Bob Barr and the War on Drugs

Bob Barr, the newly appointed LNC Regional Representative from Region 4, is better known to most Libertarians for his hard line stances as a drug warrior… many may even remember a Libertarian campaign in Georgia years ago that was created with the sole purpose of attacking Bob Barr.

While Barr has obviously made many strides to becomming a Libertarian throughout the last couple of years, many still question his stances on some issues… namely the War on Drugs and the right to marriage.

Well…

Bob Barr was on the radio with Charles Goyette from KFNX in Phoenix and said this regarding his stances on the War on Drugs:

Goyette: ...but I have to assume that as a former US Attorney you’ve been kind of an oldline and maybe even a hardline drug warrior and most of us Libertarians think the drug war is foolish and folly.

Barr: There’s a lot of room to work on that issue. For example, on the issue of medical marijuana and the states’ rights issues involving that. I’m very supportive of states’ rights. I am also very supportive the concept of legitimate testing for the use of medical marijuana and I’m very disappointed that the government has stood in the way of that. So there’s a lot of room there. I’m working through some of those individual liberties issues…

Hear the interview yourself here.

96 Responses to “Bob Barr and the War on Drugs”

  1. Chris Moore Says:

    I can live with that.

    He may be hedging, he may not. My guess is that if he is merely hedging politically by stating that he is “working through” these issues, then it would be a pretty useless hedge. I mean, come on. This is the Libertarian Party. How much political power can you really get out of it right now? So I would give him the benefit of the doubt based on that calculation alone.

    My guess is that Barr would be similar to Paul with respect to abortion: against it, considers it murder, but sees no role for the federal government.

  2. Joseph Knight Says:

    “I’m working through some of those individual liberties issues” is good news. SOMETHING is ALWAYS better than nothing.

    However, no issue goes to the heart of “self-ownership” like the drug issue and his comments leave MUCH to be desired for someone in LP leadership.

    And, it’s NOT a question of “states’ rights” as states have no rights, only delegated powers. The war on drugs is not merely foolish and folly, it’s tryanny!

    There are already repercussions – one “newby” on LPNM’s e-forum has delayed joining and there is one report from a ballot-access petitioner about Barr being a deterrent.

    The LP can certainly use a man of Bob Barr’s talent and experience. I HOPE he comes around quickly. But if Barr becomes just one more factor in the Republicanization of the LP, it’ll be time for the freedom movement to find a new home.

  3. Steve Trinward Says:

    The problem is two-faceted. First, the issue Barr is coming the farthest from a libertarian position is among the most vital ones on the political front (following restoring civil liberties by trashing the USAPATRIOT Act – always remember the correct acronynm – and bringing the troops home). Second, his position is not just personal, but has been a matter of policymaking on his part in the past. He needs to be very clear that his new views, regardless of his personal tastes, no longer advocate the intervention of the State in the lives of peaceful and non-aggressive people!

  4. Gene Berkman Says:

    State’s Rights is actually an issue in regard to medical marijuana. I believe 12 or 13 states have legalized medical use of marijuana, and the federal government under both Clinton and Bush have continued to arrest legitimate medical users in those states. So a stand in support of states that have legalized medical marijuana will help medical users in those states.

    Support for state’s rights can also be used as a reason to repeal federal laws – a position Ron Paul has used in his recent successful campaigns for Congress. Some California Republicans have also taken this position, including Sen. Tom McClintock. So we should not dismiss state’s rights out of hand.

    Of course libertarians oppose the right of states to limit personal freedom.

  5. Jim Says:

    Reason.com has an interview with Barr:

    reason: But you haven’t changed your mind on the drug war, or on gay marriage? [Barr sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.]

    Barr: There are going to be differences with my colleagues in the Libertarian Party. I can’t imagine there is ever going to be a party I agree with 100 percent of time. What I’m interested in is a party honestly committed to liberty and true checks and balances on government power. That’s something lacking in our current party system. With regard to gay marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment, in my view the FMA does nothing except to protect liberty of citizens of each state on what basis they want to recognize marriage. Are there some libertarians who believe differently? I’m sure there are, and I’m sure we’ll engage in some debates down the road. I’m not going to let nuanced differences on aspects of particular policies stand in the way of the most important mission. That’s ensuring our liberties and protecting the Constitution.

  6. Kris Overstreet Says:

    People, Barr’s trying to play nice and be a good LP representative by shutting up on issues he doesn’t agree with the official LP line on. That’s what good party men DO.

    Really, lighten UP.

  7. Mike N. Says:

    Ian should have him on FTL.

  8. Timothy West Says:

    support him and he might work through those issues faster. Treat him like shit and attack him as unprincipled and he might think he made a mistake joining and thinking the LP maybe has turned the corner from a liberty cult into a political party.

    unlike about everyone here, I’m personally affected by medical MJ. I would be smoking it daily if I was one of the 30% to 40 % where anti nausea pills such as Zofran did not work. My chemo is pretty evil.

    I’m convinced that Barr will become more favorable towards a broad range of LP positions – unless he is attacked and spit on.

    How about we see what what he actually DOES as region 4 Rep and as a leading persona within beforehand? I think he will turn more libertarian in the big L sense, unless he gets shit on first. I want him to publicly support medical MJ before I support him in any other role, but i’ll see what he actually does and says.

  9. paulie cannoli Says:

    Sounds like he’s making some progress. Hope he makes a lot more, rather than dragging the LP further to the reich/right wing.

  10. Progress? « paulie cannoli Says:

    [...] Bob Barr and the War on Drugs [...]

  11. Bill Wood Says:

    Any quesses to how long before Bob Barr quits the Libertarian Party, because of all the crap he gets about him not being “libertarian” enough?

  12. Derrick Says:

    I listened to the audio interview. I thought Barr sounded quite reasonable and genuine, and I’m glad to have him onboard.

    Even if he’s only 95/75 on the Nolan chart, he’s still squarely in our camp. We have enough anarchists already, anyway.

  13. Don Wills Says:

    Bill Wood wrote – ‘Any quesses [sic] to how long before Bob Barr quits the Libertarian Party, because of all the crap he gets about him not being “libertarian” enough?’

    He’ll be gone after the 2008 convention. He’s a good enough politician to know that he should stay with who brung him to the dance, but it will only be for one date and there will be no kissing afterwards.

  14. Mike N. Says:

    Anyone catch this yet?

    http://www.insolitology.com/topten/koostrenite/ri-922i.htm

    Telepathic auditing thingamagig.

    [Allen Hacker:]
    “I was the Emperor [in a distant past] of this Galaxy that we are dwelling in at present.”

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/12/12/some-interesting-tidbits-on-allen-hacker/#comment-78757

  15. Bill Wood Says:

    Don, LOL!

  16. Chris Moore Says:

    “Any quesses to how long before Bob Barr quits the Libertarian Party, because of all the crap he gets about him not being “libertarian” enough?”

    I’ve seen very little vitriol spewed Barr’s way. In fact, almost everything I’ve read has been very supportive—anarchists, minarchists, whatever. They all seem to be saying the same thing: “I’m glad Barr is here. I hope he comes around on the Drug War.”

    Now the SECOND he goes on the Drug War (or anti-gay marriage) offensive as a “Libertarian”, then watch out.

  17. Jackcjackson Says:

    Unless things are changing fast, he is already on the Drug War offensive as a Libertarian Leader.

  18. Timothy West Says:

    I’ve seen very little vitriol spewed Barr’s way.

    good. lets hope it stays way until he does something that actually deserves it. I am most happy about the fact that the LNC will finally have someone on it with considerable real world political experience as a federal level officeholder.

  19. George Phillies Says:

    When I looked at the LNC web page, the most notable feature of Mr. Barr was that he supplied email address and telephone number. You may check for yourselves and compare with other LNC members. And when I sent him an email welcoming him to the party,

    because I am happy to have the support of everyone who is libertarian on the issues that are really important to them, and the support of everyone who finds I’m more trustworthy than my opponents,

    the message did not bounce. We may contrast this with the email I sent to the immediately prior LNC chair, at (something like) chair@lp.org, which bounced with a message from the ISP that they were not accepting new messages because the mail file had not been examined in such a long time.

    Merry Christmas! Happy Solstice! Happy New Year!

    George

  20. Carl Says:

    Good point George.

    That said, they really should use images of the email addresses so the LNC doesn’t get spam bombed. An email address that gets hundreds of spams per day can turn into a black hole.

  21. Stuart Richards Says:

    We need to let him be for now. Some of the biggest opponents of a movement can become some of their greatest proponents… but in the public limelight, that process is a lot more difficult. (Apostle Paul, anyone?) So give the guy a chance.

  22. Mr. Barr, welcome to the Libertarian Party. « Last Free Voice Says:

    [...] He’s already had to deal with uneasy questions in regards to stances on things he’s still working out, like the drug war and gay marriage. He’s hedging, but it’s not the hedge of a slick politician, at least not to me it doesn’t sound like. It sounds like the hedge of a guy who honestly isn’t sure what he believes, but is thinking that liberty might be the answer. [...]

  23. Joseph Knight Says:

    Gene Berkman, states do not have rights – period. Only PEOPLE have rights. States have delegated powers. The term for what you describe – and which I support – is decentralization.

  24. Mike N. Says:

    decentralization

    Also known as state’s rights. You are taking the term “states right’s” too literally.

  25. Eric Dondero Says:

    This is almost identical to Ron Paul’s public stance on the issue.

    I was a little weary of Barr on this, but now I’ve got to say, I’m quite impressed. Seems like he’s coming around.

    BTW, I have an article on Barr joining the LP up at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

  26. Eric Dondero Says:

    Stuart is right. Let the guy be for now. He just made a huge move. It’s Christmas time. Back off of him and this subject. Let the poor guy rest. Don’t want to scare him off.

  27. Mike N. Says:

    Gene Berkman, states do not have rights – period. Only PEOPLE have rights.

    “[You are] creating a straw man. No one suggests that states possess any sort of natural or civil rights. The point is that the Constitution, properly interpreted, gives states primary jurisdiction over the federal government’s in most areas, and that they possess many legal rights, such as secession and nullification. Secondly, a decentralized government is much more accountable to the people and less prone towards tyranny. Libertarians support States Rights because they restrict the power of the federal government, not because they wish to empower state governments.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein8.html

  28. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Bob Barr is no libertarian.

    “I’m very supportive of state’s rights.”

    States don’t have rights, jackass, only humans do.

    And as a lifelong anti-racist, I always LOVE to hear my souther white politicians talk about how important “state’s rights” are.

    I can’t claim LP membership with this guy on board. When my dues are up, I’m out.

  29. Mike N. Says:

    I can’t claim LP membership with this guy on board. When my dues are up, I’m out.

    Umm, jackass, you proclaim you are a Democrat on your own website.

    http://myspace.com/undercover_anarchist

  30. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I say, “unfortunately, Democrat” when asked “what party best reflects your values.” That’s a whole lot different from saying, “I’m a Democrat!”

    When Nazis like Barr are given positions of party leadership within the LP, it makes it impossible for me to call myself a “Libertarian.”

    I’m sure I will be missed!

  31. theFreshScent » Blog Archive » Debris: Thursday, 12.21.06 Says:

    [...] Bob Barr Eases Stance on Marijuana [via Third Party Watch] [...]

  32. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    U_A can the nazis stuff please.

    Barr was on Air America this morning and while I tend to take a purist view I can see where he is coming from and I have long believed that what he is suggesting regarding the drug war will come to pass. What I understood him to say was that the feds should end prohibition and the different states should be allowed to handle it as they wish. Much in the same way that alcohol prohibition was ended with some states being wet and others dry and a lot somewhere in between.

  33. Timothy West Says:

    “I’ve had the opportunity to meet with former Congressman Bob Barr on
    two occasions this fall. The conversations were quite interesting
    (and very civil), given that he was one of the three most problematic
    members of Congress for my organization since I co-founded MPP 12
    years ago. While serving in Congress from 1995 to 2003, he (1)
    prevented our 1998 medical marijuana initiative from taking effect in
    D.C., (2) took the anti-medical marijuana position while debating me
    on national TV, and (3) grilled me during my testimony before a
    congressional subcommittee in 2001. In addition, MPP orchestrated
    civil disobedience in his office on Capitol Hill, whereby a group of
    activists holding various signs chanted medical marijuana slogans in
    his office while we laid the body of a medical marijuana patient
    (with multiple sclerosis) in the doorway so that no one could get in
    or out.

    But that’s in the past; he has really come around on drug policy
    issues. He acknowledges that the drug war is a failure and it cannot
    be won, he has publicly come out in favor of states’ rights for
    medical marijuana, and he wants to do whatever he can to shrink the
    size and reach of the federal government, which presumably includes
    the drug-war bureaucracy (the narcocracy)—DEA, ONDCP, NIDA. I
    support the notion of Mr. Barr taking a leadership position with the
    Libertarian Party; it’s a win/win for him and the Party.”

    Rob Kampia, Executive Director
    Marijuana Policy Project

  34. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I’ll “can the Nazi stuff” when white southerners stop using the term “state’s rights” to mean white supremacy.

  35. Trent Hill Says:

    How can you honestly be a Libertarian and not believe in States’ rights!?

    “When the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that gave the classic statement of states’ rights. The Union is a voluntary association of states and if the central government goes too far, each state has the right to nullify that law. As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions:

    Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party….each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions became the bedrock principles of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party. Those supporters, such as John Randolph, who insisted loudest on states’ rights, were called “Old republicans” into the 1820s and 1830s.”

    Was Thomas Jefferson a nazi UA?
    You know what, don’t answer. Im scared to know what you think about our founding fathers.

  36. Ed Johnson Says:

    How does a person who supported Clinton in 2000, Nadar in 2004 and supports Obama in 2008 consider him/her self a libertarian?

    How does a person who feels the Libertarian Party has appointed a nazi to a leadership position stay until his/her dues run out and not resign immediately?
    How is being pro states rights nazi when the nazis did away with most of their states’ powers in Germany?
    I think the real bigot is a person who thinks a “white southerner” is automatically a white supremacist because he/she supports states’ rights.
    I guess it takes all kinds,colors and people of different levels of mental stability to make a world.

  37. Tom Bryant Says:

    Agreed Ed. States Rights in this context has nothing to do with white supremacy. But that won’t stand in the way of some stereotyping southerners as racists whenever they hear that term. It’s sad really, we’ve come so far but still have so far to go.

    I also believe that some people get rubbed the wrong way whenever something political happens in the LP. There was someone posting about how he couldn’t vote for the LP’s candidate for Michigan governor because he raised more money than he originally expected. Go figure eh?

  38. Eric Dondero Says:

    Actually UA you leaving the Libertarian Party is a huge positive. You are one of the few hardcore Leftists in the libertarian movement posing as a “Libertarian.” With you out that only leaves a few others like Pauli, Tim Ireland, and such.

    It’s kind of like we break any ties to the Left with yours and their deaprture. And that’s a huge positive.

    Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out…

  39. matt Says:

    I’ll “can the Nazi stuff” when white southerners stop using the term “state’s rights” to mean white supremacy.
    ================================
    So you’ll can the Nazi stuff in 1990?

  40. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Come on. Whites have used the term “states rights” as a code word for white supremacy for decades. Barr knows this.

    The founding fathers were a cabal of slave rapists.

    Dondero, you’re not even in the LP. You’re a Republican, and the reason the people such as myself cannot be a part of the LP is that it is just a group of racist Republicans like yourself masquarading as an independent political movement.

    With hard-right fascists like Barr joining the fold, there is no more doubt. The LP does not deserve to use the term “libertarian.” It should be called “The Right-Wing Conservative Angry White Male Party.”

  41. Tom Bryant Says:

    This from the guy who couldn’t vote for a black man for governor because he raised too much money?

  42. Joseph A Nagy Jr Says:

    Instead of attacking the State Chairs and Bob Barr, if he really has moved from “drug warrior” to “medical marijuana is OK” we need to gently encourage him to go the rest of the way. Stop the hate and spread the love.

  43. Ameliorations Says:

    [...] On my own state parties mailing list there has been a lot of vitriol directed at our own — and the other — state chair as well as Bob Barr himself. An article at Third Party Watch links to a digitized copy of a radio interview that Bob Barr gave recently. If what he has been quoted as saying in the blurb is true, then this man doesn’t need our spit and vitriol, but gentle nudging in the right direction. Otherwise he’ll leave the party and not come back. A man with his talent for PR and fundraising is an asset that the national and state parties cannot afford to lose if we want to move forward both as debate club and political party. Yes, we should keep our eye on him, but at the same time we need to give him room to both grow and do his work. [...]

  44. George Phillies Says:

    Meanwhile, Daily Kos is reporting that Tucker Carlson has joined Barr is rising form the Republicans into the libertarians. (No, I cannot tell from their source if he actually joined the party, or is adopting the attitude because he finds Republicans to be revolting..)

  45. Ed Johnson Says:

    Why bother recruiting and converting people if they’re going to be attacked about what they did or said before they joined.

    Also while it’s true that “states’ rights” could be used as “code words” for white supremacy. It’s also true that using names like nazi or fascist are just ways of trying to win an argument without saying anything intelligent.
    I see there actually is a nazi party of some size in the U.S. It’s headquartered in Minnesota which the last time I checked was NOT a southern state. I guess they feel more at home there.

  46. matt Says:

    As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions
    ===================================
    There! You did it again! How can you quote the Kentucky Resolutions? Don’t you know they’re all about National Socialism?

  47. Trent Hill Says:

    The Nazi/Neo-Nazi movement has never garnered any attention in the South. I would like to say it is because down here, we aren’t racist, but its simply because they are fascists. The Nazi’s didnt believe in States’ Rights, and true southerner’s do.
    And,while its true that David Duke and his ilk have used the words “States’ Rights” to mean “Segregation”, that does not mean that the meaning of the word has changed, or that the millions of other people who genuinely believe in States’ Rights are also racist.

    If I call you a banana, and mean it as a codeword for “asshole”, that doesn’t mean that a banana is ACTUALLY an asshole. You get it UA?
    Just because I live below the Mason Dixon does not mean I am a christian. Just because im a Christian does not mean I hate muslims.

    Matt,”There! You did it again! How can you quote the Kentucky Resolutions? Don’t you know they’re all about National Socialism?”
    Do some research, the Kentucky Resolutions werre authored by Thomas Jefferson, and they spoke against Alien and Sedition Acts, they OPPOSED the Federalization of our country, and attempted to prop up States’ Rights (even if the Whigs/Federalists wouldn’t hear of it.)

  48. matt Says:

    /sarcasm ignored/

  49. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Hey whatever.

    Moratorium on internet beefing until after Xmas.

    Peace to all!

  50. matt Says:

    I’ll drink to that! Peace indeed!

  51. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    Good idea. I have a bottle of Sam Adams beer waiting for me.
    M.H.W.

  52. matt Says:

    That’s good stuff, although I’m pretty jacked about the Christian Brother’s Brandy and Cream Soda i’ll be tipping back tomorrow night!

  53. Trent Hill Says:

    Ah, matt, you’ll have to forgive me. The intarweb,lol,is not very efficient for the expression of sarcasm.

  54. Nick Wilson Says:

    Did anyone see Bob Barr in Borat? The look on his face after the punchline was priceless.

    Because of that appearance, he probably has more name recognition among average people than he has had since he was in office. But I just can’t tell whether the impression was positive or negative – I walked away neutral.

  55. matt Says:

    Trent,

    I’ve missed a good many sarcasm lines myself over the years! If you were in northern MI, I’d buy you a beer. It’s Christmas!

  56. paulie cannoli Says:

    Nick,

    Borat was hillarious!

    It was one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen.

    I don’t know whether most people saw Barr’s role as positive or negative – I guess there’s no way to know short of a random sample poll.

  57. paulie cannoli Says:

    Drinkers,

    Try wine made of muscadine grapes if you haven’t yet.

    Delicious and good for the heart!

  58. paulie cannoli Says:

    U_A:

    I am unable to copy/paste on the computer I am borrowing to type this, but you said (paraphrase) that the LP is a group of racist Republicans masquerading as an independent movement.

    Do you think I’m a racist Republican?

    What race would I even be a racist for even if I was a racist? Jewish-Russian-Mongolian-Buryat-Ukrainian-Unknown mix-Alsatians? I’d be pretty lonely if we were the master race. With our extremely small numbers, how could we manage to enslave and oppress all the inferior races of the world and keep them from overwhelming our superior brains with their sheer numerical superiority? (/sarcasm)

    I’m a member of only one race actually, the human race. There is no scientific validity to the concept of human subspecies.

    As for being a Republican, I doubt anyone in their right mind could characterize me that way.

  59. paulie cannoli Says:

    BTW, UA I think you should stay in the LP just to piss bozos like Eric off.

  60. paulie cannoli Says:

    Eric,

    There’s an E at the end of Paulie.

    Look up the letter E in wikipedia.

    Breaking ties to the left is the wrong way to go. Actually I doubt you know all of us in the LP who are left-libertarian, but it’s true: there are not nearly enough of us, and we need a lot more.

    It may be an unfortunate byproduct of the Barr controversy that we further skew the party in the wrong direction, which will probably happen.

    However, Kubby will bring balance back in the correct direction, and even Barr is on the ACLU board if I remember correctly.

    Basically, Eric, we are going to bring more left-libertarians into the LP and
    overwhelm those with konfused con-servitude views of liberty.

    At the point where we achieve numerical superiority and force you to crawl on your belly to the NSGOP and renounce any and all connection with the LP past, present or future, we win, you’ll lose, and the world will be a better place as we finally become a real party.

    The bottom line is that the overwhelming stench and even the mere presence and influence of confused Republitarians in the LP drives away a much larger and more important group of people on the left/libertarian border who could be allies and members, but won’t be because of the bad company we keep.

    Since I already understand this dynamic, I’m not letting it drive me out, although I’m working on Plan B scenarios.

  61. paulie cannoli Says:

    Ed Johnson,

    so far as I know LP Inc. does not issue refunds.

    U_A will continue to be an official member of the LP until his dues expire, unless he also sends them a letter renouncing the pledge not to initiate force.

    Of course, this does not mean he has to actually consider himself a Libertarian.

  62. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    I know that TPW is not necessarily the place for philosophical discussions, but this left-libertarian right-libertarian thing has me wondering. If someone believes in unrestricted freedom of speech are they right or left? Same goes for unrestricted freedom of religion. Again is some who believes in that left or right?
    So here’s my point. All this left right bs is simply intended to divide us, which is made easier if we can be shuttled off to some defined corner.

    While I certainly don’t agree with everything Barr speaks on, I tend to think he will help the LP in the long run. Maybe the process was poor, but we have to life with the results, so let’s make the best of the situation.
    M.H.W.

  63. paulie cannoli Says:

    Generally speaking if your main freedom issues are peace and civil liberties oriented, and you are willing to make more in the way of compromise for the purpose of tactical alliances with those who agree with you on those issues but not others, you are left-libertarian.

    If you are ambivalent or mostly unconcerned about those issues, but get all hot and bothered by things like the death tax and social security privatization, you are a Republitarian. It is then also somewhat likely that you support immigration restrictions, the “fair tax” and perhaps the war (or at least used to support the war until recently, at a minimum) and still find a lot of empathy/sympathy for Republican politicians, even now.

    Or, alternatively, you might feel that abortion and gay marriage should be illegal, and until we can privatize schools we should have the public school preaching some form of conventional evangelical “Christian” doctrine. But, you are likely to be in favor of corporate-run privatization (while retaining a degree of limited liability protection) and might like government-managed private investing social security “reform” for example, and probably consider reducing marginal tax rates (especially in the top income brackets) to be a high priority.

    The shrinking minority of “libertarian” warmongers is Republitarian.

  64. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Stuart says: We need to let him be for now. Some of the biggest opponents of a movement can become some of their greatest proponents… but in the public limelight, that process is a lot more difficult.

    This is precisely WHY Barr should not have been pushed into the ‘limelight’ (such as the LP has to provide) by those who wanted to make use of his eagerness to help and his newfound love of freedom. To go from someone who favors the drug war to libertarian activist can be a difficult transition, but to go from Drug warrior to LNC Rep is many times more difficult. Who did the SE chairs who rushed this process through think they were serving? it certainly wasn’t Barr.

  65. Susan Hogarth Says:

    George Phillies says: When I looked at the LNC web page, the most notable feature of Mr. Barr was that he supplied email address and telephone number.

    That does not appear to be the case now. There is a (apparently miscoded) email address for Barr which ends in ‘lp.org’. I would like to know if Barr is directly receiving all his emails form that address, or if they are being screened, and if screened, who is screening them. The reason I speculate that they are being screened is this report from a recent (Thirsday) SE chairs meeting with Barr (report delivered by Phil Jacobson, LPNC chair):

    Mr. Barr then gave us all his contact information, which I took to be
    something which should be available to at least all the EC members,
    however I do not think we have permission to spread it further:

    Bob Barr
    email:
    home phone:
    cell phone:
    office in Atlanta:

    Regional Alternate Rep. Stewart Flood will take the role of
    “constituent service”, which I believe means that regular members of
    the LP in the region should contact Stewart rather than Bob, while
    Bob remains available to the region leadership.

  66. paulie cannoli Says:

    Hmmm, I guess he got swamped with email and calls from angry Libertarians and took the contact info down? That’s what I’m guessing.

    I am assuming phillies was not so blunted as to claim it was there when it was not there, but 40 blunts can make you see stuff I guess….

  67. paulie cannoli Says:

    MHW

    Anthony Gregory breaks it down very well:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory127.html

    Needless to say I am both a left-libertarian and a radical libertarian by Gregory’s taxonomy here.

  68. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    I kinda knew that already. It is just that most of us, even in a small group like libertarians, don’t fit easily into specific categories. I probably can be classified as having gone from right to left, but someone else will try to fit me into the right box based on how they view the box.

    For myself the function of goverment is to insure justice and provide adequate liabilty laws. Government however, even does that poorly. Everything else can and should be left to a free and open market.
    M.H.W.

  69. Trent Hill Says:

    Libertarian is neither left nor right, but up. With Authoritarian being the polar opposite,down.

    Wether one swings to the left, or right side of this box is relatively insignificant.

    However, since we’re discussing it. I suppose im a Right-Libertarian.
    Im Paleolibertarian.

  70. undercover_anarchist Says:

    The answer to your question is so obvious it need not be answered. There are plenty of people in the Libertarian Party with whom I agree on the vast majority of issues. But the leadership is staunchly right-wing. A house divided cannot stand, and political parties are formed around values moreso than policy. The Libertarian Party’s values are not libertarian. They are, as they’ve presented themselves so many times, right-wing Republicans who REALLY mean it and REALLY hate taxes. That’s the media’s conception of libertarianism and in this case, the media has it right.

  71. undercover_anarchist Says:

    BTW, Merry Christmas to the Dondero family. I thought we were homies. Don’t be hating!

  72. paulie cannoli Says:

    can’t cut and paste, sux. anyway…

    My homely homey web-homie U-A

    Yo yo homeboyeee, we gonna smoke some suckas like crack, talk some smack, so don’t be wigga-dy wiggadly wack…and just in cayce you forgot the free bass you gonna get maced in yo face….like hannibal lecter says

    Yessssss…...

    I suppose I should say it in prose, cuz, I’ve already served my green eggs and ham overdose straight in your vein with an extra helping of pain, blood, still pumping freely in the alley out from out your artery, main.
    ——————————
    Merry Christmas to the Dondero/Rittbergs, and all of God’s children, every one, even those who have buried themselves in a watery grave of disbelief in God. In which case, I suppose, it’s Happy booze and pill numbed New Year to We the Living workers and farmers of the officially atheist temporary-elite-governed proletarian dictatorship of the USSA (which will transform itself into peaceful anarchy only after all power is completely centralized in the hands of their noblesse oblige state, as that will be the inevitable result on a global scale if the hydra organism of state/regime coercion is not killed off at the root, and the sooner we kill it, the better).

    (note: I am not suggesting the regime be officially theistic either; rather, that it should not exist at all, yesterday, today and tomorrow, and quoth the raven, nevermore)

    MHW, Trent and U_A: have you read Gregory’s article I linked above? Xmas eve 20:25.

    MHW: Yes, I said it was obvious, so obviously you don’t have to say we kinda knew it already, needles(s) to say, obviously.

    I appreciate the desire not to be boxed and categorized, too, but someone will indeed be trying to fit you in the right box (quite possibly, pine) and that someone is likely to be an agent of the state, or an actor acting either knowingly or unknowingly pulled by its puppet strings of intended and unintended consequences. And the machinery of government grinds on lubricated by the blood of its human sacrificial lambs and the sweat and tears of its worker-prisoners forward to the Apocalypse.

    How do you view the box? I view it as a box that will box you in. I don’t like living in boxes either. But sometimes that’s what you have to do when you are militantly politically homeless. It’s either that or be institutionalized. And I don’t like that even less.

    The function of regime government is that of a blood-sucking brain parasite feeding on the hearts and minds of its collectivized brain-washed and/or paralyzed victims. Our function is to kill it before it kills us all slowly.

    Even if you think that coercive monopoly government has some temporary positive function, the question is still: how do we break the box before we’re boxed in and suffocate slowly? The choices are either to break out of the box or be broken by the box and go out the back door through the bowels of the devil.

    From your perspective and Trent’s it’s not important if we swing to the right or to the left, you say.

    But we are small, and must figure out the right lever to use to dig our way out of the box if there is still time. We can’t do it with our bare hands, the walls are already too strong and thick, and pounding on them with our fists just makes our hands bleed. We must have a lever.

    I think that lever may be on our left. At least I hope so because we’ve been feeling around on our right, but the more we use what we keep thinking is the lever there, the more solid the wall of the box gets. And then, with the delusions setting in our confused and overtaxed brains from all the blood sucked out by the warden state regime and our eyes blurry from the sweat and tears of the effort of the digging the hole in the wall, we wonder: why is the tunnel we are digging in the wall of the box keep filling with more, heavier, more solid bricks every day? And why is the air so stale in here? Why are these walls smeared with feces, and whose feces is it?

    Eric thinks the lever must be on the right. Yeah, right. Riiiiight. That lever only can build a thousand year reich.

    He delights in the thought of me being pushed into the left wall of the box. He can only hope I become just another brick in the wall. But as he looks fondly back on the glory hole days of his youth and dreams of and works for the day when we all live in a corporate military-industrial yellow submarine (goo goo g’joob) he’s just another dick in the wall of the regime’s polluted toilet stall. All in all he’s just another prick with no balls.

    So says the wall-Rus. The walrus is Paul. Paul is dead.

    With that said,

    namaste: I don’t hate Eric or UA or anyone else. I’m not a hater. Really, I’m not.

    Next Christmas in Paris.

    That’s hot!

    Or not?

    OK, back to our Grey Christmastime Parable:

    Trent, as you probably know, “paleo” means older/ancient variety. If you are a “paleo” libertarian that means you come from an older or more original variety of libertarianism, or perhaps from some ancient forgotten land of the dinosaurs.

    Well, Mr. Caveman, the fact is that there is a reason why liberal and libertarian sound alike…

  73. paulie cannoli Says:

    Continued from my last post.

    The reason why liberal and libertarian sound alike is because we are and always have been on the left. Bastiat set on the left. Republitarianism is a temporary 20-th century faux realignment and must be utterly and completely destroyed both in practice and conceptually so we don’t brick ourselves in. That right lever ain’t no lever, it’s our own shovel spade.

    Read all about it…

    http://mises.org/story/2099

    What of this “paleolibertarianism” of which you speak?

    This confused sounding term is actually a bastardized version of “paleoconservative” which is another way of saying Old Right, to distinguish the its proponents from the neo-con/neo-conned New Right.

    While it’s true that the Old Right was anti-imperialist, and thus in some relative terms more libertarian than the Neojacobin “New Right”, it was far from libertarian. The Old Right was provincial, authoritarian, traditionalist, monarchist, xenophobic, anti-semitic, theocratic, racist, patriarchal, and all that other unhappy horseshit. Far from a new liberty, which I’m all for.

  74. paulie cannoli Says:

    Continued from my last comment.

    So, in other words, since libertarian in all real actuality is actually not conservatism, and in fact nothing like conservatism, it’s just another old con job (paleoconservitude form of phrase employment) to invent a phony anti-concept like “paleolibertarian”.

    Since it does not actually harken back to some older roots of libertarianism, but only to the poisonous roots of conservitude on the Old Right, it’s just another fruit of the poison tree in a garden of snakes, and if you eat its apple its knowledge will leave you frozen, calcified, a forgotten Snow White fossil who will never be rescued by some necrophilic prince on a white horse. You will forever be stuck in dreamland, dreaming of a white Christmas in the land of the ice and snow, your blood feeding the masters of the matrix while you dream on, dreaming of a White Power Nation just like the one we used to know the good old days so long (or not so long) ago.

    Wake up! Snap out of it. The hand is quicker than the eye. Watch that birdie. Put down that apple, son, and act like a real mack. Don’t go to sleep; break the needle and flush the smack.

    That apple is no tree of knowledge, it’s a poison apple. And it’s not sleep you’ll sink into if you eat more of it. It’s a permanent sleep, the sleep of death.

  75. paulie cannoli Says:

    Continued from my last post.

    You say you swing only up, and left and right is relatively insignificant, but hey, everything is relative, cuz, we all swing from the same tree, but if you don’t keep your feet on the ground that tree branch will snap. Oh crap!

    And if it doesn’t snap your hands will get tired of hanging on and you’ll fall, cradle and all.

    And if you hang on even after you’re numb, that’s still dumb, because the ol’ noose you’re hangin’ by will choke off your air supply.

    So save your breath from death.

    You say you are mostly pointing straight up and don’t swing much to the left or right, but while we are at it, in an aside sort of way, you swing just a little to the right. ever so slightly.

    Riiiiiight.

    But in the same dying breath you use a confused term like paleolibertarian, an inbred mutant cousin-child (cuz, the hills have eyes) of the pale con job: the most ancient con job of all, the con job of unthinking authority-worshipping tradition.

    What the hell does that have to do with liberty? They are polar opposites.

    The conservative con, whether Old Reich or New Reich, ultimately points down in the authoritarian direction, and its master is below, hidden from sight. So you see the light yet? Do not sink into his evil dark Knight of sleep.

    His authority, which tells you not to think for yourself but just unquestioningly follow the path of tradition, will lead you below, out of sight. And only then will you see the light: an uncoming train, or a lake of fire. By then there will be no escape.

  76. paulie cannoli Says:

    Continued.

    Now that everything is illuminated, the doors of perception open, and the Eye of Sauron blinks open at the top of the Libertarian Party pyramid scheme slowly working its way up in the Watergate, climbing higher up Mount Doom.

    Adjust your persicope slightly. Not 360, not 180, not even 90 degrees, but perhaps 66.6 or 45 or 38 or 22 or whatever.

    Our Friday the 13th Plutonic Crypto-anarchist says the answer is obvious.

    But then he answers anyway.

    Well, my white brotha from another mother…

    The rank and file libertarians are mostly pretty good, but the leadership is tilted. Well, what about new leadership?

    Why suppose that the controlled media’s purposeful misconceptions of libertarianism are correct and true? What spirit are these media communicating with? An unclean spirit, perhaps? Leave that seance before you fall under their spell.

    When you say the Libertarian party values are not libertarian, why assume that the party’s values come from the top down? Leadership can be changed and membership is malleable.

    We can either fight to gain control of the vehicle – all political parties are just vehicles, anyway – or abandon it to the rightward lurch full speed ahead off a cliff into death and totalitarianism.

    If we abandon it, what alternative vehicle can we use?

    We’ve tried the Democratic vehicle.

    But it too goes off the cliff.

    http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1877

    The green vehicle is a non-starter due to a watermelon going to seed in its biodiesel tank, and lack of fuel.

    The non-voting vehicle has its problems too. Don’t give sanction to the state by voting in its elections? Well, the state will still vote over you. The red and blue teams will still run all over us blades of grass with their spiked football cleats. If you choose to ignore the state that does not mean the state will choose to ignore you. And if you sit in the stands the ball still might hit you in the head and knock you out.

    You say you want a revolution? You better change your mind instead.

    So what’s Left to do?

    For the moment, the best strategy may be to take control of the LP (liquid petroleum?) powered vehicle and steer it to the left so we can Let Freedom Grow.

    http://kubby.com

    It’s true, we can lose, and end up with a Boortzified absurd contra-diction
    reich wing “libertarian” party anyway.

    Thus, we have to have backup plans for escaping from the box. Alternative vehicles, other mechanisms for applying that lever to go up and out of the box that we discover with our left hand.

    If in fact there are plenty of people in the party with whom you agree – and certainly there are more people outside the party who can be recruited – than why abandon the vehicle without a fight to take over the wheel, especially when no other vehicle is readily available?

    Granted, Dondero/Rittberg will be happy if you do, and maybe you’ll find it easier to breathe in the short run, but then you’re still in a box and need a vehicle for your getaway, and vehicles ain’t easy to build – especially in this box, where the light is so dim and the tools are few and crude, and the warden has stoolies and hidden cameras and the right to switch you to a different cell before your tunnel is finished.

    Abandoning what is quite possibly the only vehicle we can ever get might just be michiganeh. Eh?

    I say stay and fight.

    Fight and win.

    Let Freedom Grow!

    Translated from Aleksandr Rozenbaum (http://www.rozenbaum.ru):

    Raven….don’t circle over me…
    Brother, let me be…raven…

    And (from fuzzy memory, not exact lyrics at all. Song: “I can’t be locked up”, rough translation of title)):

    The greatest prison is the one I build myself in my own mind;
    They can’t lock me up, I’ve already locked myself in…
    They can put me under lock and key, but in my mind I’m free…
    Only I can let myself out, but I’ve lost the key…
    But when my heart beats hard I know they can’t lock me in.
    —————————-

    Maybe we can win, but only if we first choose to fight.

    Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

    -paulie cannoli

  77. paulie cannoli Says:

    Holy moly ayatolee, forgive them Flying Spaghetti Monster, they know not what they do…

    these mortal fools stepping to the one and only grand bastard cannoli…

    they will get battered black and blue.

    And if you read it all this far you must be dead in the head.

    Are you waking up or are you seeing red?

    I’m holidaying in club med….

    God’s green earth, Guantanabama, and the whole world bled.

  78. paulie cannoli Says:

    Speaking of a war against drugs:

    Like KMFDM my hallucinogenic ravings are a drug against war.

    Take that pill, and this pill, and solve the matrix puzzle, my fellow lawnmower-men.

  79. paulie cannoli Says:

    Hey, remember this ‘un?

    2-4-6-8
    organize to smash the state…

    As we move forward into 2007 let us resolve that in the new year we will finally rise up, break our chains, and rage against the matrix, break out of the box, escape from this insane asylum run by sadistic war criminals, and end our magic musical mystery detour by tearing down these walls we’ve boxed ourselves in with.

    Tear down the walls!

    ...

    Tear down the walls!...

    ....

  80. paulie cannoli Says:

    Incidentally, war on drugs has another meeting.

    Getting high on drugs – stimulants, painkillers, numbing agents, and hallucinogens, among others – has always been an integral part of warfare.

    Of course we can have peace on drugs too.
    Groovy!

    There’s a tunnel being dug, you can use it to escape.
    Can you dig it?

  81. paulie cannoli Says:

    Speaking of red and blue teams in this horror-fantasy football game we are playing and getting played in.

    And merry Christmas to all the good disciple Folks and to the peoples and lords of Vice! Like the good slaves in Old Egypt, sweating under the weight of the heavy bricks and tons you carry and distribute for the Pharaoh to build his monument and tomb with the eye at the top, sweating under his overseer’s crop.

    Peace be upon you, and peace in the middle east, and peace on all of Earth and in the Heavens. Hallelu-Jah and Amen!

  82. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    December 22nd, 2006 at 11:44 am
    Actually UA you leaving the Libertarian Party is a huge positive.”

    It would be a huge positive if Eric Dondero and UA BOTH left the Libertarian Party and stopped using the libertarian label to describe themselves.

  83. Andy Says:

    “They are, as they’ve presented themselves so many times, right-wing Republicans who REALLY mean it and REALLY hate taxes.”

    So REALLY hating taxes makes one a “right wing” Republican. Yeah, this makes a lot of sense…NOT!

  84. Andy Says:

    “The reason why liberal and libertarian sound alike is because we are and always have been on the left.”

    The term liberal was hijacked by socialists in the early half of the 1900’s. A real liberal is the same thing as a libertarian. However, most of the people who call themselves “liberal” today have little – or in some cases nothing – in common with libertarians.

  85. paulie cannoli Says:

    And many people who call themselves or are called by others liberal have a lot in common with us, and would be a lot more likely to join – and be much better at getting others to join than the people in the party now are – if the party (and many other parts of the movement) were not marketed chiefly to reich wing conservitudes, and if it was not presented in a way that makes it appear to most people to be ultra-conservative.

    There is no need for that to be the way in which it is presented. We can and must do better, and clear up the ideological confusion which makes Eric’s views possible and which makes UA react to that in the way he does.

    See Roderick Long’s article which I linked above to understand how and why. It lays out a very thorough case.

    Have you read it yet?

    here is the link again. I have to enter it manually (cut and paste is not working) so it may be wrong.

    here goes

    http://mises.org/story/2099

    If you read it all the way through you should be able to understand the task at hand.

    Right now, the Kubby campaign looks like the best chance of succeeding at that task, within the LP. Other similar efforts have to be undertaken in other parts of the libertarian movement, outside the party, to make it more left-friendly and bring in a much larger, more vibrant, more diverse audience and membership.

    To do this we must cut the cord with the reich wing and jettison the enemy fifth column. Then we will be free to grow.

    Let freedom grow!

  86. paulie cannoli Says:

    Andy,

    I guess I have more faith in Eric and UA’s potential than you do.

    I hope they both stick around and become even more libertarian.

    With Eric, it is less likely, because his anti-liberty holdout issues are the worst ones of all, and because he has been around the party and movement long enough to know better by now.

    Given this long-term lack of growth on his part, perhaps the movement would be better off without him, but given the fact that he has stuck around this long, it is also much less likely that he will stop calling himself a libertarian. So, since he insists on hanging around, I can only hope – albeit, faintly – that he actually becomes a real libertarian. You know like they say in AA - fake it until you make it.

    Alternatively, I hope to bring so many people from the other direction that Eric and those who think like him will no longer want to call themselves libertarian.

    Many of these people will not be 100% libertarian right away. There’s a natural growth curve; some people are slower than others.

    I was not a 100% libertarian when I first started voting for the LP. In my case I took the oath more seriously than most, and did not actually join until I was a 100/100 libertarian with a commitment to the non-initiation of force principle.

    The people we should be more tolerant of – and encourage to join and stay in the LP, if the LP is going to be worth anything – may have some opinions
    we disagree with along the lines of UA and they may dislike the LP even though they mostly agree on the issues because of the tone that has thus far been set.

    The challenge is to change that tone, quit making the LP come off like Eric does (and others, for example Boortz) and to make the party friendly and welcoming for allies of liberty from the left. Once they are in the LP the challenge is to make them more libertarian over time as well as more committed, more active, more effective, and more in leadership positions.

    Only then can freedom grow.

    If UA is a bellwether of this trend, the party pissing him off enough to quit after just a few years is NOT a good thing. Many of the things that are driving him away are exactly what is wrong with the LP.

    They are the things which have to be changed for the LP to have a fighting chance.

    They are the same things which cause me to like the LP less.

    On the other hand, UA has an intolerant streak too:

    While acknowledging the negative role that the Barr appointment can have as a catalyst, and is having in this case, I also think Barr himself has a lot of potential as he is growing towards embracing liberty. I hope this growth continues. His past experience as a high-ranking enemy of liberty could be very valuable. If he becomes a true hardcore libertarian over time, as he seems to be on the road to, then he could do great things.

    I think we should give him a chance – especially given that the move has already happened, whether we like it or not – and hope that he lets freedom grow in the world and in himself.

    It would be nice if that could happen without adding to the already existing rightward imbalance in the LP. But it won’t; it will invariably piss some people off, even if Barr keeps embracing liberty more fully, lots of people will still hold his track record against him for a long time to come.

    The only way to solve this – other than abandoning the LP - is to make up for it by working even harder at bringing in a lot of people from the left through the Kubby campaign to make up for countervailing trends moving the LP further to the right.

    Only then can freedom have a chance to grow.

  87. Andy Says:

    “Andy,

    I guess I have more faith in Eric and UA’s potential than you do.

    I hope they both stick around and become even more libertarian.”

    I can’t say that I’ve got much faith in either of them.

  88. paulie cannoli Says:

    You’re bypassing the reasons why.

    In order for the party to achieve much of anything it has to expand, and in order to that it has to bring in people who are not already 100% libertarians. There is a process whereny they explore, and hopefully adopt, our beliefs. In some cases, they have been trying to change what the party stands for instead. More commonly, they find the hazing process to be too uncomfortable and leave, and the party stays small. Long term activists get tired of not getting results and burn out.

    The LP has positioned itself to be malleable to people coming in from the right, by packaging our views to sound a lot like conservatives and by actually debating vigorously whether we should change our official views in a conservative-leaning direction on some issues such as abortion, gay rights, “fair” tax, the war and immigration. What I am trying to do is provide a balance while continuing to seek growth.

    As you know, I’m not just a left-libertarian in Anthony Gregory’s taxonomy, but, just as importantly, a radical libertarian. I want our views to stay firmly grounded in the non-initiation of force principle, but at the same time I realize that some of the people I want to bring will not be radical libertarians – certainly not right away.

    Another good point UA brought up was that a lot of time, the perception as to whether your fellow party members share your values is even more important than where we stand on the issues. I think that for a lot of libertarian-leaning people on the left it really does break down that way. They could easily be libertarians, but the perception that other libertarians ultimately do not care to have a healthy environment, social diversity and tolerance in a free society, and a better life for poor and blue collar workers makes it impossible for them to join the LP or call themselves libertarian.

    The easier response to this problem is to quit and abandon the LP to the reich wing. I believe that while stunt its medium-to-long term growth. What we need to do is to bring in a counterweighing surge from the left, and make things a little uncomfortable for the disgruntled conservatives while learning to treat the ideological growth process of people coming from a left/liberal perspective with respect. In other words, become a little less tolerant of Republitarians and a lot more tolerant of folks like UA. If we can’t get fairly hardcore libertarians who are already party members coming from a
    left perspective to stick around, that’s not exactly a good indicator for the success of what needs to be done.

  89. Chris Says:

    A shame, as Barr is more in line with the CP then the LP.

    He is looking probably at the numbers and money, he has a lot of D.C. to shed still. None the less, at least he is out of GOP Babylon.

  90. Eric Dondero Says:

    Andy, “stick around” what a fucking insult Newbie.

    I’ve been in this Libertarian movement since 1985 almost immediately when I got out of the Navy. In fact, I voted for my first Libertarian at age 20 absentee on board the USS Luce Guided Missle Destroyer, out in the Persian Gulf in 1982. Got my absentee ballot from Delaware, and voted straight Libertarian/Republican.

    What are you, like 24 years old or something?

    How dare you say something like “I hope Eric sticks around.”

    It’s you who is new to our movement, and is thus suspect.

  91. paulie cannoli Says:

    Eric, basic reading comprehension lessons are in order for you as per usual.

    Andy doesn’t want you to stick around.

    He wants you to go away.

    I do hope you stick around, and become a real libertarian although since you’ve been calling yourself a libertarian and helping spread pernicious misconceptions of what “libertarian” means this long it’s damned unlikely.

    In other words, you’ve been spreading your bullshit so long you have way too much vested interest in it, and probably even believe it yourself on some level, like any good con artist or propagandist.

    It’s true, Andy and I have been in the party and movement only since the 1990s, yet we already know the confused Republitarian strain of thought you represent is a mutant anomaly in the much longer history of the movement which has been around for centuries.

    When are you going to read this already? It really does lay it all out.

    http://mises.org/story/2099

    We also know that this poisonous mutant strain which combines libertarianism with its natural enemy, conservatism, has to be completely and thoroughly eradicated, to allow libertarianism to grow.

    I hope to finally achieve this overdue realignment, back to the natural order of things, through the Kubby campaign

    http://www.kubby.com/

    Let freedom grow!

  92. Eric Dondero Says:

    You say you have been involved in the libertarian movement since the “1990s”. Be a little more specific. Is that like 1991, or 1999?

    Makes a big difference.

  93. paulie cannoli Says:

    Well, Andy and I both joined in the ‘90s, but at different times.

    I think Andy said he joined in ‘96 – he can correct that if I’m wrong.

    I started voting LP in ‘92 and joined the party in ‘94.

    In between, I read all the books in the index of whatever edition of “Libertarianism in One Lesson” was out in ‘92, and did a whole lot of other reading, debate, etc.

    Back in ‘92 I was probably 100/90 or so on the Nolan quiz, so I was not yet a real libertarian.

    It was only when I could sign the pledge in good conscience and support the non-initiation of coercion principle consistently that I actually joined the party.

    But, since the movement is a less formal definition, I guess you could say 1992.

    Or, you could say earlier, since it took quite a bit of ideological evolution to arrive at 100/90.

    I’ve been aware of the libertarian arguments since at least 1984, and frequently talked to and debated libertarians within the drug policy reform movement – we worked withh many libertarians on that back when I was a liberal/leftist of the modern variety.

    I guess I was always a libertarian-leaning leftist even back then, and held many libertarian positions, such as gun rights.

    It was a long process to discover that libertarian solutions could work across the board.

    Temperamentally, I have always liked libertarian solutions better anyway, never having personally liked my dealing with government or bureaucracy on any level, but at one time in my life I thought at least some government was necessary.

    Of course I went through my lumpen-punk anarcho-nihilist phase too.

    Anyway, Eric, why do you think it makes a big difference?

    How long you have been claiming to be a libertarian is not important.

    The important thing is whether you accept the non-initiation of force principle. I do, therefore I am a libertarian. You don’t, therefore you’re not.

    If you called yourself a black man and went around in blackface, that would not make you black, even if you do it for a quarter century, and if you keep doing it for another quarter century after that it still won’t make you black.

    Now, I realize this is not a perfect analogy, since you actually can become a real libertarian without being born one – but the same basic principle applies. Calling yourself a libertarian, or voting for the LP, or any of the other measures you use, don’t make you a libertarian.

    If you don’t accept the basic premise – you are not one, and that’s that.

  94. Andy Says:

    “December 28th, 2006 at 9:35 am
    Andy, “stick around” what a fucking insult Newbie.

    I’ve been in this Libertarian movement since 1985 almost immediately when I got out of the Navy.”

    That wasn’t me that said “stick around.” I said that I hope that you LEAVE the party and stop pretending to be a libertarian. Just be honest and call yourself a neo-conservative with libertine social values.

    Same goes for UA. He sounds like more of a leftist than a libertarian.

    I’ve been a Libertarian Party member since 1996. I joined after I saw Harry Browne at the LP National Convention on C-SPAN.

    I don’t think that it necessarily matters how long somebody has been a member of the party. I’ve met some new members (including some who were young, late teens or early 20s) who were very knowledgable and I’ve met some party members who’ve been around for a long time who don’t know that much. Senoirity doesn’t automatically impress me.

  95. Trent Hill Says:

    Um, quick question.
    Why is Conservatism the “natural enemy” of the Libertarianism?
    I mean, I can understand you saying Neo-Conservatism is its enemy. But traditional Conservatism advocates small government in every form. Think Madison, and early Jefferson. Think, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
    I mean, I am an obvious Conservative, but I also consider myself Libertarian-leaning.

    As for the “Principle of non-initiation of force”, there are degrees of Libertarianism, just as there are degrees of liberalism and Conservatism.

  96. paulie cannoli Says:

    Trent,

    have you read this yet?

    http://mises.org/story/2099

    If you read it, a lot of what I say might make more sense to you.

    BTW, the folks you named were radical liberals in their time.

    Also, they did not consistently advocate freedom, although they did move the ball in the right direction.