Some emails from Jim Burns to Libertarian delegates. Burns is seeking the Libertarian Presidential nomination in 2012, and has run several times in the past. Burns is perhaps best known for legally changing his middle name to Libertarian so as to get the “L-word” on the ballot back when the state of Nevada made it overwhelmingly difficult to get the party on the ballot.
Dear Paul,
Are you satisfied with the progress of the Libertarian Party?
If you are not receiving the results you want, is it a good idea
to first know what it is you want? Why do we have a National
Libertarian Party?
I believe the purpose of the National Libertarian Party is to
provide a vehicle for libertarians to implement libertarianism.
Thanks to the Constitution, there are peaceful means for victory.
To implement Libertarianism at the national level, we need 4 things
and we already have 2 of those things:
1. We need a map: the United States Constitution: Got it.
2. We need a compass: Libertarianism: Got it.
3. We need a vehicle: the office of the US Presidency.
4. We need friends: 34 Libertarian United States Senators.
The map of the constitution shows that all laws of the United States
are enforced through the office of the President. Neither the Congress
nor the Courts have the authority to arrest people. Without the power
to arrest people the Congress and Courts cannot enforce
unconstitutional or unjust laws.
The compass of libertarianism will lead us in the proper direction even
when interpretations of the Constitution might take us in the wrong
direction. A Libertarian President will find constitutional ways to
stop anti-libertarian things imposed on individuals. The politicians
and bureaucrats in Washington DC should be required to follow
the Libertarian Rules and that will happen when we have libertarian
leadership.
The vehicle of the Presidency can halt unconstitutional, anti-libertarian
and unjust laws, regulations, orders, or controls from being imposed
on the people at the national level.
When a Libertarian President refuses to enforce anti-libertarian
edicts of Congress, the House will impeach and the Senate will
remove the Libertarian President from office. But, with friends,
thirty-four Senators, the President will not be removed and no law
will be passed over the veto of the President.
I do not say it will be easy. Nothing of value ever is.
If the points here are true, a change of direction is required.
Sincerely,
Jim Burns
PO Box 1139
Beatty, NV 89003
Dear Paul,
Mr. Stephen Cox wrote in LIBERTY Magazine*,
“When you refuse to support the lesser of two
evils, you support the greater of the two evils.”
What if it were possible to cause the victory
of the lesser evil and support liberty at the
same time? What if when causing the victory
of the lesser evil, the cause of liberty is
improved and increased? Would such a
method be of value even if it could be
successfully used only under certain
conditions? Would such an activity be
worthy even if expense and effort were
required and there was the possibility of
failure from time to time? What if this
tactic could also be used to cause term
limits for many incumbents if the correct
conditions were available and would increase
the probability of success over time? What if
no vote of the LP is required or no majority
needed to adopt or participate, and large scale
knowledge of the tactic is not needed for success?
What if some people who worked on this project
could actually receive money for their efforts?
Do you want to know more?
Sincerely,
Jim Burns
*LIBERTY Magazine, Subscriptions $29.50 for eleven issues:
PO Box 20527
Reno, NV 89515
Not all public is equal.
Those who think tax resistance is a good thing are far more likely to be libertarian-leaning than those who think it is a legitimate crime deserving a jail sentence.
No. He publicly admitted in his book and interviews that he had used “illegal” drugs. What’s the difference?
“Being a convicted felon would, in my judgment, damage our candidate’s reputation with the general public.”
Catering to the current consciousness of the general public is the bailiwick of the “major” parties.
The only way for a third party to succeed is to change that consciousness.
What we need is one or more of this kind of “convicted felon.”
pc: Are we acknowledging that the nature of political office is to carry out acts one hopes not to get caught for, or what?
me: No. All else equal, I would want our candidate to have a strong reputation with the general public. I’d want them to be as credible as possible.
Being a convicted felon would, in my judgment, damage our candidate’s reputation with the general public.
A person who has used drugs but was not caught — like BHO, for ex. — is, perhaps hypocritically, not as reputationally damaged as someone who WAS caught.
Isn’t this kinda obvious?
Perhaps I misread the general public, but that’s my sense of the double standard that’s out there. L candidates already have enough baggage to overcome; overcoming a felony conviction seems — all else equal — contra-indicated.
Well, I’m glad we agree on something 🙂
I will agree on No I don’t trust any person to run the country.
Yes, I know. I’m lucky I’m still alive. Just imagine how smart I’d be if I hadn’t shoved a couple of eight balls a day up my nose for four years 😛
A person like what?
More importantly, why would you trust any person to “run the country”?
adding, would I trust a person like this to run the country. A big No.
Do you know cocaine screws up your brain. It destroys sections of your brain. This is a fact. Interferes with memory for example. Once those cells are destroyed it doesn’t grow back.
OK, fine. Why would it be a factor against nominating someone?
If Carlson and Stossel snorted a kilo of cocaine each in 1985 (like I did) why does it make either of them more qualified because they did not get caught?
Not getting caught is certainly a virtue in some professions, such as smuggling. But why is it a virtue for an applicant for political office?
Are we acknowledging that the nature of political office is to carry out acts one hopes not to get caught for, or what?
pc: Why would getting caught for something that should not be a crime disqualify someone?
me: I didn’t say “disqualify,” I said “biased against nominating a person who’s been convicted …of a felony.”
If, say, Barr’d been convicted of draft evasion in 1969, I might still have supported him in 08. If Carlson or Stossel had been busted for cocaine possession in 1985, I might support them in ’12.
It’s a situational thing.
BC
p] Why would getting caught for something that should not be a crime disqualify someone?
“Not getting caught” is a good thing, but I don’t see what it has to do with anyone’s qualifications for public office.
lg: But I have no respect for unjust laws and refuse to follow them wherever I can get away with it .
me: And I hope you DO get away with it. If you don’t get caught and convicted, I would support your nomination for the top of our ticket if you were otherwise IMO the best candidate.
Thank you.
Paulie, not Pauli.
If you agree that “tax evasion” should be a crime, then we do indeed disagree.
I think you mean “social contract.” Sorry, I haven’t signed it. Have you?
SOCIAL CONTRACT
between an individual and the Government of the United States of America
WHEREAS I wish to reside on the North American continent, and
WHEREAS the United States Government controls the area of the continent on which I wish to reside, and
WHEREAS tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable,
I agree to the following terms:
SECTION 1: I will surrender a percentage of my property to the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my pro- perty, the value of my purchases, or any other criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my major financial transactions.
SECTION 2: Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life.
SECTION 3: I will limit my behavior as demanded by the government. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Government. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs that conflict with the Government’s determination of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.
SECTION 4: In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.
SECTION 5: The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government will permit me to speak freely, subject to limits determined by the Government’s Congress and Supreme Court.
SECTION 6: The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property.
SECTION 7: The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time.
SECTION 8: The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be minuscule. I agree not to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them.
SECTION 9: I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this contract at any time without my permission.
Copyright 1989 by Robert E. Alexander.
May be distributed freely.
Luckily, this is not true. The alternative to blind obedience to irrational state edicts is not chaos and “might makes right,” contrary to the lies that the advocates of a “might makes right” monopoly state love to propagandize.
The alternative social contract radical libertarians propose is non-initiation of coercion. “Eliminating me” is an initiation of coercion, unless I have credibly threatened to do the same to you and/or others and/or carried out same. Taxing is likewise an initiation of coercion. Refusing to pay taxes is not an initiation of coercion, thus jailing someone for refusing to pay taxes is not responsive (justifiable) use of force. For a bit more on this, see here:
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philosophy.of.Liberty.swf
Inability to distinguish between legitimate law and illegitimate state edicts is a far more serious failing for a libertarian.
Running for office if one fails to make this distinction can not do good, it can only sew confusion.
Thanks for asking. Refusing to enforce legitimate laws against intimidation is dereliction of duty. Failing to pay a bill for services rendered by a monopoly company one did not hire is not. If I was to come to your house, build you a porch you did not ask for with shoddy construction and “bill” you for ten times what any competitive contractor would charge for a much better constructed porch, should you go to jail for not paying my “bill”?
The idea that we owe blind obedience to any edict passed by whoever has the most guns and declares themselves to be our government is indeed the stuff of tyranny.
“Mr. Pauli” is even more incorrect than “Pauli.”
Capozzi , we agree changing the laws will take a LONG time , if ever it happens But I have no respect for unjust laws and refuse to follow them wherever I can get away with it . The tax laws Im forced to follow because I am not the only person in my business , and i would never put someone else at risk , other laws not at all.
speaking of W Snipes , I thought he got off?
LG, could it be a matter of semantics to say that violating and being convicted of a breaking a law is “not a real crime”? We may (in this case, you and I agree) believe that law X is ill-advised. Breaking law X involves risks while the law is on the books.
It’s our job to convince people that law X should be stricken. So far, we’ve not done a very good job of this, since I see no evidence that victimless-crime laws have been stricken, though there may be a few cases where they’ve been liberalized.
This one’s gonna be a marathon.
Burns should not be our pres candidate because of a ton of reasons , all involving his attitude , his conviction for tax evasion should not be one of them , at least not for Libertarians.
also , i have no respect for unjust laws and refuse to follow them in the hopes they change one day . I live free now.
Tax evasion is not a real crime to LIBERTARIANS , neither is prostitution or using and/or dealing drugs.
tell whoever u want whatever u want u punk ass snitch
I can’t say I have a rule that says I would not support someone who has been convicted of a crime — “real” or not — but I admit to be biased against nominating a person who’s been convicted (and not exonerated) of a felony. This is my view even of tax protesters who are convicted of tax evasion; while taxes are too high (and in theory I support Nonarchy Pods), having a tax protester at the top of our ticket drives the LP further into the weeds and away from the mainstream. I’m even more disinclined to support a convicted tax evader who is not a public tax protester.
There is much injustice in the tax system, and tax protesters and evaders can take the risk and address that injustice by refusing to pay taxes, but I have never seen a tax-protest narrative that is worthy of a presidential campaign (or, at least, that I can support). The narrative often careens into obscure and somewhat dubious arguments about the 16th Amendent that is IMO inappropriate for sound-bite politics. Since we live in an age of sound-bite politics, a protester/evader would likely not get my support for the nomination, and I’d strongly suggest against it.
ADR. IMO.
Paulie, it doesn’t have to be explained. The issue is not one of lack of understanding; it is one of lack of agreement.
In a civilized society, part of the social construct is the general agreement to, barring situations such as those threatening life, obey laws. This includes laws we don’t agree with, until such time that those laws can be changed or done away with through the system. Absent this type of social agreement, I can do whatever I want, as long as I can rationalize it. For example, if you and I disagree, I can eliminate you as long as I can convince myself that it is OK to do so. Well, the result is pretty much the same as no laws at all: chaos and survival of the best armed and most ruthless.
Lack of respect for the law itself is a most serious failing in a candidate for any office, let alone for the office of POTUS. How is this any different from Obama’s behavior, where he won’t enforce election laws regarding voter intimidation, won’t enforce this law or that law as the administration seeks to reward or punish? Such is the stuff of tyranny, not Liberty and if you cannot see the endpoint of this, it is you Mr. Paulie who do not understand.
Pauli, it doesn’t have to be explained. The issue is not one of lack of understanding; it is one of lack of agreement.
In a civilized society, part of the social construct is the general agreement to, barring situations such as those threatening life, obey laws. This includes laws we don’t agree with, until such time that those laws can be changed or done away with through the system. Absent this type of social agreement, I can do whatever I want, as long as I can rationalize it. For example, if you and I disagree, I can eliminate you as long as I can convince myself that it is OK to do so. Well, the result is pretty much the same as no laws at all: chaos and survival of the best armed and most ruthless.
Lack of respect for the law itself is a most serious failing in a candidate for any office, let alone for the office of POTUS. How is this any different from Obama’s behavior, where he won’t enforce election laws regarding voter intimidation, won’t enforce this law or that law as the administration seeks to reward or punish? Such is the stuff of tyranny, not Liberty and if you cannot see the endpoint of this, it is you Mr. Pauli who do not understand.
What LG and I mean by real crime here is that it should not be a crime, therefore the fact that someone has been convicted of it should not keep Libertarians from nominating them. With most libertarians this does not have to be explained.
You’re right. Tax evasion is not a real crime. I think I will talk to the IRS about your comment and see what they have to say. My guess is that they will tell me that tax evasion is a real crime for which you do real time in (Real Prison) like Wesley Snipes for 3 years and you’ll a pay real fine with real money.
And… he isn’t anything like the Mr. Burns on “The Simpsons”.
the fact he did time for tax evasion means nothing , not a real crime , but ive worked with him forever , and we have to turn him down time and again because he only wants the top spot , and when he doesnt get it , he stomps and storms out like a baby.
having said that , he IS a principled libertarian , and were he ever to seek say a state assembly seat or county commission seat he would have my full support . and the fact he changed his middle name to Libertarian is awesome I think and a very clever way to get our name on the ballot. when he’s not running for something I oppose him fr , I find him a very smart , engaging , and interesting guy to speak to , I just dont want him for LP Chair or 2b our US senate candidate if he’s reading this I hope he doesnt get offended because I do consider him an ally.
sounds like this Burns guy should run for township trustee or county commissioner or something first.
Mr LP, Burns ONLY runs for the top of the ticket.
He then stomps away spluttering about people being “against him” when he is turned down for the Senate or POTUS nomination.
And this happens EVERY election cycle, ever since I became active in the LP in ’82.
Thirty years ago he was entertaining. He even changed his middle name to “Libertarian” so that the LP would be on the ballot.
But he has long since become just a bitter crank.
PEACE
sounds like this Burns guy should run for township trustee or county commissioner or something first.
around, yes, this is an interesting dream, but grandiose. One step at a time!
There are a few states where it’s as “easy” or “easier” to elect a senator than a congressman…AK, MT, ND, SD, VT, and WY. Perhaps those should be the focus of the LNCC.
34 senators? Get back to me with these fantasies after we elect the first one.
Ya, and if I remember correctly his arrest wasn’t really legit. But that was when he ran for president in 2008 so I don’ remember much. What I do know is this isn’t his first time doing this, and although he is a nice and principled Libertarian, his chances of winning are once again slim.
Many of us don’t think “tax evasion” should be a crime.
HAAA HAAA convicted felon, tax evasion, yea just what we need, this guy to run for president. We have already enough of those in the White House.