Ernest Hancock to Run for LNC Chair
Using his familiar war cry of “Freedom’s the Answer, … What’s the Question,” Ernest “Ernie” Hancock has jumped into the race for Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. He texted me earlier today requesting that I change the URL on this chart of candidates for positions on the LNC. When I checked out the alternate URL, there was an announcement of his intention to run for the highest position on the governing board of the Libertarian Party.
While I’m certain Hancock will provide many additional future arguments in his attempt to persuade delegates to support him, he’s picked an issue already controversial within Libertarian Party circles to start his campaign: the Pledge. Hancock wrote:
While I felt no need to join the National Party [when Hancock initially became involved with Libertarian Party activities], I was clearly libertarian to all who knew the difference and was welcomed into the Libertarian Party in Arizona. I immediately understood the purpose of “The Pledge” and eventually joined the LPUS before attending the 1996 Convention in Washington, D.C. While I have no personal investment either way in the Pledge argument, I do see an advantage to having a “Statists are not Welcome” sign at the front door of the Libertarian Party. In fact it was at the 1996 Libertarian Party convention that the Pledge became very useful. Less than a week before the convention, the “Viper Militia” story broke in Arizona when the Janet Reno and the Clinton administration arrested over a dozen people claiming all sorts of illegal activity that would send many to jail. Even though the media would later admit they were lied to and that the arrests were a propaganda stunt more than anything else, the focus was on the two arrested registered Libertarians until officers at the Washington convention were able to make clear in every media interview how national party membership required a pledge to the non-initiation of force…“oh, well then, never mind”. It was made clear at the convention in 1996 that it was this very reason in the early ‘70’s which prompted the creation of the pledge. But this experience has little to do with my concerns about the effort to eliminate the Pledge.The most vocal argument over the years is that the pledge is responsible for the loss of potential membership from those who find it too restricting, open to interpretation, anarchist, etc. I am much more concerned about the LP becoming hypocritical in their support of the libertarian principles behind the intent of the pledge than I am the retention of the Pledge. So while I support the retention of the Pledge, you’ll find me instead spending my time and effort on support of what the Pledge was suppose to accomplish, a welcome haven and resource nexus for those supportive of promoting no-compromise libertarian principles.
This brings us to the purpose of the LPUS. “We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.” It was this first sentence of the “Statement of Principles” that was the most inviting to an activist who had lost any tolerance for subtlety in his effort to make his position clear. (On a side note: I have noticed that many in opposition to the Pledge are also in opposition to this portion of the Statement of Principles.)
The volume of the cry to remove anything that might be considered offensive to members of other parties are often accompanied with statements about how ‘the Libertarian Party is after all a political party, and political parties are in existence to elect individuals to public office so that public policy can be altered.’
I could spend a great deal of time in this introduction on missed opportunities, advocate a focus on the strengths of libertarian philosophy, and wonder aloud about “Where in the hell is the Libertarian Party in their ‘challenge of the omnipotent state and defense of the individual’ when everything we have been warning the world about is currently happening all around us,” but right now I want to stress how concerned I am about the trend these three issues represent. The sustained campaign to oppose statements that clearly set libertarians apart from the philosophies which support the “omnipotent state” must be clearly challenged. The idea that votes are more important than freeing the minds of the people who would freely support us when we demonstrate that we seek freedom above recognition is counterproductive to all we hope to accomplish.
So far, Hancock is the only announced challenger to current LNC Chair Bill Redpath, who just announced his intention to seek reelection for the seat.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
The last paragraph of Mr. Hancock’s statement above indicates to me that the man gets it. Libertarians would do well to listen to what he has to say about the potential of the LP.
The LP should also learn a lesson from the Ron Paul campaign. “Radical” ideas like just leaving Iraq and just eliminating the income tax don’t turn off people. These ideas have inspired and animated people. The Ron Paul Revolution proves this.
I feel vindicated in that after years of bitching that the LP needs to target the young and people not involved in politics, Ron Paul has captured the imaginations of these very people. A lot of these people are supporting him in spite of not agreeing with his unlibertarian positions on immigration and abortion.
It is time that the LP quit worrying about what disgruntled Republicrats think about radical libertarianism – these clowns may love little tax cuts and “common sense” gun laws, but they don’t love freedom. They don’t even know what it is. Instead of seeking approval from the current mainstream, the LP needs to create a new mainstream. This new mainstream will be comprised of many people who never voted before because they didn’t have anything worth voting for – that would include LP candidates that pretend to be Republicrats.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
I want to know if Ernie agrees with the LNC’s recent decision to sell out on LP members. ERnie, do you approve of the decision to invite Ron Paul to run as Libertarian for president? Do you approve of allowing the Republican Party to use BallotBase?
Must know these things.
Thanks,
Maria
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 am
What Mr. Hancock’s statement says, in short, is, “If you don’t believe in throwing poor grandmas out on the street without their Social Security and Medicare… if you don’t believe in selling off the street you live on to the highest bidder and paying $5 in tolls to leave your driveway… if you don’t believe in the right of the individual to own a nuke… if you don’t believe an unorganized militia armed solely at the members’ own expense is sufficient to defend us from invasion by an organized, heavily armed foreign army with naval and air capacity… if, in short, you don’t believe in total anarchy… GET THE HELL OUT OF MY PARTY!”
Well… have done.
Have fun with your little club, Mr. Hancock; it’s good to know you’re dedicated to making it as little as possible.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 am
Hancock has a strong message and makes some good points. It also helps to have a functional organization to help get out the message and capture people attracted to the message.
The Arizona LP website is grossly out of date:
http://www.azlp.org/
From the website:
News Articles: Barry Hess For Governor of Arizona 2006
Barry Hess, vice-chair of the Arizona Libertarian Party, has announced that he will formally …
Minutes of the 2005 Libertarian Statutory Organizing Convention
Minutes of the ..
While I support Redpath for LNC Chair, I do hope Hancock can use his influence to cause an update to the Arizona Libertarian Party website before the Denver Convention.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Mr Overstreet, are you using the secret Carl Milsted decoder ring to translate Mr. Hancock’s statement?
Mr. Hancock does plainly state, “I do see an advantage to having a ‘Statists are not Welcome’ sign at the front door of the Libertarian Party.”
It seems to me that if one prefers statism, there are other political parties one might find preferable. Why have a political party that simply mirrors another political party? If you merely want to be in a party that claims to want smaller government but is ineffective in accomplishing that goal, go join the GOP.
All I’m saying is that if you want a dynamic party that attracts large numbers of enthusiastic activists instead of a small party of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-of-the-road clones who only seek approval of their statist friends, then LP members might do well to listen to what Mr. Hancock has to say.
Also Mr. Overstreet, what makes you think you would only be charged $5 to leave your driveway when the anarchists own your street? I would charge you at least $50. But, to keep things fair in the aggregate, I would charge your neighbors only five cents.
I’m also wondering what Mr. Hancock has to do with the Arizona LP website. He is not an officer in that party and he has nothing to do with their website. His Freedom’s Phoenix website is a fine website that is updated daily. It is also far more influential in promoting freedom than the Arizona LP could ever hope to be.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Well if Wes Benedict would go out of his way to smear the guy in less than a day, he might be worth voting for. I usually consider it a very noteworthy sign if a person’s opponents have to go negative so early in the race.
Typically, reform and revolution, go through four stages.
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” -Gahndi
Step two in only a day. Great progress Ernest! This should prove interesting.
Sincerely,
Wes Wagner
Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Wes (geeze I feel weird saying that),
As the Southwest Region LNC Rep, I have privately (on our southwest region email group) pointed out all websites that were out of date. I’ve pointed it out about Arizona more than once and starting about a year ago plus in my public reports to the LNC .
Out of date websites have long been a pet peeve of mine.
Visit here and scroll down to the article “Texas Two-Step Turnaround”
http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html
Once I had my own Travis County Texas LP pass a resolution granting me the authority to take over the website if it didn’t get updated in a certain amount of time. It got updated shortly after.
If Hancock’s campaign for Chair embarrasses Arizona into fixing it’s website, then that would be one of probably many positives resulting from Hancock’s campaign.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
test
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Wes, what are your issues in running against Chuck?
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I voted for Chuck for Vice Chair in 2006 and still believe he was the best of the available choices in 2006. I don’t expect to be focusing much on Chuck in 2008. I think he’s very dedicated, well-meaning, and one of the hardest workers in the party. I’ll try to demonstrate that having me serve as Vice Chair would be best for the LP. If, in the process, I prove myself wrong, so be it.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Off topic. RP/RP on MTP. Eric Dondero mentioned.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Actually, now that I am no longer a member of the LP, I think Ernie Hancock would be a great chair. As a radical protest organization that didn’t waste so much on ballot access and overhead, the LP could be effective.
I want the purists to either win big, or lose big. My beef with the LP is its trying to be two contradictory things: protest organization or political party devoted to electing freedom-minded politicians.
As a bonus, Ernie is a gentleman, unlike so many of the vocal purists. In Portland Ernie opposed the reformers with passion without stooping to name-calling, strawman arguments, etc.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Carl, I’m glad to see you support Ernie Hancock. It is unfortunate that the LRC saw fit to stoop to using the strawman arguments that Kris Overstreet is still using (see above).
By the way, didn’t you actually write most of that rhetoric, Carl?
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Still one of the all-time funniest stories about the Libertarian Party of Texas. It’s a must read.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2004-11-11/news/democracy-inaction/full
Overstreet’s blog is called “lyans roar.” The Dallas Observer describes Overstreet as “bald head, pasty white skin, an ample gut. He had on a fanny pack,”
I think when Libertarians get so thoroughly embarrassed, if they can’t laugh at themselves, then they join the Reform Caucus. After that, they quit altogether, sometimes multiple times but only after multiple threats.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:29 pm
My first exposure to Mr. Overstreet was at some libertarian blog where he was ranting and raving the LRC line about how libertarians needed to think and act in order to appeal to the average Joe.
Then I visited his website (he was running for state legislature) where he was shown wearing a Confederate uniform and talking about porno comics.
Nucking Futs!
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
On the issue of the LP, as a political body, endorsing Ron Paul …
I DO NOT support the LPUS endorsing another party’s candidate. If the LNC had any confidence in the principles (had the platform not been stripped of the very issues that is making Ron Paul so popular) they would have taken the opportunity to emphasize,... what? Our commitment to,... what? They had no choice but to try and jump on the coat tails of the r3VOLution, they were left with nothing to offer the liberty movement, but ballot status for “Nerf Libertarians with a Foam Core Platform” – L. Neil Smith
The Libertarian Party of the United States can play a very big part in this election cycle if they were to get over their inferiority complex and start acting like the heroes they often quote. It was a mistake at many levels for Presidential candidates and party officials to endorse Ron Paul in their capacities as representatives of the LP. As an individual I have no problem with such endorsements or even better real work! But as the years have passed I have seen independent thought replaced with a herd mentality unbecoming libertarians. And I will change that immediately.
The announcement page at www.ErnestHancock.org is the exact same page from 2006 and exactly what I said during my 2004 Chair race. Just like Ron Paul is experiencing a renewed understanding of his message, I know that the LP in convention will someday support what I have been saying for a long time. But the best way to communicate such ideas about the power of activism is to lead by example. I was very disappointed with the LPUS after the nomination of Badnarik in 2004 when they couldn’t understand the opportunity of the first private space travel media event that summer with the launch of SpaceShipOne and they chose not to attend. http://westernlibertarian.org/ss1_pics.htm
My concern for the future relevance of the LPUS was heightened again after witnessing the events at the 2006 convention in Oregon.
These events reinforced my opinion of many years that waiting on the LPUS to get into the fight for liberty was a total waste of time.
I am well known for many efforts that are cutting edge and effective. Those that fear the controversy of advocating libertarianism without apology have had their chance to have an impact for far toooo looong. I am way past advocating a return to activism against the Police State,... I am now campaigning. Many have wondered where “Ernie” has been in the campaigns of ‘04 and ‘06. They were my introduction and an attempt to demonstrate how the internal workings of the LPUS has become corrupt. I learned in 1996 with the Rick Tompkins’ campaign just how ‘libertarian’ the libertarian inside game was and knew I didn’t have the resources nor the stomach to fight for those that were being lied to and cheated out of a real chance to make a difference. Too many of the best and brightest left the LP way before Ron Paul’s effort and I’m more than happy to detail why when time permits. But they are back for another last effort for a r3VOLution between the ears,... and where in the hell is the LP?
The structure of the r3VOLution and FreedomsPhoenix.com was totally based on libertarian concepts of ‘Wiki’ activism (The answer is always “Yes”, take responsibility for your own actions, and libertarianism is well defined so no need to waste your time trying to redefine it). The LPUS could be the liberty resource for the Planet Earth but has wasted the talent and enthusiasm in an attempt to make sure that they didn’t upset the very media that is now being ignored into bankruptcy.
Having been the start of the r3VOLution I was in a very good position to make certain that no power was consolidated. There was not to be a ‘Central Plan for Freedom’ and everyone that requested the artwork or contacts or help or resources were encouraged and I never asked what their politics were or what they were going to do with the information. I did the best I could to spread the activism as fast as possible and as far as possible. While the LP use to have a very detailed platform, the r3VOLution had the writings and advocacy of Dr. Paul.
Dr. Paul had been a speaker at two of our Freedom Summits www.FreedomSummit.com and I have booked him many times for radio shows and published his writings so I knew him to be consistent (one of the attributes I find very important in politics). What you are seeing happening in the r3VOLution is exactly what I would have expected for the LPUS had I been elected Chair in 2004 or 2006. And those that don’t see what I do can be expected to lead the LPUS into oblivion (how’s it been going BTW?)
Some of you may not have known that I am credited with starting the Ron Paul Revolution www.RonPaulRevolution.org & .com. The now famous logo was used in my Secretary of State race in 2006. However I got the idea from an Internet graphic I had seen over a year before that (don’t remember where). A speech given this month at the Hope for America Conference explains a lot about what I do and why. http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=028081
I have traveled the country in support of the r3VOLution. It is a libertarian revolution that a Republican libertarian is now fighting for us all and I have no problem helping as much as possible (YouTube coverage of many of my trips are here http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ernesthancock )
In some of those videos you will recognize Barry Hess helping the r3VOLution from the very beginning. neither he or I have made any noise about our participation in the Ron Paul Revolution, but we have not been secret about it either.
Many Republicans have expressed their concern about our eager participation in the election cycle for Ron Paul until Ron Paul made it clear that he is a libertarian.
I have made it very clear to all that pay even the slightest attention that I have always focused on the mission of freeing as many minds as possible. I see the LPUS as an effective tool in building liberty for me and my loved ones (I guess others will benefit as well
But that tool is only as effective as it is strong. I’ll let the included links explain how I believe strength and influence is achieved.
I haven’t paid any attention to the “Ouch. Quit it. Ouch. Quit it.” inside the LPUS because I know better and I’ve been busy fighting for freedom. When the LP in convention is ready to get back into the fight they’ll let me and everyone else know by electing me (or someone with similar views) Chairman.
Some more research material for future supporters and opponents that need some material
April 3rd 2007 I explained what was going to happen with the Ron Paul Revolution and the LPUS and why.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=016940
Barry and I announced back in April of 2007 – Here
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=018016
Lots of Ernest Hancock articles Here http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Writer-Bio-Page.htm?EdNo=001
& here
http://ernesthancock.com/html/articles.html
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
We makes the article he mentions as well.
“When the Libertarian Party heard about it, though, they were less than thrilled. I received a phone call from party flack Wes Benedict not long after. He wanted to ask me a few questions about my position on various issues in order to make sure I wasn’t “a Communist.” I wondered if the party would try to dunk me in a river to see if I’d float, too.
His questions, word for word: 1) Do you think taxes are too high? 2) Do you think women should be allowed to own guns? 3) Would you support John Kerry having anal sex with George Bush?
At first I felt bad for Benedict, because he clearly drew the short straw in having to call me. But then I remembered the party had given me no money and no support, so I hung up on him after I yelled about the ridiculous anal sex question. That was in July. It was the last time I took a phone call from the party. ”
December 24th, 2007 at 6:06 am
The writer/candidate got item 1) and 2) correct, but misquoted me on 3). What I said was “3) Would you support the right of John Kerry to have anal sex with George Bush if they wanted to.”
To me, the guy was obviously running for office as a Libertarian so he could lampoon the experience. Therefore, I offered him some good material and he printed it, although he misquoted me. However, if I remember correctly, he didn’t actually hang up on me at that point he said he did, but that was a long time ago so I don’t remember all of the details.
In any case, the article’s a classic and demonstrates once again that many of the so-called “reformers” who blame the Libertarian Party Platform for all of their woes actually have many other “issues.”
At the end of the day, I’d rather be the non-reformer than the reformed Kris Overstreet.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Wes,
My own position from the beginning is that the U.S. needs a libertarian party set up to win elections. Using the existing LP for this purpose makes sense in that it has much of the infrastructure in place. However, it also has bylaws and a culture better set up for being a radical protest organization.
The two functions are both useful, but should be performed by separate organizations.
There are three separate movements within the LP:
1. The radicals who know what they are doing, such as Ernie Hancock. He made it clear when I spoke with him that attempting to win elections as Libertarians is a distraction. Speaking out and getting publicity was his CONOPS.
2. The reformers who want the LP to be a political party in the same sense as the D’s and R’s; that is, towards electing people to office. This means being moderate enough to be electable, and having a base from all over the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart.
3. Those who live in fairyland who think it is possible to be as radical as a protest organization and still win elections. These are the ones I oppose. Given that this is probably the largest faction in the LP —at least among those who show up for conventions—I have written off the LP as hopeless.
Case in point: many in Faction 3 say that “the platform doesn’t matter,” that the LP simply needs to cut back on the colloidal silver and pornographic comics. Yet, these are the same people who screamed bloody murder at the prospect of changing the platform. Obviously, the platform mattered to them—a lot. Earth to clueless Libertarians: issues matter to other people as well.
Those in Faction 3 can do less damage to an LP run as a protest organization under someone like Hancock. If they go around petitioning and running for office under the ultra-radical banner, they are simply wasting their own time and money. Faction 1 can still operate effectively doing street theater. On the other hand, Faction 2 cannot operate effectively as long as 1 and 3 insist that the Party have a restrictive membership oath and uncompromisingly radical official propaganda.
Note that I speak for myself. The LRC is now run by other people, those in Faction 2 who still think that the LP can be turned into a real political party. And they could be right: it now takes a 2/3 vote to restore the platform to its pre-2006 insanity.
But I’d rather work within a mainstream party or start a new party than spend several conventions wrestling for control over an organization with little net value.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
It’s ludicrous to call Ron Paul’s campaign “radical” in the context of LP radicals vs. LP reformers. See
http://libertarianintelligence.com/2007/12/ron-paul-backslides-on-meet-press.html
http://knowinghumans.net/2007/12/teflon-libertarian-moderate.html
December 24th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Carl, I believe a platform can be very important regarding the integrity of a political party and yet be unimportant in regards to the average voter.
The obsession with signing up people as members of the LP is one thing that drives people away from the LP. This has little to do with electing libertarians. Most people vote for candidates and contribute to campaigns without belonging to any party. The vast majority of people that identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats don’t actually belong to the party.
Also, almost every Republican or Democrat candidate has their own platform and does not adhere to their party’s platform. Most LP candidates don’t even bother to produce a coherent platform. Voters are interested in what a candidate proposes – most don’t bother to read a party’s manifesto.
Finally, if you care about party unity, why do you catagorize and sub-classify each individual? Why not simply debate strategy, proposals and positions on their merit? While I’m sure you would disagree, it is possible to have multiple strategies at the same time as long as they promote the same principles.
I’ve come to the conclusion that political parties are as bad as government. The opportunists and ego-driven control freaks that gravitate to parties are every bit as awful as the professional politicians that will stoop to any level to obtain power.
If libertarianism ever has any success in the electoral realm, I think it will be achieved by an independent candidate that can form temporary alliances with interest groups and possibly existing third parties. There may even be some promise in organizing temporary political parties to address specific issues.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I don’t think Ron Paul has backed off of advocating the abolition of the income tax or of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. His statements on Meet The Press certainly didn’t indicate that, despite the spin.
Compared to the baby-step moderation advanced by the reformers, these positions are pretty radical. These positions are a far cry from the Iraq Exit Strategy and the Fair Tax proposals supported by many reformers. I certainly recall the refrain from the reformers “the public isn’t ready for this” regarding damn near every plank in the LP platform.
I don’t think it is ludicrous to describe Ron Paul’s campaign as radical in the context of LP reformers. Of course it would be ludicrous to describe the campaign as radical in the context of LP radicals. That’s because Ron Paul just isn’t that radical. The reformers are anti-radical and about as bland as warm milk.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that military cuts could be used to fund programs such as Medicaid and road repairs.
His calls for eliminating the IRS are in the context of moving all welfare programs to the states—not abolishing all welfare.
To make such statements at an LP convention is to invite apoplexy.
December 24th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Carl, my impression of what Ron Paul has said regarding federal social programs is that he would like to eliminate them but that people are dependent on them. Therefore, he talks about phasing them out by allowing young people to opt out. He talks about moving a lot of laws, programs, and functions to the states – including abortion laws and perhaps welfare programs.
In the context of running for the Presidency, a federal office, what would you have him do? Require states to provide welfare? Require states to allow or outlaw abortion, or drugs?
Personally, I would be happy if the entire federal government was eliminated tomorrow. Ron Paul won’t do this, but he would like to reduce the size, scope and power of the federal government substantially. Until this occurs, states can’t really do much to reduce government intrusion.
LP members can only whittle away at the margins of state government until something is done about the federal government. They may wish to eliminate all welfare at all levels, but federal officeholders can only act on the federal level.
My priorities are bringing an end to our militarized empire abroad and ending the police/surveillance state at home. This is the only reason I support Ron Paul. If he can bring some economic sanity to the federal government, that is a bonus. If he were running for state governor, I probably wouldn’t support him. It wouldn’t matter what his foreign policy positions were – governors have no control over foreign policy.
You seem to be saying that a candidate for federal office offer policy positions that states should follow. Dr. Paul is saying that many policies should be decided by the state. What is your problem with decentralization?
I’m not trying to make the case that Ron Paul is a libertarian, although on some issues he is more libertarian than many LP members. He is a quirky iconoclast paleoconservative constitutionalist. I don’t know why so many LP members support Ron Paul, but I suppose it is because his libertarian positives outweigh his negatives and he is getting those messages out.
No matter how you spin it though, Ron Paul is more radical on the income tax issue and the Iraq war issue than the IES/Fair Tax LP reformers. And yes, I know not every reformer supported the IES and/or the Fair Tax, but many did/do. Also, I never catagorized LP members as reformers, they put that label on themselves.
December 24th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
By the way, just for the record, I do support John Kerry having sex with George Bush – but only in the missionary position and nothing freaky.
December 24th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Tom,
As a self-identified reformer who believes IES was a mistake and the FAIR tax might be an improvement but isn’t something I advocate, I have been interested in how Ron’s been campaigning. My interpretation is that his focus is on cutting spending, especially non-US-defense military spending.
What he doesn’t seem to be doing is putting forth a specific plan. He’s saying he’d like to end the income tax, but he’s leaving some room on what he’d do if elected. Obviously the specifics need to be negotiated with Congress.
There’s a lot of wiggle room there, which is wise, IMO. “Politics is the art of compromise” is an unavoidable truism.
-Bob
December 24th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Tom, I have been actively supporting Ron Paul with both time and treasure. I have my disagreements, but that is true for all candidates. His views are much closer to mine than those stated in the LP Platform, even post 2006.
Ron Paul’s numbers don’t add up, but so far he is getting away with it. I wish he would advocate a carbon tax as part of the plan to eliminate the income tax. Then he could say he has a better plan to fight international terrorism than his opponents, given that Saudi Arabia is the main source of funding for radical Islam. It would also fill some gaps in his environmental policies.
My observation over the past years has been that radical libertarians are much more comfortable supporting moderate libertarians when they don’t run on the Libertarian ticket. My attempts to turn the LP into the coalition that is now supporting Ron Paul have been met with great derision by people who have gone on to work hard for Ron Paul.
December 24th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I don’t know what moderate libertarians have run outside the LP, so I’m not sure of what you speak.
But, would you have been happy to support a LP candidate for President that called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, ending the income tax, and ending the federal war on drugs with no bitching and moaning about those issues being too radical for the general public? How about a majority of the LRC?
Am I wrong that these positions would have drawn criticism from the LRC for being too radical for the voters?
December 24th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Carl, I think you are wrong about a carbon tax, assuming that you suppose that would mean the US would import less oil from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations.
The oil market is global. If the US purchased no oil from Saudi Arabia, someone else would. That would free up supply and that would be purchased by America. In other words, we are talking about playing musical chairs with a fixed number of chairs and a fixed number of players.
Your position would also seem to presuppose that America must have some degree of political control in any nation with which we do business and this can’t be changed.
It could be said that those who you label “terrorists” are merely seeking self-determination in nations like Saudi Arabia where the US has propped up the House of Saud. It is not lost on these people that America, while claiming to support democracy in the Mideast, overtly and covertly supports regimes which are not democratic, such as Egypt and Pakistan.
The US may find that “terrorist” opposition would begin to fade away when the US stops supporting oppressive regimes around the world. If Islamic fundamentalists took over Saudi Arabia, they would still sell oil or their people would have to eat sand. It could be they would be too busy running a nation to engage America in other places.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Carl, it occurs to me that perhaps the LRC confused the so-called radicals with the strawmen they set up. The LRC didn’t engage people to set up a coalition, they talked at the strawmen they set up. A perfect example of this type of rhetoric is shown above from Kris Overstreet. There is no room for coalition building in that rhetoric and there is no room for compromise – compromise being a word frequently thrown about by the LRC.
Overstreet’s rhetoric is hysterical hyperbole. Perhaps it applies to 1 or 2 individuals. It certainly doesn’t apply to many. What kind of coalition could the LRC possibly build with that kind of rhetoric?
I think the problem with the LRC is that you guys needed a mirror to look into so you could see yourselves as others saw you and overcome the groupthink.
When a guy that brags about being a porn cartoonist, not working, and wears a Confederate uniform (on his campaign website) is telling me that he can’t win elections because MY ideas are too radical and are ruining his political party, it is time for a reality check.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Anyway, back to the subject – Mr. Hancock for LNC Chair. At the end of his announcement, which is not posted above, he writes:
“The Libertarian Party was once well known as the head of the spear on the very issues that now dominate the national press, yet we are not included in the national debate. Not only do I intend to use this campaign for the Chairmanship to demonstrate a desire and ability to place libertarian philosophy as a solution to the problems facing America into the minds of the people in America and the rest of the world, but to ask why it hasn’t been done already.”
This is a fair question and an important one. Bill Redpath is not a bad guy. He has been a star activist in the LP and done great things. But, maybe it is time for a new direction for the LNC. I say this as someone now on the outside and not involved in the LP soap opera and internal politics.
I got fed up with the LP a while ago and split. However, I would love to see the LP get on its feet and do something – anything – that advances libertarianism. Losing Shane Cory, having some fresh faces on the LNC, and Ernie Hancock as Chair might help. I’d like to come back and sell a party I can be proud of with positions that mean something.
Something more than “smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom”. That shit is off Dick Armey’s website. What ever happened to peace, prosperity and freedom? I don’t want more freedom, I want freedom.
December 24th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Tom Blanton writes: “When a guy that brags about being a porn cartoonist, not working, and wears a Confederate uniform (on his campaign website) is telling me that he can’t win elections because MY ideas are too radical and are ruining his political party, it is time for a reality check.”
No shit! Did Overstreet really do this? ROTFLMAO
!
Okay I’ll go with PEACE, PROSPERITY and FREEDOM, but still prefer Civil Liberties, Economic Freedom and non-Interventionism. Whatever works, but get rid of that silly line the LP has now.
MHW
December 25th, 2007 at 2:08 am
Tom, if the Platform is so unimportant, then why do we need it to say that all taxation should be abolished, that all tax enforcement should immediately cease, to tacitly deny that government has any legitimate purpose, and that the environment should only be protected through nuisance torts? If you want to “debate strategy, proposals and positions on their merit”, then take a look at the leading reformer Platform draft: http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Greatest_Hits_Draft_Platform .
Abolishing the income tax and withdrawing from Iraq don’t make Paul a radical libertarian; I favor those things too, and I’m no radical. You write: “Compared to the baby-step moderation advanced by the reformers, these positions are pretty radical.” Wrong. Read our Platform proposal. Paul’s unwillingness to challenge the legitimacy of public schools and Social Security was simply embarrassing to this moderate Libertarian. Even the Cato Institute is more radical than that.
You write: “I don’t think it is ludicrous to describe Ron Paul’s campaign as radical in the context of LP reformers.” That’s mere argument by assertion. I listed a dozen positions of LP moderates that radicals viciously attack when anyone other than Ron Paul proposes them. All the excuses you offer for Ron Paul’s moderation are exactly the kind of transition planning and decentralism that we moderates want the Platform to accommodate but that radicals criticize.
You ask: “Would you have been happy to support a LP candidate for President that called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, ending the income tax, and ending the federal war on drugs with no bitching and moaning about those issues being too radical for the general public?” Absolutely. Those positions aren’t anarchism. What we reformers primarily object to is the radicals’ use of the Pledge and Platform to try to make anarchism the idealized and quasi-official position of the LP. With the possible exception of Bergland, about whose campaign I have very little data, I’m reasonably sure that every LP presidential candidate has implicitly or explicitly distanced himself from anarchism.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:05 am
Kris Overstreet, the LP Reformer has his comic porn and kid-safe option site here:
http://www.wlpcomics.com/strips.html
Brian Holtz,
I here you wear a fanny pack. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I just was curious if it was the “in thing” amongst LP reformers . . . to wear fanny packs.
Brian, do you wear a fanny pack?
December 25th, 2007 at 3:27 am
http://web.archive.org/web/20060719023609/http://voteoverstreet.org/skeletons.html
December 25th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I’d be interested in knowing more about Ernie’s background, i.e. what assets and skills he bring to the job. And more specifics about his plans.
Ernie you readin’ this?
MHW
December 26th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Wes found that crazy web page about Overstreet. Check it out Michael if you already haven’t. I couldn’t have made up anything so wacky.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060719023609/http://voteoverstreet.org/skeletons.html
December 26th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Well Brian, maybe I am simply delusional, but I distinctly remember having arguments with some, not all, reformers about things that seemed to me to be far less radical than anarchism.
The type of rhetoric used by Mr. Overstreet above was not uncommon and that stuff is a little over the top, in my opinion. Many reformers seemed intent on spinning everything into “anarchy next Wednesday” – a slogan used often by many. I didn’t just invent the term “baby-steps” either. I have heard this often in the context of not proposing something “voters aren’t ready for” by people who advocated taking baby-steps – their rhetoric not mine.
I never even implied that Ron Paul’s position on Iraq or the income tax made him a radical libertarian – you are the one putting those words in my mouth. My only point is that these ideas are more radical than the IES and the Fair Tax – crap supported by more than a few reformer types. My original post (the first post on the thread) makes no reference to reformers, it refers only to libertarians and it should be clear that I am talking about those libertarians that find immediate withdrawal from Iraq and elimination of the income tax to be radical – and there a number of them out there.
Above, I even state that I am not even trying to make the case that Ron Paul IS a libertarian. He is certainly not God. Maybe the lesser of all evils who is able to put a few issues I care about into the public debate.
I never addressed the issues that bother you about Ron Paul. Lots of his issues bother me also. What I find odd about the Paul campaign is that both anarchists and reformers/moderates are supporting him.
I agree that every LP candidate for President has distanced themselves from anarchy, but that never stopped anarchists from supporting them without a lot of bitching, even while listening to the reformers bitch about the LP being controlled by a bunch of anarchists.
If you had actually read what I wrote, I only said the platform was unimportant in regards to the average voter. It was the reformers argument that the platform should be changed to appeal to the average voter and therefore, very important. I think what radicals have criticized have been changes to what some consider basic principles.
In fact Brian, it seems you have to put words in my mouth so you can have something to bitch and argue about now.
Let me conclude by conceding that I am wrong about everything, nothing I have ever said makes any sense, I have no right to my perceptions or opinions, you are correct about everything and you possess an intellect far superior to mine. That’s why I’m out of the LP and I’m leaving it all up to you wonderful all-knowing moderate reformers to guide the LP to success.
Besides, I’m sick of arguing in circles with all you smart fuckers.
In fact, maybe the LP shouldn’t consider Ernie Hancock for LNC Chair. Perhaps you can beg Carl Milsted to return and become Chair.
Go to it, Brian!
A little more freedom in our great-grandchildren’s time!
December 26th, 2007 at 11:13 am
All your mockery of Mr. Overstreet reinforces the reformist viewpoint. Despite having very low funding, and a questionable personal record, Kris got one of the highest vote totals for a Libertarian running for Texas state house.
——
Regarding the Fair Tax: many reformers are for it. I have strong reservations, and have written them publicly. (google for them) Some reformers are non-interventionists; some are liberventionists. Some are pro-life, some pro-choice.
A major theme of the Caucus was to have a platform that sticks to those areas where libertarians—broadly defined—agree. Leave the heated debates over the contentious issues to the post meeting beerfests.
For example, on taxes I would call for a tax system that is simpler, preserves privacy, and approximates user fees where possible. Over time, taxes should be reduced dramatically, after government spending is cut and debt paid off.
Such a statement encompasses the Fair Tax position, the Ron Paul position, the Geolibertarian position, and even the anarchist position.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
“I think when Libertarians get so thoroughly embarrassed, if they can’t laugh at themselves, then they join the Reform Caucus. After that, they quit altogether, sometimes multiple times but only after multiple threats.”
That Benedict is making fun of our super secret decoder rings but little does he know that we have both Platform and Bylaws meetings in the Cocoon. We cannot be stopped. No one escapes the deadly sting of the Monarch!
December 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Tom, I never said that reformers only criticize anarchism. You need to look up the words “only” and “primarily” in your nearest dictionary.
“Anarchy next Wednesday” is an accurate description of the LP Platform’s traditional position that there should be immediate non-enforcement of tax laws, and that people should immediately be allowed to personally secede from all government. Again, it sounds like you’re unfamiliar with the Platform you’re asking those of us on PlatCom to restore.
The phrase “baby steps” appears only once on the LRC web site: “[Quiz2D] is being used to study our market, determining which issues we can afford to be radical on and which we need to take baby steps with.” This is obviously not an across-the-board recommendation that the LP only propose baby steps. At any rate, I’ve already convinced the LRC not to try in Denver to make the Platform be a legislative program of near-term incremental reforms. The idea is instead to state our timeless directional principles, ruling out neither incremental reform nor radical destination.
Tom) I never even implied that Ron Paul’s position on Iraq or the income tax made him a radical libertarian – you are the one putting those words in my mouth. My only point is that these ideas are more radical than the IES and the Fair Tax (Tom
I never said that you called Paul a “radical libertarian”. I said that you and others have “call[ed] Ron Paul’s campaign ‘radical’ in the context of LP radicals vs. LP reformers.”
You claim that your use of “radical” was with respect to IES and Fair Tax, but your comment made no comparison to any such positions. You wrote: “The LP should also learn a lesson from the Ron Paul campaign. ‘Radical’ ideas like just leaving Iraq and just eliminating the income tax don’t turn off people. [...] It is time that the LP quit worrying about what disgruntled Republicrats think about radical libertarianism.” It’s just laughable to deny you were calling Ron Paul’s campaign radical.
You’re simply confused to think that the 12 moderate heresies of Paul’s that I list “bother” me. I support every single one of them.
I’m glad you too find it “odd” that anarchists support Paul while bitterly criticizing reformers who advocate Paul’s moderate heresies. The light bulb above your head is beginning to flicker.
I don’t care that anarchists haven’t complained about LP presidential candidates not advocating anarchism—that’s not going to make it OK for our fundamental documents to prescribe anarchism. You say “what radicals have criticized have been changes to what some consider basic principles”. So tell us: what non-anarchist “basic principles” does the Greatest Hits draft change? Where’s the beef?
Wes, I “here” you’re both a Ron Paul contributor and critic of reformer efforts to broaden the LP Platform. At http://knowinghumans.net/2007/12/teflon-libertarian-moderate.html I list 12 Ron Paul positions that are bitterly criticized by radical libertarians when they are advocated by Libertarians whose name isn’t Ron Paul. Can you tell us which of those 12 positions (if any) you would support broadening the Platform to accommodate?
I’m not sure I understand the point of your fanny pack question. If you’re wondering how similar I am to Kris Overstreet (about whom I don’t ever remembering hearing before this thread), I see from your link that he says he is a Bible-quoting Southern “poor unemployed” college dropout who plays Dungeons and Dragons and writes porn. Me, I’m an atheist Californian with a lovely wife and three beautiful daughters. I play organized tennis and basketball with guys more than a decade younger than I. My wife and I are each millionaires, each have Master’s degrees (from Stanford and Michigan, respectively), and each earn six-figure salaries at world-renowned high-tech companies (Genentech and Yahoo). We own a six-bedroom house with sweeping views of Silicon Valley, two driveways from the billionaire Intel ex-CEO Andy Grove. I’m also a published technical author with several software patents to my credit, and my political activism has been covered on a national news channel. Now, what was your question again?