitutional (2003)

    10: Human Rights Day observed

    11: Anniversary of founding of the LP (1971)

    11: Birthday of George Mason (1725)

    15: Bill of Rights Day (date of ratification of Bill of Rights) (1791)

    18: Congress passes the 18th Amendment (1917)

    18: Supreme Court decision in Korematsu vs United States, which ruled that Executive Order 9066 (putting Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II) was constitutional (1944)

    23: Pres. Woodrow Wilson signs Federal Reserve Act (1913)

    24: The Virginia legislature passes the Virginia Resolution (authored by James Madison) (1798)

    26: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceases to exist (1991)

    27: Signing of Flushing Remonstrance concerning religious liberty (1657)

    31: Private ownership of gold by U.S. citizens becomes legal again (1974)

  82. paulie

    Who are we talking about here that is prompting this discussion?

    The name was made public on the LNC list, but I think that was inappropriate, so I won’t repeat it. However it’s easy to find on there and any number of places this has been discussed as a result.

    From what I have since learned of the case: this individual was taking 16 year old sex workers who were runaways and already working on the streets, taking sexual photos and videos of them and putting them on backpage. I have been told that this was in 2010-11 but have not verified. I am surmising he was at least somewhat older and legally an adult at the time but have not checked that either. NY age of consent is 17, so the girls were a few months below this activity being legal in that jurisdiction. It’s 16 in surrounding jurisdictions but because it is 17 in NY the government was able to slam him with hard prison time. The girls refused to testify against him. He did not turn them out, they were already sex workers, and it sounds like he most likely actually made their jobs and lives somewhat safer.

    I don’t actually know anything else about the case, but from my general knowledge of how these things go, the government was waging a war on backpage, especially in regards to accepting ads featuring underage sex workers. They most likely tried to jam this guy up to provide and most likely gather evidence for them against backpage, and perhaps against other “human traffickers.” He probably did not have a whole lot of information for them, or not enough for their tastes, or perhaps refused to cooperate. Or maybe he cooperated to some extent but refused to wear a wire. Or changed his mind about wearing a wire after a close call. Or gave them all the evidence he could but got jammed up anyway. All these things happen all the time when dealing with the dishonest and perfidous federal injustice bureaucrats.

    Now, after some time in prison, he has decided to join the LP and sent in his pledge and membership dues. The national party’s executive director brought this up to the LNC confidentially at first, seeking guidance on whether he should refuse the membership. The chair ruled that refusing the membership was outside the LNC’s/HQ’s powers as specified in the bylaws. One of the LNC members leaked this discussion along with the individual’s name to the public LNC list, whereby a major category 5 shitstorm ensued, along with an appeal of the ruling of the chair, which is currently being voted on.

    The LNC shitstorm is at least in the dozens if not hundreds of separate messages now, and has spilled over into many discussions on various FB fora devoted to discussing the LP and wherever else.

  83. paulie

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com

    12:36 AM (13 hours ago)

    to Alicia, Libertarian
    I must vote yes, to sustain the ruling of the chair.

    When there is agreement between Nick Sarwark, Caryn Ann Harlos, and myself
    that the rules just don’t give us any option here, perhaps that says
    something. (Though I disagree with a number of the points Ms. Harlos has
    made in this debate.)

    Sex trafficking of minors is as vile to me as it is to my colleagues and
    the members who have taken the time to contact us, and my vote should be in
    no way construed to approve of the actions alleged to have been committed
    by the person in question. I fully understand the passion behind the
    communications we have received, and I feel that, too.

    The U.S. Constitution does not list all the things that the three branches
    of government can’t do, but we expect them to stay within the lines of
    their enumerated powers. Just as the U.S. Constitution has a 10th
    amendment which should be read to limit federal powers, RONR says something
    similar.

    RONR, 11th ed., spanning pages 589-590, principle of interpretation #4
    provides that:

    “If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the
    same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that nothing has
    been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it. There can be no valid
    reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done
    without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify
    the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited.
    Thus, where Article IV, Section I of the Sample Bylaws (p. 585) lists
    certain officers, the election of other officers not named, such as a
    sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited.”

    Just as a bylaws listing of specified officers prohibits the electing of
    other officers, the listing of membership requirements prohibits adding
    other requirements. The bylaws don’t have to list the things we can’t do
    in order to restrict our options.

    Our rights to choose with whom we will collectively associate as fellow
    members is exercised via our ability to set our own membership rules. Our
    delegates have the right to amend those rules if they no longer meet our
    needs, but the LNC shouldn’t use an appeal of a chair’s ruling to simply
    throw out a rule that the delegates have established for us.

    I’ve heard arguments that the actions in question violate the membership
    certification or the NAP. I’ve seen plenty of our members commit fraud on
    Facebook in their dealings with fellow party members, yet I don’t hear
    motions to rescind their memberships. Will this argument be consistently
    applied going forward? We haven’t rescinded the membership of Arvin Vohra
    in spite of all the ruckus last term.

    Though I can think of a number of people who have engaged in conduct so
    very outrageous that it merits expulsion, I’ve seen no existing mechanism
    to do that, and perhaps that’s because the delegates fear the potential
    circular firing squad. For each of us, there’s someone in the party who
    thinks we don’t belong in the party…and for reasons nowhere near the
    awful subject matter we are now faced with.

    If there is to be a bylaw amendment to create a mechanism, it should be
    written very carefully.

    I see I am not the only person to have wondered whether this is a setup
    situation intended to stir people up. I have no information to demonstrate
    that it is, but it’s the worse-case scenario dropping into our laps just as
    internal elections heat up… I mean, if you wanted to draw attention,
    what better way to do it than to send the thing with the prison as the
    return address?

    -Alicia

  84. paulie

    nc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com

    Dec 29, 2019, 6:42 PM (18 hours ago)

    to francis.wendt, lnc-business, Caryn
    A counterpoint if you will,

    Although Robert’s allows deliberative bodies to punish their members, sustaining members are not members of the LNC. Thus, the deliberative body that is afforded the right of punishment and expulsion is the body of delegates at convention. Our Bylaws do have a mechanism for how LNC members are removed, but not how members are removed. Should the delegates chose to adopt such rules, even during convention, it is the duty of this body to uphold them.

    Best Regards,

    Francis Wendt

    LNC Region 1 Alternate

    406.595.5111

  85. paulie

    On Dec 29, 2019 8:20 PM, “james.lark— via Lnc-business” wrote:

    Dear colleagues:

    I hope all is well with you, and that you and your loved ones have enjoyed a
    wonderful holiday season. I am writing to offer some comments about various
    items; I hope you will find these comments worthy of your attention.

    1) In a separate message, I shall send Dan Fishman a Word file that
    contains a list of dates and events in 2020 that may be worthy of note; I
    shall cc the LNC-Business list with the message. The purpose of this list
    is to help LPHQ and state affiliates prepare outreach material (including
    press releases and op-eds) well in advance of such dates and events. (I
    believe we should prepare as much material as possible well in advance so
    that we don’t have to scramble as these dates and events approach.)

    As some of you may remember, I have prepared and distributed a “dates of
    interest” calendar each December for several years. From the feedback I
    have received, many of our LP colleagues have found the calendar to be
    helpful in their planning.

    2) In a separate message, I shall vote to sustain the ruling of the chair
    regarding the motion of Mr. Phillips. I believe there is a reasonable
    argument that Robert’s Rules (as applied per Article 16 of the LP Bylaws)
    allows the LNC some latitude with respect to the matter in dispute.
    However, I also believe the most reasonable interpretation of the Bylaws
    (with respect to both the letter of the law and to LP custom) is that
    refusing to accept submission of the certification and an accompanying
    payment for sustaining membership is tantamount to the LNC imposing an
    additional criterion (or criteria) for membership.

    I hope the Bylaws and Rules Committee members will seek to craft language by
    which the Bylaws can be amended to provide guidance to the LNC in such
    situations. If I have the opportunity, I shall endeavor to prepare
    suggested language for consideration by the Committee.

    3) Regarding the specific situation of the person in question, Mr. Phillips
    has graciously sought to find a way to deal with the many legitimate issues
    and concerns that have arisen. Allow me to offer a suggestion in this
    matter.

    I believe it would be appropriate for Mr. Sarwark to send a message to the
    person in question in which he (Mr. Sarwark) provides the following:

    * Information about the Libertarian Party, including our platform and
    bylaws

    * A brief statement of why the person’s membership has raised concerns

    * A suggestion that the person end the membership until the LP members
    assembled at the 2020 national convention offer guidance in this situation.

    Mr. Sarwark’s message could also include an invitation for the person to
    provide information about the convictions and subsequent legal efforts. I
    shall be happy to assist Mr. Sarwark in crafting such a message if he is so
    inclined.

    As always, thanks for your work for liberty. Best wishes to you for a great
    2020.

    Take care,

    Jim

    James W. Lark, III
    Professor, Dept. of Engineering Systems and Environment
    Professor, Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society
    Affiliated Faculty, Department of Statistics
    University of Virginia

    Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
    University of Virginia

    Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

  86. paulie

    Wow! This could stir up a hornets nest. I would guess that any official in the US who swears an oath to the Constitution could be guilty of violating the pledge.

    Not necessarily. The constitution only limits the powers of the federal government. I don’t know of anything in the constitution which positively compels the federal government, local or state government, or any government official to do anything whatsoever. In what ways would swearing to uphold the constitution be a violation of non-initiation of force, if the pledge is interpreted that way?

  87. dL Post author

    He did not turn them out, they were already sex workers, and it sounds like he most likely actually made their jobs and lives somewhat safer.

    Back in the day, I did roughly the same thing when I was involved in the sex industry. Working protection, serving as an intermediary between strippers and escort services. High school aged girls but older than 16. Other than worrying a little about vice, no one(not even the cops) gave a rats ass about shit like that back then…as long they weren’t minors(older than 15). Shit like his just reinforces my opinion regarding the reactionary fuddy duddies at the LNC

  88. paulie

    I don’t think a lot of them have looked into the details of the case. It has not come up on the list, other than the characterization as child porn and child sex trafficking.

  89. dL Post author

    I don’t think a lot of them have looked into the details of the case. It has not come up on the list, other than the characterization as child porn and child sex trafficking.

    I took a quick gander at the list. The usual suspects(i.e, the pro-life caucus) tossing around terms like pedophilia and child predator. Well, my understanding of the details(as related by Knapp) excludes pedophilia. By definition, 16 is not pedophilia. 16 is the age of consent in 3/5 of the states, so it’s a bit dubious to automatically call a 16 year old an incapable child. The LP used to have a strong children’s rights plank. Of course, that was all removed and replaced with a quick nod to parental rights. To automatically decree any age below 18 as incapable of contract and then advocate state compulsion and power to ensure that anyone exercising a right to contract < 18 is thus a criminal--under the pretense that we must do everything and anything to protect the children--is a clear violation of the pledge. So, if we are going to have a litmus test for expulsion, the pro-life fuddy duddies are the ones who should be expelled

  90. Tony From Long Island

    Wow . . . . trying to expel someone for being a registered sex offender? WTF is wrong with you people?

    I don’t care WHAT this person did in his past. If you expel someone from your party for something done in the past who has “paid his debt to society” you are WRONG – 100% absolutely wrong!

    You don’t care that some nutso with a frickin’ boot on his head with the chosen name of VERMIN wants to be the public face of your party. You didn’t care that some fat slob stripped down on national television during your convention. Most of you think Sol Invictus is a swell guy!

    But someone in your party committed a non-violent sex offense in the past and you lose your shit. Excuse me but give me a fucking break. Hasn’t Daryl Perry actually said there shouldn’t be an age of consent? You’re OK with that though.

    No better than the moral panic right-wing ass holes.

    I guess I’m glad I left the LP before I could be expelled for the non-violent sex offenses I committed 20 years ago.

    Shaking my head . . . .

    p.s. Sex offenders have one of the lowest rates of recidivism of all categories of crime

  91. dL Post author

    More positive press for the LP.

    Keep associating with weirdos.

    Florida LP leadership did resign when Invictus ran. Paul Stanton subsequently crushed him the LP primary. But the resignations opened the door for some unsavory elements to gain control of the FL LP. Tony, you’re a long time poster here, and this has been chronicled ad nauseam. You should know this. Augustus Invictus is old news.

  92. Tony From Long Island

    Yes dL

    I know he’s old news. But his true self was evident very early on. You let him become associated with your party and he continues to soil it.

    As much as I now criticize the LP, I am sad at this. He does not represent what the LP stands for. Unfortunately having articles on TheHill with his name and the LP together is not helping.

  93. dL Post author

    You let him become associated with your party and he continues to soil it.

    I didn’t let him do anything. I don’t give any money to the LNC b/c of shit like Florida. If it was up to me and I had dictatorial powers, I would rewrite the platform to chase all the right wingers out. But as it stands, I’m not interested in giving the LNC carte blanche to expel members and remove candidates b/c I know damn well that would backfire: all the left-wingers would end up being kicked out. It is what it is.

  94. paulie

    More positive press for the LP.

    Keep associating with weirdos.

    You mean for the Republican Party? He’s been a member of that for several years and is currently alledgedly seeking their presidential nomination.

  95. paulie

    Wow . . . . trying to expel someone for being a registered sex offender? WTF is wrong with you people?

    I don’t care WHAT this person did in his past. If you expel someone from your party for something done in the past who has “paid his debt to society”

    The question is over accepting or not accepting a membership with a prison return address. He is currently incarcerated, thus has not yet paid his alleged “debt to society.”

    You don’t care that some nutso with a frickin’ boot on his head with the chosen name of VERMIN wants to be the public face of your party.

    Vermin is completely sane. I roomed with him at the 2016 convention. He is satirizing conventional politics, but has also presented the serious platform as well as the satiric one, and plans to do more of that this cycle.

    You didn’t care that some fat slob stripped down on national television during your convention.

    Different people feel about it differently, but his state party suspended his membership because of it, which should tell you something.

    Most of you think Sol Invictus is a swell guy!

    Most of who? Certainly not me, nor most people who comment at IPR. Nor most LP members from what I can tell.

    But someone in your party committed a non-violent sex offense in the past and you lose your shit.

    I think most of the people losing their shit haven’t familiarized themselves with even the most rudimentary details of the case. All they saw was something about human sex trafficking in underage children and child porn and took it at face value, opining from there without looking at a single additional detail.

    Hasn’t Daryl Perry actually said there shouldn’t be an age of consent?

    Not that I remember, but I don’t know. He can answer for himself if he happens upon this.

    You’re OK with that though.

    How did you jump to that conclusion?

    I guess I’m glad I left the LP before I could be expelled for the non-violent sex offenses I committed 20 years ago.

    No one has been expelled yet, but details matter. If you want to explain what you actually did I could offer my opinion, but I can understand if you don’t want to. So far, my public shared opinion has been that bylaws don’t allow these kinds of expulsions and changing them to allow them would open a big can of worms.

    Sex offenders have one of the lowest rates of recidivism of all categories of crime

    I thought it was one of the highest, but that shows you how much I know. Which datasets are you using?

  96. paulie

    You let him become associated with your party and he continues to soil it.

    If you read my articles and comments here over the years I opposed his association with the LP rather forcefully, in the process earning a death threat from Augustus himself, as well as “fan” articles spread numerous times on social media by Ryan Ramsey and his Alabama acolyte Samuel Lucas “Luke von Trapp” Kinton, and a threat of being SWATted by Ramsey. There was also more low level harassment from their circle of friends. I was far from the only one.

    Your comments may be more correctly addressed to the Republican party of which Invictus is a current member. He also claims to be seeking their presidential nomination. Of course there are clowns like this in the Democratic party too, such as LaRouchies. They sometimes even win nominations for things like US House and State House.

  97. paulie

    But as it stands, I’m not interested in giving the LNC carte blanche to expel members and remove candidates b/c I know damn well that would backfire: all the left-wingers would end up being kicked out. It is what it is.

    Agreed.

  98. paulie

    I took a quick gander at the list. The usual suspects(i.e, the pro-life caucus) tossing around terms like pedophilia and child predator. Well, my understanding of the details(as related by Knapp) excludes pedophilia. By definition, 16 is not pedophilia. 16 is the age of consent in 3/5 of the states, so it’s a bit dubious to automatically call a 16 year old an incapable child.

    Agreed on the main point, but I saw the comments from more than just the pro life caucus, and I honestly don’t think most of them dug into any details of the case at all.

  99. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie : . . . .Sex offenders have one of the lowest rates of recidivism of all categories of crime

    I thought it was one of the highest, but that shows you how much I know. Which datasets are you using? . . . ”

    It’s rather common knowledge among anyone who researches the subject. (I did my masters thesis on the subject.) The only way stats can be twisted to even look remotely like the numbers are high are if you count parole violations for technical rule violations – not new offenses. Most credible studies are between 3 and 7% (depending on the length of follow up looked at).

    ————————————–
    Paulie: ” . . . . .The question is over accepting or not accepting a membership with a prison return address. He is currently incarcerated, thus has not yet paid his alleged “debt to society.” . . . . ”

    I received LP News at a prison address for years and paid my membership dues from a prison address for years also. LP News also once printed a letter to the editor from me from a prison address.

    Also . . . I’ve calmed down a bit since yesterday. I guess seeing that just set me off a bit. 🙂

  100. dL Post author

    But someone in your party committed a non-violent sex offense in the past and you lose your shit. Excuse me but give me a fucking break.

    Some usual suspects in the LNC lost their shit. From my reading, Sarwark, as he is apt to do, shut it down.

  101. dL Post author

    You didn’t care that some fat slob stripped down on national television during your convention.

    Tony, James Weeks–a fine left libertarian– would run circles around you in a political debate. We would have to call in the mercy rule.

Leave a Reply

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