Ben Olson III; a 55-year-old bartender, construction worker, and sawmill owner; will challenge the controversial 9/11 Truther Kevin Barrett for the Libertarian Party’s nomination in Wisconsin’s 3rd district. But Olson is not opposing Barrett based on his 9/11 theories, but for what he considers to be Barrett’s support for “socialist ideas.”
“He can’t espouse socialist ideas like government-run health care and propping up Social Security and still claim to be a Libertarian,” Olson says in an August 11 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article.
Each individual could have his own official flower.
Totally.
Could the official flower be the tulip? Or would that amount to coercive action?
Seagravia would be the awesomest non-state ever. You’re just jealous.
“Then your vision of the state is one that does not have a monopoly on defense.”
Monopoly on defense isnt neccesary. Our CURRENT state does not have a monopoly on defense. In the US, you are allowed to own a firearm. If we were invaded, you would be cheered for banding voluntarily with your friends and gaurding your houses. Non-monopolization doesnt immediately make the state less coercive.
Wrong. There IS a state, therefore im NOT an anarchist. The fact that this state is “voluntary” is sort of an opinion. I mean, you don’t have to pay taxes under our current system if you are a hermit–so you already have the right to personal seccession. Or you can simply move to another country, so many would say you are voluntarily living here.
Also–I’d see Seagravia encountering ALOT of problems. But im done with the anarchist/minarchist debate.
Then your vision of the state is one that does not have a monopoly on defense. What is to differentiate your state from my voluntary confederation, if, as you say in #3, I’m allowed to secede.
I don’t have a problem with YOUR government imposing taxes on you. I just don’t want MY government imposing taxes on me. People who live under your coercive government can move to Seagravia.
Deal. But of course, you’re an anarchist, then. Because the state is no longer a monopoly state and the secessionists could form their own pseudo-state. I guess what you advocate is the “state” having a monopoly on the word “government.”
GE,
I’m not alleging that the system you’ve outlined (and which was vigorously defended by Rothbard) isnt the BEST optimization of liberty, its simply unrealistic.
You’re right GE. Anyone who wants to allow local governments to administer taxes is also supportive of Social Security and the New Deal.
GE,
1.) Of course you do!
2.)No way. I believe it is the best or second best form of federal taxation.
3.)Personal secessetion is fine assuming those individuals will TRULY no longer use the apparatus of the volunteer state. If they opt-out of the volunteer tax and then DO use any portion of the government which that tax funded–they should be arrested for theft.
I don’t see where the point is,GE?
However, I also don’t see a problem with a local government instituting small taxes. This is why we have a federalist system–so that if you do not like that system of taxation,you can move to the voluntarist government over in Seagravia.
Interesting that we go from Social Security to this. You see the slippery slope. If you admit some initiation of force, then the next thing you know, you have a giant welfare state and “libertarians” who support the freaking New Deal!
Trent:
1. Do I have the right to form voluntary confederations with others in the name of mutual defense?
2. Do you have a problem with apportioned federal taxation?
3. Do you have a problem with a state making taxation voluntary and allowing individuals to personally secede?
Why do you shill for the monopoly state? Why can’t membership of a state be voluntary? Why do elites know better than individuals what they want and need and how much they should pay for it?
Leave the ducks out of this.
Okey doke.
No. It’s just that you’re a hypersensitive tolerance/acceptance-monger who has a hard time with anyone stating moral absolutes. It’s WRONG to commit armed robbery. Sorry that I can’t kowtow to your morally relativist, “I’m okay, you’re okay” brand of libertarianism. You don’t need my acceptance or approval, so move on.
Essentially GE’s arguement is that ONLY Market-Anarchism is libertarian. I have long suspected that this is what the Radical Caucus pined for. I suspected some might be left-libertarian types who were minarchist, but from a “leftist” perspective. This deosnt seem to be true, as every “radical” i’v ever encountered has been an anarchist. He includes a caveat that says minarchists who are voluntarists can also be libertarian–which I agree with, but Lew Rockwell and others have included these people in their understanding of Anarcho-Capitalists. Anything else is nanny-state fascist duck-humping communism!
GE,
Did I claim limited-government republicanism worked perfectly? I think both Minarchism and Anarchism fail to achieve their stated goals. But Anarchism will fail immediately, giving way either to chaos, fascism, or tribalism. Minarchism will fail gradually–growing into a larger and larger government until such a time when it needs to be destroyed, disbanded, or shrunk, and usually the last is not a viable option. The tree of liberty and all that.
“I know no one owns “libertarian†and I’m not trying to be Saint Peter at the Gates of Libertarian Utopia.”
Most of the time G.E., you seem to try to be.
Trent – I did answer the question. The guy is not a libertarian if he would send armed men to my house to collect that small tax I had no interest in paying. He is not a libertarian, he is an armed robber. If he let’s non-payment slide (thus making the tax voluntary), then yes, he’s a libertarian.
It’s pretty absurd that you think market anarchism cannot work, but yet you think limited-government republicanism can. One has never been tried. The other has been proven a horrible failure.
I reserve my right to secede and I condemn social-engineers who think they know better than me how to spend my money — whether it’s a little or a lot.
GE,
You did not answer my question. So that guy isnt a libertarian? The guy who advocates abolishing ALL taxes and government programs except one small one?
The “what is a state” arguement comes down to this: Governance, in whatever form, will always exist. Anarchists often point to Middle-ages Iceland as their utopia, their example of how market-anarchism can work. This is, of course, a fallacy. Their were no elections, and no formal tax rates–but there was still a coercive government. Each tribe was its OWN state. The leader had unbridled and unrivaled control. He raped whatever women he pleased and stole whatever money he wanted. Could you call this Police-State tactics and Taxes? Absolutely.
Market-Anarchism cannot exist, sorry. In a highly-intelligent and homogenous society that is very small and very peaceful, and yet protected by geography and natural defense prowess? Perhaps–but we don’t live on that impenetreble island with fortress walls and a brutal-but peaceful people,we live in America. More specifically, we live in Socialist Michigan and Welfare-state Louisiana. Abolishing the state cannot and will not happen–it just isnt a realistic goal. It has never been accomplished in the entirety of human history without immediately being replaced by local tyrants or foriegn rule.
Yes. The mayor’s fees should be funded voluntarily. If people think they need a mayor, then they will gladly pay. I would gladly pay the mayor’s fees in exchange for not having to pay any other taxes. Just as I gladly donated to libertarian candidates.
And by the way, the Constitution protects the right (or claims to) of personal secession, too. Nor does it prohibit individuals from forming their own “voluntary confederations” (i.e. states).
We are about to get bogged down into “what is a state?” argument here. If I have the right to own guns and defend myself, then do you and I and our compatriots not have the right to band together and pledge mutual defense? If so, how is this not a threat to the government’s monopoly on defense? Shouldn’t people be allowed to make their own roads? And shouldn’t people be allowed to form Neighborhood Watches, etc., and engage in their own policing? If yes, then if we accept that people should not be made to pay for things they choose not to use, then the idea of the monopoly state quickly crumbles.
The monopoly state is a means of extracting wealth from the productive class to the parasitic class. That’s it.
I don’t think the Constitution is necessarily incompatible with what you call anarchism. There are certain powers the Constitution grants the federal government that go well beyond the minarchist role for government. Congress has the power to place a 10,000% tariff on foreign imports, to declare war on all countries for no reason, and to tax virtually anything and everything at any rate it wants. Does Ron Paul support these things? One could and still be a “constitutionalist” — it means virtually nothing.
However, one could also believe in a non-aggressive state/anarchy and be a constitutionalist. If Congress’s power to tax was limited to taxes applied to the states (apportioned head taxes), there would be nothing to stop the states from collecting this money voluntarily. There’s nothing mandating that Congress must be protectionist or warmongering, and there’s nothing saying it must initiate force against the people.
Oh–and GE.
Do you think anyone who advocates that their local government should continue collecting taxes in order to pay the administrative fees of the mayor is a non-libertarian?
For example: Assume the guy has already eliminated ALL other taxes, but says that the last tax–let’s call it an excise tax, is a legitimate function of government. Is he a libertarian?
Ron Paul has said that there are legitimate functions for a government and that he is a Constitutionalist. Case solved. =)
As for what im saying–I just said that I wasn’t making personal policy statements. Im asking YOU to differentiate between Minarchism and Anarchy in whatever way you think possible.
You’re saying that people must be forced, at gunpoint, to pay for monopoly services they would not voluntarily pay for in a free market. That’s what you’re saying. I don’t agree. It’s immoral. I’ve never heard Ron Paul say that people must be forced, at gunpoint by a benevolent government, to pay for things they have no interest in paying for.
Although it should be noted: Thomas Woods and George Reisman thought i’d won the debate, Block and Thornton said Max had. So I suppose it was a tossup.
Im not making policy statements. Im asking if you think Ron Paul is a libertarian. Ron Paul, as a constitutionalist, believes in a minarchist state which is, by definition, initiating force in some small way.
As for “voluntarily funded and non-monopolistic”–that is Anarcho-capitalism, not minarchy.
I’ll also ask that age-old question about any example of Anarchism. And before you bring up middle-ages Iceland–know that I trounced Max Reiske in a similar arguement.
How do you not see that a monopolistic approach to defense/policing is inevitably anti-gun rights?
Road building? No.
The rest: Sure. If it is voluntarily funded and non-monopolistic.
“Trent – Okay. I still haven’t said that minarchism is not libertarian.”
Of course you have. You said anything or anyone who initiated force was NOT libertarian. Ron Paul (and all other minarchists) think that government has some responsibilities, like protecting basic rights. In Ron Paul and Samuel Edward Konkin’s versions–road building, defense, and policing are all viable responsibilities of the state (at some level at least).
So I ask: Is Ron Paul a libertarian?
“I think the most important thing for libertarians to do is brand libertarianism. We need to let people know the differences between conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism, which means “libertarian†needs to get out there as a term. I think the word is still out on whether the Ron Paulistas are a long-term gain for the libertarian movement.”
The Libertarian movement? Maybe some of them. But many have joined a wider Freedom-movement. This movement seeks to help all liberty-loving groups like the Constitutionalists, Libertarians, classical-liberals, etc etc.
“I definitely support coalition-building, but not boosting conservative-libertarian fusionism like I think Paul did.”
Paul’s “conservative-libertarian fusionism” was the most successful libertarian campaign in modern history–wouldnt you agree? Had he run in the general election, he was already polling about 7-8%. He also brought the word “libertarian” to more people in this one campaign than the Libertarian Party has done in many years. I have friends who were converted from Big Government Republicanism to Market-Anarchy or Minarchism. In light of this–perhaps you SHOULD be more supportive of boosting conservative-libertarian fusionism…
“I personally feel more comfortable with pragmatic liberals or “Cato-beltway insiders†than I do with conservatives or paleo Auburn-based outsiders.”
You mean that you feel more comfortable with libertine-progressives than with Old Right Libertarians? Hmm.
Cato is not an authority.
Trent – Okay. I still haven’t said that minarchism is not libertarian.
G.E.,
The history of liberalism is far more complex and expansive than that of the modern libertarian movement. However, I think viewing the libertarian movement as the modern day torch-bearer of classical liberalism is adequate, which is why man do in fact use the terms interchangeably (for example, see Cato’s website).
***
Trent,
I think the most important thing for libertarians to do is brand libertarianism. We need to let people know the differences between conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism, which means “libertarian” needs to get out there as a term. I think the word is still out on whether the Ron Paulistas are a long-term gain for the libertarian movement. I definitely support coalition-building, but not boosting conservative-libertarian fusionism like I think Paul did. I personally feel more comfortable with pragmatic liberals or “Cato-beltway insiders” than I do with conservatives or paleo Auburn-based outsiders.
Ron Paul believes in a minimal state,and has said as much. He’s a “constitutionalist”, nor an “anarchist”. He identifies with George Reisman, Mises, Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Robert Taft.
Lew Rockwell himself, in his introductory talk about Ron Paul at the Mises Institute last summer said, “Ron Paul is a friend of the institute, and a minarchist in the vein of Hayek”. Thomas E. Woods took issue with the Hayekian comparison, argueing that Konkin might be more suitable–but NO ONE argued that Paul was an anarchist.
mscrib,
I was glad Ron Paul used the word “Conservative” rather than “Libertarian”–he would have fetched even LESS votes than he did using “Libertarian”. Almost all libertarians were on-board his campaign anyway–with the exception of the Cato-beltway insiders. Paul’s useage of the term conservative obviously hearkens back to his hero Robert Taft, so I wouldn’t dream of holding that particular choice of words against him.
And I’m not sure that Ron Paul is in fact not an anarch0-capitalist.
When have I said that minarchism is incompatible with libertarianism?
GE,
Libertarian is a label you’ve used for Ron Paul,right? Ron Paul is a minarchist.
Care to entertain us with a twisting-turning story about how Ron Paul is actually an anarcho-capitalist?
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Classical liberalism is not the same as libertarianism. Classical liberalism is obsessed with democratic-republicanism and has a penchant for egalitarianism. These are not characteristics of libertarianism.
GE,
I support using labels when they aptly apply. I would consider Hayek, Friedman and Mises libertarians in the sense that their personal beliefs would fit the bill of what “libertarian” means, you know, in a dictionary. Classical liberal and libertarian should be treated as synonymous. Making unnecessary distinctions goes against the point of using labels: so we can easily talk about something. Enough with this identity politics.
On Rand and Objectivism: I don’t even know if you can call this stuff philosophy, let alone libertarian philosophy. I’ll stop there.
***
Trent,
That was honestly one of the things that bugged me the most about Paul’s campaign — the whole “I’m a conservative and a constitutionalist, and I oppose…” — never “I’m a libertarian, which means I’m in favor of…” All I kept thinking of was Hayek’s essay, “Why I Am Not A Conservative,” wincing every time Paul started talking about being a “true conservative,” whatever that means.
Your point?
Paul’s vernacular definition of “conservative” should not be confused with the real, historical definition. Do we need to go down this road again?
What label have I forced on Ron Paul that he doesn’t want to accept? I’m not following your logic.
GE,
Funny you should ask that. Ron Paul has repeatedly called himself Conservative, and on far more occasions than “Libertarian”. Similarly, he has NEVER said he wants to destroy the state or that he wants to eliminate the state. While Dr. Paul opposes the initiation of force, he is certainly a minarchist and constitutionalist.
I’m not saying that Mises was “not a libertarian” because he was a consequentialist — I’m saying he wasn’t a libertarian because he advocated the limited initiation of force in certain situations (i.e. the draft). He was a classical liberal, not a libertarian. He referred to himself as a liberal all along. The same can be said for Hayek, Friedman, etc. Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, either, but an Objectivist.
Why do you people insist on putting labels on people that they themselves rejected?
G.E.,
Two points:
“Supporting a net reduction in the initiation of force is like supporting a net reduction in robbery and murder. Actually, that’s EXACTLY what it is.”
I would LOVE to see a net reduction in all crimes, public or private. Yes, some of us care a lot about the margin and see ideology-driven binary belief systems as removed from reality. Calling Mises (and by implication, any libertarian who formulates his or her beliefs from a consequentialist framework) a non-libertarian is silly. He clearly advocated and defended ideas that we now call “libertarian.” Just because some of us find all the Rothbardian talk of natural rights, um, philosophically and scientifically (as related to economics or “praxeology” or whatever) unsupportable doesn’t mean that we’re not libertarians. I believe we should treat people as if they have most of these rights because individual freedom generally promotes the best results, but also recognize that we’re just making all this “rights” stuff up.
“In my opinion, anyone who thinks SS is a “great program†and who wants government in control of healthcare, or who thinks antitrust activity is a good idea, is NOT a libertarian.”
I think agree with you here. Take a look at the entitlement programs: they are the biggest money pit for government on every level (although, one could argue that military spending is the biggest waste of tax dollars). They not only create the largest distortions in the economy, they are designed to fail. If SS and Medicare were actually (semi-) sustainable programs created to maximize delivery to beneficiaries and minimize cost to taxpayers, I perhaps would move them down on the list of Things the Government Really, Really Needs to Abandon ASAP. But, given their current situation and spending projections, they deserve to be right at the top. I can’t even imagine the libertarian defense of SS/Medicare, let alone the expansion of these programs.
I do think it is possible to support certain “safety-net,” probably local, programs and still call yourself a libertarian, though. However, the status quo remains very un-libertarian.
There are different degrees of libertarianism, just like any political philosophy. There are moderates (not to be confused with centrists, who, by definition, embrace no particular political philosophy). A moderate generally believes in the basic tenets of a given ideology, but doesn’t apply it consistently in all areas.
Of course, to the more hardcore believers, the moderate will appear to be a hypocrite. Meanwhile, to the moderates, the hardcore types will appear to be utopian dreamers. However, that doesn’t mean the two groups can’t get along and work on the issues that they do agree on.
The real question is: Where do you draw the line? On the one hand, being a hardcore type myself, I have a hard time calling someone who wants a 10% net reduction in the size of government a libertarian. On the other hand, if we kick out everyone who’s not an anarchist, we’re not going to have many people left.
Personally, I define a libertarian as someone who wants at least a 50% reduction in the size of government at all levels . Admittedly, the 50% number is somewhat arbitrary, but it serves to ensure that the person is truly committed to radical change, while still allowing for those who are a little afraid of “working without a net”.
Well said.
“Libertarian” is apparently too imprecise. The word implies an advocate of liberty. By this, some people mean advocating any moves in the direction of liberty, while others mean only 200 proof liberty as they define it — and of those, there are many arguments over specifics.
The pledge is also inadequate. It appears quite clear to me what it means. However, David Nolan also would logically be in the best position possible to know, and he says that is not what it was meant to say.
I know at least one other person who was with him in his living room when the party was founded has told me that even if Nolan believes what he now says, no one else there shared that particular understanding at the time.
If the use of violence against the government is the *definition of* (initiating) force, we have a serious philosophical problem. It certainly flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence.
Violence against the government can be retaliatory force, not an initiation. Governments can and do (initiate) force; if the definition of (initiating) force is anti-government violence, then any tyranny government initiates is by definition not an initiation of force, and any resistance to government tyranny with force is by definition something the LP rejects.
If so, to hell with the LP.
Unfortunately, no widely recognized perfect term exists. Liberal means state socialist lite to most Americans. Anarchist is taken by most to mean nihilist, and by most of the rest to mean syndicalist. Free marketeer or capitalist, to most people, means crony corporatist.
Voluntaryist, perhaps? Certainly not a term that anything but a small handful have even heard. But then, libertarian was similarly obscure, and still is for some.
GE,
You write:
“I’m just pointing out that, by definition, a libertarian is someone who does not advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving social or political goals.”
You left out a word between “by” and “definition.”
The word you left out is “one.”
It’s all good and well to put up and promote a particular definition in order to attempt to gain its universal acceptance and adoption, of course … but there’s no inherent property right in the meaning of the word, and if there was those of us (myself included) using the definition you offer would be squatters.
I know no one owns “libertarian” and I’m not trying to be Saint Peter at the Gates of Libertarian Utopia.
I’m saying that, according to the Pledge that party members take upon joining, it says that you do not advocate… you know the rest. That’s an objective fact.
I’m not using the chart. My point is that if you score any less than 100/100, you advocate the initiation of force. You can score 100/100 and STILL advocate the initiation of force because some questions aren’t asked.
If you think it is okay to rob your neighbor at gunpoint to fund something that the market would not provide, then I don’t think you’re a libertarian. Carry on with your life. My approval is not important.
In my opinion, anyone who thinks SS is a “great program” and who wants government in control of healthcare, or who thinks antitrust activity is a good idea, is NOT a libertarian.
G.E.,
“libertarian” is not just an ideology. It’s also a type of person, and a political identification, and an adjective. And in each case, it has a slightly different, but mostly similar meaning. But to say that one has a lock on that exact meaning, or the infallible litmus test, is presumptuous I think. Nobody owns “libertarian”, no more than they own “liberal” or “conservative”. And more to the point, nobody owns the definition of those terms either.
The Nolan chart paints “libertarian” as a direction. It means one’s way of thinking points generally that-a-way, toward more freedom. People at the top of the chart are “hardcore” libertarians, who probably ascribe to the strict ideological sense of things. But to banish all others from the word “libertarian” is short-sighted and ineffective in almost every way. Most importantly, it’s a sure-fire way to keep libertarianism from spreading, and to keep from getting more people to score at the top of the chart.
The LP’s pledge, on the other hand, is a bit less ambiguous. But again, that’s only one “definition” of libertarian (and a long-disputed one at that).
G.E. – I think you have to pick a horse in your use of the Nolan Chart as a barometer. The chart itself denies your notion that one must score 100/100 to be a libertarian, so it’s hardly fair to use that same chart and 100/100 spot to bash people as unlibertarian with.
And what of “libertarian-leaning”? Do you deny that such a thing can exist? And if it can exist, wouldn’t that have to mean there are gradations or degrees of “libertarian”?
A tax cut is not the initiation of force.
“Original intent” here is not applicable. Words have meanings. The words say something. If the pledge was meant to disguise the true nature of libertarianism or to appease the Ruling Elite, then that has nothing to do with me when I sign it.
The pledge, if you believe in original intent, was meant to mean that Libertarians opposed using radical force to gain control of the government or effect political/social change.
It wasn’t meant to mean that you can’t vote for a tax cut.
I’m not trying to be an absolutist dick or a gatekeeper, etc. I’m just pointing out that, by definition, a libertarian is someone who does not advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving social or political goals.
If you don’t like that fact, then I’m sorry.
I do not own a copyright to the word “libertarian” and thus, anyone can call themselves whatever they want. But if they agree to this pledge and then reject it before the ink even dries, they are liars, by definition. How is this not the case?
And please don’t bore me with this B.S. about how the Pledge was designed to placate government thugs who thought the LP was full of anarchist bomb-throwers. Even if that’s true, the Pledge says what it says; not what some guy somewhere intended the government to interpret it as forty years ago.
If Ron Paul supporters support Ron Paul’s actual views, then they’re welcome. If they don’t, then they’re probably not.
If you can’t score a perfect 100 on the Nolan Chart, then you are a statist. My wife is a liberal, not a libertarian, and even SHE can score a perfect 100.
Supporting a net reduction in the initiation of force is like supporting a net reduction in robbery and murder. Actually, that’s EXACTLY what it is.
Why should the state have the “right” to initiate force? That’s absurd. The state cannot have rights at all, nor powers that the individuals comprising the state do themselves not have.
If you support a net reduction in initiated force, you’re a Libertarian.
I hate to say it, but if the party holds such a singular tip of views without letting anyone else in, we’re pretty much screwed.
Is it any wonder that very few of Ron Paul supporters won’t go anywhere near the over-sized cock-fight that is the Libertarian Party?
…
That’s the bird, you pervert. 😀
Once again, me and Orvetti stand outside the secure bunker of the utmost tip of libertarianism.
if that state has a monopoly of power over ANY issue–then it is initiating force.
Imprecise wording.
The state should have a monopoly on the initiation of force.
A state that holds said monopoly is not initiating force just by its existence.
GE,
State, by its definition, is coercive–according to libertarians at least. Even if its voluntarily funded, if that state has a monopoly of power over ANY issue–then it is initiating force.
Anarcho-capitalism thrives on the non-initiation of force, not on the idea of “non-existence of the state”. Max Reiske himself believes in voluntarily funded local governments…but admits that that is an anarchist position.
Frankly GE,that is a VERY small tent.
I consider myself a libertarian,and a minarchist–and they don’t conflict.
I’m not aware of any instances in which Harry Browne advocated the initiation of force.
It’s “interesting” that Mises was not a libertarian? Really? I don’t think the LvMI considers him to have been “libertarian.”
No. I’m using the definition of the Pledge. If we allow for initiation of force in “some” circumstances, well then, soon we’re like Chuck Baldwin who thinks it’s okay to violate the Constitution in “some” circumstances. Some soon becomes many which then becomes all.
Anarchism = the non-existence of the state.
Libertarianism = the non-existence of an aggressive, coercive state.
Libertarians can be non-anarchists if they support a limited role for government that’s voluntarily funded.
It seems to me GE that you are defining only Anarchists as libertarian.
Interesting.
And Harry Browne?
That’s not a slur or a harsh judgment, but a statement of fact.
No. He was a brilliant economist who was generally free-market oriented, but he supported state institutions (even the draft later in life), and his economics were “value free,” i.e. amoral, unlike the applications made by Rothbard. Mises was classically liberal but not libertarian.
GE,
Was Mises a libertarian?
Anyone can claim to be a libertarian. Whether or not such a claim is true, of course, is open to dispute.
You don’t have to. It’s very simple: Do you advocate the initiation of force as a means to achieve social or political goals? That is the party’s definition, not mine. Barrett is a liar when he presents himself as a libertarian, but he does not support the Pledge (which he presumably took).
G.E., Should I add that to the list of things that you say mean “YOU ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN. Case closed.”?
Yes, off topic, but much appreciated.
Bob Bird is a great candidate!
Little off topic here, but I thought I would let you all know that I am a contact for anyone that wants to get in touch with the Bob Bird Campaign in Alaska. I enjoy this blog and appreciate the support–we ARE the best candidate, and our strength is under-reported. We won the only straw poll that submitted all registered candidates with 35%. More info if you want it.
Thanks again!
Quincy Bird
Asst. Campaign Mgr.
[email protected]
“Ed Thompson should run for Congress.”
That’d be an interesting race.
“You can still claim to be a Libertarian, if you score Libertarian on the Nolan chart.”
The Nolan chart, or more specifically, the World’s Smallest Political quiz, defines libertarian way too broadly. Libertarianism is a specific ideology, not a ballpark.
For example, one who does not believe in free trade is not a libertarian. One who supports the draft is not a libertarian. However, on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, you can hold both those views and still score libertarian with room to spare.
The Nolan Chart is a ridiculous crtiterion by which to measure someone’s libertarianism. I have a better one:
1. Do you believe that “social security is a great program”
If yes, YOU ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN. Case closed.
There is a pledge you must sign to join the LP and be considered a libertarian. It says you do not advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving social or political goals. If you sign that pledge untruthfully, you are committing fraud.
is health care policy even on the Nolan Chart?
So we should theoretically divide up the Libertarian section of the Nolan Chart and say that only the utmost tip is Libertarianism?
Says you.
You can still claim to be a Libertarian, if you score Libertarian on the Nolan chart.
Ed told me he would run for congress if Ron Kind runs for governor. Kind is likely to run for governor if Doyle doesn’t run in 2010.
Although for the record: Most of the Libertarians whom I know donated to Jim Gilchrist felt similarly about immigration. Art Bell comes to mind.
Well, we’ll see.
Mike,
I think he’s been preparing for something like this.
Im a CPer,and I’d donate to him. I believe he’s pro-life,right?
I’d donate to him just to see him break into Congress. Just like I knew several Libertarians who donated to Jim Gilchrist in 2005,when he almost did the same.
I think he’d actually have a real chance to win. But would he do it? He was reluctant to accept the position of City Council Member when he won a wrote in victory. A congressional candidate that’s as popular as him would have to work alot.
Probably. But his current position is Mayor of Tomah–which he won by spending like $300. He could get it back,easily.
Look at his run for Governor. In 2 of the 15 or so counties in District 3, he won. In 6-7 of the others, he beat one of the major party members. In all but 3-4, he got 10%+.
Would he have to give up his current position to run?
Ed Thompson should run for Congress.
Wow, I just read this a few minutes ago. I’m listening to his interview of Ed Thompson now.