Libertarian Party of North Carolina Conducts First Independent Election System Software Review

LPNC PRESS RELEASE

RALEIGH (Dec. 27) – The Libertarian Party will conduct the first-ever independent review of the state’s election system software. State Chair Joseph Garcia invoked his authority under state law in a Dec. 21 letter to the State Board of Elections requesting to review and examine all source code for an electronic voting system made by vendor Election Systems & Software.

ES&S has systems in use in 93 North Carolina counties.

“This is not about litigating the 2020 election,” Garcia emphasized. “It’s about election system security. Cybersecurity experts worldwide have warned of the vulnerabilities and inconsistencies of electronic voting machines. Voter confidence in those systems has been steadily eroding. These systems must be evaluated independently and tested regularly,” he said.

Garcia appointed Dr. Duncan Buell, recently retired from the University of South Carolina Department of Computer Science and Engineering, as project lead for the code review team. Dr. Buell is also a former election official for Richland County, S.C.

“Software is hard to get right. Programmers often get too focused on the details of what they are doing,” Dr. Buell noted. “One way to ensure that things have not been overlooked is to have a source code review by other experts to ensure that the code does exactly — and only — what it is supposed to do.”

As chair of a recognized political party, Garcia is one of a handful of key stakeholders with the authority to conduct an independent security review and source code examination of electronic voting systems used in North Carolina elections as well as review the state’s evaluation reports of electronic voting systems currently under consideration for certification.

“Moving forward, we need elections that are transparent, trackable, robustly audited, and publicly verified,” said Lynn Berstein, founder of Transparent Elections NC, who is supporting the LPNC’s effort. “That begins with an independent security and source code review of the proprietary software counting our votes.”

Garcia understands the value of these independent reviews. He served as a New York City Police Department and detective for 20 years. His last seven years were in the computer crime squad, where he investigated computer-related crimes and conducted digital forensic investigations.

As a digital forensic examiner, Garcia was responsible for recovering, analyzing, and reporting digital evidence related to criminal investigations.

In 2019, NCSBE Executive Director Karen Brinson-Bell, administratively approved the ES&S voting system, circumventing the stringent security and source code reviews required by law.

The secretary of the state elections board, Dr. Stella Anderson, objected to the approval because of a letter she had received from Kevin Skoglund, chief technologist at Citizens for Better Elections, strongly advising against foregoing the N.C. Elections Systems Certification Program.

“The changes introduced by EVS 5.2.4.0 substantially alter the voting system,” Skoglund said in the letter. “The changes are not merely enhancements. They are major modifications. It is my opinion that it should be subject to full examination and testing and to review and approval by the State Board prior to use in North Carolina.”

Despite several experts’ warnings, the state elections board did not conduct an independent security and source code review.

For more information contact:

Joseph Garcia, (919) 283-5295, chair@lpnc.org
Lynn Berstein, (910) 764-8328, TransparentElectionsNC@gmail.com
Dr. Duncan Buell, Buell@acm.org

83 thoughts on “Libertarian Party of North Carolina Conducts First Independent Election System Software Review

  1. Tony From Long Island

    Why would an organization with limited resources waste money on something like this?

  2. Traditionalist

    Kudos to the libertarians for proving themselves to be useful here. Election integrity is a huge problem, especially when it comes to electronic voting. I had gained the impression from conversation with libertarians here recently that they had suffered a brain drain of epic proportions, perhaps tied to their last three terrible presidential nominations (Johnson twice and BLM fan Jorgensen) and genuine libertarians going over to the GOP for Trump. This action is a small signal of hope that there are still signs of intelligent life on their planet.

  3. Traditionalist

    Reading between the lines, I don’t think it will cost them anything. There are many people, some of them organized, with an interest in election integrity, who lack standing given to a chair of a state recognized political party to bring certain actions. Using that power wisely as they have here gains them resources, relevance, allies, coverage, and perhaps new members, and is thus in their organizational interests.

  4. Tony From Long Island

    There is no problem with “election integrity.”

    Elections are more accurate and secure now than they have ever been.

    “Election Integrity” is a codename for “lets try to stop people from voting for who we don’t like.”

    There is de minimis voter fraud
    There is de minimis non-citizens voting
    There is de minimis dead people voting.

    Focus on winning voters over and educating voters.

  5. Traditionalist

    That is complete and utter nonsense. If ideological bias constrains you from examining the voluminous evidence of widespread vote fraud of many different sorts by the left, especially but far from only in the stolen election of 2020, you can look at earlier examinations of the problem from neutral or leftist sources by looking up “black box voting.” There’s a lot there, to say the least.

  6. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    December 31, 2021 at 13:07
    “There is no problem with ‘election integrity.’

    Elections are more accurate and secure now than they have ever been.

    “Election Integrity” is a codename for ‘lets try to stop people from voting for who we don’t like.’

    There is de minimis voter fraud
    There is de minimis non-citizens voting
    There is de minimis dead people voting.

    Focus on winning voters over and educating voters.”

    Would Tony From Long Island say this if it were Democrats who were the ones who got cheated? I doubt it.

  7. Andy

    “Traditionalist
    December 31, 2021 at 13:18
    That is complete and utter nonsense. If ideological bias constrains you from examining the voluminous evidence of widespread vote fraud of many different sorts by the left, especially but far from only in the stolen election of 2020, you can look at earlier examinations of the problem from neutral or leftist sources by looking up ‘black box voting.’ There’s a lot there, to say the least.”

    I thought that the election results were shady back in 2004 when George W. Bush got installed as President. Not that I’m a fan of Al Gore, as I am far from it, but I call it as I see it, and the result of that election looked fishy.

  8. Traditionalist

    “I thought that the election results were shady back in 2004 when George W. Bush got installed as President. Not that I’m a fan of Al Gore (sic), as I am far from it, but I call it as I see it, and the result of that election looked fishy.”

    You may well be correct. I didn’t pay much attention to that, to be honest, because I was not invested in anyone running that year. I ended up writing in Pat Buchanan in both the primary and general elections, even though he had no interest in running again that year or since, and despite his highly disappointing performance in 2000.

  9. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    No one got cheated.

    Trump lost. By a lot. Are you a Trump Cult member too now?

  10. Traditionalist

    Tony,

    Trump won. By a lot. He got cheated, and so did we. Only left wing cultists and those who believe the establishment’s fake news (propaganda) don’t know this. But as the libertarians’ press release indicates, the question of election integrity did not originate in 2020. It’s clear that you have ideological blinders on regarding vote fraud in 2020. So, I suggest you look up “black box voting.” it’s easy to do with whatever search engine or information resource (wikipedia, youtube, and so on) you find useful. If you bother to actually do that, you’ll discover a wealth of information about issues with electronic voting integrity that have nothing to do with the 2020 presidential election.

    Incidentally, even if you believe the bad joke that is the official election results, Trump didn’t lose by “a lot.” What the Chinese Occupied Government propaganda tells us were the results of the election, 11,780 votes in Georgia, 10,458 votes in Arizona, and 20,683 votes in Wisconsin, a grand total of less than 43,000 votes out of 158,383,403 allegedly cast – less than three one hundredths of one percent – would have flipped 37 electoral votes, resulting in a 269-269 tie. This would have resulted in a second term for President Trump, since the majority of states’ House delegations were predominantly Republican. Thus, even if you buy the lies, Biden actually “won” by fewer than 3 votes out of every 10,000. That’s not exactly “winning by a lot.” If nothing else, it should at least arouse a mild amount of curiosity on your part whether those who wanted Biden to “win” cheated by just enough to create that result.

    But, I understand. You’re simply unwilling to examine how much cheating there was because you got the result you wanted. That’s why I am suggesting that you explore electronic voting integrity issues that have nothing to do with the 2020 presidential election. Or are you so desperate to believe that the 2020 presidential election wasn’t stolen that you are not willing to even start looking at the evidence of electronic voting integrity issues that have nothing to do with that particular election?

  11. Nathan Norman

    Traditionalist is correct.

    Let’s just look at the evidence (per Liz Harrington):

    “43,907 ballots from Facebook-funded drop boxes are now under investigation because they were counted in DeKalb even though they violated Chain of Custody rules. These illegal ballots are nearly 4X the margin in GA alone (11,779)

    “35,000 illegal votes cast in GA from voters in the wrong county, roughly three times the amount necessary to ‘tip the 2020 results’

    “Poll workers were caught scanning ballots multiple times on camera in Fulton County. Ballot images obtained through a public records request revealed these duplicate votes, including at least 3,390 extra votes for Joe Biden

    “Tally sheets from the Fulton Co. hand recount also revealed 100-0 and 200-0 vote counts for Joe Biden

    “Also in Fulton, they threw out Trump votes, while spoiled ballots were unlawfully counted for Joe Biden

    “The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau recently found numerous law violations in the 2020 election including 44,272 people who voted in November 2020 without ever showing Voter ID. This alone is more than twice the vote margin in the state

    “The Wisconsin Election Commission ‘shattered’ the law by ordering nursing homes to ignore election laws, leading to widespread voter fraud and ballot harvesting uncovered by the Racine, Wisconsin sheriff’s office

    “In Pennsylvania, there are 49,141 more votes than voters. By law, Pennsylvania cannot certify any results from precincts that are out of balance”

  12. Traditionalist

    As long as we’re off on the tangent of the 2020 presidential election, exactly WHY was it stolen? Cui bono? I’m taking only facts acknowledged in sources which attempt to exonerate Biden and those I allege installed him as a puppet, or from establishment news sources, and compiling them. I don’t want to bore you all with facts, but I will post them if others here are interested.

  13. Andy

    “Traditionalist
    January 1, 2022 at 03:04
    As long as we’re off on the tangent of the 2020 presidential election, exactly WHY was it stolen? Cui bono?”

    I think that it was stolen because Joe Biden is closer to the inner circle of the ruling establishment than Donald Trump is. Donald Trump is also an establishment guy, but he was on the outer circle of the establishment.

    The ruling establishment wants presidents who are total puppets. Donald Trump was not enough of a puppet for them. Trump was too difficult for them to control. Joe Biden is a total puppet.

    I think that we were still being driven off of a cliff with Trump, but I think he slowed the speed of the car down a bit. Trump was driving us off a cliff at like 85 or 90 miles per hour, whereas Joe Biden is, and Hillary Clinton would have, driven us off a cliff at 100 miles per hour.

    ” I’m taking only facts acknowledged in sources which attempt to exonerate Biden and those I allege installed him as a puppet, or from establishment news sources, and compiling them. I don’t want to bore you all with facts, but I will post them if others here are interested.”

    I’m interested is seeing what you’ve got. Post away.

  14. Traditionalist

    I think you greatly underestimate how much Trump was up against as President. He was also probably underestimating how much he would be up against until he got there. He had a lot he had to learn on the job. The President is far from being a dictator. He has to manage a very large and complicated bureaucracy. He has to get his people in to head various agencies and departments, and they have to take time to clean house there. Many of those appointments require congressional approval. Some of his picks prove to be disappointing, so they have to be replaced, some more than once. His orders have to go through multiple levels of judicial review, and get multiple levels of bureaucrats to comply in filtering them down the chain of command.

    The President, especially one who is an outsider, has to have a limited number of people to draw on who have the requisite loyalty (and they may be faking it), competence, ability to manage the people under them or get new ones in place, ability to not get caught up in scandals, and so on. Meanwhile, the President has to make sure that he doesn’t get removed once impeached. He has to manage congressional and “independent” inquiries, press relations, donors, party apparatchiks, members of congress, foreign leaders, terrorist and other threats, natural disasters, business leaders, intel agencies, things you can’t even know about because they are classified, and on and on. He has to protect himself against various forms of coup – military, intel/deep state, cabinet, assassins, and so on. All these things have to be managed simultaneously, in real time.

    You might think if you were somehow elected President you might just sweep in with your wish list, fire the whole bureaucracy, issue sweeping executive orders, veto every congressional bill, empty the federal prisons, or whatever other fantasies you have. I highly doubt that would work. You’d probably be assassinated, or removed under Article 25, or just “disappeared” within your first few days, and your orders would be ignored. You’d be painted as dangerously crazy in the media and congressional hearings, and so on.

    Like it or not, it’s far from easy, and takes time. I think Trump learned a lot in his first term, much of it by trial and error, and will do a lot better in his second.

    I’ll start on the evidence in the next couple of posts. There’s a lot, so I won’t post everything at once.

  15. Traditionalist

    1. HUNTER BIDEN AND CHINA

    Hunter Biden was on the board of Bohai Harvest RST. George Mesires, a lawyer for Hunter Biden, admitted that in October 2017 Hunter Biden took a 10% financial stake in BHR. In September 2014, a deal was announced for BHR to invest 6 billion Chinese yuan, or about $1 billion at the prevailing exchange rate, in Sinopec Marketing Co. Ltd, a subsidiary of a state-controlled oil and gas company. The BHR investment, finalized in March 2015, was one of several simultaneous investments by various entities that added up to nearly a 30% stake in the firm.

    In September 2015, BHR paid $600 million to buy 49% of auto supplier Henniges Automotive Inc.; the Chinese state-owned AVIC Automotive Systems Holding Co., reportedly acquired 51%.

    And in April 2017, BHR paid $1.2 billion for 24% of Democratic Republic of Congo-based Tenke Fungurume Mining. Much of the rest of the company is owned by China Molybdenum Co., a private holding company with “state-owned capital participation.”

    So where did the capital to make these investments by BHR come from? In 2019, the Wall Street Journal, citing business registrations, reported that BHR was 80%-controlled by Chinese (government? connected?) entities.

    Hunter Biden does not appear to have had any significant training in Asia, oil and gas, mining, or aviation.

    Reuters has reported that BHR also invested in China General Nuclear Power Corp, a state-owned company. The company employed a naturalized U.S. citizen and nuclear engineer, Allen Ho, who was indicted in the United States in 2016 for allegedly enlisting U.S.-based nuclear experts to assist in developing and producing special nuclear material in China.

    The Henniges Automotive deal was done in concert with AVIC, an aviation company that is involved in both military and commercial markets.

    The mining deal involved the takeover of a mine that produces significant amounts of cobalt, which is considered a critical mineral by the U.S. government, along with niobium, another commodity produced by the Chinese mining company.

  16. Traditionalist

    2. FAUCI AND WUHAN:

    Did the US fund virus research in China?

    Yes, it did contribute some funds.

    Dr Fauci, as well as being an adviser to President Biden, is the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the US government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH).
    This body did give money to an organisation that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    That organisation – the US-based EcoHealth Alliance – was awarded a grant in 2014 to look into possible coronaviruses from bats.

    EcoHealth received $3.7m from the NIH, $600,000 of which was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    In 2019, its project was renewed for another five years, but then pulled by the Trump administration in April 2020 following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.

    Documents, obtained by Freedom of Information Act requests show that the NIH was funding research at the Wuhan lab that involved manipulating coronaviruses in ways that could have made them more transmissible and deadly to humans

    In a 2018 proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a Pentagon research arm, EcoHealth sketched an elaborate plan to discover what it would take to turn a garden-variety coronavirus into a pandemic pathogen. They proposed widely sampling Chinese bats in search of new SARS-related viruses, grafting the spike proteins from those viruses onto other viruses they had in the lab to create a suite of chimeras, then, through genetic engineering, introducing mutations into those chimeras and testing them in humanized mice, which had been genetically engineered to have human-like receptors in their lungs, making them better stand-ins for people.

    For years, scientists had known that adding a special type of “cleavage site” to the spike could supercharge a virus’s transmissibility. Although many viruses in nature have such sites, neither SARS nor any of its cousins do. EcoHealth proposed incorporating human-optimized cleavage sites into the SARS-like viruses it discovered and testing their infectiousness.

    In September, scientists from France’s Pasteur Institute announced the discovery of just such a virus—SARS-CoV-2’s closest known relative—in a bat cave in Laos. Although still too distant from SARS-CoV-2 to have been the direct progenitor, and lacking the all-important cleavage site, it was a kissing cousin.

    it’s clear that for years, a large number of bat samples from the region that harbors viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 were sent to the WIV. In other words, EcoHealth’s team was in the right place at the right time to have found things very close to SARS-CoV-2 and to have sent them to Wuhan. Because there’s a lag of several years between when samples are collected and when experiments involving those viruses are published, the most recent papers from EcoHealth and the WIV date to 2015. The identity of the viruses found between 2016 and 2019 are known only to the two organizations, neither of which has been willing to share that information with the world.

    Why choose not to share valuable information on SARS-like coronaviruses with the world? Why not explain your projects and proposals and give scientists access to the unpublished virus sequences in your databases?

    For whatever reason, they chose crisis-management mode instead. The WIV went into lockdown. Databases were taken offline.

    And EcoHealth and the NIH tried hard to keep the details of their collaboration private.

    Congressional inquiries focusing on Dr. Fauci and the NIH’s decisions to fund unnecessarily risky research by a lab in Wuhan are probably forthcoming if, as appears increasingly likely, Republicans take control of Congress after the 2022 midterms. While it’s important to understand how the NIH came to use such poor judgment in its dealings with EcoHealth Alliance, that won’t tell us much about the WIV’s research in the months leading up to the pandemic, especially since China is not likely to open its books. Answers are more likely to lie in the records of EcoHealth Alliance.

  17. Andy

    “Traditionalist
    January 1, 2022 at 13:20
    I think you greatly underestimate how much Trump was up against as President. He was also probably underestimating how much he would be up against until he got there.”

    It sounds to me like you are overestimating Trump principles. I think he’s got little or no core principles.

    Also, look at who he surrounded himself with on his campaign and his administration. There is not one person who was on his campaign staff or in his administration who I would have hired or appointed to anything.

    Look at Donald Trump’s politically activity prior to him running for President. He never supported Ron Paul. He was never part of the liberty or constitutionalist movement.

  18. Andy

    Traditionalist said: “Like it or not, it’s far from easy, and takes time. I think Trump learned a lot in his first term, much of it by trial and error, and will do a lot better in his second.”

    If this is true, why is he pushing this vaccine idiocy?

    Also, why didn’t he pardon some people who actually deserved it on his way out? He pardoned a few scumbags who are connected to his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

    No pardon for Edward Snowden. No pardon for Julian Assuage. No pardon for Ross Ulbritch. No pardon for Schaeffer Cox. No pardon for all of the people who are locked up for victimless crimes, or who have otherwise been unfairly convicted.

  19. Traditionalist

    I am intentionally not posting where each quote is from. None of it is from anything like Alex Jones, Breitbart, or even Fox News. Sources are things like Politifact and Newsweek – in other words, the things they could not find excuses to try to explain away. I’m intentionally not identifying which establishment outlet said what so that anyone who doubts me will go look it up, if they are not too lazy.

    Upcoming topics:

    * Chinese history of computer hacking in the US and Western nations

    * Trump threatened Chinese economic dominance with protection for US manufacturing and in other ways

    * US economy was growing rapidly prior to China virus, decreasing dependency on China

    * Trump was rebuilding the US military, moving forces out of useless and counterproductive
    deployments, clearing intel agencies of Chinese fifth column agents, removing Marxists and comsymps throughout the federal bureaucracy

    * Wuhan Institute of Virology was the only place doing the type of research it did

    * China was far less impacted by COVID in terms of deaths or economic destruction than other nations, even though the plandemic originated there

    * China has greatly increased its global standing as a result of COVID, while other world powers have been weakened

    * Massive disruptions in the normal voting process due to COVID provided many more opportunities to cheat than in any other year

    * Russia hoax was a shadow play – intel agents, fifth columnists cooked up plot to falsely accuse Trump campaign of doing with Russia what Biden campaign would actually do with China to get “elected” President. This was so that one Biden is impeached, many people will get the impression that it’s just “tit for tat” revenge

    * China is well underway towards its long range goal of becoming the sole dominant global superpower that the US arrogantly and falsely assumed we were after the fall of the Soviet Union; it’s later than we think

    * Links between voting equipment, tallying, China / Chinese connected corporations?

  20. Traditionalist

    “It sounds to me like you are overestimating Trump principles. I think he’s got little or no core principles.”

    We disagree. He has been consistent on quite a few issues, like law and order, fair trade, opposing nation building and defending rich countries which can and should pay for their own defense, bringing manufacturing jobs back, and so on.

    “Also, look at who he surrounded himself with on his campaign and his administration. There is not one person who was on his campaign staff or in his administration who I would have hired or appointed to anything.”

    I would have hired quite a few of them, like General Flynn, Steve Bannon, Steven Miller, Roger Stone, and many others. Prior to his actual performance, I would have thought Jeff Sessions would have made a great attorney general (live and learn).

    “Look at Donald Trump’s politically activity prior to him running for President. He never supported Ron Paul. He was never part of the liberty or constitutionalist movement.”

    Actually, he said Ron Paul is great, but can’t win. A lot of what Trump has said and done is so that he can win, and then stay in office, so he could even do as much as he did.

    “If this is true, why is he pushing this vaccine idiocy?”

    Because he needs enough votes to get back into office. If it wasn’t for Trump, we probably would have had President Hillary Clinton mandating “vaccines” for everyone, or some other such thing.

    “Also, why didn’t he pardon some people who actually deserved it on his way out?”

    He has to keep from being assassinated, and get in a position to get back in office.

    “No pardon for all of the people who are locked up for victimless crimes, or who have otherwise been unfairly convicted.”

    See above, plus you are simply wrong about many of these “victimless” crimes. Narcoterrorism and human trafficking, for example, are not victimless, contra libertarian ideology.

    I never claimed Trump is anything like perfect. He is, however, the best President I can remember, and that goes back to FDR. I strongly believe the best is yet to come, when he gets back in office. He will be much, much better during his second stint.

  21. Andy

    Traditionalist, you remember when FDR was President? How old are you? You must be pretty old if this is true.

  22. Andy

    I think an argument can be made that Trump was the least bad President this country has had in awhile, but this does NOT make him good, it just means that the standards have been highly degraded.

    We needed somebody like Ron Paul, not Donald Trump. Ron Paulo was the real Make America Great Again candidate.

  23. Andy

    Who engaged in narcoterrorism and human trafficking?

    If you are talking about Ross Ulbritch, he did neither of those things.

    The War on Drugs is unconstitutional, by the way.

    Also, if you want to talk about human trafficking, look no further than Israeli Mossad operative, Jeffrey Epstein, a person with whom Trump associated.

  24. Andy

    Traditionalist said: “Because he needs enough votes to get back into office. If it wasn’t for Trump, we probably would have had President Hillary Clinton mandating “vaccines” for everyone, or some other such thing.”

    So push an unnecessary, and potentially life threatening shot in order to maybe get elected? You do know that there are people who have died because of these shots, right? You do know that COVID is a massive scam, and that the most people have less than 1% chance of dying from COVID, right?

    Is Donald Trump an idiot? He’s either an idiot, or he is part of the scam.

    Alex Jones may finally be jumping off the Trump train.

    My MESSAGE TO ALEX; THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PLAY THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS GAME. GO BACK TO SUPPORTING PEOPLE LIKE RON PAUL.

    Alex Jones: When Trump Doubled Down, That Was The Last Straw

    https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61cfa11dcddb3b489fb5dadb

  25. Andy

    Traditionalist said: “Actually, he said Ron Paul is great, but can’t win.”

    Then why didn’t he offer Ron Paul an appointment to his administration? Why didn’t he take any of Ron Paul’s advice, or try to implement any of Ron Paul’s policy recommendations? Why didn’t he at least support Ron Paul in the Republican primaries?

    Donald Trump is a rich and famous guy. He could have endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican presidential nomination, and he could have made a maximum allowed donation to his campaign, and also made a big donation to a Ron Paul Super PAC. If Ron Paul still lost in the primary, he could have still backed whoever the Republican party nominated, yet he did NOTHING for Ron Paul.

    The fact that he did NOTHING for Ron Paul during either of his runs for the Republican presidential nomination speaks VOLUMES about Donald Trump, and what it says is NOT good.

  26. Traditionalist

    You are letting the ideal be the enemy of the best available . Perfectionism leads to worse and worse options in the real world. I may be what you consider old, and I’m ok with that. William Shatner is even older than I am, and he just went up into space. You seem to like Ron Paul a lot. He’s a little bit older than I am. I think Trump holds up pretty well against what I’ve read about the Presidents from before my time, too.

    Regarding the war against drugs, I addressed the constitutionality at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2021/12/time-capsule-governor-gary-johnson-leaves-r-primary-re-registers-as-libertarian-seeks-lp-potus-nomination/ ; we disagree. It’s entirely constitutional, and we need a real one. Drugs are a poison, a scourge, and a weapon of war against us. I didn’t refer to any specific narcoterrorists or human traffickers. Rather,I expressed disagreement with the libertarian views that drugs and prostitution are victimless crimes.

    I like Ron Paul too – I voted for him both as a minor party and Republican candidate, admired his work in congress and writing well before he ran for president in any party, donated to his campaigns over the years, subscribed to his much maligned newsletters for many years (I don’t remember anything to get upset over). Nevertheless, I don’t agree with him on all issues. Even if I did, it remains true that he didn’t win. He made a lot of good speeches and cast many good nay votes, but got virtually nothing passed or stopped. Donald Trump got a lot more accomplished in the real world because he won, and I predict he will win again and be even better.

    Imagine how much worse it would have been if Hillary Clinton or someone like Jeb! had won. Look at no such worse it got after not quite a whole year of the pretender, Biden. Is rhetoric the only thing that matters to you, or do you look at practical options at all? On a battlefield, or in a surgery ward, perfectionism can easily get people killed. Except for the relatively well off among the last few generations in the wealthiest few nations, the realities of daily life made this unnecessary to explain to anyone except very young children.

    Please don’t send the death panels after me for exceeding an age quota. Is there a mandatory retirement age for commenting here?

  27. Andy

    Traditionalist: “I disagree with the contention above that our mostly rhetorical and halfhearted war on drugs is unconstitutional.
    Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Narcoterrorism, including state sponsored, and the communist promotion of illegal drug use to weaken the moral character and defenses of Western nations, is concerted chemical and biological warfare against the United States and its allies.”

    This is what you said on the other thread. This is stretching things to the point of being ridiculous.

    When the government wanted to prohibit alcohol, they had to amend the Constitution to do it, in order to grant the government the power to prohibit alcohol, because they correctly recognized at the time that the Constitution granted NO SUCH POWER.

    Alcohol Prohibition was tried between 1919-1933 and it was an immense failure, as it led to more alcohol abuse, more crime, and an increase in power for the state to violate civil liberties.

    There was NEVER an amendment granted to the Constitution to give the government any authority over this issue. Drugs have been around long before this country was founded, and I include alcohol in this, as alcohol is a drug. There have always been some people who had problems with drugs and alcohol, but it was never a big disaster until AFTER the government prohibited these things, as it created the “forbidden fruit” syndrome, and also a lucrative black market (which some government agents have been involved with as government agents have been caught dealing drugs). It has also led to a massive encroachment against civil liberties with mass violations of the 4th amendment, as in illegal searches and seizures, some of which has had law enforcement killing innocent people after smashing their doors in drug raids. It has also played a large role in mass incarcerations, which is paid for by taxpayers, plus it diverts law enforcement away from actual crimes like murder, rape, theft, etc…

    Can drugs (and alcohol) be bad? Sure. There are people who abuse them, and there have always been people who abuse them, and there will probably always be people who will abuse them. However, most people are not drug addicts or alcoholics, and this is not because of any laws passed by governments, but rather because most people don’t want to become drug addicts or alcoholics. There’s an element of personal responsibility here, and you act as though everyone should be treated like a child, and that it is the role of the government to play nanny and baby sit everybody.

    There are medical uses for all, or most, drugs, and for many years, the US government has suppressed certain drugs, which could have and can help people, all in the name of the War on Drugs, and which also benefits big pharma.

    Are there Marxists who want people to become drugged out losers so they are weakened and more willing to accept, or at least not resist, socialism/communism? Sure, but the War on Drugs is NOT the answer to this. The proper answer is to cut off the welfare state. If people screw up their lives, be it because of drugs or alcohol, or be it because of something else, they should not be able to run to the government for a bailout.

    The government has been cracking down on drugs for decades and it has been an immense failure, and it has been used an excuse for a huge crackdown on civil liberties, and massive growth of the state, and it has not reduced the number of people who abuse drugs.

    You are twisting the Constitution to mean something other than what it actually means.

    Now somebody here may say that I support a crackdown on immigration, and that this would lead to a huge growth in the state. My response to this is that whoever says this is dead wrong. What I suggest for immigration would not increase the size of government at all. I would first of all remove the incentives for a lot of immigrants to come here by,

    1) Prohibiting welfare for immigrants and their offspring, and also prohibit any taxpayer funded programs to people who enter the country illegally, and I would include any offspring they have while here.

    2) Make it more difficult to become an American citizen. Go back to the original meaning of Birthright citizenship, which only applied it to people whose parents were American citizens. Come up with a more difficult set of standards for who gets offered American citizenship, and include a thorough test on the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and free market economics (Austrian School), and also include a class on the 2nd amendment, which includes trips to a firing range, where would be citizens have to qualify with a pistol, a long rifle, and a military style assault rifle. I would also consider banning dual citizenship. Also, no more lobbyists for foreign countries.

    If foreigners could not longer come here and tax the taxpayers for a ride, and it was more difficult to gain citizenship, a lot of them would stop coming here.

    If some still sneaked in the country anyway, I am not opposed to deporting them if they are caught, but I think the problems associated with immigration would be reduced greatly if the taxpayer funded handouts and programs incentives were cut off, and if obtaining citizenship were made more difficult.

    Instead of increase the size of government, my program would cause millions of people to be removed from the welfare roles, and to be cut off from other taxpayer funded services (like government schools, etc…), which would SAVE the taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars.

    Also, since statistically speaking, a super-majority of immigrants over the last several decades vote for more socialism and more gun control laws, my program would stop this trend, as none of these type of people would be granted citizenship, therefore they would not be voting in elections.

    Now, for anyone reading this who is an anarcho-capitalist, when I say “my program” I am going with the assumption that government is not going to disappear any time soon, if ever. I too would like to see a voluntary society, but I don’t think that is a realistic option in our present world, as the only chance something like that would have of working would be if a bunch of like minded people got together somewhere where they could form their own community filled only with like minded people, and even then, they’d have to find a way for it to not get destroyed by some state entity. So given this reality, soembody’s program is going to be implemented as long as government exists, so given that the US government exists, and is going to enact some policy on borders and immigration, it ought to be one which protects the interests and most closely approximates the preferences of the existing population of citizen taxpayers, which means don’t bring in immigrants who pose a threat to their life, liberty, or property, and also don’t bring in so many people, particularly from alien cultures, that they overwhelm and demographically replace the existing population. This is perfectly in line with the US Constitution, because the function of regulating borders IS delegated to the federal government (see the “Law of Nations” phrase, as well as the “repelling invasions” phrase, and also see the part about the Naturalization of foreigners).

    Traditionalist may say that people selling drugs across the border are invaders. I would only agree with him if they are crossing the border illegally, as in if they did not cross via a legal Port of Entry. Any drug can be produced domestically. The only reason that drug dealers cross the border to sell drugs is because the US government, by banning these substances, has created a lucrative black market incentive to do so. If the War on Drugs were called off, it would remove much of the profit incentive. Sure, some drugs may still cross the border, but it would be no different than importing beer or wine or liquor from other countries.

  28. Andy

    “Traditionalist
    January 1, 2022 at 16:33
    You are letting the ideal be the enemy of the best available . Perfectionism leads to worse and worse
    options in the real world. ”

    If Donald Trump was the best option we had, then we need better options.

    “I may be what you consider old, and I’m ok with that. William Shatner is even older than I am, and he just went up into space. You seem to like Ron Paul a lot. He’s a little bit older than I am. I think Trump holds up pretty well against what I’ve read about the Presidents from before my time, too.”

    My comment about your supposed age, assuming you are not BS’ing us about remembering when FDR was President, was not meant to attack people above any particular age. I put things like ideas and character of far greater importance than a person’s age. If you have the right ideas and are of good character it does not matter that much what your age is.

    You’d have to be in your late 70’s or early 80’s at the youngest to remember when FDR was President.

    Who are you anyway? Why are you hiding behind a fake name? Are you a Republican? Do you support any minor party or independent candidates?

    I questioned why Tony From Long Island was here, being that he’s been a Democrat for a long time now, and hasn’t supported or voted for any minor party or independent candidates in many years. Now I am asking you the same thing.

  29. Robert Milnes

    Austin Cassidy,
    I have to agree with Andy here. We need IPR to be a republican and democrat free zone. Unless of course, there is a third party or independent connection.
    To IPR readers, IMO, Trump is over. We are done with him. And hopefully he will not return, or if he does, will fail and go away. The sooner the better. We are sick and tired of King Donald the Foist.
    This “Traditionalist” sounds like paulie commenting here from BAN. Fake, anonymous names and garbage and gaslight comments.
    IMO it would be better to ban or censure pro republican or democrat…propaganda, at least. Rather than banning the person…forever.
    On the other hand, Andy…seems to be spewing anti vax propaganda which I also must complain about.
    Anti vax kills. It only makes things worse in the pandemic. How many more doctors and nurses and scientists do we need to hear from, that most of this pandemic could have been avoided by prompt vaccination? Again, ban the comments, not the person.
    Oh, and I would appreciate a clear delineation in IPR between anti semitism and legitimate criticism of Israel. Fortunately WordPress gets it. So far you have done well to not ban me incorrectly for that, but I think a lot of people do not get it, here at IPR.

  30. Andy

    Robert Milnes said: “On the other hand, Andy…seems to be spewing anti vax propaganda which I also must complain about.
    Anti vax kills. It only makes things worse in the pandemic. How many more doctors and nurses and scientists do we need to hear from, that most of this pandemic”

    So we have differing opinions on COVID and the COVID vaccines. You post your opinion and I will post mine. No need to censor.

  31. Andy

    Robert Milnes said: “This “Traditionalist” sounds like paulie commenting here from BAN. Fake, anonymous names and garbage and gaslight comments.”

    I am not sure if Traditionalist is him or not. If it is, his acting skills seems to have gotten better with the most recent posts.

  32. Richard Winger

    For all those people who think Democrats engaged in lots of voter fraud in 2020, why didn’t the Democrats use their skill in supposedly creating fake election returns and not leaving any evidence of it arrange to give themselves more members of Congress, and more state legislative chambers? The only legislative chambers that switched in 2020 were from Democratic to Republican (New Hampshire). Democrats lost US Senate races that the polls had said they would win (especially North Carolina and Maine). Democrats lost lots more seats in the US House than the polls had predicted. The few cases of voter fraud prosecuted in 2020 were almost entirely voters who had cast multiple ballots for Donald Trump. Election administration in the U.S. is overwhelmingly in the hands of Republican officials.

  33. Andy

    “Richard Winger
    January 1, 2022 at 21:46
    For all those people who think Democrats engaged in lots of voter fraud in 2020, why didn’t the Democrats use their skill in supposedly creating fake election returns and not leaving any evidence of it arrange to give themselves more members of Congress, and more state legislative chambers? The only legislative chambers that switched in 2020 were from Democratic to Republican (New Hampshire). Democrats lost US Senate races that the polls had said they would win (especially North Carolina and Maine). Democrats lost lots more seats in the US House than the polls had predicted. The few cases of voter fraud prosecuted in 2020 were almost entirely voters who had cast multiple ballots for Donald Trump. Election administration in the U.S. is overwhelmingly in the hands of Republican officials.”

    My guess would be that a lot of the fraud took place in the major metropolitan areas of states where the outcome between Trump and Biden was close. and these places were already controlled by Democrats, so they already had Democrats in the US House.

    Their main focus was to get Trump out, and they did not want to make it look to obvious by flipping votes for US House in Republican districts.

    Also, there were establishment Republicans who also wanted Trump out. Some of them may have pretended to be supportive of Trump, but others did not even really pretend.

  34. Nathan Norman

    The deep state, news media, CCP, and professional political class colluded with the corrupt Democratic machine to help steal the election. Their goal wasn’t to elect Democrats or even a Democratic president, it was to remove a president they couldn’t control. It doesn’t matter what party he was. Similar forces did the same thing to JFK.

  35. Traditionalist

    Well, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that a Marxist termite would call for censoring opinions he doesn’t like. That’s what Marxists do when they gain power anywhere, so that’s another piece of evidence to add to the suspicion that he is a Marxist termite. Furthermore, it isn’t surprising that the call for censorship is in regards to the so-called vaccine.

    Apparently, not enough people are having their minds numbed by the dangerous narcotics that Andy foolishly wants to legalize, and the government tracking and surveillance isn’t comprehensive enough for their boundless tastes yet, so here we are with a “jab” being pushed at everyone. Do you trust a foreigner occupied government to tell you the truth about what’s in it? Just how gullible are you? Perhaps, you aren’t gullible at all, but rather complicit.

    As posted elsewhere:

    As a member of MENSA, he (Milnes) should easily be able to define what a progressive is, and what exactly they are progressing towards. He should also be able to explain what actions he condemns some of us for being “reactionary” against, and why he thinks those actions are good and necessary. He has also derided people for being “counterevolutionary.” What revolution is he promoting, and why? You don’t have to qualify for MENSA membership to see that there’s something at the very least fishy about someone who does qualify for such membership refusing to tackle such basic questions.

    In the absence of a reply or alternative explanation being offered, the best explanation that seems to fit the available evidence is that he wants a globalist Marxist revolution . He probably won’t admit this, because he wants to boil the frog slowly enough that we won’t jump out of the water – that is, “progressively” – it sounds good to progress, and bad to impede progress, doesn’t it?

    The only problem here is that the notion that a leftist direction of social and economic “progress” being our inexorable destiny, akin to progress in science and technology, comes from the crackpot “science” of Marxism mixed with the methodology of Fabianism. The Marxist element can be further deduced from the promotion of revolution, as a corollary of opposition to “counterrevolution.”

    He is, of course, free to offer an alternative explanation whenever he wishes, if he ever does.

    As a means of linguistic defense of our civilization, I’ll offer sinister as an alternative descriptor to progressive for leftism. Sinister literally means leftist or left wing, and is a much more emotionally accurate picture of where the pied pipers of the left seek to lure us to than the deceptive progress that those following the herd to the tune of those pied pipers think they are making. As for their glorious revolution, gulags and killing fields ought to serve as sufficient reason to be wary. Thus, “real socialism has yet to be tried.” Baloney!

    The promotion of terrorism as an acceptable political tactic completes the impression of a Marxist operative. Marxists see terrorism as a great way to achieve their aims, and terrorizing the population as a great way to continue their “progress” once they take power. However, their “progress ” is incomplete until they turn the entire planet into a Borg cube. Beware!

    Promotion of terrorism refers to his offer to defend, pro bono, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter. Ed Johnson wrote:

    Robert Bowers? The Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter? Wasn’t he captured in the act, with his weapon still on the scene and perhaps in his hands, and multiple eyewitnesses that saw him enter the synagogue, unprovoked, and shoot indiscriminately at people he didn’t know, killing some, wounding others, and terrorizing the rest? What is your pro bono defense of that?

  36. Traditionalist

    “The deep state, news media, CCP, and professional political class colluded with the corrupt Democratic machine to help steal the election. Their goal wasn’t to elect Democrats or even a Democratic president, it was to remove a president they couldn’t control. It doesn’t matter what party he was. Similar forces did the same thing to JFK.”

    Mostly correct. However, I submit that they did explicitly aim to install a puppet whose family was directly bought by the Chinese Communist Party . See above regarding Hunter Biden, which is probably not news to you and only mentions the parts that the leftist establishment media no longer even denies.

  37. Traditionalist

    “My guess would be that a lot of the fraud took place in the major metropolitan areas of states where the outcome between Trump and Biden was close. and these places were already controlled by Democrats, so they already had Democrats in the US House.

    Their main focus was to get Trump out, and they did not want to make it look to obvious by flipping votes for US House in Republican districts.

    Also, there were establishment Republicans who also wanted Trump out. Some of them may have pretended to be supportive of Trump, but others did not even really pretend.”

    Completely correct. 27 votes per 100,000 to flip the outcome prima facie indicates a very narrow focus and a great level of precision. The Chinese Communist Party hackers must have very comprehensive, real time access to numerous US state vote counting and reporting systems. It’s possible that such precision was arrived at by accident, but highly unlikely.

  38. Traditionalist

    As I wrote elsewhere:

    Far from being legalized, marijuana should be intensely cracked down on by law enforcement and the military. The excessive tolerance of marijuana and other illegal drugs in recent decades has been one of the major reasons for the precipitous declines of Western Civilization. The war on drugs is quite winnable; China won its war with opium in the 19th century, and Duterte is winning the war on drugs in the Philippines.

    I disagree with the contention above that our mostly rhetorical and halfhearted war on drugs is unconstitutional.
    Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Narcoterrorism, including state sponsored, and the communist promotion of illegal drug use to weaken the moral character and defenses of Western nations, is concerted chemical and biological warfare against the United States and its allies.

    Congress has the power to lay duties and excises. If drug producers, smugglers, dealers, and users find those to be prohibitively excessive, that doesn’t make such duties and excises unconstitutional. Congress may also provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, both of which a real war against drugs would certainly be. It can regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states. The latter power has been too broadly interpreted since the 1930s, but nevertheless is legitimate in its original interpretation.

    There is also a power to define and punish felonies on the high seas. And, ending a wholesale nerve agent attack on the mental capacity of our populace is necessary and proper for the execution of those powers and all others listed in Article 1, Section 8.

    The war against dangerous illegal drugs is constitutional, and ideally a real one should be declared by congress, but even short of that, what passes for a war against drugs is both constitutional and necessary.

  39. Traditionalist

    Andy,

    “If Donald Trump was the best option we had, then we need better options.”

    Well, you can stomp your feet all you want, but he’s the best we have in the real world we actually live in. If he is successful, we’ll have better options in the future. If he’s not, we’ll have significantly worse ones. You admit that the establishment felt the need to cheat to get Trump out. That alone should tell you that he was a threat to them.

    Let me put it this way: if the election were to literally come down to your vote, do you think it would matter whether Trump or Biden won, or do you think it will matter who wins if those (or Harris and Biden) are the choices in 2024? Will you still fail to vote for Trump if one of those were on your ballot, if you were the only voter? Would you still vote for your Libertarians, even if they put up another Burn Loot Murder fan, and hand the presidency to a Xi Jinping puppet for another four years?

  40. Traditionalist

    Let’s make this even more explicit. Let’s say it’s 2024, and by some odd quirk, it has been decided that Andy is the one voter who makes the difference in the election. Suppose 5 people were the only ones allowed to vote for the purpose of this mental exercise. Suppose further that the other four voters were all Andy’s neighbours, with two of them having Trump signs in their yard and the other two with the Chinese Communist flag on their flagpoles and a lawn sign with the CCP puppet’s campaign for president.

    Suppose the ballot is as follows:

    -DONALD JOHN TRUMP, SR, REPUBLICAN
    -CCP JOSEPH MARIONETTE BIDEN, COMMUNIST/DEMOCRAT
    -JEREMY COHEN, LIBERTARIAN

    Or as follows:

    -DONALD JOHN TRUMP, SR, REPUBLICAN
    -KAMALA “WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST” HARRIS, COMMUNIST/DEMOCRAT
    -JEREMY COHEN, LIBERTARIAN

    I suppose I should add that in this exercise in the event of a 2-2-1 tie a Democrat dominated legislature would select the presidential electors, thus handing the election to Biden or Harris or whoever the CCP puppet would be, if Andy votes for Cohen over Trump. Furthermore, we’ll pretend that for whatever strange reason, the electoral votes of no other state can be counted.

    What would Andy do?

  41. Traditionalist

    “I put things like ideas and character of far greater importance than a person’s age. If you have the right ideas and are of good character it does not matter that much what your age is.”

    We’re discussing ideas here, not character. If I wanted the character of the person I’m talking to, or their age, appearance, or anything else about them to distract me from the ideas, I’d go discuss these issues with people I know in the real world. I like having the advantage of discussing them in a forum where only the ideas matter, and who puts them forth is completely besides the point. Otherwise, I can go talk to people in church, at the neighborhood gymnasium, the barber shop, and so on.

    “You’d have to be in your late 70’s or early 80’s at the youngest to remember when FDR was President.”

    As I told you already, I’m a couple of years younger than Ron Paul, and younger still than William Shatner. However, I’m much relieved that you don’t think there should be a mandatory retirement age from these comments, and won’t send the death panels after me.

    “Who are you anyway? Why are you hiding behind a fake name? Are you a Republican? Do you support any minor party or independent candidates?

    I questioned why Tony From Long Island was here, being that he’s been a Democrat for a long time now, and hasn’t supported or voted for any minor party or independent candidates in many years. Now I am asking you the same thing.”

    We had this discussion already, whereupon you were rather rude, accused me of being someone else who posted something or another somewhere else, and called me a troll, which you then failed to define. Thread where the discussion took place is https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2021/12/could-joe-manchin-mount-a-viable-campaign-for-president-as-an-independent/

    If you’d like, you can go ahead and presume that I am of terrible character. After all, we have all fallen short in the eyes of God. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone; otherwise, I will let God judge my character when I pass from this mortal coil. Meanwhile, you still either have a response that stands up to logical scrutiny for whatever I said, regardless of who I am, or you do not. Which one is it?

    To reprise my answer briefly: I value my privacy for reasons that are none of your business, and prefer to discuss ideas rather than gossip about you, your friends, and so on. I’ve voted for many third party and independent candidates over the years. I did vote for Republican candidates for President in 1964, 1980, 1984, 2016 and 2020. I think our country is much better off than it would have because Republicans won in the last four of those, and much worse off than we would have been because they lost in the first one.

    I also voted in Republican Presidential primaries in 1976, 1980 (both times for Reagan), 1988 (Robertson), 1992 and 1996 (Buchanan), 2008 and 2012 (Paul), and 2016 (Trump). I voted in the Democratic Primary in 1972 for Wallace. I voted for the following third party presidential candidates: Wallace in 1968, Schmitz in 1972, Maddox in 1976, Paul in 1988, Perot in 1992 and 1996, Buchanan in 2000, wrote in Buchanan again in 2004, Barr in 2008, Goode in 2012. Less than a year ago, I thought it would be necessary to start a Patriot Party headed by President Trump as it looked like the rhinos were about to take control of the GOP again. I don’t think we should preclude such a possibility for 2024 or future years, but at this point I’m optimistic that the Republicans will move in a good direction.

    As you can see, my support for candidates such as Wallace, Buchanan and Paul didn’t hinge on whether they ran as Republicans, Democrats, or third party candidates. I’ve held to a similar standard in elections below the presidential level, but I won’t discuss those here, since I have no desire to have you know what state I live in now or which states I lived in in the past.

    All of the candidates I’ve supported, whether in the primaries or general elections, regardless of party, had a record that I admired before they ran – as Governors, Senators, Congressmen, outspoken billionaire businessmen, or as nationally known political commentators and authors. My biggest hesitation out of those votes was putting George Bush a heartbeat away from the Presidency; being young and foolish at the time, I thought Reagan was “old,” but voted for him anyway.

  42. Traditionalist

    Lastly, on the issue of character, I’ll grant my hypocrisy in even delving to discuss such things on a Sunday morning. Before devoting the rest of the day to church and Bible study, and perhaps football, I’ll post again what I had to say about character in another discussion here. Hopefully, discussions of character can then be laid aside, and we can discuss issues.

    Andy wrote:

    The Jared’s of the libertarian movement do not understand the concept of RECIPROSITY. There’s no liberty without reciprocity, as in if you want liberty, you need to be surrounded with people who also want it, and agree with what liberty is.

    So if your immigration policy is statistically speaking bringing in a super-majority of people who support socialism and gun control laws, then there is something wrong with your policy, because it is bringing in people who do NOT reciprocate libertarian values.

    Now somebody may bring up that many Americans do not reciprocate these values either, and this is true, however, this is not an excuse to bring more people to the country like this. Yes, lots of Americans don’t believe in liberty. Many of them work for the government, or are government contractors, or are on welfare.

    Having said this, there is still a fairly large liberty movement in this country, and there’s also still a fairly large gun rights culture. There is certainly overlap between the gun rights culture and the liberty movement, but not everyone who supports gun rights is really fully on board with the liberty movement, but even so, they at least support gun rights, and the right to keep and bear arms is one of the most important issues, because if you lose that, you have basically lost any chance at having a libertarian, or even libertarian leaning, or even civil, society. I weight political issues, as in I place more importance on some issues than on others, and on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being the least important, and 10 being the most important, I weight gun rights with a 10.

    Look at the statistics. If the immigration policy in place is bringing in a super-majority of people who support more socialism and more gun control, and less freedom in general, then there is something wrong with the policy.

    I replied:

    Excellent points. But they should go beyond mere rhetoric. Political defense of gun ownership and property rights is not sufficient. It’s important for each of us to personally own land, preferably as much of it and as far from cities as possible, to learn to live off that land to the best of our abilities, to own guns and know how to use them to hunt, to defend the homestead, and to hit targets; to have adequate stores of food, ammunition, water purification, and gold; to Buy American to the best of our abilities, to attend a religiously and culturally conservative church regularly, to marry a culturally and religiously conservative woman, to have and rear children (well above replacement) and teach them appropriate values, and then to help them pass those values on to their children and their children’s children in turn. To gain practical experience in sports, military service, law enforcement, business, and in other practical matters.

    Rhetoric and politics alone won’t save our culture or our nation. It must be defended on ALL fronts. Being grounded in those practical realities, as well as in the written wisdom of the centuries and millenia before us, and to learn it again and again by teaching it to the generations after us, is as important or more than anything which can be achieved in the political realm. I don’t know, and am not asking, what you yourself or anyone else here do outside of discussing ideas here. But I hope everyone here who can grasp the importance of saving our culture realizes that it will take a lot more than politics to save it. Of course, I don’t know how many people here actually even realize that we have a culture worth saving, or that its survival is far from assured.

  43. Robert Milnes

    Austin,
    I have a complaint.
    This “Traditionalist” is filling the comments with trash, as far as I am concerned.
    I am trying to read as little of it as possible to try to avoid brain pollution.
    Will you please do something about the trash/garbage?
    Nathan Norman is not much better. I have already called him paulie.
    Well, I guess I should say I think they both are paulie.
    A much more sophisticated operation than at BAN.

  44. Nathan Norman

    LOL @MensaMilnes:

    “Everyone I disagree with has to be paulie”

    Meanwhile no one agrees with Milnes’ support for a universal covid shot mandate, PLAS/Top Six, or the right to kill elderly Jews.

    I guess everyone is paulie.

  45. Nathan Norman

    If “Traditionalist” is paulie (which very much may be the case) and if he actually believes just a scintilla of what he is posting here, then he has gained back some of my respect.

  46. Andy

    If “Traditionalist” is Paul, I doubt he believes most, or any, of what he is saying.

    If it is Paul, his acting has gotten better. I am actually leaning toward it not being him. The writing style does not seem to fit.

    The thing about “Traditionalist” being old enough to remember FDR being President is a bit suspicious, being that FDR died in 1945. “Traditionalist” would have to be at least in his late 70’s or early 80’s. Most people that age do not post on message forums online.

  47. Jared

    Trad: “As you can see, my support for candidates such as Wallace, Buchanan and Paul didn’t hinge on whether they ran as Republicans, Democrats, or third party candidates.”

    Why do I get the impression that the RP newsletter controversy actually made you more likely to vote for him?

    Also, the Oxford comma. C’mon. Use it, or don’t use it.

  48. Ed Johnson

    Robert Milnes never did answer when I asked him what his pro bono defense would be for a man who was caught in the act of shooting up a place of worship and intentionally killing people he didn’t know.

  49. Ed Johnson

    Traditionalist,

    January 1 at 13:44

    What is your evidence for the first and last items on your laundry list?

    January 2 at 09:55

    In the real world, where the chances against my one vote deciding my state’s electors, much less the national outcome, are astronomical, I’d vote for Cohen, if those were the candidates. Personally, I’m hoping Amash will run.

  50. Traditionalist

    Once again, the collective “brain trust” of “outside the box intellectual thinkers” here continues to disappoint. It’s predictable and discouraging at the same time. As someone who enjoyed the Star Trek television show since its original debut season on NBC in 1966, I’m reminded of the line “beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here.”

    It should, of course, come as no surprise to anyone by now that the communist vampire bat, Robert Milnes, wants to prevent the cognitive dissonance that addressing my comments would cause him, or the impossible to get out of corner it would paint him in if he were to attempt to paint himself out of it using logical arguments. Thus, his call to banish and memory hole me.

    Likewise, instead of making any sort of attempt to answer the question I posed for him at 0955 yesterday, Andy can only continuously speculate that I must be lying about my age. My age is not particularly important to anything in this discussion, and came up only because Andy asked which third party candidates I supported and when. Andy is highly suspicious because I’m not typical of the average among people of my vintage in some respect. Naturally, we are all atypical in some respect or another.

    Did you know that well over 99% of people my age were born on a different month and day than I was? You might be equally shocked that over 99% of people born in whatever year you were born were likewise born on a different month and day than you. So, it arouses Andy’s suspicions that someone who personally remembers wartime rationing in the United States would appear in internet discussions. I bought my first personal computer in 1978 and first used Usenet in 1982 or 1983, but what of it? If I’m lying about all of that, the fact still remains that Andy has yet to solve the puzzle I posed for him at 0955 yesterday.

    Ed Johnson at least makes an attempt to address that question, but can only do so by changing its terms. I’m well aware of the statistical probability of one vote changing the outcome of the presidential election, which is why I designed the question as I did. Can anyone here answer it within the constraints I set out? I’m especially interested in Andy’s answer, but since it looks like it’s likely not forthcoming – most likely because Andy has been painted into a logical corner, much like Mr. Milnes – I’d welcome the rest of your responses as well.

    At least Andy , to his credit, hasn’t called for forcing my eviction from the discussion, unlike Mr. Milnes; he can only dismiss the logic of my argument by focusing on trivial distractions such as his suspicion that I’m lying about my age, based only on statistical probability. I’d venture that a higher percentage of people born in the same year I was and still alive now use internet discussion fora than the percentage of all voters who picked the same presidential candidate as Andy did in 2020, but I won’t use that as a reason to be suspicious of Andy’s claim that he actually did vote for BLM fan Jorgensen. I do, however, suspect that Andy will continue to avoid that question from 0955 yesterday.

  51. Traditionalist

    Ed Johnson, my apologies for being tardy in getting to the rest of that laundry list. The last few days have been filled with family, festivities, faith, and football. I now have a great deal of cleaning to attend to, but I’ll endeavour to complete my chores here as well. I’m certain that evidence of Chinese government sponsored hacking in the realms of scientific and industrial espionage won’t be hard to find, even in the skewed establishment fake news media, so I’ll see what I can dig up about their efforts at hacking elections in particular. Please bear with me, as I’m in between housemaids at the moment, and the little elves are all getting in their sleds and leaving Santa’s workshop in need of some major attention. In my defense, I did say I wouldn’t post it all at once.

  52. Traditionalist

    Last but not least, we have Jared. My apologies for paying no attention to grammar and composition here. I’m afraid it’s just not top of my list for things to worry about. If I were Jared, I’d be more concerned about the terrible circumstances he was left in on the ship of fools in the thread at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2021/12/thomas-knapp-if-you-want-more-of-something-subsidize-it-population-edition/ than in the Shakespearean dilemma of the Oxford comma. But, maybe that’s just me.

    Regarding the Ron Paul newsletter “controversy,” as mentioned earlier, I was a subscriber for a decade or more in the 1980s and 1990s, starting well before his minor party foray, and voted for him in 1988 as well as 2008 and 2012. I do not recall anything that should have caused any legitimate controversy from reading those newsletters back then, and reviewing the “gotcha” pull quotes from the leftist hack yellow journalists in the latter election seasons I’m still failing to see what the “controversy” was. The opinions expressed seem quite reasonable, even if sometimes ever so slightly exaggerated for effect. Did the newsletters make me more likely to vote for Ron Paul? In 1988, unequivocally and unironically, yes. In 2008 and 2012? They made no difference at all.

  53. Andy

    Tradionalist said: “Likewise, instead of making any sort of attempt to answer the question I posed for him at 0955 yesterday, Andy can only continuously speculate that I must be lying about my age. My age is not particularly important to anything in this discussion, and came up only because Andy asked which third party candidates I supported and when. Andy is highly suspicious because I’m not typical of the average among people of my vintage in some respect. Naturally, we are all atypical in some respect or another.”

    I am far more suspicious of you posting under a fake name than I am about your supposed age.

    I agree that age is not that important for a lot of things. You could be 100, or you could be a 10 year old kid, but if your ideas are good, your age would not matter that much.

  54. Andy

    Traditionalist said: “Traditionalist
    January 2, 2022 at 09:55
    Let’s make this even more explicit. Let’s say it’s 2024, and by some odd quirk, it has been decided that Andy is the one voter who makes the difference in the election. Suppose 5 people were the only ones allowed to vote for the purpose of this mental exercise. Suppose further that the other four voters were all Andy’s neighbours, with two of them having Trump signs in their yard and the other two with the Chinese Communist flag on their flagpoles and a lawn sign with the CCP puppet’s campaign for president.”

    Ah, interesting question.

    The odds that I would be able to cast the deciding vote in this scenario is astronomical. It is so unlikely that you might as well say it has no chance of happening.

    However, just for kicks I will try to play along, but this is a tough question.

    Kamala Harris is obviously terrible.

    I don’t trust Donald Trump, and it is my opinion that you are highly overrating him.

    I like a lot of things that Spike Cohen says, but he’s also too far to the left end of the libertarian spectrum, in my opinion.

    I recently read an interview with Spike, which was conducted by some Jewish publication. Spike’s father was Jewish, but his mother was not, so he is technically not Jewish under Jewish law, however, he was raised Jewish, or at least partically Jewish, anyway. He was asked about his political influences in this interview, and he listed 4 of his biggest influences as Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Emma Goldman, and Murray Bookchin. I don’t have a problem with Rothbard or Block, but I do have a problem with Goldman and Bookchin, as they are both leftists, NOT libertarians. So I see this as a flaw with Spike Cohen.

    So who do I vote for under this scenario?

    That’s a tough one.

    I would consider voting for Spike, because I at least agree with him on a lot of issues, and it would also be a protest vote, but I’d prefer a different candidate.

    Kamala Harris is not acceptable, so no way.

    If Donald Trump was REALLY what you say, I would consider it, but I don’t trust the guy, and I think you are overrating him.

    Really, if these are the options, the country is screwed anyway, regardless of how I voted.

    So my options here are to vote for Spike, don’t vote at all, cast a write in vote for somebody else, or hold my nose and vote for Trump.

    Sorry, but I can’t give you a better answer now.

  55. Andy

    Traditionalist said: ” but I won’t use that as a reason to be suspicious of Andy’s claim that he actually did vote for BLM fan Jorgensen”

    You are a new poster here, so how do you know that I voted for Jo Jorgensen for President in 2020? Did you spend a lot of time reading old posts, or were you previously posting here under other fake names?

    Yes, I did vote for Jo Jorgersen, but I was not completely happy with her as a candidate. I voted for her anyway though, because she did come out against the Federal Reverse System and fiat currency, and for ending the income tax, and replacing it with nothing, and she also took a bold pro-gun rights stance, including standing up for the private ownership of military style assault rifles, and she also took stands against The Patriot Act, NSA warrantless spying, and military imperialism.

    I preferred Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and Ron Paul, over Jo Jorgensen, but she at least was better than Bob Barr and Gary Johnson.

    I thought that my vote for Jo Jorgensen, even if it was just a protest vote since she stood no chance to win, was better for me than it would have been to cast a “lesser of two evils” vote for Donald Trump.

  56. Andy

    If I had voted in the recent California Governor’s recall election, I would have voted Yes to recall Gavin Newsom from office, and I’d have voted for Larry Elder, who ran as a Republican, for Governor.

    Elder is not a hardcore libertarian, but he’s a moderate libertarian-conservative, and he actually stood a chance to win, and I think that he’d have been a significant improvement over Gavin Newsom, who is awful, and who deserved to be removed.

    The Libertarian Party candidate, Jeff Hewitt, was not bad, but he was barely a blip on the radar screen on the crowded recall election ballot.

    There was another libertarian Republican in the race, who also happened to be black, like Elder, in Nickolas Wildstar. I like a lot of things about Wildstar, but he also stood no chance to win, and he got lost in the shuffle as well.

    I did vote in California back in 2003, which was when the Gray Davis Recall happened, and I voted Yes to recall Gray Davis, and I voted for Republican Tom McClintock to replace him. There were 3 Libertarians who ran in that crowded ballot race, but only one of them was officially endorsed by the Libertarian Party of California, however, all 3 of them were goofball candidates who stood no chance, and were tiny blips on the radar screeen. McClintock was a libertarian leaning Republican. I followed his record in the state legislature, and it was actually pretty good. He was the only Republican who refused to drop out of the race and endorse Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was also running as a Republican, and who ended up winning that election. McClintock ended up getting around 10% of the vote, which was surprisingly, especially considering that Schwarzenegger, also a Republican, won. McClintock later went on to get elected to the US House, and he ended up being a bit of a disappoint to me, especially since he never endorsed Ron Paul in 2008 or 2012, but I still do not regret voting for him for Governor in that election.

  57. Andy

    Traditionalist said: “Did the newsletters make me more likely to vote for Ron Paul? In 1988, unequivocally and unironically, yes. In 2008 and 2012? They made no difference at all.”

    I will have to check the dates to be sure, but I think that the newsletters with the controversial comments, which were not written by Ron Paul himself, came AFTER his 1988 presidential campaign. which I am pretty sure it is, we may have just caught “Traditionalist” in a lie.

  58. Jared

    Andy,

    He’s either a progressive troll or one of the greateat illustrations of Poe’s law I’ve ever run across.

  59. Nathan Norman

    From Wiki:

    “Poe’s law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.”

  60. Jared

    Put another way, the more extreme the views expressed, the more likely people will be to assume they’re dealing with a troll, even when they aren’t.

  61. Tony From Long Island

    Andy said: ” . . . . .I questioned why Tony From Long Island was here, being that he’s been a Democrat for a long time now, and hasn’t supported or voted for any minor party or independent candidates in many years. Now I am asking you the same thing. . . . . ”

    I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 . . . I don’t consider FOUR to be “many.”

  62. Tony From Long Island

    If I thought Andy was bonkers, this “traditonalist” puts him to shame.

  63. Traditionalist

    Andy @1103, if my ideas are what matter, not my age, why isn’t the same true regarding my name? My ideas are what matter, not my name. I’m here for an exchange of ideas. My name, like my age, is irrelevant. I don’t care whether your name is actually Andy or not. I don’t care where you live or what you look like. I don’t care what your age or race is. If you care about any of those things about me, make something up, or stay suspicious.

    The only thing I care about here is whether you can logically defend whatever views you express here. Let’s see whether you can. Believe it or not, I’m open to the possibility of changing my mind if someone makes a good enough argument as to why I’m wrong about any particular thing. Unfortunately, I don’t see much of an attempt being made. Perhaps being bad at persuading people, or not even making an effort, is a big part of why your parties and philosophies are not more popular than they are?

    At 11:17, Andy finally surprises me and attempts an answer. He ends up not reaching a conclusion. However, I’m impressed that he tried. Andy, please provide an update if and when you finally do have a better answer. And thank you for at least grappling with the question.

    Unfortunately, that brief moment of actually having an exchange of ideas gives way to more inanity at 11:28, which I’ll address next.

  64. Traditionalist

    I don’t know why Andy would presume that just jumping into the discussion means I hadn’t read anything prior to the very first moment I spoke up. It also doesn’t mean I spent years lurking, although there’s nothing wrong with that either. There’s no reason to presume I spent a lot of time reading old posts. Andy mentioned quite recently that he voted for Jorgensen. I won’t scour the site to find the precise post, but it doesn’t take a great deal of time or copious research to have found that out. Perhaps Andy doesn’t remember very well what all he’s mentioned in his many meandering posts or how recently?

    At 11:42 Andy plays the clueless detective, claiming “WE” may have caught me in a lie. Perhaps, instead of jumping right to the accusation stage, Andy should have taken ten seconds to type the search term Ron Paul newsletters into a search engine. That’s how long it takes to discover that they were in fact being published in the mid 1980s, when I began subscribing. “WE” can now apologize for accusing someone of lying without checking first. I’ll be favorably surprised at how “WE” were raised if that actually happens.

  65. Traditionalist

    And finally, we have Jared accusing me of being too extreme in my views for this forum – so extreme, in fact, that my views must be a parody. Admittedly, I’m no one’s idea of a moderate. But look who’s calling me an extremist!

    We have Andy, who literally believes anarchy might work. That’s a pretty extreme position by most people’s standards. Then we have Jared, who apparently thinks that we should welcome unlimited numbers of immigrants from every open sewer on the planet, even if it’s a billion or more, and even while we still have a welfare state, and let them vote on our laws. That seems rather extreme to me. That’s before we get to Mr. Milnes, who wants to dig up his dead ex girlfriend, defend terrorist gunmen pro bono, force everyone to get injected with an experimental alleged vaccine being pushed by some very suspect people and groups, and censor any opposition or questions. He also doesn’t deny adhering to a political view responsible for hundreds of millions of murders which seeks to increase that by another order of magnitude or two. These are the folks branding me as being so extreme that it’s hard to believe that anyone would sincerely be so extreme?

    Poe’s law would scarcely seem relevant in a forum for adherents of extreme minor parties and philosophies. To whatever extent it is still relevant here, am I really the extreme one here, or is it just that I don’t bow to some forms of “politically correct” hive mentality that it places one outside the boundaries of what passes for polite society nowadays to cross? Apparently, those are the only borders that can no longer be crossed freely these days.

  66. Jared

    Trad,

    Show me where I said your views are too extreme for this forum. I never called for banning or censoring anybody, certainly not on the basis of their sincerely held beliefs, no matter how ignorant, depraved, or insane they are.

  67. Andy

    “Traditionalist
    January 3, 2022 at 20:22
    I don’t know why Andy would presume that just jumping into the discussion means I hadn’t read anything prior to the very first moment I spoke up. It also doesn’t mean I spent years lurking, although there’s nothing wrong with that either. There’s no reason to presume I spent a lot of time reading old posts. Andy mentioned quite recently that he voted for Jorgensen. I won’t scour the site to find the precise post, but it doesn’t take a great deal of time or copious research to have found that out. Perhaps Andy doesn’t remember very well what all he’s mentioned in his many meandering posts or how recently?”

    Tradionalist, we’ve had a troll problem here at IPR, and also on Ballot Access News, and some other sites for a long time. You sound like you MIGHT be one of them, and you posting under a FAKE name adds to the suspicion.

    “At 11:42 Andy plays the clueless detective, claiming “WE” may have caught me in a lie. Perhaps, instead of jumping right to the accusation stage, Andy should have taken ten seconds to type the search term Ron Paul newsletters into a search engine. That’s how long it takes to discover that they were in fact being published in the mid 1980s, when I began subscribing. “WE” can now apologize for accusing someone of lying without checking first. I’ll be favorably surprised at how “WE” were raised if that actually happens.”

    I ALREADY KNEW that the Ron Paul newsletters started well BEFORE 1988. What I was talking about was the particular issues of the Ron Paul newsletters that had the allegedly “racist” remarks in them, which caused the controversy that came up multiple times during Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 runs for the Republican presidential nomination. Those issues, I believe there were 9 of them with the offending comments, came out AFTER his 1988 run for President as a Libertarian. So you are NOT off the hook here. I still suspect you may be lying. Maybe you are not. Hard to say since you are hiding behind a FAKE screen name.

  68. Andy

    Traditionalist said: “We have Andy, who literally believes anarchy might work. That’s a pretty extreme position by most people’s standards.”

    You just MISREPRESENTED my position. I do NOT think that anarcho-capitalism, would work for a lot of people. I think it would ONLY work, at least in our present reality, and likely for the foreseeable future, if people who believed in the anarcho-capitalist philosophy got together and formed their own community, and I think they’d have to keep some people out, and have a mechanism for defending themselves, and keeping themselves honest. I had some ideas on how to do this via contracts. Some might call this a government, but it would be a voluntary, decentralized government. Check out my idea for a Libertarian Zone:

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/

  69. Andy

    Tony From Long Island, I did not know that you voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. I was not a fan of Gary Johnson being on the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket, but he was a minor party candidate, and the 2016 general election was 5 years and 2 months ago.

    I would say you are a person with only mild support for minor party or independent candidates.

    Contrast this with somebody like myself, who has voted for minor party candidates in every election I voted in where they were in my ballot. I have voted for Republicans a few times, but I have voted for Libertarian Party candidates in most races, and I voted for Constitution Party candidates twice. I left it blank, or wrote in None Of The Above in some races where it was just Democrat vs Republican.

  70. Traditionalist

    Jared,

    I didn’t say you called for my removal. After all, you believe in completely open borders, so it would be far too hypocritical for you to call for anyone to be excluded from a mere internet forum. In fact, to extend the analogy further, if this forum followed the virtual equivalent of the border policy you want for this country, it would disable its spam shields and allow hundreds of automated postings of advertisements, with no compensation to our esteemed proprietor, on every posting made here. Is that how you would manage this forum if you had your way? If not, can you see the problems that would arise from allowing uncontrolled numbers of any kind of immigrants into the country?

    Apparently, my views are so extreme that they are more likely to be a parody of a conservative than the view that a billion foreigners from every continent, including carriers of every disease on the planet, dangerous criminals, terrorists, violent radicals bent on subjugating the whole world to communism, Islam, etc, to come into the US and get all the benefits of a welfare state while we still have one and vote in all our elections is to be a parody of a libertarian. Do I understand that correctly?

    My views must be so extreme that they engender the suspicion that they may well be insincere…yet the things which engender no such suspicion, aside from the idea of literally open borders, include the idea that anarchist zones might be allowed to secede from nation States and could reasonably be expected to be able to defend themselves from other nation states , along with being able to defend themselves from criminals, terrorists, etc.

    Also not drawing any such accusations of being a parody: talk of digging up former paramours from the grave, defending a terrorist who attacked a religious service, and the list goes on. Am I really the one mist likely to be running afoul of Poe’s law here? Why, what’s so far out there about my views, compared with those?

  71. Traditionalist

    Perhaps I am being too harsh on Jared there. After all, as a Poe law enforcement officer who pulled me over for a suspected Poe’s law violation, he merely made a random stop. Other people all around me violating Poe’s legal limits even more egregiously is no excuse for me commenting so recklessly and endangering the safe space of the third party independent information superhighway. Thank you for your service, officer Jared. I accept my citation and will try to comment more carefully. Thank you again officer, and stay safe out there!

  72. Traditionalist

    I’ll stipulate that forcing everyone in the country, and indeed the whole world, to be laboratory animals for an experimental “vaccine” and seeking to ban any discussion of the down sides and risks of such massive, coerced human medical experiments is not likely to be a parody of “progressive” views. We’ve reached such an advanced stage in our “progression” that this is the actual position of many so called progressives.

  73. Jared

    Trad,

    You’re playing coy and straw-manning the hell out of other people’s views. My preference for a free, open immigration system is classically libertarian and, coincidentally, classically American.

    I believe you know perfectly well that today’s mainstream conservatives are not proud George “Segregation Forever!” Wallace supporters. If Jim Crow warms your heart, then yes, you are on the right-wing fringe.

  74. Traditionalist

    I’m not playing coy. I’ve represented everyone’s views to the best of my understanding. You and everyone else is free to point out where I got any of your views or anything else wrong. So far as I know, you’re still on that ship of fools:

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2021/12/thomas-knapp-if-you-want-more-of-something-subsidize-it-population-edition/#comment-2535586

    Andy says I misrepresented his position, but I don’t see where I claimed he said most people could live under anarchy. I said he claimed anarchy might work, not that it might work for everyone. If you favor any kind of immigration restrictions at all, you have yet to say what those would be during the time we’ve discussed it, as far as I can remember. Do you? And similarly, if I misunderstood anything Mr. Milnes said, neither he nor anyone else pointed it out to me so far.

    I don’t and haven’t claimed to be mainstream. I just don’t see where anything I’ve said would be a greater illustration of Poe’s law than arguing for completely open borders, or anarchist zones, or any of the other non mainstream ideas that get discussed here. Discussion of outside the mainstream ideas of many very different kinds is why I’m here. Wallace got many more votes than any libertarian candidate for anything ever, as I recall. He won a number of states. The libertarians have never won a state. I’d say you all are even less mainstream than I am.

    I’m fine with being outside the herd as they stampede off a cliff, even if it’s a demographic one. Why would that make me insincere or a parody of my own views? I’ve shared my honest opinions, but if it helps anyone to believe otherwise, you can suppose I made them up. That still leaves an argument that you either can or can’t logically refute. I’m interested to know which one it is. That seems to be hard to get to around here.

  75. Andy

    “Traditionalist
    January 4, 2022 at 07:23
    Jared,

    I didn’t say you called for my removal. After all, you believe in completely open borders, so it would be far too hypocritical for you to call for anyone to be excluded from a mere internet forum. In fact, to extend the analogy further, if this forum followed the virtual equivalent of the border policy you want for this country, it would disable its spam shields and allow hundreds of automated postings of advertisements, with no compensation to our esteemed proprietor, on every posting made here. Is that how you would manage this forum if you had your way? If not, can you see the problems that would arise from allowing uncontrolled numbers of any kind of immigrants into the country?

    Apparently, my views are so extreme that they are more likely to be a parody of a conservative than the view that a billion foreigners from every continent, including carriers of every disease on the planet, dangerous criminals, terrorists, violent radicals bent on subjugating the whole world to communism, Islam, etc, to come into the US and get all the benefits of a welfare state while we still have one and vote in all our elections is to be a parody of a libertarian. Do I understand that correctly?”

    Very good analogy, “Traditionalist,” and I agree with you here.

    Like I have said here and other places many times, I do NOT consider open borders and unlimited, unrestricted immigration to be a legitimate libertarian position, as this does NOT reflect what would happened is an anarcho-capitalist society which was regulated by private property owners, as in property owners would not open their property up for just anyone to squat as it would destroy the value of their property.

    This would be like if there was a college, who accepted anybody, no matter how low their grades were, or how low their IQ was, and no matter what the student does once in college, even if they goof off, or engage in reckless or criminal behavior while on campus, you could not kick them out (like the open borders supporters who want to abolish immigration enforcement think that the government should not be able to toss immigrants, including illegal immigrants, out of the country, no matter what they do while here). Would this be a very good college? I don’t think so. The colleges regarded as the most prestigious are regarded in this manner because they have difficult standards. Sure, a few people may get in because of family legacy, or because of an Affirmative Action program, or something like that, but for the most part, the colleges/universities that are considered to be the elite are that way due to having difficult standards, and if a student does not maintain decent grades, or if they engage in bad conduct or criminal conduct while on campus, they can be kicked out of the college/university. Would anyone in their right mind suggest that colleges and universities should accept anyone no matter how poorly they perform, and no matter what they do on campus? I don’t think that any serious person would advocate this.

    The open borders unlimited, unrestricted libertarians are egalitarian leftists who don’t live in the real world intellectually. Some of the biggest names among them are also intellectual cowards as well, since they dodge debates on the issue.

  76. Andy

    Traditionalist said: “Andy says I misrepresented his position, but I don’t see where I claimed he said most people could live under anarchy. I said he claimed anarchy might work, not that it might work for everyone. If you favor any kind of immigration restrictions at all, you have yet to say what those would be during the time we’ve discussed it, as far as I can remember. Do you? ”

    I have already stated my immigration position many times, here and at other places, and yes, I do favor restrictions. I favor a selective immigration policy. I do favor tourism, and foreign nationals being able to come here for events or business meetings, and I do favor SOME guest workers (although I don’t think some guest workers are necessary in cases when there are lots of people here unemployed or underemployed who are capable of doing some of these jobs, many just don’t want to do them because they can collect welfare checks, but if these people were kicked off of welfare, a lot of them would take these jobs). I do not favor rewarding people who overstay their tourist or work VISA, or who enter the country illegally, with American citizenship, nor do I favor granting American citizenship to the offspring of non-citizens.

  77. Traditionalist

    Andy, the “you” referenced above was Jared. He is the one who has yet to provide any kind of explanation of where I misrepresented his position or anyone else’s on anything. My point was that I’m no more guilty of Poe law violations than others here. Jared, for his part, is still as far as I know on that ship of fools (see link above) sailing somewhere towards the South Pacific, or perhaps the Bermuda triangle. As for you, Andy, your Poe’s law violation is the belief that anarchist zones may realistically be expected to fend off nation states, terrorists, criminals, and so on. I trust I don’t have to repeat the littany of violations committed routinely by Mr. Milnes.

  78. Andy

    “Traditionalist,” said: “As for you, Andy, your Poe’s law violation is the belief that anarchist zones may realistically be expected to fend off nation states, terrorists, criminals, and so on.”

    I have heard this referred to in libertarian circles as the Hard Problem, that is, once the anarcho-capitalist society is formed, how do you defend it?

    I have ideas on how this could be done (see my Libertarian Zone concept above; armed militias, private security guards, simply staying out of conflicts and becoming an economic zone from which lots of people could benefit, etc…). I have heard others propose various ideas, such as the Assassination Politics concept, put out by a guy named Jim Bell. “Bitcoin Jesus” Roger Ver brought this up when I interviewed him at Anarchapulco 2018. Check it out here:

    Interview with “Bitcoin Jesus” Roger Ver at Anarchapulco, 2/17/18

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnt8r_oDdjc&t=192s

  79. Andy

    Forming a state with a coercive government, and being able to fend off invasions is also a problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.