The National Awards Committee has decided on two new members to the LP Hall of Liberty.
With a required unanimous vote, the two selections for 2014 are:
Harry Browne 1996 and 2000 LP Potus Candidate
Richard Winger Ballot Access Activist
The ceremony and induction will be held at the national convention in Columbus, Ohio.
Most likely it will be held during the morning session on Saturday, June 28.
The Hall of Liberty was created for the 2012 National Convention.
Those inducted in 2012 were: John Hospers, Toni Nathan, Rodger MacBride, Ed Clark, and David Nolan
Kevin Knedler
Awards Committee
Nick, Jed and Jill have this one exactly right. Well said everyone. I am too tired to be eloquent tonight.
“Nicholas Sarwark May 1, 2014 at 2:45 pm
Second, prioritizing tax cuts over civil liberties because if all taxes were cut to zero the state would cease to exist is sheer idiocy. As a threshold matter, even if taxes are cut, governments can use deficit spending to operate. Beyond that, cutting taxes enough to significantly shrink government is a very long-term process. People enter into relationships now, not a decade from now.”
You are wrong here on multiple levels. The subject at hand was a comparison of Gary Johnson’s proposal to replace the income tax with the Fair Tax to whether or not the government should grant marriage licenses to gays. I said that supporting replacing the income tax with the Fair Tax is a worse and more offensive issue than not supporting giving marriage licenses to gays.
Now I will say that I’m actually not opposed to gays getting marriage license as an interim measure, in part so we don’t have to hear about the issue anymore, but let’s not kid ourselves by acting like gays getting marriage licenses from the state is some great step toward individual freedom. It might make some people feel good, and it may help with a few interim problems, problems which are all created because of too much government, but gays getting marriage licenses from the state is not going to be something that brings down big government.
Ending the income tax and not replacing it with anything, which has long been a standard Libertarian issue, would in fact bring us much closer to individual freedom. Yes, it is true that there are other taxes, and the government could do other things to sustain its existence, but ending the income tax and not replacing it with anything would most definitely bring society a lot closer to individual freedom than it is now.
Gary Johnson, on the other hand, wants to end the income tax, and replace it with the Fair Tax, which is a 30% national sales tax on goods and services, and it includes a pre-bate check which would put everyone in the national on welfare. All this does is take a bad system, the present income tax system, and REPLACE it with another bad system, one that actually has the potential to be even worse than the present system, and at best is just as bad as the present system.
Now Gary Johnson may say some other things that are good, and he may want to cut government here and there, but the fact of the matter is that is that he wants to replace the present tax system with another tax system that is not really an improvement over the present system.
Everyone who calls themselves are libertarian ought to be more offended by a candidate who wants to take one bad tax system and replace it with a tax system that is just as bad than they are by the state not granting marriage licenses to gays.
Gays getting marriage licenses won’t do a damn thing to shrink the size of government. Ending the income tax and replacing it with the Fair Tax won’t do a damn thing to shrink the size of government. Ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing will shrink the size of government.
And once again, just for anyone out there who may try to misrepresent what I’m saying, I think that gays SHOULD be able to marry, and I do not have a problem with them getting state marriage licenses as an interim measure.
My point here is that supporting replacing the income tax with the Fair Tax SHOULD BE REGARDED as worse for liberty than gays not getting state marriage licenses is.
Civil liberties are most definitely important, and I’m a big proponent of using jury nullification to put an end to the prosecution of victimless crimes. I just think that it is important to attack the root of problems and not just fixate on trimming the branches.
First, Hospers deserves the award in spite of poor choices made in his dotage. As do Browne and Winger. The awards committee did well.
Second, prioritizing tax cuts over civil liberties because if all taxes were cut to zero the state would cease to exist is sheer idiocy. As a threshold matter, even if taxes are cut, governments can use deficit spending to operate. Beyond that, cutting taxes enough to significantly shrink government is a very long-term process. People enter into relationships now, not a decade from now.
The same flaw exists in this argument as amongst those supporters of government schools who argue against vouchers because they would divert resources away from fixing the failing government schools. Unfortunately, fixing structural problems takes years if not decades, but children are being miseducated now. No parent wants to accept that their child should get a shitty education to fix the system
Similarly, no gay couple wants to accept second-class citizenship so you can focus on defunding the state entirely through tax cuts. No marijuana user wants to accept the continued risk of imprisonment so you can focus on defunding the state entirely through tax cuts.
There were literally people in the Libertarian Party of Colorado arguing that we should rescind our support for Amendment 64 because it would allow for high excise taxes. Let people continue to be harassed, arrested, and imprisoned rather than let the state get tax revenue. There are no words for how misguided those people were, but I am thankful that their arguments didn’t carry the day.
“Jed Ziggler Post authorMay 1, 2014 at 10:23 am
‘If you can’t see how everyone being forced to pay a 30% extortion fee to the federal government every time they purchase a good or service, and how putting the entire nation on welfare with pre-bate checks, is a FAR MORE TOXIC ISSUE than gays not getting state marriage licenses, then you’ve got some screwed up priorities.’
If you can’t see that a human being’s very dignity is far more important than you saving a few bucks in taxes, you’re the one with the screwed up priorities.”
“Jill Pyeatt May 1, 2014 at 11:17 am
‘EVERYONE in the nation paying a big, fat sales tax and getting a welfare check from the government is a FAR MORE TOXIC ISSUE.’
I absolutely, completely, thoroughly disagree with you. Paying taxes is a business, non personal thing that, as you say, would affect everything. A rule allowing the vast masses of people, except for the 10 % or so of the population that is gay, is a rude, inhumane slap in the face to them. There’s no comparison at all.”
UGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!! I’m astounded by the number of Libertarians that have COMPLETELY SCREWED UP priorities.
I’m going to break it down for everyone in very simple terms. Taxes are the life blood of government, so without taxes – including the government’s ability to create money through inflation – GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EXIST.
The government has to have money to exist, because without money it can not pay any thug enforcers, and without thug enforces (such as police, military, tax collectors, regulators, etc…), government is just some politicians sitting around spouting opinions that have no effect on anyone’s lives.
So if you want to talk about governments engaging in civil rights violations, WITHOUT taxes to fund the civil rights violations, the civil rights violations WOULD NOT EXIST, because the government would not be able to pay for any thug enforcers to carry out said civil rights violations, nor would they be able to pay for any weapons (guns, tanks, clubs, etc…) for thug enforcers to use to make sure that the public complies with their threats (as in their “legislation” or “laws” or “regulations”).
TAXES AND GOVERNMENT MONEY CREATION POWERS STRIKES AT THE VERY ROOT OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF.
Government will continue to exist whether or not gays get state marriage licenses, but if you take away taxes and government money creation powers, GOVERMENT CEASES TO EXIST!
So given that TAXES ARE THE LIFEBLOOD OF GOVERMENT, and given that taxes fund wars as well as every civil liberties violation in which government engage, I think that the issue of taxes IS A FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE than whether or not two people get a license from a state to engage in voluntary personal relations.
I personally find it to be FAR MORE OFFENSIVE that some A-HOLE government official wants to take my money than whether or not two people get a paper from a state so they can have state sanction do to what they are already doing anyway.
So yes, anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who does not comprehend this has got some seriously screwed up priorities.
Once again, government will exist REGARDLESS of whether or not gays get state marriage licenses, but if you take away taxes and government money creation powers, GOVERNMENT DISAPPEARS, so EVERY problem that we have from government, including whether or not gays get state marriage licenses, stems from taxes and government money creation powers.
If you take away taxes and government money making powers, IT WOULD NOT F’ING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GAYS GOT STATE MARRIAGE LICENSES, BECA– USE THE STATE WOULD NO LONGER EXIST!
pf: Naturally, a hammer isn’t a screwdriver, and vice versa, yet they are both useful tools.
me: Frankel’s wisdom-ometer is trending high today!
For me, the NAP is something like measuring white-blood-cells. When aggression levels get too high, the society is sick. Too low, though, and we have a state of nature.
Or something.
“EVERYONE in the nation paying a big, fat sales tax and getting a welfare check from the government is a FAR MORE TOXIC ISSUE.”
I absolutely, completely, thoroughly disagree with you. Paying taxes is a business, non personal thing that, as you say, would affect everything. A rule allowing the vast masses of people, except for the 10 % or so of the population that is gay, is a rude, inhumane slap in the face to them. There’s no comparison at all.
pf: Driving blindfolded doesn’t necessarily violate the NAP either. Right?
me: Man, you’ve out-Capozzi’d Capozzi. Love it! 😉
“If you can’t see how everyone being forced to pay a 30% extortion fee to the federal government every time they purchase a good or service, and how putting the entire nation on welfare with pre-bate checks, is a FAR MORE TOXIC ISSUE than gays not getting state marriage licenses, then you’ve got some screwed up priorities.”
If you can’t see that a human being’s very dignity is far more important than you saving a few bucks in taxes, you’re the one with the screwed up priorities.
“Why would gays want to adopt kids?”
The stupid. It hurts.
I didn’t say it violates the NAP.
That’s true, but I have heard other libertarians make that claim.
The very existence of publicly funded subways is a violation of the NAP. If the subways were privately owned, they could have whatever machine gun policy they wanted without violating the NAP.
Naturally, a hammer isn’t a screwdriver, and vice versa, yet they are both useful tools.
I didn’t say it violates the NAP. Driving blindfolded doesn’t necessarily violate the NAP either. Right?
L, yes. Nor does toting machine guns in the subway.
These are great illustrations of why the NAP is such a limited analytical tool.
I know people who drive drunk on a regular basis and are doing just fine (so far, anyway). Does that mean drunk driving does not carry unacceptable risks and is not a problem in our society?
Interesting that you mention that. You can actually make a pretty strong case that driving drunk does not violate the NAP, as Lew Rockwell does here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2000/11/lew-rockwell/legalize-drunk-driving/
Obviously you have not been following closely enough.
It is if he wants 43% less spending, which logically would require less revenue.
It’s both. There are 4,000 separate laws that would have to be changed for marriage not to be an issue. I named only a few of them.
For the same reasons as straights.
You seem to also not be taking into consideration that many gay people have kids from prior hetero relationships. Their gay partner (spouse) may want to legally adopt the kids for the same reasons that a remarried straight person may want to have their new spouse adopt their kids, so both parents have legal custody.
Great idea. Unfortunately, it lands some people in prison and others with their paychecks garnished and money taken out of their bank accounts, property seized, etc.
Doesn’t help them one bit when any of the thousands of legal issues which are covered by the marriage contract come up. I named a few.
I don’t think you are in a valid position to judge that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpsT3e8UsM
Doug Stanhope On…Marriage, Gay and Otherwise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmpf5-tuDEo
“paulie May 1, 2014 at 2:02 am
‘This is not what he said in any of his speeches or interviews,’
False. I have personally heard him say it in many speeches and interviews including quite a few on his latest swing through Mississippi and Alabama that I was on last month.”
I’ve been following the Gary Johnson campaign since he started running in the Republican primaries in 2011. He has ALWAYS promoted the Fair Tax as the plan is written, as in the same Fair Tax that is promoted by Neal Boortz, John Linder, etc…
‘b) HAVE A PLAN THAT ACTUALLY REDUCES THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT’
“Johnson does; he has said he wants to reduce federal spending by 43% in the short term.
Once again, the tax rate is not an integral part of the plan that has to be presumed as a necessary feature. You could have a similar plan with a lower tax rate.
I disagree with it for other reasons, but that is besides the point.”
Gary Johnson may very well have a plan that reduces government in some areas, but his tax plan sure is not one of them.
‘This is funny,’
“No, it isn’t. Not when you are facing issues such as having your spouse deported, or unable to legally immigrate,”
This is an immigration issue, not a marriage issue.
“issues having to do with legally adopting your children so both parents are legal guardians,”
Why would gays want to adopt kids?
“and others I mentioned above. Nothing even remotely funny.”
Another topic that comes up in this discussion is filing income taxes. I’ve got a better solution. Just don’t file taxes and don’t pay them. The income tax is a big fraud.
‘I know people who have gotten married WITHOUT a state license and they are doing just fine without one.’
“I know people who drive drunk on a regular basis and are doing just fine (so far, anyway). Does that mean drunk driving does not carry unacceptable risks and is not a problem in our society?”
This is not a valid comparison at all. The fact of the matter is that there are people out there who are married who have done it WITHOUT getting a permission slip from the state, as in a state marriage license.
Look, I think that gays SHOULD be able to do whatever they want so long as they do not violate the rights of others, so if they want to get married, they SHOULD be able to do it. I just don’t think that the issue is as big a deal as some people make it out to be.
A FAR BIGGER DEAL is the Fair Tax fraud. This nonsense that we should replace the income tax with the Fair Tax and that this “gets a conversation going” or some such bullshit is a far more dangerous issue that effects everyone, whether they are gay or straight, married or not.
Agreed!
False. I have personally heard him say it in many speeches and interviews including quite a few on his latest swing through Mississippi and Alabama that I was on last month.
Johnson does; he has said he wants to reduce federal spending by 43% in the short term.
Once again, the tax rate is not an integral part of the plan that has to be presumed as a necessary feature. You could have a similar plan with a lower tax rate.
I disagree with it for other reasons, but that is besides the point.
No, it isn’t. Not when you are facing issues such as having your spouse deported, or unable to legally immigrate, issues having to do with legally adopting your children so both parents are legal guardians, and others I mentioned above. Nothing even remotely funny.
I know people who drive drunk on a regular basis and are doing just fine (so far, anyway). Does that mean drunk driving does not carry unacceptable risks and is not a problem in our society?
“paulie May 1, 2014 at 1:38 am
For the Nth time, the revenue neutral tax rate is not a part of the proposal that Johnson has agreed with. He thinks the “fairtax” proposal is a “good start for a conversation” about a better tax plan, which does not mean that he agrees with the 30% rate.”
This is not what he said in any of his speeches or interviews, also, this is an extremely stupid place to start a conversation about a better tax plan. A better tax plan from a libertarian perspective would be to either a) not have a new tax plan, as in get rid of a tax and replace it with nothing, or, b) HAVE A PLAN THAT ACTUALLY REDUCES THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, which the Fair Tax does not do.
“As for marriage – as far as I know you have never been in a long term committed relationship, so perhaps you have a hard time emphathizing with why marriage laws on everything from immigration to inheritance to hospital visitation rights to compelled testimony in court to 4,000 other laws is a very important issue to the millions of people directly affected by it.”
This is funny, because I know people who have gotten married WITHOUT a state license and they are doing just fine without one.
EVERYONE in the nation paying a big, fat sales tax and getting a welfare check from the government is a FAR MORE TOXIC ISSUE.
“William Saturn May 1, 2014 at 12:44 am
‘Funny how people’s priorities get screwed up due to putting emotions over logic.’
This is exactly what I’ve been arguing. I believe our number one priority should be how we can preserve free speech and free expression for coming generations. It is the fundamental right, and is in extreme danger of being lost precisely because of placing ’emotions over logic.’ Recognizing this problem is a good first step.”
I’m not sure if you are referring to the Donald Sterling controversy or not, but if you are, I think that the NBA is right to force him out. Around 70-80% of the players in the NBA are black. There are also black people working in various support roles for the teams, working in the arenas, working on sports broadcasts, etc… Many of the fans of the NBA are also black. It is a horrible business practice to alienate one of your largest support bases and many of the people who work under you. Donald Sterling’s comments directly effected people who attend NBA games and the people who play in the games. The NBA forcing him out is a wise business move, and frankly, the guy sounds like an arrogant jerk.
For the Nth time, the revenue neutral tax rate is not a part of the proposal that Johnson has agreed with. He thinks the “fairtax” proposal is a “good start for a conversation” about a better tax plan, which does not mean that he agrees with the 30% rate.
As for marriage – as far as I know you have never been in a long term committed relationship, so perhaps you have a hard time emphathizing with why marriage laws on everything from immigration to inheritance to hospital visitation rights to compelled testimony in court to 4,000 other laws is a very important issue to the millions of people directly affected by it.
Jed Ziggler Post authorMay 1, 2014 at 12:12 am: “Spoken like a man who can legally marry.”
No interest in ever getting “legally” married, as in getting a marriage license from a state.
If you can’t see how everyone being forced to pay a 30% extortion fee to the federal government every time they purchase a good or service, and how putting the entire nation on welfare with pre-bate checks, is a FAR MORE TOXIC ISSUE than gays not getting state marriage licenses, then you’ve got some screwed up priorities.
With lots of guns and ammo, naturally.
This is exactly what I’ve been arguing. I believe our number one priority should be how we can preserve free speech and free expression for coming generations. It is the fundamental right, and is in extreme danger of being lost precisely because of placing “emotions over logic.” Recognizing this problem is a good first step.
That would require some preliminary steps…such as getting a girlfriend…first 🙂
“This is like something I brought up here a few weeks ago, in that Gary Johnson’s support of the Fair Tax is actually worse than a candidate who doesn’t think that it should be legal for gays to marry. Gays could still form voluntary relations even if the government does not consider it to be marriage, but with the Fair Tax, everyone would have to be a 30% tax to the federal government every time they purchase goods and services, and there’d be a pre-bate check sent out to every American, thus putting the entire country on welfare. So supporting the Fair Tax is actually more toxic to liberty than not supporting legal marriages for gays is. ”
Spoken like a man who can legally marry.
Sounds good to me.
Hospers was much the same way.
Perhaps the Thomas Jefferson award should be renamed the Lysander Spooner award.
I like this idea, though I doubt it will ever happen.
In some ways he was actually worse. For example, he extraconstitutionally expanded US territory by over 100% and personally, openly and legally owned chattel slaves.
Yes, and he also arguably set the stage for the War of 1812 with his stupid embargo policy. On the other hand, he was also responsible for banning the importation of slaves into the U.S. Overall, I’d say he was a mixed bag, but certainly not the deity that some make him out to be.
In some ways he was actually worse. For example, he extraconstitutionally expanded US territory by over 100% and personally, openly and legally owned chattel slaves. But he also said and wrote some great things as well.
^
Some see the cup as half empty…
That’s true, and I do think most libertarians are too quick to deify Jefferson, who was not only a hypocrite with regard to slavery, but in many other ways. In fact, he was almost like an early version of Reagan; they both spouted a lot of libertarian rhetoric, but failed to practice what they preached. Still, for all his flaws, Jefferson wasn’t nearly as bad as Hospers’ boy Dubya!
“NewFederalist April 30, 2014 at 1:23 pm
I have to agree with William Saturn on this one. Prof. Hospers did tarnish his legacy with actions he took later in life but his accomplishments are still deserving of the honor.”
I don’t know, if anyone looks into the backgrounds of the people in the Hall of Liberty, they could find out that John Hospers supported the war in Iraq and endorsed George W. Bush for President in 2004. Are these things that we would want anyone looking into the backgrounds of the people in the Hall of Liberty finding out?
“langa April 30, 2014 at 8:24 pm
I wonder if people would be as eager to defend Hospers if, instead of endorsing Bush and calling for war, he had said something similar to the comments recently made by Donald Sterling. Somehow, I really doubt that they would. Yet, it should be obvious to any libertarian that what Hospers actually did was much worse than what Sterling did. So, what’s up with that?”
I agree with you about this. Sterling’s comments were offensive, but what Hospers did in endorsing the war in Iraq and George W. Bush was actually worse.
This is like something I brought up here a few weeks ago, in that Gary Johnson’s support of the Fair Tax is actually worse than a candidate who doesn’t think that it should be legal for gays to marry. Gays could still form voluntary relations even if the government does not consider it to be marriage, but with the Fair Tax, everyone would have to be a 30% tax to the federal government every time they purchase goods and services, and there’d be a pre-bate check sent out to every American, thus putting the entire country on welfare. So supporting the Fair Tax is actually more toxic to liberty than not supporting legal marriages for gays is.
Funny how people’s priorities get screwed up due to putting emotions over logic.
“paulie April 30, 2014 at 10:13 pm
One of the awards is named after slave owner Jefferson, so we don’t exactly have “clean hands” when it comes to racial sensitivity, either.”
I would not be opposed to dropping the name Thomas Jefferson from the awards. FYI, Jefferson had a clause in his will that freed his slaves upon his death. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence was supposed to have had a clause about freeing the slaves, but it was cut out of later drafts due to pressure from some of the potential signers.
Perhaps the Thomas Jefferson award should be renamed the Lysander Spooner award.
One of the awards is named after slave owner Jefferson, so we don’t exactly have “clean hands” when it comes to racial sensitivity, either.
Perhaps “defend” was the wrong word, but the point that I was trying to make was that many people believe that bigots like Sterling should essentially be treated as pariahs, and basically banished from polite society (and certainly they shouldn’t be receiving any kind of awards). Yet I virtually never hear anyone (even people who claim to be staunchly antiwar) saying the same thing about warmongers. This really bothers me, because as despicable as bigotry is, it’s nowhere near as bad as war, so warmongers should be treated even worse than bigots.
I don’t defend his later endorsements or his warmongering at all.
I wonder if people would be as eager to defend Hospers if, instead of endorsing Bush and calling for war, he had said something similar to the comments recently made by Donald Sterling. Somehow, I really doubt that they would. Yet, it should be obvious to any libertarian that what Hospers actually did was much worse than what Sterling did. So, what’s up with that?
He had his good and bad points.
I have to agree with William Saturn on this one. Prof. Hospers did tarnish his legacy with actions he took later in life but his accomplishments are still deserving of the honor.
Mr. Winger is perhaps the most valuable asset the LP has . Cheers
He was in his mid-80s at the time. Should a man’s accomplishments be disregarded for endorsements/support he gave while old and (possibly) senile?
“paulie April 30, 2014 at 6:30 am
He still has an accomplishment as the first presidential candidate and the only one to get an electoral vote, no matter what he has done since then. There would be no LP as we know it (and probably none at all) if he had not stepped up at that first convention as the only person old enough and willing to run for president.”
He threw all of that away by supporting the unnecessary war of aggression in Iraq and endorsing the anti-libertarian George W. Bush for President.
I have a photo in my office of Harry Browne, his wife, me and my wife from the 1996 Convention in which we were all Browne delegates.
A great leader for the LP and an excellent choice for this award.
R.I.P.
He still has an accomplishment as the first presidential candidate and the only one to get an electoral vote, no matter what he has done since then. There would be no LP as we know it (and probably none at all) if he had not stepped up at that first convention as the only person old enough and willing to run for president.
“Jill Pyeatt April 30, 2014 at 1:07 am
Hospers also supported Wayne Allyn Root (remember that guy??)”
Not surprising. Another reason to remove John Hospers from the Hall of Liberty.
Hospers also supported Wayne Allyn Root (remember that guy??)
“Gene Berkman April 29, 2014 at 9:22 pm
‘I’ve got to question the inclusion of John Hospers in this, given that he supported the war in Iraq and endorsed George W, Bush for President.’ I agree, and thanks for saying it, Andy.”
The fact that John Hospers wrote a letter endorsing George W. Bush for President alone should disqualify John Hospers from being in the Hall of Liberty. Yeah, I know that he was the LP’s first candidate for President, but he tarnished his legacy by endorsing one of the most anti-libertarian Presidents in American history, and also by supporting the US government’s war of aggression in Iraq. Unnecessary wars of aggression are the ultimate wasteful and destructive big government programs.
“George Whitfield April 29, 2014 at 10:26 pm
Harry Browne awa s very effective communicator and Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. I wish he were still alive to receive this award. He is an excellent choice. Richard Winger is an amazing expert on ballot access law and is always helping the Libertarian Party maintain and expand its presence in elections. He is also an excellent choice and I wish him many more years with us.”
Yes, both are excellent choices for this award. It is a shame that only one of them is alive.
In 1986 Richard Winger was the Libertarian Party candidate for California Secretary of State. It was his only run for public office.
Harry Browne awa s very effective communicator and Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. I wish he were still alive to receive this award. He is an excellent choice. Richard Winger is an amazing expert on ballot access law and is always helping the Libertarian Party maintain and expand its presence in elections. He is also an excellent choice and I wish him many more years with us.
I would object to any President who presided over slavery and did precious nothing to end it being inducted into the Hall of Liberty or vaunted as some sort of libertarian hero. The founders gave us a great country, but they didn’t go nearly far enough to protect the liberty of all its citizens.
Matt here you go.
Michael Cloud– 2000 Thomas Paine
Mary Ruwart– 2004 Thomas Paine
Bill Redpath– 2010 Thomas Jefferson
Kevin Knedler– 2010 Sam Adams
Jim Lark– 2004 Sam Adams, 2008 Thomas Jefferson, 2012 Thomas Paine
“I’ve got to question the inclusion of John Hospers in this, given that he supported the war in Iraq and endorsed George W, Bush for President.” I agree, and thanks for saying it, Andy.
Many deserving people mentioned in this thread.
“Those inducted in 2012 were: John Hospers,”
I almost hate to say it, but I’ve got to question the inclusion of John Hospers in this, given that he supported the war in Iraq and endorsed George W, Bush for President.
A couple of people on the committee are probably deserving of awards too.
The National awards committee is : Dr. James Lark, Bill Redpath, Dr. Mary Ruwart, Michael Cloud, and Kevin Knedler.
I’ll bet you could get a near-unanimous vote of convention delegates for those two. I’ve not heard anything but positive comments about either one. Great selections!
Harry Browne and Richard Winger are both very deserving of this honor. Congrats to both and I just wish Harry Browne was with us to accept the honor.