In any case it might be good PR at least.

The Constitution does mention something about stopping invasions. I consider people who come here to rob, rape, and steal (including those whose theft comes from riding the welfare system) to be invaders.

I consider ALL people who come here to rob, rape, and steal (including those whose theft comes from riding the welfare system) to be violators of natural law and, thus, criminals—even those born here.

I consider all persons who do not rob, do not rape, do not steal, do not accept money from the government, do not aggress against others, do not hire others to aggress for them, and do not petition the government to aggress for them, as innocent—even those who were not born here.

:)

To put it another way, we would not criminalise drug use simply because some people who use drugs steal. We would criminalise theft. We would not criminalise car use simply because some people intentionally drive into innocent victims. We would criminalise the driving into innocent victims. We would not criminalise guns simply because some people use them to ro banks. We would criminalise the robbing of banks. Likewise, we ought not criminalise the hiring of undocumented workers, and should do away with government welfare, government schooling, et. al.

And the Constitution, if you believe it’s a legal document, allows for the states (under the tenth amendment) to make all the laws necessary, such as laws against robbery, rape, and theft.

If the founders had intended to make immigration itself a crime, they would have mentioned it in the same clause they mention naturalisation.

:)

The LA RAZA & MECHA crowd openly call their Movement a La Reconquista (ie-conquest) and want to take over and establish Aztlan (which will be a brutal, racist dictatorship).

Those who wish to establish dictatorship are de facto criminals under natural law. There is no reason why the states should not enforce natural law, i.e. arrest attempted establishers of dictatorship.

George Phillies has already alienated Ron Paul supporters with his constant attacks on Ron Paul, plus I don’t think that any Ron Paul support would like George’s favorable comments about the Federal Reserve.

This has been a problem I’ve had with Dr. Phillies’s campaign. We need to attract the Paulites to the LP, now that Paul won’t make it. I’ve heard from some Paulites that they plan to write-in his name during the general election. Ruwart or Barr could attract these people quite effectively. Dr. Phillies, although a wonderfully intelligent man who is certainly passionate about freedom, shot himself in the foot by focusing on party loyalty. (Most libertarians don’t care a bit about party loyalty. If we did, most of us wouldn’t be here in the first place.)

The other problem with Dr. Phillies can be demonstrated in his sinking ship analogy. He described the Republican Party as a sinking ship. I obviously agree, and would be just as happy as he to see both of the Establishment parties sink. His argument, however, was that to achieve the sinking of the two parties, we need to never throw them life-savers, and always throw them anvils. This approach ignores the manner in which third parties have always made progress under plurality systems. If we throw anvils to most Democrats and Republicans, and throw life-savers to those few Democrats and Republicans who promote libertarian values (in this election I was supporting both Ron Paul and Mike Gravel), we make those not getting the life-savers ask themselves, “What can I do to get one of those?” Thereby, we shift both parties in our direction. But, I would argue, we should only throw life-savers in rare instances. The LP isn’t just here so that I can have someone to vote for without throwing up, it’s here to show that votes can be gained by a libertarian party. Thus, most of the life-savers must come here.

If Dr. Phillies becomes our nominee, I will definitely vote for him. However, I unfortunately don’t think he’s played his cards right in this election.

Man, I wish that the Libertarian Party had a really strong candidate that would be good at tapping into the Ron Paul r3VOLution crowd.

Last March, I was so, so, so happy to hear that Ron Paul would be running for president. This March, I was so, so, so happy to hear that Mary Ruwart would run.

I think Ruwart has what it takes to lead a strong campaign, because, if for no other reason, she can communicate libertarian ideas very effectively. Jim Lark III is also a great speaker. So is Sharon Harris. This is an incredibly, vitally important thing to have—and the reason I have no intention to ever run for that office. Dr. Paul, as much as I love him, stumbles too much in his short answers.

I also think Ruwart has what it takes to bring in the Ron Paul vote. Their only ideological differences are on immigration and abortion, and Ruwart has no problem pointing out that not all libertarians have to agree with her on all issues. She’s got the anti-war, pro-trade thing down, and doesn’t have the baggage Barr has on this issue.

But if Barr becomes our candidate, I also think he has a good shot of bringing in the Ron Paul vote, given that he was in Congress and can potentially use that to gain attention. But he does have baggage from his past, and I do fear that that might cost him some in ‘08. Virtually no one dislikes Ruwart—her negatives are very low, and her positives very high.

Cheers,
Alex Peak

gravel kucinich paul nader
cynthia mckinney too

dare speak truth
demand peace

Ralph Nader is running as an independent again, but his campaign has not picked up any momentum and I think that Nader is going to be even less of a factor this time than he was in 2004, and in 2004 he was not as big a factor as he was in 2000.

Cynthia McKinney is seeking the Green Party’s Presidential nomination and she’s got a lot of potential as a candidate but as of right now her campaign hasn’t done much and she’s got little momentum.

The Constitution Party’s Presidential nomination is a crap shoot right now and nobody has mounted any kind of serious campaign for their nomination. There is a small chance that they could end up with a semi-celebrity candidate but in all likelyhood won’t, which means that they will probably remain in obscurity this year.

If the Libertarian Party can nominate a decent candidate this could be a year where the party could breaks 500,000 votes. Although I’ve got some reservations about him as a candidate, Bob Barr could probably do this.

One big key for the Libertarian Party is being able to attract people from the Ron Paul r3VOLution.

Bob Barr could probably do this. Mary Ruwart or even Steve Kubby may be able to do this (although I doubt that either would pull as many votes as Bob Barr; note that this does not mean that I’d necessarily support Barr over either of them for the nomination). George Phillies has already alienated Ron Paul supporters with his constant attacks on Ron Paul, plus I don’t think that any Ron Paul support would like George’s favorable comments about the Federal Reserve. Wayne Root’s links to the neo-conservatives will be a big turn off to Ron Paul supporters. Mike Gravel’s socialist economic policies will also turn off Ron Paul supporters. The other candidates are not very well known.

Man, I wish that the Libertarian Party had a really strong candidate that would be good at tapping into the Ron Paul r3VOLution crowd. Aaron Russo would have been PERFECT for this but unfortunately he’s no longer alive. Michael Badnarik would be good for this but unfortunately his campaign for Congress screwed up and that killed his momentum for being a Presidential candidate this year (damn shame).

“I mean no disrespect to Mr. Milnes, but as far as I’m aware, he is the Milnes-faction. I recommend bringing the LP closer to you, at least bring it as close as your elbow.”

LOL @ the thought of Milnes having any followers!

The Constitution does mention something about stopping invasions. I consider people who come here to rob, rape, and steal (including those whose theft comes from riding the welfare system) to be invaders.

The LA RAZA & MECHA crowd openly call their Movement a La Reconquista (ie-conquest) and want to take over and establish Aztlan (which will be a brutal, racist dictatorship).

we will have no country in about 50 years.

I certainly hope so.

Let’s not confuse the country with the state. You hope we don’t have a state, in other words a criminal gang maintaining monopoly control over a given country, in 50 years. That’s no reason to oppose the country itself, which is not much more than a plot of land with a name attached to it.

Mr. C. writes,

There isn’t a candidate announced to date that I can see breaking 500K votes – even had Ron Paul never walked the face of the Earth.

Dr. Ruwart will break half a million.

Mr. Williams writes,

Uncontrolled hoards of immigrants bad…limited immigration good.

I really don’t want to get into a debate on immigration, as I believe this is the wrong venue. But if immigration control is such a good thing, why not control immigration between states, or better yet, between counties? Why not initiate a Soviet-style programme to control all movements? I mean, if we don’t, then we have “uncontrolled hoards” to deal with.

I also want to point out that the government has no control under the Constitution to regulate immigration. Article I, Section 8 mentions naturalisation, which means citizenship. Nowhere in the entire Constitution is immigration mentioned; the fact that the Founders clearly mentioned naturalisation and deliberately failed to also mention immigration speaks volumes to me about their consideration on the role of government.

In the same way that the free market internally regulates businesses, the free market also internally regulates immigration. It is because of the internal regulation of the free market that we don’t have to worry about interstate immigration, and it is because of the very same internal market regulation that we don’t need the government to control any aspect of immigration. (I don’t really mind it controlling naturalisation.)

Finally, maintaining non-market regulations on immigration is extremely bad for the economy. The advocates of non-market regulations on immigration make the same mistake that Marx made: they view people as workers but not also as consumers. Immigrants, because they must consume to survive, create more demand and, thus, more job opportunities. To not let the market work this out (as only the market can) is to limit the growth of our economy and, inadvertantly, make everyone poorer.

Mr. Williams writes,

Yes, and I agree with that…BUT IT DOESN’T MENTION BEING TOTALLY ‘ANTI-WAR’.

Mr. Williams writes,

The truth comes out…you don’t care, you want anarchy…’Gravel 2008’ fine…because it doesn’t matter…that’s probably why you’re voting for BHO (a BLA member and part of the ‘BORG’ LOL)...you want to speed up the war that’s looming on the horizon…to fulfill your dream of total chaos…

I don’t think Paulie wants chaos, and I don’t believe you do, either. Keep in mind that anarchists, like Paulie, do not believe that anarchism will yeild chaos. In fact, most anarchists (particularly market anarchists) reject nihilism and believe that statelessness will yeild an orderly, free-market system that functions more efficiently than any level of statism can. As such, market anarchists like Paulie are inclined to maintain that government, not anarchy, yeilds chaos.

You want minarchy, believing that a minimal government will yeild the more efficient, least chaotic system. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend that Paulie and you are world’s apart from one another. What we, as libertarians, all believe is that the government is way, way, way too big. We simply have a disagreement on how far we should go. Until we actually reach minarchy, methinks minarchists and anarchists need to stick together.

Mr. Dondero writes,

Do you all realize that in the Party’s 36 year history this is the first US Senator to join the LP? Orin Hatch spoke to the LP National Convention in Salt Lake City in 1994. But that was the closest, the LP has ever come to landing a Senator.

My hats off to Shane Cory, Redpath and the National LP. Ignore Knapp. Like usual he’s got his head entrenched firmly up his ass.

Mr. Knapp never said we shouldn’t accept Mr. Gravel into the party. His point seems to simply be that Mr. Gravel ought not be our 2008 Presidential candidate—a point with which I agee.

Mr. Al writes,

Democratic voters in those states may vote for a former democratic canidate like Gravel to protest their partys decision. Obviously, that wouyold lead to an unprecedented percentage of votes in those two states. If we could also get Mcain protest votes, we might even WIN those states, and their electorial votes. ((Yes, I know it sounds like I’m living in dreamland, no need to tell me.))

Unless Dr. Paul is our nominee, we will not win any electoral votes from any non-faithless electors in ‘08.

Is he a perfect libertarian? Probably not. Could we accept him as a canidate to further the Party? Probably. Politics isn’t exactly the place for pure ideology. In my view, the LP exist to push the countries political process in a more libertarian direction. Not perfectly or directly, but in the general direction. I think we should at least consider him as a canidate.

Here’s what I wrote in another thread:

“As a left-libertarian, I’m more than happy to accept Democrats and Republicans into the party. But supporting universal healthcare is just as bad as supporting the war on drugs. I’m fine with deviations from the plum-line, as long as they’re not too numberous. I’m willing to put up with anti-immigrationists and pro-minimum wagers, but I’m not willing to put up with censoring, heterosexist, pro-drug war anti-immigrationists as a big candidate of ours, just as I’m not willing to put up with pro-social security, pro-government healthcare, pro-minimum wagers as a big candidate of ours. At a certain point, one ceases to be a libertarian; and although that’s a hard line to determine, and although I believe in keeping the tent big, we must be aware that a line (albeit a blurry one) does exist.

“When it comes to our presidential nominee, I prefer a bit of purism. The presidential nominee represents ‘libertarianism’ in the public eye. I’m much more forgiving of deviation from local and state Libertarian candidates than from our presidential nominee.

“I don’t think Mr. Barr is ready for the spot, despite the progress he’s made since becoming a Libertarian. I’m sure Mr. Gravel will make progress, too, but he’s also not ready. Perhaps by 2012, we could run a Barr/Gravel ticket. Perhaps.”

I completely agree with Mr. Trosper, who writes,

Mike Gravel isn’t a perfect Libertarian, but instead of criticizing the man, why not make the best of this situation, be friendly neighbors and let him become “more Libertarian” through osmosis. Many, many people have joined the LP who were less than Libertarian, but who over time became MORE Libertarian.

This should be a coup for both the pragmatic Libertarians (a former US Senator joins the LP) and the philosophical Libertarians (an opportunity to educate someone new and potentially influential).

I am also in total agreement with Mr. Knapp when he says that

Republicans aren’t “small government.” As a matter of fact, they’ve proven themselves, time and time again, to be the party of even bigger government than the Democrats.

Mr. Andy writes,

Yes, and I am not anti-immigrant, I’m anti-bad ‘immigrant’ (ie-invader).

The government is breaking the statutory law (see: Constitution) (and natural law) by regulating immigration. Immigrants are not breaking any constitutionally-permissible law (or any natural law). They are only invaders, thus, if they trespass on someone’s private property.

Mr. Ewart writes,

The, albeit small, Milnes-faction is the reason why I keep the LP at arms length.

I mean no disrespect to Mr. Milnes, but as far as I’m aware, he is the Milnes-faction. I recommend bringing the LP closer to you, at least bring it as close as your elbow.

Mr. Garofano:

Most libertarians are minarchists, as are most Libertarians. Only a very small minority of us are anarchists, and those of us who are anarchists mean you no harm.

Of the small minority of us that are anarchists, I’d predict that at least half are the anarchist faction, if not most of the anarchist faction, are pro-patriotic. They love their country, but don’t trust their government, to quote that ever-wonderful bumper sticker.

Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak

If the LP becomes some monster right/left, big-tent party, it may still be the “party of principle,” but you won’t really know what “principle” you are going to get when you pull that lever. The LP would inherit everything that is wrong with the Republicans and Democrats.

It’s now or never, he’s joining the LP for the nomination THIS year.

Don’t know Gravel’s views, read’em (& weep?)
See Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)
http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=69496

A few excerpts

By instituting a progressive fair tax—a steeply progressive sales tax—and by dramatically decreasing military spending, my administration would be able to increase funding to domestic programs.

When elected president, I would significantly cut military spending across the board. The United States spends more than any other country on weapons. This is an unnecessary expense and should be reined in.

I would eliminate the income tax and replace it with a progressive fair tax, which would be set at 23%.

When elected president, I would work with Congress to enact a tax on oil to get Americans off carbon-based fuels.

Drug addiction should be treated as a public health issue, not a criminal one. That is why I support decriminalizing all drugs and providing health services to addicts—not putting them in jail.

I support funding education from the earliest years to higher education. In order for young Americans to be competitive in the global marketplace, we must dedicate resources to higher learning. Otherwise, we will be left behind by Asia and Europe.

My plan, called The Healthcare Security Plan, provides standard, quality healthcare for all Ameriacns regardless of health of wealth.

I support an immediate and orderly troop withdrawal from Iraq. This will be followed up with aggressive diplomacy to compel all parties in the region to work toward peace.

When elected president, I will work with Congress to fund education so that all American can achieve higher learning, not just those who can afford it. In addition, students should not be strapped with crushing debt before they even enter the workforce. We have to do more to prepare our youth to be competitive in the global marketplace.

First, I would end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home immediately. This has to be done before we can even hope to discuss bringing peace to the Middle East. Following that, I would cut the military budget in half and redirect those funds to domestic programs, including education. Finally, I would work with Congress to enact the National Initiative for Democracy, a legislative program giving citizens the power to make laws. Representative government is broken and only the American public can fix it.