Barr launches “exploratory committee”
Steve Gordon is in Kansas City this weekend, attending the Heartland Libertarian Conference. Presumably he’ll be providing coverage of conference events for TPW’s readers ASAP.
From the outside looking in, here’s the news on the front that everyone seems most interested in:
According to bloggage at the New York Times (confirmed by other sources), Bob Barr announced today that he’s (drum roll, please) ... forming an exploratory committee.
Barr’s newly launched web site also bears the “exploratory committee” label.
Don’t know about y’all, but I’ve never heard of a prospective presidential candidate forming an “exploratory committee” weeks after his party’s only primaries, less than two months before his party’s presidential nominating convention, and only seven months before the general election.
Then again, I’ve never heard of a two-term former US Senator and Democratic presidential candidate jumping the partisan fence one day and declaring for his new party’s presidential nomination the next day, either.
It’s turning into a very strange election year indeed.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Plenty of important new/minor party presidential candidates didn’t enter the race until later in the year, in the past. Robert La Follette in 1924, Congressman Bill Lemke in 1936, Strom Thurmond in 1948, and Congressman John Schmitz in 1972 didn’t get into the race until June or July.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
His website is using the same money counter technology as the Ron Paul website did. Is this evidence that they campaigns are in cahoots?
April 5th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Not a bad bit of media coverage. Certainly dwarfs all of the press that Root likes to brag about getting.
Barr’s getting more press in a few hours than any other third party challenger, short of Ralph Nader’s independent run.
And they’re doing one thing with Barr that they’ve also only usually done for Nader. They ask the major party candidates and their reps what they think of the Barr candidacy.
Clearly he’s viewed by the GOP and the McCain camp as something of a factor. That should be a sign to Libertarians that he’s doing something right.
The Green Party leadership has already made the mistake of not backing Nader this year and backing an under-the-radar campaign that gets little to no press.
I hope that the Libertarians don’t make the same mistake.
I’m a hardcore lefty and certainly no libertarian, but Bob Barr is clearly the best candidate for the LP this year.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Phil, the websites are created by the same company. I’m not sure if it means anything but that is the case.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Richard,
Acknowledged … but that’s just the thing. Barr isn’t “entering the race.” He’s forming an “exploratory committee.”
The usual purpose of an exploratory committee is to “test the waters”—to determine what level of support there might be for a candidacy. Barr has been “testing the waters” for more than a year, traveling around the country speaking at LP events and dodging “the question” of whether or not he will run. To the extent that polling is done on Libertarian races, he’s already been included in that polling for some time now.
Today is April 5th. On or around May 25th, only 50 days from now, the LP will choose its nominee, and Barr is only just now admitting that he’s decided to start “exploring.” He’s also got hands-down the most mealy-mouthed set of position papers I’ve ever seen up on his web site.
It almost looks like Barr is trying to screw this up as badly as possible. If so, he’s succeeding. But if he doesn’t want to run this year (smart move), why doesn’t he just say so instead of playing the Mario Cuomo game?
April 5th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Think about this from a historical perspective. Never before in the 36 year history of the Libertarian Party have you seen so many top-notch candidates seeking the LP’s Presidential nomination.
This is astonishing. Let’s review:
1972 – John Hospers (no competition)
1976 – Roger MacBride vs. John ??? (A Gay guy from California – forget his name?)
1980 – Ed Clark vs. Bill Hunscher
1984 – David Bergland, Earl Ravenal, Gene Burns & Mary Ruwart
1988 – Ron Paul vs. Russell Means
1992 – Andre Marrou vs. Dick Boddie
1996 – Harry Browne vs. Jacob Hornberger
2000 – Harry Browne vs. Don Gorman
2004 – Michael Badnarik, Gary Nolan & Aaron Russo
2008 – Bob Barr, Mike Gravel, Wayne Root, Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, Michael Jingozian, & George Phillies
Nothing compares to 2008. 1988 is not bad. 1980 was okay too. But not even in the same ballpark as the 1988 LP Presidential Nominating race.
We do indeed live in exciting times.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
He’ll run.
People who form exploratory committees nearly always run. The only person I know of that did and didn’t run was Donald Trump in 1996 for the Reform Party nomination. And he had to fall flat on his face and get zero support for that to happen.
Barr clearly has a great deal of support within the LP and as we saw in the last polls, he could immediately become the frontrunner upon announcing his candidacy. Hell, he’s raised more money from individual donors than any other LP candidate in the few hours since announcing. (The only acception is Gravel, who has been running as a major party candidate for well over a year).
I’m not exactly sure why he doesn’t just announce, unless he wants to do so on a national stage, rather than at an LP conference. But he’d be better off just announcing already.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Dondero, you forgot to list Imperato and Milnes for 2008.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Man, could the 2008 dog’n’pony show get any more interesting?
Maybe not. The press will bend over forwards to either ignore or demonize Barr, or whoever the LP picks. Of course, the Republicans will bitch and gripe about “stealing votes” just the way the Dems are over nutcase Nader.
Bread and circuses time. I’m stocking up on beer.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Eric,
Yes, it is interesting that we have so many candidates vying for the nomination this year (and that so many of them possess some level of credibility). Thanks for putting together that timeline and candidate list.
One of the things I find most interesting about the list is that the hands-down highest vote-getter was the candidate who ran the most “leftist” campaign.
Ed Clark called himself a “low-tax liberal.” He ran on a platform that included unilateral nuclear disarmament. And one of his premier endorsers—appeared in his campaign ads, wrote the forward for his campaign book, etc.—was Democrat Eugene McCarthy, the anti-war candidate who drove the sitting incumbent, LBJ, out of the 1968 Democratic nomination race by pulling 42% of the popular vote, and 20 of 24 delegates, in the New Hampshire primary.
Yeah, Clark had more money than other LP candidates, but I’m beginning to wonder if that was really the secret of his success. I’m beginning to thing that perhaps where the LP has failed is in its insistence on running Republican Retreads and trying to out-conservative the conservatives.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
What’s funny is that two “candidates” in third parties both had roles in the same movie.
Alan Keyes and Bob Barr were in the film ‘Borat.’ I know that Congressman Barr isn’t technically a candidate yet, it’s still an interesting fact.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Phil,
I noticed that about Barr’s web site, too, and as someone mentioned it’s probably an artifact of the fact that the same web company—Terra Eclipse—did both Paul’s site and Barr’s.
I don’t think it necessary reflects any “collusion,” though—I seem to recall that Terra Eclipse gave a presentation at the LSLA conference in Vegas in February, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a number of LP candidates using them for web site creation/management. They did a great job with Paul’s site, after all.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Here are a few more press links on Barr:
AP
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGwp22QlX2kmePoy02e4pTBLwWwAD8VRUCDO0
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/metro/stories/2008/04/05/barr_0406WEB.html
The Hill
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/barr-launches-presidential-exploratory-committee-2008-04-05.html
April 5th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
This is probably as good a time as any to mention that the Libertarian Party presidential candidate for 2008 will certainly either be Dr. Mary J. Ruwart or Mr. Bob Barr. No one else running for the Libertarian nomination has a shot.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
That smiley makes me seem happy, whereas my intention was to imply politeness. Eh.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Alex,
Right up until today, I’d have said “if Barr’s in, it’s over.” I was also looking forward to working as hard as I could to support him after the nomination (even though I wouldn’t be supporting him for the nomination).
Now I’m not so sure. Barr’s still playing Mario Cuomo with the whole “exploratory committee” thing. I don’t think that non-committal will play well. The hour is getting late.
And on the issues … where the hell’s the beef? Talk about lukewarm, milquetoast, non-inspiring pablum. The only thing he really comes out FOR, ANYWHERE, is the “Fair” Tax. That happens to be a 100%, no-compromise dealbreaker for me. I’m sure it isn’t for many others, but neither do I think that Libertarians (even those who mistakenly support the “Fair” Tax) will find it particularly inspiring to have a candidate who very carefully stands for nothing in particular except that.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Barr’s website is amazing for its near-total lack of specificity in its issues section. Trying to grok it is like trying to carefully dissect a feather pillow. The one place where he does take a solid stand is to support a national sales tax. How is
thatLibertarian, exactly?April 5th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I tend to agree with Alex Peak, but I don’t think you can count Root out just yet. He’s been campaigning hard, and is more libertarian than Barr on some issues—see his recent statement about legalizing drugs, which is far more hard-line than Barr’s stance. If he’d just ditch that idiotic phrase “Islamo-Fascism” and shape up on foreign policy, he’d be a pretty decent candidate. Not great, but pretty decent.
My projection as of today: Root and Barr will duke it out at the convention for the support of the party’s “right wing,” and the winner of that fight will face off against Ruwart for the nomination. Winner: ?????
April 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
“...which is far more hard-line than Barr’s stance”
What IS Barr’s stance? Does anyone have it in writing?
April 5th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Ok, I’ve had time to think about this. I’m VERY suspicious, almost convinced that there is a government/Ron Paul/Bob Barr thing going on. Whether they or one is a dupe or complicit I’m not sure. Probably Paul dupe, Barr complicit. The purpose is to sabotage the LP presidential nomination. The Reason: to sabotage a possible progressive alliance victory. I’m having computer problems so I’ll continue this.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I would have liked for Bob Barr to just announce that he is running rather than this exploratory committee status. I hope he announces really soon.
I understand why he’s taking a mainstream approach to his stands on the issues. He is not going to allow the media to paint him as a fringe candidate. He is serious about getting the most votes possible.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Laura,
He’s not taking a “mainstream” approach to his stands on the issues. He’s just avoiding taking any stands on the issues at all. Big difference.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I was supporting Barr until that advocacy for the “Fair” Tax was put on his campaign website. Now, I’m undecided between Barr and Ruwart, whose principled but not as likely to capitalize on the Paulite vote.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Barr and the Seven Dwarfs….
April 5th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
There’s a very simple reason why Barr’s going the exploratory committee route: more press time. He’s going to need all he can get.
As to him being very general on the issues, that’s my one big problem with his campaign: he’s trying to be everything for everyone. He thinks he can be the anti-McCain for disillusioned right-wingers and the libertarian at the same time. Paul tried that in New Hampshire and it failed horribly. I do think that he will stop that or at least do it more subtlety as the convention draws nearer and he realizes that the nomination of the party that nominated Michael Badnarik is not going to be so easy for him to get.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Dondero: “Never before in the 36 year history of the Libertarian Party have you seen so many top-notch candidates seeking the LP’s Presidential nomination.”
It’s not because they’re necessarily Libertarian. It’s because they covet our excellent ballot access.
That’s why I don’t trust the newbies. Do they love us for us—or are they gold-diggers after our ballot access?
Milnes: “I’m VERY suspicious, almost convinced that there is a government/Ron Paul/Bob Barr thing going on. ... The purpose is to sabotage the LP presidential nomination. The Reason: to sabotage a possible progressive alliance victory.”
Yes, of course. Because you’re so close to snagging both the LP and Green nominations, after which the White House is as good as yours. No wonder the feds focus so much attention on you and your sure-fire winning strategy.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
phil, mike & Tom, you notice the Paul & Barr websites are by the same company. Tom, you offer your observation that by far the best campaign votes was a left campaign, Ed Clark 1980. This is consistent with the progressive alliance strategy of deliberately seeking the leftist vote. The display of donations similar. The effect of all those donations will also be similar-a diversion of funding & support (volunteers) FROM the REAL LP candidates, particularly ME. Just for the record, my trailer is across a stretch of highway leading to a N-S interstate & a bridge to Pennsylvania. It is higher than the ground it goes over (elevated). Recently a LOT of trees were cut down between the highway & my trailer creating a clearing. It crossed my mind that somebody could have a clear close advantageous-looking down, shot at my trailer from there. One other thing, after the way I was treated by the FBI & U.S. attorneys, I have great anger & hatred for them festering in my heart. My judge was a dupe, federal defender also. On the other hand, at least one headshrinker in FCI Butner was concientious. & my parole officer was a genuine caring good guy. Tough but cool by me. & I don’t particularly give a rat’s ass what you loser/critics say.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
And to those complaining about Barr’s position statements, you should look at Ruwart’s, especially this gem:
“As president, I will jump-start the economy by drastically slashing wasteful government spending.”
As someone who has just finished taking an introductory macroeconomics course, that really makes me cringe.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Milnes, read this from Terra Eclipses website:
“This morning TE launched a new exploratory committee site for Mr. Bob Barr, who is potentially seeking the Libertarian nomination for President. This should be a great endeavor!Bob Barr Mr. Barr is an incredibly sincere and friendly guy, having already called us personally on multiple occasions to thank us for the hard work. Also much thanks to Jennifer Chambrin & Steven Gordon, who have been working hard with us all week to get the site launched. We at TE look forward to the general election where we hope to send another strong message of “Liberty for America.””
Did you catch that about “Steven” Gordon? I think we’ve finally uncovered the TRUE mastermind of this conspiracy!
April 5th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I am very disappointed in the “Fair Tax” nonsense making it into Barr’s issues. I hope someone can talk some sense into him. I’ve been cautiously excited about the prospect of his Barr campaign; I’ve been hoping that a couple of years hanging around the LP would have caused some libertarianism to rub off on him by now. I’m thinking if he doesn’t start throwing some meat to the LP base, the honeymoon will be over before the nominating convention.
Maybe that’s why he’s going with an Exploratory Committee. He knew he wanted to run a middle-of-the-road, libertarian-extra-light campaign, and he wants to see if there will be any backlash before risking the possible embarrassment of losing the nomination.
Come on, Bob. It’s not too late to stiffen your spine and stake out some real libertarian positions.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Lunatic fringe losers.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Phil,
Gordon has never hidden the fact that he’s been involved in a possible Barr campaign. He’s held some of the goings-on a little close, but shared what information he felt he could share without violating confidences.
For that matter, I’ve been less forthcoming on that kind of thing than Steve has—I’ve been directly involved with at least four of the presidential campaigns, at least to the extent of writing some portion of the material they’ve used on their web sites, and two of those campaigns are exactly the LAST ones you’d expect.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I think a national sales tax is preferable, not as an end in itself, but as a temporary replacement of the current tax system. It’s less discriminatory and offers greater privacy.
Here, I explain why this is so.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Barr’s website makes it look like he’s running for the Republican nomination.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Tom, I’m just fooling with Milnesey.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
“...a national sales tax is preferable, not as an end in itself, but as a temporary replacement…”
HAHAHAHA. Hoo, boy, that’s funny!
And people say radicals are unrealistic!
April 5th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Thomas,
Actually, the “Fair” Tax would offer less, not more privacy than the current system. Under the current system, at least some people don’t fill out returns. Under the “Fair” Tax, every man, woman and child in the US would be enrolled in the welfare program (the “prebate”) that’s part of the program—and naturally there would have to be an investigative/enforcement unit to combat fraud.
There’s no way in which the “Fair” Tax is a pro-liberty improvement over the income tax. It’s allegedly neutral with respect to revenue. It advertises itself as even more “progressive” than the income tax. As the price of “eliminating the IRS,” it would create at least 52 new intrusive government bureaucracies (50 at the state level to collect the tax, plus the welfare administration program, plus a federal gang to handle interstate tax fraud). And that’s before we start talking about its opponents lying about the actual rate of the tax (30%, not 23%), the raid-upon-liquidation it would impose on savings/investments made before the tax, and the complete wreckage it would create in the manufacturing sector for durable/resaleable products like cars and homes.
The “Fair” Tax is a big government welfare scam, period, end of story. It’s not libertarian, it’s not close to libertarian, and it’s not even soft-line “smaller government.”
April 5th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I got way less enthusiastic about Barr when I saw that he supports the FailTax.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Actually, Susan, most of my critics consider me a radical. I’m even planning to vote for you at the convention, because of the war and platform restoration issues.
Yes, that’s right. You have Fair Tax supporters among your voting base. Go figure.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Thomas Knapp said:
“I’m beginning to think that perhaps where the LP has failed is in its insistence on running Republican Retreads and trying to out-conservative the conservatives.”
I tend to agree with you. While I’m sure that there are a lot of conservative Republicans who agree with the LP on many issues, conservative Republicans value loyalty and love to rally around a winner. People who vote for third party candidates are more likely to be iconoclasts and free thinkers – i.e. liberals.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Phil M., S.G. is more the dupe type IMO.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Actually, Thomas, I also consider you (mostly) radical. This FT thing totally amazes me. It’s a side of you I never expected.
But thanks for your vote, and I hope to see you in Denver. I hope you’ll be voting for Ruwart!
April 5th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Mr. Jass:
I believe Dr. Ruwart has as much potential to reach out to Ron Paul supporters as Mr. Barr.
I must admit, though, that I do wish Dr. Ruwart would adopt the same donation-counter as Paul and Barr. She should get in touch with Terra Eclipse. Her website need work.
Mr. M:
I see little value in macroeconomics. They waste so much time “teaching” Keynesianism, cramming his silly notion that increased government spending can bring us out of a recession and his silly notion that inflation is good, that I’d recommend people just not take such courses. One’s time is better spent reading a book by Henry Hazlitt.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
April 5th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Erggh… National sales tax? I wish I would have read that before I made a small donation.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Yeah, he’s also wrong to say “the Fair Tax would require the repeal of the 16th amendment that authorizes Congress to levy an income tax.”
This is not true on several counts.
1) The Fair Tax would NOT require this, and one of the “best things” [sic] about the Fair Tax is that it wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment, which is seen as too onerous.
2) Repealing the 16th amendment would only strike down Congress’s ability to tax rental income. Taxes on wages and salaries have been ruled indirect taxes, and thus, Congress had the authority to tax them prior to the 16th.
What’s needed is a constitutional amendment that strictly limits Congress’s ability to tax; not merely a repeal of the 16th.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
It just dawned on me.
Barr is not going to be the nominee.
His support for the Fair Tax will do him in, imo.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Susan, I may vote for Ruwart. I’m lukewarm in favor of Kubby, Ruwart, Phillies…and I’m open to listening to Gravel and Barr. But my real passion is still reserved for Ron Paul or Karen Kwiatkowski.
The Fair Tax is flat. It can’t manipulate the economy with deductions and such. This would go far in disempowering the State, since much of the State’s power (and bribe money from lobbyists) comes from its power to punish unfriendly businesses and reward friendly ones.
A Fair Tax doesn’t require filing (except by businesses), so it’s pro-privacy.
It’s non-discriminatory (married and singles, gays and straights, those with or without children) pay the same % tax.
As for the criticism that it’ll only be a new tax, not a replacement. Well, I wouldn’t support the Fair Tax unless there was a simultaneous elimination of the income, capital gains, corporate, and gift & estate taxes. A tradeoff.
As for the criticism that you don’t gain on privacy because of prebates, I don’t like the prebates part. There are many Fair Tax variations, and I’d prefer no prebates. But it’s the carrot to get “progressives” on board. Even so, you wouldn’t be required to apply for prebates. The govt won’t force you to file to accept money. Not like now, where you’re a criminal if you don’t file on the income tax.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Phil M – You just took a course in Keynesianism. It will take a while for you to be deprogrammed.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Robert Milnes,
You wonder why most people ignore you? A conspiracy by Paul and Barr to sabotage the almost non-existent Progressive vote in the Libertarian party? Really now.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Thomas,
You write:
“The Fair Tax is flat. It can’t manipulate the economy with deductions and such.”
Yeah—for five minutes after it’s passed. It might take that long for the special interests to swing into action to secure exemptions for their “essential” products and services.
“A Fair Tax doesn’t require filing (except by businesses), so it’s pro-privacy.”
Except that it is levied on new, and not used, products, and it would take maybe a week before the state governments cited a compelling interest in close auditing of all sales to ensure that “new” products didn’t magically/fraudulently become “used” products. And another week for the federal government to discover the wonders of turning “new” products into “used” products by buying them wholesale in one state and selling them retail in another.
“It’s non-discriminatory (married and singles, gays and straights, those with or without children) pay the same % tax.”
A 30-megaton nuke is “non-discriminatory,” too. Inquiring minds want to know if you’re interested in deploying one of the military, rather than economic, variety against the US economy for that reason.
The “Fair” Tax isn’t a tax elimination, it isn’t a tax cut, and the minor concessions it makes to privacy are peanuts compared to the price—hitching every man, woman and child to a government welfare program that will instantly become an even more untouchable entitlement than the architects of previous “put’em under the yoke with a check and then milk’em dry and count the votes” schemes ever dreamed they might be able to put over on us.
And let’s save the worst for last: The worst thing about the “Fair” Tax is that seemingly otherwise sensible Libertarians keep falling for it. I can see the case for incrementalism in reducing and eliminating taxes, but the “Fair” Tax is exactly the opposite of that—it’s an intentional strengthening of the tax system in order to make it impossible to reduce or eliminate taxes.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Thomas,
Yes, a sales tax might be the things you say… if it was implemented exactly as proposed (it would still be unacceptable to me, but for the sake of discussion…). But even so, the essence of politics is compromise – so setting forward a plan and saying “If it’s implemented exactly like this, we will be somewhat better off,” is hopelessly utopian.
Our goal should be always to press for improvements that even if bastardized by the political process will leave us better off. Spending cuts fit this test. Tax cuts do too, but they should probably be less emphasized than spending cuts by the LP right now, I think. Introducing another tax entirely does NOT meet this test.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
To all Fair Tax advocates, I say this: Why not work to repeal the 16th and replace it with a proportional tax on the states. Then let the states decide how they came up with the money to send to Washington. If your Fair Tax idea is so great, then let 50 states choose it. But if some states would prefer another method, why won’t you let them?
April 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I consider the whole Fair Tax vs. No Tax debate to be hopelessly utopian, because I realize that a proper Fair Tax (one that would remove, or at least seriously lessen, the State’s ability to manipulate the economy) would never pass Congress.
I’m open to any LP candidate who proposed either a Flat Tax, or Fair Tax, or Less Tax as an incrementalist alternative to what we have now. Sure, I’d prefer No Tax, but if the candidate’s antiwar, anti-empire, and pro-civil liberties, any of the above incrementalist approaches is acceptable to me.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Sipos – The Fair Tax makes every American into a welfare recipient. This is NOT an improvement.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
G.E., I regard the old “proportional tax on the states” system another improvement on our current tax system. Fine with me.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
What I (and others) have been trying to explain is that the Fair Tax isn’t incrementalist. It could only be imagined to be so if it was implemented exactly as proposed, and even then I could make an easy case that it was step back. It’s certainly not a step forward.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Ummm. If you are hoping to snag the Republican defectors this fall, reminding them of Huckabee’s Fair Tax will surely nauseate them. It’s got me a bit queazy.
I don’t think the disaffected hard-line social conservatives of the Huckabee crowd will turn this direction unless they can’t read. Then again, maybe they can’t….
April 6th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Brent Burk, how did you manage to disengage yourself from this fascinating discussion about the Fair Tax? Sadistic little kick Bob when he’s down? You got it almost right. Paul & Barr are screwing up any chance of the LP getting the huge available progressive vote. How much is just fool politics & how much is US govt. FBI/CIA/National Security Agency super computer think tank operations, I do not know.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:03 am
First, I’ll disclose that I’m a Bob Barr for president supporter. I’ve contributed $1,000 to his campaign. I’ve also contributed $500 to Mary Ruwart and $250 to Wayne Allyn Root; okay, also $825 to Ron Paul.
As far as the exploratory committee thing, I think in some cases that’s done in the short term to make FEC compliance easier although there may be some other benefits.
I don’t like the Fair Tax. I suspect Barr mentions it for political support reasons and very well may stick to it throughout his campaign. I’d prefer he drop the concept altogether, but if he feels compelled to hold onto it, I’d hope that he’d always mention that reduced taxes and spending is far more important than whatever method of taxation is imposed whether it be a flatter income tax, sales tax, etc.
Bob Barr is no perfect Libertarian. But consider the others: Kubby condoning global warming hysteria, Phillies (make a list), Root (islamo-fascist hysteria), etc.
Ruwart would make a great VP. The VP would have lots of radio and some TV opportunities and Ruwart would be a great communicator in this role. I just watched a one hour interview of Ruwart tonight on Austin-area TV (it’ll probably be available online in a few days) and I’m convinced she’ll do very well for the LP in that capacity and far better than any others I can think of.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:16 am
For those of you still up, I’ve love suggestions on this VERY rough draft of a tax day flier I’m working on:
http://picasaweb.google.com/hogarth/LibertarianOutreach/photo#5186011385859329554
April 6th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Go, Susan!
April 6th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Susan, who’s the flier aimed at? It’ll please purist libertarians and anarchists. “Progressives” may insist, “But what about paying for things we need?”
You may wish to insert something about the historically superior efficiency of private charities and the market. Not that it’ll convince most “progressives,” but still…
April 6th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Worth noting that Gravel is a fair-taxer too, and I would not be surprised if this move by Barr isn’t intended to guarantee that the very active Fair-Tax grassroots movement backs him over Gravel should it come to that.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:50 am
The “exploratory committee” route is being done for legal/practical reasons. I don’t have any inside info, but the logic is pretty obvious: Unlike other candidates for the LP nomination, Barr is neither independently wealthy (like Wayne Allen Root) nor interested in running a shoestring word-of-mouth sort of candidacy. He wants to raise some serious Ron Paul-style cash for a campaign that will have a real impact in November. The “exploratory committee” allows Barr to raise big money without having to put aside the kind of media/business opportunities available to a non-candidate. Assuming that he hits his quarter-million-dollar online fundraising goal (and that’s chump change compared to what Ron Paul raised), Barr is in, and he’s in to win.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:51 am
There’s alot of support for the fair tax among Republicans, especially from folks who supported Huckabee rather than McCain. As such its a great inroad to another political group. In the end, going a little to the side on one issue will probably still have a very possitive impact when it comes to spreading the Libertarian message as a whole. Remmember, the biggest chance the party has to be sucessful is to have some of your views be accepted by the main stream. And they will be dilluted. But it will be a victory.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:22 am
The Fair Tax is an abomination, but it does have non-trivial grassroots support. No doubt Barr is hoping to capitalize on it like the Huckster did.
This is another example of why Barr will have a tough time getting many Paul supporters. One of the things that drew people to Paul was his uncompromising and principled approach, backed up with a voting record going back 30 years. Even if you didn’t agree with him 100%, you knew exactly where he stood and that he wouldn’t compromise his principles to pander to a particular special interest group. You can’t say the same for Barr. I don’t see the idealists who were attracted to the Paul campaign being similarly inspired when they examine Barr’s record and platform.
The fact is Ron Paul supporters want to support Ron Paul. There simply isn’t another Ron Paul on the national political scene.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:43 am
And I would point out that Huckabee, a fair tax supporter, did significantly better than Paul.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Remember, Democratic voters in FL and MI are almost certainly not going to get their voices heard. We need to reach out to them, that’s almost 4 million voters who must be pissed at the Democrats. And these votes could take the Libertarian Party to the next level if we know how to play the game. 3% of the 2004 Presidential election voters might swing the 2008 election. Just imagine: unsatisfied Republicans, unsatisfied Democrats (especially the ones in FL and MI plus some more if Hillary steals the nomination from Obama at the DNC) and independents. If we use the fiscal conservatism with the unhappy Republicans and social liberalism with the unhappy Democrats, you never know.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:35 am
The Fair Tax and a national sales tax are severable issues. I agree that a sales tax is preferable to an income tax for many reasons—main among them privacy. That doesn’t mean I support the Fair Tax though with its horrible prebate welfare. And I’d be skeptical of any national sales tax replacement proposal due to the very real chance we could end up with both.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Wes Benedict, of course you support Barr like a good goose stepper reactionary. You as a fool follower of the Paul/Barr mislead are an example of the problem. Entrenched reactionary mentality. Unfortunately there are a lot of you. Ronulans. Poor Teddy Roosevelt. When he tried to run again for president this sort of reactionary nonsense intruded, like bad weather. Speaking of which I hope you go on a scenic cruise in the arctic & a glacier falls onboard. I don’t know what your feud with Phillies is/was, but it sure is in the cards. Until Gravel, he was my pick as the most leftist/progressive possibility.-other than me of course. The best you rightist Ronulans can do is be spoilers & elect the democrat. Ha! I guess that could be seen as your just deserts. Enjoy!
April 6th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Barr and Boortz must be golf buddies in an Atlanta suburban country club.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80
the way it normally works, we’ll wind up with both…
April 6th, 2008 at 7:19 am
I’m a Ron Paul supporter who supports Bob Barr. I don’t like the Fair Tax but Paul’s “No Tax” position made him seem fringe and cost him votes.
The most important issues for me are safeguarding civil liberties, ending torture, ending the empire, and protecting national sovereignty. If Bob Barr thinks it’s best to court the Fair Taxers, it doesn’t bother me.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Barr’s statement on foreign policy is good. I would like something specific about withdrawing from Iraq. I would like something skeptical about war with Iran too. But perhaps generalities are better than trying to list everywhere a war does not appear justified.
I don’t like the fair tax proposal, but it is tolerable if combined with a smaller budget and lower rates.
Barr isn’t going to win the Presidency and implement the Fair tax. So, worrying about what bad things might happen if the Fair tax is implemented is foolish.
While I didn’t like the writing on Barr’s website much, I think it is clear that he is saying that the 16th amendment should be repealed as part of the implementation of the Fair Tax.
There is no such thing as a tax that cannot be “screwed up.”
I think Barr believes, correctly, that there is too much blind hatred of the income tax among Libertarians to get the LP nomination by advocating smaller government and lower income tax rates. So, it less spending, and a switch to a national sales tax.
In my view, the key “anti-libertarian” aspect of Fair tax advocacy is the notion that government spending can be maintained at current levels with little pain. That absence of pain is a fantasy, but it is that position that is the problem. It is much the same problem with “supply-sider” tax rhetoric.
But combined with a smaller government and so a lower rate, not so bad.
As for political support, there was a Fair tax rally in Columbia, SC last fall. I went to a straw poll for Ron Paul. All my old LP friends showed up at the straw poll. They had all been at the Fair tax ralley.
Personally, I think Barr has the best chance of getting Ron Paul’s support.
In fact, it looked to me like his positions are based on the key elements of Paul’s message. (except the fair tax.)
And, like I said, I don’t think that will hurt him.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Tom, you’re welcome.
You could be right. Maybe it’s best for the LP to run to the Left. But it’s not best for the entire libertarian movement.
Doing so would just alienate the Right-wing libertarian voters, the Republican Liberty Caucus, Club for Growth, Economic libertarian types who are not as strident in opposing the War on Terror as some of the Lefty Libertarians seem to be.
But then again, that could very well be your strategy. Knowing you as long as I have unity does not seem to be high on your priority list.
I’m largely ambivelant. If the LP wants to split the libertarian movement in two with a Hard Left Presidential campaign, giving Right-wing libertarians no other option than to vote for McCain, so be it.
That’s what happened in 2004. And a hastily organized Libertarians for Bush effort seemed to prove successful.
With much more planning this time around, a “Libertarians for McCain” effort could have a greater impact.
One would hope it wouldn’t have to come to that, though. Cause a united Libertarian movement would be much stronger in November, and could bring the LP millions upon millions of votes.
A divided Libertairan movement, could keep the vote total back in the 400,000 to 500,000 range.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Davie Nolan’s right. Perhaps “Islamo-Fascism” is an “idiotic” phrase.
It’s much more accurate to call these Radical Muslims who want to force our girlfriends/wives to wear an ugly black burqa from head to toe, cut off the heads of American Jews in front of video cameras, jail our marijuana smoking buddies for life, shoot Muslim women who stray outside their doors unaccompanies in the back of the head in soccer stadiums, outlaw drinking and gambling, censor free speech rights of cartoonists and newspaper editorialists and stone prostitutes in town squares, better to cal these people what they are…
Islamo-Nazis.
Thanks for pointing that out Davie.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Sipos this was an utterly stupid statement from you:
“It’s not that they’re real Libertarians, it’s just that they covet our ballot access.”
Wow! You really show your Newbie status there.
Newsflash: The LP has had really good ballot access status since the late 1980s.
The Party has not dipped below 46 states since 1988.
Harry Browne had all 50 in 1996. (Dropped down to 48 in 2000).
Wouldn’t it be more logical that following the 1996 campaign, going into 2000, the LP with their full ballot access would have been an even more hot commodity?
Instead 2000 gave us Harry Browne vs. Don Gorman. (Niether mediocre candidates, but not as top-notch as the current crop of Root, Barr and Gravel.)
April 6th, 2008 at 7:36 am
So, there you have it. Sipos comes clean.
He’s favoring the entrance into the race of the Lyndon Larouchie candidate Karen Kwiatkowski.
For those who are unaware, Kwiatkowski is a former Larouchie publications editor and writer. Now she’s turned into a Ron Paul-type Lew Rockwell Paleo-conspiratorialist. Still ranting and raving about the evil (Jewish) “bankers” of course.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Coupla short takes:
April 6th, 2008 at 8:19 am
If Barr is smart, he should use half his resources to secure the CP nomination for neocon interventionist Alan Keyes. Then he will have the non-interventionist right vote all to himself.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
You go Red.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Steve LaBianca
HAHHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA….More living proof…
Wes Benedict Says:
April 6th, 2008 at 1:03 am
First, I’ll disclose that I’m a Bob Barr for president supporter. I’ve contributed $1,000 to his campaign. I’ve also contributed $500 to Mary Ruwart and $250 to Wayne Allyn Root; okay, also $825 to Ron Paul.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:04 am
There’s a report that Wayne Root actually beat Bob Barr, by a few votes in a straw poll at the Heartland LP Convention post debate.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:26 am
He’s favoring the entrance into the race of the Lyndon Larouchie candidate
For those who are unaware, Kwiatkowski is a former Larouchie publications editor and writer. Now she’s turned into a Ron Paul-type Lew Rockwell Paleo-conspiratorialist. Still ranting and raving about the evil (Jewish) “bankers” of course.
Dondero hits a new low. This is a total lie from top to bottom. Notice, like Al Sharpton, you scream bigot against any and all opponents. BTW, because you worked for a “racist” for over a decade (at least according to you) does that make you a racist too?
April 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Look, this is great news for our party. We have a number of fine, principled candidates for the LP nomination and soon, hopefully, we’ll add a former Congressman and a true Libertarian leader to the list. In truth, Ruwart, Kubby, Phillies, even Root, would have more influence as Bob Barr’s running-mate than they would as the standard-bearer. So, let’s get behind our strongest ticket and shake the establishment in 2008!
April 6th, 2008 at 9:46 am
April 6th, 2008 at 9:04 am
There’s a report that Wayne Root actually beat Bob Barr, by a few votes in a straw poll at the Heartland LP Convention post debate.
No shit?
April 6th, 2008 at 9:49 am
a year ago, there was much discussion about 2 or maybe 3 candidates from New York (Hillary, Giuliani-time and Bloombucks).
Instead, we may end up with w former Congresscritters from Georgia. Who’d a thunk it?
April 6th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Red Sox in Boston says: Yo whad up G?! I’m down wit joja! Yaea…crunk.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Dondero: “Doing so would just alienate the Right-wing libertarian voters … who are not as strident in opposing the War on Terror as some of the Lefty Libertarians seem to be.”
What’s a “Lefty Libertarian”? What’s a “Righty Libertarian”? Dondero thinks Ruwart and Paul are lefties. Milnes thinks Ruwart and Paul are righties.
Dondero: “You really show your Newbie status there. Newsflash: The LP has had really good ballot access status since the late 1980s.”
Maybe it’s a “newsflash” to you. I voted for Clark in 1980, and have been aware of the LP’s strong ballot access ever since. Curious, how you try to twist and tease false meanings out of your opponents’ words.
Dondero: “Instead 2000 gave us Harry Browne vs. Don Gorman. (Niether mediocre candidates, but not as top-notch as the current crop of Root, Barr and Gravel.)”
I don’t see how Root, an infomercial host, is any more “top notch” than Harry Browne.
And the “Kwiatkowski is a LaRouchite” lie is very old. You’ve hurled it before. You were called on it. Yet you hurl it again.
BTW, Kwiatkowski was a Pentagon officer, so it seems you’re attacking our troops. So tell me, Dondero, why do you hate our troops? Why do you hate America?
April 6th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Eric,
Kwiatkowski has never been affiliated with the LaRouchies in any way, shape, manner or form that I can determine (and I spent several hours researching the issue a couple of years ago). She was once interviewed by a LaRouche publication (Executive Intelligence Review, which often interviews government and military personnel, up to and including cabinet officials).
April 6th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I just got informal word from the Heartland Conference that matches Mr. Dondero’s and Mr. Cohen’s: Root allegedly won the conference straw poll by two votes over Barr, with Gravel coming in third and Ruwart fourth.
So far, it sounds like a pretty damn dark day for the LP.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Thomas,
Kwiatkowski stories are pure fiction. If as she claims she has “proof” of a neocon cabal running the Pentagon, why didn’t she go running to the New York Times of the Washington Post with her story but instead her first interview was with LaRouche toadies at the Executive Intelligence Review.
She can’t even get her basic real estate down correctly. She claims the Office of Special Plans worked out of the Pentagon basement which is incorrect it was located on the first floor.
Furthermore, one has to be skeptical about how somebody who worked at the Pentagon’s Near East and South Asia directorate has all this detailed knowledge about what went on in the Office of Special plans, an offcie she didn’t work in and evidently didn;t even know where it existed judging by her statement that it operated out of the basement
April 6th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Andrew,
The Executive Intelligence Review interview was not only not Kwiatkowski’s first outing, but it seems that interview was never even published after she disputed the interviewer’s version of her comments. Prior to the EIR interview, Kwiatkowski had written an anonymous series of columns (prior to her retirement) for Colonel David Hackworth’s whistleblower site, an article for the Ohio Beacon Journal, a series of articles for Lew Rockwell’s site, and had done an interview with Asia Times.
As to the veracity of the factual claims she makes, those are of course disputable based on evidence. Andrew Murphy’s claim that the OSP was on the first floor strikes me as no more obviously correct than Kwiatkowski’s claim that it was in the basement.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Ah, some explanation:
Wayne Allyn Root prevailed by two votes over Bob Barr in the Heartland Conference straw poll … before Barr’s “announcement speech,” and after a candidate debate in which Barr did not participate.
To put it a different way, Barr placed a close second in a poll in which he was not a candidate.
Still a dark day for the LP when two Republicans and a Democrat, one of whom is a warmonger and two of whom are “Fair” Taxers, take the top three positions in an LP straw poll. If a Libertarian can’t do better than 4th in a Libertarian poll, we’re screwed.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Thomas,
I know people who work in the Pentagon, the location of the Office of Special Plans was not secret. It was on the first floor with “Office of Special Plans” on the door.
Ok she went to Lew Rockwell with her story and the Ohio Beacon Journal, but not CBS, NBC,ABC,CNN or the NY tImes, Washington Post, International Hearld Tribune.
Just interesting
April 6th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I thought when Barr “converted” to the Libertarian Party I was under the impression he was actually a Libertarian. Now, according to his own website, he isn’t. The “Fair Tax” is one of the biggest frauds ever created. I can’t vote for anyone who panders/supports it. No vote for the LP this year with either Root/Gravel/Barr/Phillies for me. Writing in “Ron Paul” looks better every day…
April 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Jared,
While I disagree with you on Ron Paul, you are correct. the Fair Tx is a joke and as Bruce Bartlett has pointed out, the origins of the FairTax came out of the Church of Scientology
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118800635034508655.html
April 6th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Root’s an Arab hating racist. You are arguing over whether some fucking office is on the first or second floor when you jacktards are going to put a racist as your nominee. Same fucktards who were crying when the Ron Paul newsletters come out. Root is so good on tv. So is David Duke.
Barr at least gave money to fags Lindsey Graham and Larry Craig to make up for DOMO you Arab hating shits.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Andrew,
Let me see if I have this right:
The fact that you “know people who work in the Pentagon” magically makes your knowledge of the location of particular offices in that building superior to the knowledge of people who, um, worked in the Pentagon themselves.
Do I have that right?
As far as whom Kwiatkowski “went to” with her story, I doubt that you know anything about that, either. The venue of eventual publication is not necessarily the same as the venue which is orginally approached. Neither you nor I know whether or not the New York Times or the Washington Post received early submissions from Kwiatkowski. All that either of us knows is that they didn’t publish such submissions.
All of which is neither here nor there. Kwiatkowski has not entered the LP’s presidential nomination race, and I’ve heard nothing indicating that she’s likely to do so. If she did, I can think of several already declared candidates whom I’d support rather than her.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Sipos worte:
Susan, who’s the flier aimed at? It’ll please purist libertarians and anarchists. “Progressives” may insist, “But what about paying for things we need?”
You may wish to insert something about the historically superior efficiency of private charities and the market. Not that it’ll convince most “progressives,” but still…
Thanks for the comments. I may indeed want to insert something like that, but most progressives, it seems to me, have very little faith in private charity. sigh. At any rate, it’s way too long as is.
It seems to me that outreach materials can take either of two strategies: to identify people who are libertarians but don’t know about the LP (the ones who’ll read that draft and say ‘Hell, yeah! How cool that other people think this way!’, or to try to persuade folks who aren’t libertarian to be (more) Lib. Mostly we try to accomplish both with one handout, which may not be the best strategy. Of course there should be aspects of both approaches in each piece, but to try to make an outreach piece appeal equally to both ‘already there’ libs who just need to find the LP, and to make people think “You know, maybe there’s something to this… worth checking into…” is really difficult.
The former seem to me to be more likely to become activist Libertarians, and one of my big goals is to increase the number of those. But the latter are more likely to consider voting Lib when they don’t like the current choices.
It’s difficult! Thanks for listening to my think.out.loud session
April 6th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
re: “fair” tax…
kids, be real. the LP nominee will not win, but must get as many votes as possible to make an impact. you cannot do that taking the “extremist/pure” libertarian line on all issues. the “fair” tax has some credibility among the general voting public thanks to Huck, Boortz, etc. most people just plain don’t believe we can ELIMINATE the income tax flat out. Ron Paul’s failure to convince just about anyone of this is a case in point.
to not support Barr simply because he advocates a vaguely mainstream alternative to the Income Tax vs. the absolutist “abolish the IRS” position is again paving the way for an irrelevant, less than 0.5% of the vote LP campaign. get real.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Thomas,
My point is EVERYBODY at the Pentagon knew it was located on the first floor. Yet Karen claims she has all of this knowledge about the day to day operations of what went on in the OSP, if she really knew all this stuff, why doesn’t she know where the damn office was located when even the smallest peon in the Pentagon knew the location.
I am not expert on the OSP but neither was she. Her knowledge of the OSP is obviously more gnostic then real
April 6th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Fair tax, national sales tax . . . all this effort even discussing such ridiculous proposals misses the most important aspect of taxation . . . SPENDING
Rearranging the basis of the current level of taxation is ludicrous. Tax cuts and tax elimination MUST be coupled with spending cuts/elimination. The so called Fair tax proposers do not anticipate the intrusions that will be necessary as the special interests fight over exemptions, credits, rates, etc, etc. The current “Fair Tax” proposal will very quickly become just as intrusive, and likely more so than the current “income tax” within 3 years of being enacted.
Mr Knapp, you are right . . . if a Libertarian (Mary Ruwart) can do no better than 4th at a LIBERTARIAN conference, we have problems. However, the delegates at the National convention will decide, not attendees at a multi state LP convention. Calling all Ruwart supporters . . . GO TO DENVER and be a delegate
April 6th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Also, while I’m busy self-promoting, I’m looking for three more peeps to pledge $10 each to buy shares in a $100 raffle ticket for the LPNM. You could win hundreds of dollars and give the LPNM thousands! Deatials here:
http://www.en-gb.pledgebank.com/LPNM-Harley
Only three more spots left!
April 6th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Other whoppers by Kwiatkowski for you Thomas
1) She claims Larry Hanauer was purged out of the Israeli desk office, yet doesn’t point out that Larry left the desk chair because he got a PROMOTION to be special assistant to Jay Garner.
2)She calls her former boss Bill Luti, a “chicken hawk” yet Luti served in combat in the first Gulf War and had 26 plus years of commands of an aviation squadron, an amphibious assault ship and an amphibious ready group.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
svf,
You write:
“to not support Barr simply because he advocates a vaguely mainstream alternative to the Income Tax vs. the absolutist ‘abolish the IRS’ position”
First of all, one of the main promotional claims of the “Fair” Taxers is that it would—ABOLISH THE IRS.
Secondly, this is the second time in this thread that someone has attempted to posit an “only two possibilities” argument, where it’s either the “Fair” Tax or no taxes at all. Nice trick if you can pull it off, but you can’t. There are other tax proposals out there from other LP presidential candidates and from other non-presidential-candidate Libertarians.
Let’s start with the fact that the income tax constitutes 58% of government revenues—so an elimination of it would probably cut government revenues by less than half after revenues from the other taxes (tariffs, excises, etc.) increase due to people having a lot more money left in their pockets to spend. So even the position of “eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing” doesn’t amount to “no taxes.”
Secondly, at least one presidential candidate (Steve Kubby) has stated that he’d LIKE to eliminate the income tax but that in the short term he’d SETTLE for bottom-up cuts to it (the “Fair” Tax doesn’t offer a cut—it claims to fully replace the revenues of the taxes it would be substituted for).
Thirdly, the geolibertarians have staked out a reasonable position that if there are going to be taxes, they should be taxes on bads (for example, pollution) rather than on goods (for example, work).
If the “Fair” Tax represented a tax cut, or a weakening of the tax system as such, I could understand why some Libertarians might treat it as an incremental improvement. However, it represents neither. It strengthens the tax system by tying it to a welfare program that once begun will be incredibly difficult to even cut, let alone end, and it doesn’t attempt to cut the amount of money which is taken out of people’s pockets and transferred to government. It simply has no libertarian or “smaller government” hooks at all. It’s a big-government gimmick, and no candidate who supports it is worthy of Libertarian support.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Mr. Nolan, the major problem with W.A.R.’s stance on drug prohibition, is that he is a “conservative” in his approach. I applaud anyone who sees the futiity of drug prohibition and supports repeal of such drug laws. However, does W.A.R. understand, the fundamental right of self-ownership, a libertarian concept? Or is his belief that the war on drugs is just a “failure”? Without core libertarian beliefs such as self-ownership, it leaves the likely possibility that a “conservative” like W.A.R. could support a different, coercive government approach to reducing drug use.
By all means, libertarians ought to promote the futility and destructive consequences of the drug war, but such support on ONLY consequential grounds is powerless to rebut the innovative drug warriors who will promote a different government, coercive approach. This is just another example of consequentialist approaches to solving America’s problems being benign without core libertarian principles behind them.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Thomas,
Don’t forget either about the FairTax that their is a ton of ambiguities that the supports have yet to address.
1) No nation in the world has ever supported a national sales tax that high, most studies by the World Bank and the IMF find that retail sales taxes reach their a level of diminishing returns around 10% or so. Most countries that now have a VAT tax orginally had retail sales taxes but went to a VAT because the retail sales tax was not generating enough revenue and was casuing an increase in black market and smugglings
2)Who charges the FairTax? Does the teenager who cuts your grass have to charge you a FairTax on his goods and services? Why not? A corporate lawn service will have to charge it for it’s services. Do babysitters count as “goods and services”
The FairTax will be a just as complex as the income tax in the end. Also, they say it will eliminate lobbyists but how do they really figure that. I can already hear the egg,bread,auto,meat,homebuilders etc- getting ready to claim they are an “essential” industry and should not be taxed at such a high level.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Do they have Diet Dr. Pepper in the vending machines at the Pentagon?
April 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Diet Dr. Pepper ROCKS!
April 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
OK, lot of things to ponder here.
1. Fair Tax: I used to like it. It sounds good on the surface. Then you research it, and it sucks. Progressive tax is worse than Flat tax is worse than No Tax as far as income goes. Income tax is worse than sales tax is worse than No tax. Property Tax just sucks, period. But the overall truth is that no matter how or how much is collected in slavery tribute, the problem is the politicians who waste it. Cut spending first.
2. Barr in the race: He presents an interesting problem. It’s no secret that I think an LP Prez candidate needs to be able to properly market the LP to people, and that should be their primary role as the odds of them winning 1600PA are about as good as mine, and I’m not running. Of the current candidates, I think that Dr. Ruwart has the best shot at that because she has the demonstrated ability to couch libertarian thought in left-PC wording and not get caught up in eggheaded, long-winded, eyes-glaze-over explanations. That’s important for marketing in today’s Short Attention Span Theater world. Barr, OTOH, assuming he quits the Columbus role and actually runs, presents a different issue. He has enough name recognition that he can give the GOP major heartburn, and they admittedly deserve it. With Barr as the LP Prez candidate, the calculus is not marketing per se but screwing the GOP, which they deserve 4,000 times over at a minimum for their utter incompetence and stupidity in the Iraq mess. Barr would be in a tactical position to help the nation by two things: put Obama, the least of the three evils, in the White House, instead of the middle evil in Hillary or the worst evil in the Panamanchurian Butcher of Black Mesa (check Tannim’s blog on that one!). I’m fairly sure that Barr would drop or quietly change gears if Dr. Paul were to pull the nomination by some miracle. Fact is, the Democrats are heading into veto-proof land in this year’s House election, and they have an outside shot of filibuster-proofing the Senate as well. Some may say that is an argument to vote McCain and create gridlock. I disagree, since McCain is so liberal that he would rubberstamp democrat proposals worse than Bush did. It took Bush 6 years to find his veto crayon. McCain’s would probably be tossed into the trash completely. Barr could pull enough of the Paul vote and other unhappy R’s away from McCain to make his being thrown under the bus even more of a disaster for the GOP. The problem though, is that he doesn’t appeal to the left-of-LP-center as well as he does to the right-of-LP-center. Ruwart does, and if anything, she might have the opposite problem.
So to summarize that, each has advantages and disadvantages, and which way the LP decides is up to Denver.
3. Root: Sorry, but the guy is too Romneyish for me. By that I mean too polished, too veneered, too rehearsed, too slick. He reminds me more of Joe Isuzu than an LP standard-bearer, and to someone like me where the harder you sell the harder I fight it, that’s disconcerting.
4. Campaigning right v. campaigning left: It depends on where you are. Usually in areas where one D/R party is dominant and the other sucks, it is best for us, the LP center, to campaign in the opposite direction—beat the little guy to compete against the big guy. We did that in Colorado Springs for years with good success against the GOP there because the local D’s were a joke. Since we moved, the GOP has weakened and the D’s have grown, but not from us as that trend was already going on. The point is that the LP, being in the center, needs to offer itself as the alternative to the dominant party. In the few toss-up areas there are anymore, the center LP becomes the kingmakers and stays exactly on message in the center, with marketing both directions. It does work. The CO state senate campaign I managed in 2002 pulled 9.1% in a three way race that decided control of the state senate; a race that both the utter fools D and R spent over $1M each on (for a spot that pays $30K) and the R won by 0.6% (screw the protest margin, we blew that away!); and we did it all on $35 and three weeks notice before the general election, campaigning from the center. We got into three debates, a radio show, and minimal newspaper and TV coverage. We also pulled the highest 3-way LP percentage of any race in the nation that cycle. I’m proud of that one because we used it to test the center-sway theory, and it worked wonders. If we had been on the ball earlier we would have done even better. Our only handicap was our very late start.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I agree with Susan Hogarth!
Diet Dr. Pepper ROCKS! I probably average two cans per day.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
If even Gravel—who advocates socialized medicine?—can beat Ruwart, whose claim to fame is being an articulate advocate of the free market for health care, does this mean that the left-leaning Libertarians are lost in the wilderness somewhere? Now, I’m wondering whether she could even win a VP slot. She lost the nomination for the VP slot in 1992, right?
April 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I heard the order of the results from the Heartland Conference straw poll were Root, Barr, Gravel, Ruwart, and then a tie between Phillies and Kubby, who wasn’t even in attendance. Jingozian was last.
What surprised me the most was how horribly Ruwart reportedly did—Root receiving twice the votes of Ruwart.
Does anyone have actual tallies from the Heartland Conference straw poll so we can confirm the above?
April 6th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Aaron,
I think I will use this quote from you on my LNC campaign page:
“I agree with Susan Hogarth!”
Maybe I’ve leave out the DDP part…
;-)
April 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Aaron Starr has heard “reports”. I certainly would be very disappointed if W.A.R. received “twice the votes of Ruwart”. However, if this is a reasonably accurate “report”, why is there no mention of Christine Smith? Or did you, Mr. Starr just forget to type her in? I too, would like to see real results of the straw poll before before drawing any conclusion from it.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Diet-any-soda is an EWW! with the worst being (I kid you not, this does exist!) Caffeine-free Diet Mountain Dew (a.k.a. “What’s the Point? Soda”).
April 6th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Starr, you hate Arabs too like Root? Good for you.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
You Root dick suckers are racists fucks. The Libertarian Party is pro-WAR, pro-war and anti-Arab.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Steve LaBianca,
I’m only reporting what I heard. I wasn’t in attendance.
However, I see Chuck Moulton writes:
“I attended the Heartland Libertarian conference. I didn’t write down the straw poll numbers, but the following is my recollection:
Wayne Allyn Root: 22
Congressman Bob Barr: 20
Senator Mike Gravel: 15
Dr. Mary Ruwart: 12
Michael Jingozian: 8
George Phillies: 7
None of the above: 3
Christine Smith: 2
Barry Hess: 1
No one else received any votes (including surprisingly no votes for Steve Kubby). The ballots listed all currently declared and rumored presidential candidates (including Bob Barr). They were randomly ordered with 17 different ballot configurations each listing the 17 candidates in all possible slots. Unfortunately it was not done by IRV, so all we know is the first round results, not the likely runoffs.”
Assuming the above is reasonably accurate, I’d be curious to see what conclusions other people draw from this.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I heard the totals were Root 22, Barr 20, Gravel 15, Ruwart 12. Ruwart’s surprisingly low total is consistent with her understated performance in the debate. In fairness, radicals might claim that her problem was she didn’t muster the self-righteousness (if not outright anger) that Christine Smith exhibited, and failed to stand up for the flagship radical positions of personal secession, immediate non-enforcement of anything that looks like taxation, and privatization of all streets.
Aaron, I too had assumed Gravel was for socialized medicine (and education), but it turns out he’s for vouchers on both. He advocates competition and consumer choice, and criticizes the monopoly sought by teachers’ unions. Gravel’s candidacy is exciting because he can help unite and grow an LP in which a vocal minority of left-leaning radicals/anarchists claim that to disagree with them is to make the LP an arm of the GOP. A Barr/Gravel or Gravel/Barr ticket would go a long way to demonstrating that the LP is open to both Democrat and Republican refugees who believe in market-based alternatives to the nanny state.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Mr. Starr,
If I may also respond to your characterization of Ruwart and her supporters, from the straw poll, “If even Gravel—who advocates socialized medicine?—can beat Ruwart, whose claim to fame is being an articulate advocate of the free market for health care, does this mean that the left-leaning Libertarians are lost in the wilderness somewhere?”
I and many people I know, who support Mary Ruwart’s campaign for the LP presidential nomination, especially people who I would not be at liberty to disclose, are not “left-leaning libertarian”.
Regardless of how this LP nomination turns out, I believe that you Mr. Starr and others do a disservice to Libertarians by characterizing Ms. Ruwart’s support and supporters as “left-libertarian”. The fact that she can reach left leaning libertarians, as well as outright lefties much more effectively than virtually everyone else in this contest, is not in any way indicative of left, right, center, etc of the Libertarian Party, or Ms. Ruwart’s supporters. Ms. Ruwart can reach all libertarians.
I am somewhat inclined to believe that some combination of “star power” and a prevalent conservative outlook in “the Heartland” is what gives W.A.R., Barr, and Gravel the edge over Ruwart in Kansas City. I will reserve judgment until I learn of actual straw poll results.
BTW, Isn’t a straw poll one where people pay to participate?
April 6th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I too had assumed Gravel was for socialized medicine (and education), but it turns out he’s for vouchers on both.
And vouchers are not socialized … how, exactly?
There’s an argument to be made that they are less socialized than some other proposals, but vouchers aren’t by any stretch of the imagination free market.
It’s talk like this that leads people to associate libertarianism with fascism (“Let’s give taxpayer money to Christian schools! And to ‘private’ hospitals!”). Friedman et al. may have helped the Reagan-crowd in the short run (“Our Big Government is better than Your Big Government”), but may have also done serious damage to the long-term understanding of libertarianism.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Steve, cool your jets. We’re probably more in agreement than you realize. I happen to like Ruwart and believe she brings a lot to the table. I own a copy of Healing our World.
My point is that she appeals to left-leaning libertarians and probably not so much to right-leaning libertarians.
I believe we need both.
My question is where are they (the left-leaning libertarians)? It appears they weren’t at the conference in any significant numbers. Maybe it’s a question of location and this is just peculiar to the Kansas City area.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Spin that Racist, boy, spin it. Root’s looking like road kill and starting to smell like it there too.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Aaron, you have to remember that Kansas City is in the heart of conservative country. It’s no Boudler or Berkley by a long shot, but it’s not Colorado Springs either. It is expected that not a lot of left-libertarians would be there.
But I agree, we do need both left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians. we are the political center, after all.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
But I agree, we do need both left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians.
Certainly.
we are the political center, after all.
Eh? Are you trying for irony here?
April 6th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Mr. Starr,
Thanks for your feedback, though I find the “cool your jets” comment a curious opening. If I’ve mischaracterized your comments, as you appear to be indicating that I have, I appreciate the clarification.
My point however, is still valid for others, as W.A.R. had said in an email to me that Mary could only appeal to new agers. Hogwash, I say. It is possible that Ruwart’s appeal to so-called left wing libertarians may be a bit more effective that to so called right wing libertarians (if there really are such “wings”), and it seems that conservatives abound (W.A.R., Barr) near the top of the popularity list, which would cut into Mary Ruwart’s ability to reach those so inclined to conservatives.
After our candidate is chosen, and I hope it is Ms. Ruwart, she could appeal to some on the right who oppose the U.S. government wars, and appeal to some on the left who oppose U.S. government wars, as well as all who oppose encroachments of privacy and encroachments on enterprising activities. I think all the “top” candidates can do this to some extent (except W.A.R. regarding, yep, WARS) but Ruwart can do this, I believe best.
We shall see what the delegates prefer. I do know dozens of national delegates who are supporting Ruwart. I am hoping that this is an indicaton of her delegate support nationwide.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Susan, you sound like a Rothbardian with this anti-voucher stuff. If you had a choice between a Canadian or British NHS service or a voucher system(and no you have to pick one of them) which would you prefer? Friedman was no sell out, he was a pratical man who saw vouchers as a pragmatic attempt to put libertarianism into action. By the way, WIC vouchers are given out every month to low income mothers and soon to be mothers to buy eggs, bread etc- Do governments run your local Kroger or Safeway grocery store?
April 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Susan, socialized medicine is government ownership of hospitals, government employment of doctors, government pricing of medicine and insurance, government rationing of treatments, government licensing of care-givers, etc. Vouchers socialize merely the financing of health insurance, rather than socializing the entire healthcare chunk of the GDP. If vouchers are provided only for the poor, they arguably meet Brian Doherty’s definition of “libertarian” in that they correct for the market failure of free-riding on the charitable contributions of others. If they are provided at the community level and financed only with a land value tax that tries to recoup some of the increased land value created by making the community more attractive to those who support that level of safety net for the poor, then they might meet my stricter standard of EcoLibertarian. I don’t doubt that they fail to meet your Rothbardian standard of anarcholibertarian. There is more than one kind of libertarian. I reject as a false dichotomy the idea that if a sector of the economy isn’t completely uninfluenced by the government, then it is “socialized”.
You say “it’s talk like this that leads people to associate libertarianism with fascism.” Your leap from vouchers to “fascism” is breathtaking. Fascism is “a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism”. It’s talk like yours that leads people to associate libertarianism with vacuousness.
I agree with you questioning Michael’s comment about the “political center”. Michael, report for a refresh of your Nolan Chart tattoo.
For those who question the notions of left-libertarian and right-libertarian, see the polling data on how libertarians self-identify: http://libertarianmajority.net/libertarian-polling
April 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Brian,
So by adding vouchers to an already heavily regulated, taxed, licensed, and to some extent price controlled (remember Medicare and Medicaid not only are funded by gov’t, but price controlled) industry, adding the financing to the rest of the industry not already paid by gov’t programs, still doesn’t qualify as “socialized medicine”?
April 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Susan, you sound like a Rothbardian with this anti-voucher stuff.
You say that as if it’s a Bad Thing.
If you had a choice between a Canadian or British NHS service or a voucher system(and no you have to pick one of them) which would you prefer?
It never ceases to amaze (and depress) me how many Libertarians waste time with this “if you had to choose one form of socialism over another…” game. I suggest we let the socialists squabble over which socialist scheme they prefer, and let us who value freedom continue to work to describe and advocate for freedom.
The compromise position between socialism and freedom may be socialist-lite, but the compromise position between socialism and socialist-lite is socialism.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
You say “it’s talk like this that leads people to associate libertarianism with fascism.” Your leap from vouchers to “fascism” is breathtaking.
Indeed. I meant to write more, but actual work intervened. I was thinking of the recent unpleasant attacks on Friedman et al. as advisors to folks like Pinochet. I think the attacks are largely unfounded, but this perception that the state can somehow ‘oversee’ capitalism is a bad avenue for us to travel, I think.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Root is a racist.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Susan, you and I live in an imperfect world and sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Rothbardian anarchy ain’t happin’ anytime soon(and of course I am not sure they really want it either considering Rothbard himself maintained a rent control apartment in NYC and most anarcho-libertarians work at PUBLIC universities. Thousands of private colleges in the country yet they seem to always go to the ones run by the nasty “state”)
April 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Baldur is redundant
April 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Root’s still racist.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Root’s a scamdicapper. Who is he scamming in the LP?
April 6th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Wow, Susan Hogarth is pretty damn good at getting to the fundamental basis of an argument. The only rebuttal to her position is “we live in a an imperfect world,” or “your Rothbardian utopia isn’t an option” . . . as the substantive argument ceases.
Regrdless of whether or not an anarcho-capitalist scholar works in a government run university or not, remember that except for two colleges in the U.S. (Hillsdale, and Grove City) all (government and non-government) receive funding from the feds anyway, so what the effective difference between them anyway? Very little in my estimation. Non government universities, taking the funding means adhering to federal regulations, policies, etc.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Well Steve, if anarcho-capitalism of the Rothbard flavor is so popular, why hasn’t it won over the hearts and minds of the LP and the GOP? As I recall, Rothbard had to make alliances with the New Left and Pat Buchanan to get some sort of hearing for his views. Perhaps you can explain how Pat Buchanan was more of a pure libertarian then Milton Friedman
April 6th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
First off, the great percentage of GOP people are statists. How do I know this? Many ways could prove this, but just take a look at the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party.
Secondly, Rothbardian and Austrian economic thought is quite prevalent in the LP, though the anarchist “faction” of the Austro-Libertarian school of thought is less so. It may be less so now, but a poll about 15 years ago of LP members had Rothbard as the 2nd most influential person.
Thirdly, in politics, alliances are nearly a universal necessity. By making any assumption that Pat Buchanan is a libertarian at all show a certain amount of ignorance on your part. Buchanan calls himself a paleo-conservative. Besides, because Rothbard made alliances with Buchanan is only an indication that the alliance parties agree on at least one issue or topic, not philosophy or political beliefs. Ron Paul and many Democrats agreed on getting out of Iraq. Does that mean Ron Paul is a liberal Democrat?
Milton Friedman was a liberal/libertarian. A pure libertarian, no. Friedman upheld government control of the economy . . . central banking with a vast amount of control and influence by gov’t. The negative income tax; this Friedman idea was a welfare program . . . ie wealth redistribution. This is an anti-libertarian concept. And education vouchers, though a well intentioned idea, provides choice at the expense of not being able to choose government approved education. This isn’t really choice in the libertarian sense, as the option to opt out of the government approved choices is prohibited, and we know how this always works out. Those who pay out the money, get to decide who gets it, and who doesn’t, what the requirements are to get it, and then pile on new regulations when the old regulations no longer “work”. Does libertarian theory really allow for this type of arrangement? I think not.
Outside of that, did Friedman challenge The U.S. gov’t war in Iraq? Not to my knowledge he didn’t. He didn’t even challenge the unconstitutionality of the Iraq war as it wasn’t declared by congress.
So tell me, why didn’t Milton Friedman join, or at least support the LP? Reason . . . the LP was/is fundamentally more soundly grounded in libertarian theory than Friedman or his colleagues in the “Chicago School”.
I have a great deal of respect for Milton Friedman, but as a promoter of true liberty in the Libertarian Party tradition, he was silent. too bad.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Oops I made a mistake. I said “provides choice at the expense of not being able to choose government approved education.”
I meant:
“provides choice at the expense of not being able to NOT choose government approved education.”
Sorry.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Susan, it’s ironic that your “choose between two forms of socialism” false dichotomy came right after Steve’s false dichotomy of 1) the present semi-socialized healthcare system or 2) the present system plus vouchers. Gravel isn’t advocating the latter, which again confirms Holtz’s Law Of Libertarian Polemics: “Every statement that is disputed among libertarians embeds a strawman or a fallacy of the excluded middle—and this statement is no exception.”
Ditto for the strawman of the state “overseeing” capitalism. Gravel could plausibly make a minarchist libertarian case for a free-wheeling market in health care that happens also to include a safety net of guaranteed financing for health-insurance vouchers if there aren’t enough voluntary contributions toward it. That would be a serious libertarian argument, similar to those advocated by such serious libertarians as at the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa197.html). I personally wouldn’t include it in the official LP Platform, or advocate it for libertopia unless it were implemented at the local level and linked to local collection of the resulting increase in ground rents. But I don’t think any LP candidate’s policy should be condemned as “socialist” if it’s one that the Cato Institute has advocated. Gravel is rather to be commended for reminding the LP that there is more to libertarianism than is dreamt of in Rothbard’s anarchist philosophy.
Ditto for the fallacy of the excluded middle between “socialism” and “freedom”. “Freedom” and “anarchism” aren’t synonyms, and you preach to your choir (hi Steve) when you assume they are. Steve, you are correct that all substantive responses to Susan’s anarchism depend on the assumption that humans are not angels, but rather will e.g. free-ride when doing so is in their rational self-interest. That is the very heart of every minarchist reply to anarchism. See http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoodsandExternalities.html by George Mason economist Tyler Cowen for a balanced capsule overview of the free-rider problem.
Steve, your argument that anarchistic “libertarian theory” kept Milton Friedman from joining/supporting the LP is a good one—for making the LP ecumenical toward all the major schools of libertarianism. (Susan, would you agree that anyone who wants to make the LP ecumenical toward Chicago-style libertarianism shouldn’t vote for you for LNC?)
April 6th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Steve, you misunderstood my point about Buchanan. I was being sarcastic about the libertarian crack on Buchanan, he isn’t which is my point. The Rothbardians are more then willing to jump into the sack with statists like Buchanan, the New Left, Samuel Francis when it serves their purposes but then turn around and demand ideological purity for everybody else. I say again, compared to Buchanan, Friedman was still closer to Rothbard idelogically but in Rothbard’s world, Buchanan was an Old Right ally but Friedman was a statist sell out
April 6th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Brian, I’m not going to get into one of your long-winded, eyes-glaze over arguments where only you know what you’re talking about. It’s a perfect example of what is wrong with how we market the LP. You can take that ball and go home.
Me, I’ve discontinued using the Nolan chart for the most part. Nothing against David or Advocates for Self-Government, but it’s an old tool. Rotate it 90 degrees on the x axis so the y-axis is on the x-plane and the z-axis (which you normally look down when looking at the chart) is on the y-axis, and you’ll get the picture. Turn the page flat and look along it rather than straight at it.
Simply put, the LP is too socially liberal for the GOP and too fiscally conservative for the DP. That means we’re right of the left and left of the right, which puts us dead in the center. So that’s where we market ourselves, it’s where we should be, it’s where we are, and where the voters are.
And 95% of the voters don’t get the statist vs. individualist argument, nor the authoritarian vs. libertarian argument either. So that’s the wrong horse to ride.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
And no, Susan, I wasn’t trying for irony. Irony is done to dressy shirties.
I was making the legitimate point that we are the political center whether anyone believes it or not. I’ve been saying it for years. The LP-WA gets it. Whether other libertarians get it is an exercise left for them to sort out.
I don’t agree with Aaron Starr very much, but in this case he is absolutely correct. We need both sides of the spectrum to compete and win.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Andrew, you are new here. Don’t encouarge Susan and Brian. Between the two, they make the entire spectrum of libertarianism repulsive.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Barr’s got guts for doing what’s he’s doing. It takes real strength to admit you were wrong and then work to change it. I admire him. Although I have supported Ron Paul, if his name isn’t on the ballot, my vote is for Barr.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Guy Fawkes, Barr’s name isn’t on any ballot either, not even the LP nominating convention ballot . . . yet. The question is will you consider any other candidate for the LP if it isn’t Barr or Paul?
Andrew Murphy,
Thanks for the response. I know what you mean about Buchanan. I don’t fault Rothbard for forming an alliance on any given issue with him, and you are right . . . Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard shunned Friedman when they should have at least embraced him in the areas they agreed. The Objectivists are the same. If you don’t embrace every word, phrase, meaning and conclusion that Ayn Rand ever said, implied or concluded, you are a phony heretic for liberty and you are to be shunned forever.
I am not going to shun or cast aside anyone because they don’t agree with my every belief. I will challenge others for theirs beliefs, but I also challenge my own.
I am however a believer that the principles of libertarianism, all of them, where they apply in the real world and government’s actions, ought to be in a document, most likely the platform, setting forth how the LP views all actions, and potential actions by government. Many believe that my positions are too rigid. The place where flexibility belongs is in the strategy. We are not going to eliminate all the unconstitutional agencies in a day. We aren’t going to get rid of all taxes in a day. This is where strategy and a plan come in. However, the plan’s “action items” must move us in the direction of more liberty, not simply avoid more liberty degradation. the platform must be our bedrock of values and ultimate goals. Compromising them, makes the party something other than a LIBERTARIAN PARTY. I don’t want that.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Susan, you and I live in an imperfect world and sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils.
Yes. But I never have to ask for or work for evil – lesser or not.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Wow, Susan Hogarth is pretty damn good at getting to the fundamental basis of an argument.
Kind of you to say that. Thanks!
April 6th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Michael Seebeck and I seem to agree on this: We can market ourselves as the political center.
That said, he and I do have a serious disagreement over diet soda, though I’m happy to discover that he’s finally come around to the pro-side on the issue of caffeine. I say diet colas and the like are quite good. The regular sodas are way too sweet for my taste, in addition to being fattening.
At this point. it appears to be Susan Hogarth and I are teaming up in a pitched battle against the likes of Michael Seebeck on this very core issue.
Can Libertarians bridge this great soda pop chasm that divides us? Will we set aside our caloric and flavor differences for the good of the movement? Only time will tell.
I’m an optimist though. The enemies are not amongst us. I believe we will all eventually come together and agree to disagree, at which point we can unite against our common enemy…Starbucks.
Yes, I’ll admit that they serve up a damn good Pumpkin Spice Frappuccino® Blended Crème, but that can’t possibly compensate for the truly unbearable music they play in their stores. They simply must be stopped!!
April 6th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Susan, would you agree that anyone who wants to make the LP ecumenical toward Chicago-style libertarianism shouldn’t vote for you for LNC?
Everyone who values intelligence and dedication and commitment to Libertarian principle and the growth of the LP should vote for me.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Brian, I, nor do I believe that Susan were providing “dichotomy” choices. These were simply different, not mutually exclusive circumstances. I don’t see how semi socialized medicine, and another semi/more socialized medicine with vouchers, is imagining anything more than a scenario of what we have now, and where it is highly likely to go with vouchers added in.
If you honestly believe that a “free-wheeling capitalistic” medical market with a social safety net will remain with a severely limited social safety net, you haven’t seen or bothered to look at all the social safety nets in place and how they are larger, more encompassing, more intrusive, and way more expensive than at inception. I don’t believe we ought to make the “slippery slope” any more slippery or sloped!
The problem with most of these new “plans” to make health care, education, etc, etc, etc more libertarian is that they don’t actually, when implemented take away any power or decision making from the government. Nor do they reduce the inefficiency and thus cost of such marketable services. As Harry Browne had said, these great ideas are saddled with the “dictator syndrome”. Every person sees exactly how to make the problem go away or at least minimized, but the process of getting it into law, writing the executive branch regulations, and the courts “interpretation” of how they are correctly or incorrectly applied, are completely out of our “great idea ” hands.
What we are left with IMHO, is to only propose changes to the current laws which either 1-devolve power and authority down to more local levels, or to 2- put more decision authority and how to spend the money required back into the hands of the person who wants or needs the service.
Call me naive or stupid, but I don’t see how adding vouchers to the health care “system” satisfies either of these devolutions of federal power.
It is the same with the so called “Fair Tax”. The Boortz plan neither reduces federal spending, devolves power to the state, local or individual
level, or or reduces federal power in any way.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Jeezus, Aaron, I was worried for a bit there. I read this:
I’m an optimist though. The enemies are not amongst us. I believe we will all eventually come together and agree to disagree, at which point we can unite against our common enemy…Starbucks.
And I thought… oh.my.gawd. I am Agreeing with Aaron Star way too much. But then you salvaged the situation with:
Yes, I’ll admit that they serve up a damn good Pumpkin Spice Frappuccino® Blended Crème, but that can’t possibly compensate for the truly unbearable music they play in their stores. They simply must be stopped!!
BAH - heresy! They must be stopped not because the music sucks (though, now that you mention it…), but because the coffee is horrendous.
So … we can fight a common enemy for disparate reasons. That way I can still get all catty and snarkish with my allies.
Phew!!
April 6th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Steve, great response. I totally agree. I am not personally a LP member but, I say this with all sincerity, I wish there were more LP people like you. As a sidebar, your so on target with Rand. She was a cult builder(also proof that when you eliminate God, you only create demi-gods)
April 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Susan, with all due respect, how do you live your life then. According to anarcho-capitalism, all govt is evil. So do you not drive a car on govt created highways? Do you not use the US post office for first class mail? Is your electricity and water from a public utility company? Do you pay your income taxes(“taxation is theft” is the great Rothbard password) If you do pay taxes, YOUR money is being used to fund a whole litney of govt programs and the war in Iraq. I could go on and on but, yes, you do choose “evil” everyday because you could choose never to drive a car, pay taxes, have heat and water etc-
April 6th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I am absolutely going to have to weigh in on the diet soda issue. Aspartame (NutraSweet) has been shown to cause memory problems, so I want to see diet sodas with stevia extract as a sweetener. Thus, I am filing a minority report in favor of stevia extract for all diet sodas
April 6th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Mr Starr,
You’d better not demonize Starbucks . . . Bob Barr would probably have to be strait-jacketed if Starbucks was shut down!
April 6th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Thank You Brian Holtz
...”Ruwart’s surprisingly low total is consistent with her understated performance in the debate.”...
...”Gravel’s candidacy is exciting because he can help unite and grow an LP in which a vocal minority of left-leaning radicals/anarchists claim that to disagree with them is to make the LP an arm of the GOP. A Barr/Gravel or Gravel/Barr ticket would go a long way to demonstrating that the LP is open to both Democrat and Republican refugees who believe in market-based alternatives to the nanny state.”
I was wondering if anyone else had even took the time to listen to the debate. If so, had they heard the same debate I did? At this early point in her campaign Dr. Ruwart IS NOT a good candidate. As for Gravel he won’t ever be accused of being 99. 44/100 % pure, however your excellent point needs to be grasp by all hardliners, softliners and all in betweeners: “the LP is open to both Democrat and Republican refugees who believe in market-based alternatives to the nanny state” That’s the ONLY way we will ever grow to become a player in state and national politics. We must GROW. Get them in the ship rowing with us, then EDUCATE them. Root called for removing troops from Germany, Japan & S. Korea in the debate, which IMO is a wonderful improvement (he’s being educated as he goes). Mike Gravel will be much more inline by the convention if he continues to be exposed to LP audiences and debates. He did a fine job in the debate, but I expected no less from a former U.S. Senator. His explaining our nuclear submarine power was worth the admission price !-lol. We have to fear NO ONE …Did you fearmongers hear that ? ? ?
If the numbers are correct Barr/Gravel already appeals to 38.9 % of 90 midwest LP members.
Wayne Allyn Root:22.244
Bob Barr: 20.222
Mike Gravel: 15.167
Dr. Mary Ruwart: 12.133
Michael Jingozian: 8.089
George Phillies: 7.078
None of the above: 3.033
Christine Smith: 2.022
Barry Hess: 1.011
As for the post. You who want Bob Barr in this race need to go to his site and donate from $4,600 down. That $250, 000 must be met and met sooner than later. He won’t run if it’s not and frankly, why should he ? He plans to send them a message, but he doesn’t plan to be embarassed doing it. He is planning on getting plenty of votes if he takes on this task ! It seems to me he plans to target Romney, Huckabilly, Ghouliani and Paul voters. They’ve already voted against McCain once. If he could get a majority of them he wouldn’t be embarassed. If Gravel was his running mate and could get a nice percent of those P.O.ed with the conclusion of the Dems primary race, a nice total vote would belong to the LP on Wed. morning Nov.5! Hence, much needed credibility in the eyes of the people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXJtWRW0CQI
If you listen closely he tells the world the major party candidates are WEAK and SORRY ! His, would not be a Ron Paul type campaign, that is for certain. There are some nice quotes here as well ! Obama ? AN EMPTY SUIT ! (Exactly what I’ve been thinking since I first heard him.) Clinton ? No leader there ! (Don’t we all agree?) McCain ? Status Que, NO solutions with him, on a first name basis with EVERY lobbyist in DC ! (Sleeze, INC, remember Keating 7 anyone?). Barr’s not afraid of taking them on. If you want him to send them a message DONATE, now not later…
April 6th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Obviously, I was joking … about the Pumpkin Spice Frappuccino® Blended Crème, that is. Yes, Starbucks’ coffee is dreadful to the point where you can actually improve the taste by diluting it with the effluent of my dish-washing machine.
It appears that I have finally found my Diet Dr. Pepper soul mate in Susan Hogarth and I have Wes Benedict to thank for helping to bring this to my attention.
Susan, it’s you and me against the world.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Forget it, Bob Barf, this race belongs to leading independent candidate and worldwide tycoon, Daniel Impewacko!
April 6th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Aaron, we’re not in disagreement over caffeine. It’s coffee I don’t like, but that’s another issue. I’m a tea guy.
Aspartame breaks down in the body to formaldehyde and ant poison. It has bad neural effects. It is an excitotoxin just as bad as MSG. Saccahrin is even worse. Splenda—UGH!
BTW, Nutrasweet was blocked from the food suply for years because it was bad, and only when Don Rumsfeld was head of GD Searle did they finally get it approved by buying off the FDA. Yes, that Don Rumsfeld.
I agree on stevia, but the big obesity culprit in soda is the corn syrup. FWIW I was a Coke guy until the New Coke fiasco, but Coke Classic is NOT the Old Coke as the Old Coke had sugar in it and CC has corn syrup. I switched to Pepsi over the taste issue then and never looked back. I prefer Organic Blue Mesa Soda (no corn syrup) but it’s hyper-expensive.
So I do iced tea instead (no corn syrup in those, either). Only 30 calories per tsp of sugar, plenty of caffeine, and nowhere near as bad as soda. also cheaper in the long haul at about $1 a gallon.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Michael, you are correct. Not entirely but a lot of people in medicine are now linking the obseity to 1984 when both Coke and Pepsi took sugar out of their soda formula and replaced it with corn sweetner. Corn sweeter doesn’t break down in the body and converts to fat.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Michael Seebeck is right again. The wide-spread use of corn syrup is a prescription for adult-onset diabetes. It permeates our food supply due to government policies that impose price supports on domestic sugar.
I will need to investigate the important issue of stevia. In the meantime, have you established a position yet on Xylitol?
April 6th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Nope, haven’t researched that one (Xylitol). However, if it’s synthrtically-produced, I probably won’t like it…
The other obesity link is MSG, been known since 1969. I’m allergic to it, so I really have to watch it.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/msgandobesity081105.cfm
April 6th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Oops…Steve I meant to get back to you on Aspartame, but I forgot. I hope you can forgive me, but I just don’t seem to remember things as well as I used to. Pardon me while I get another soda. What were we talking about?
April 6th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
(And people wonder why I favor regulating businesses for full food and drug label disclosure to protect our health…as if that isn’t protecting our life and liberty somehow…)
April 6th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Watch out Michael. anarcho-capitalists like Susan will tell you that those companies need no regulation or oversite, the “free market” will solve it with competition(you have to respect their consistency because they have the same answer for everything)
April 6th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
“Oops…Steve I meant to get back to you on Aspartame, but I forgot. I hope you can forgive me, but I just don’t seem to remember things as well as I used to. Pardon me while I get another soda. What were we talking about?”
LOL!
April 6th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
“Mr Starr,
You’d better not demonize Starbucks . . . Bob Barr would probably have to be strait-jacketed if Starbucks was shut down!”
Hmmm…Bob Barr in a strait-jacket. Under those circumstances, I could get behind Bob Barr 1000%, the same way George McGovern backed Senator Eagleton as his running mate in 1972.
Historical reference for those of you who consumed too much Aspartame: George McGovern in 1972 chose Senator Eagleton as his running mate. Several days after the convention, it was revealed that Senator Eagleton had been hospitalized for depression and had electric shock treatment. At first, McGovern stood behind his choice and stated that he was behind Senator Eagleton “1000 percent” before dropping him from the ticket in short order.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Andrew Murphy said:
“Watch out Michael. anarcho-capitalists like Susan will tell you that those companies need no regulation or oversite, the “free market” will solve it with competition(you have to respect their consistency because they have the same answer for everything)”
Yup, and it’s the wrong answer. Free markets are not an excuse to put people’s health at risk, and the rights of the people always take a backseat to the privileges of businesses (which have no rights as BUSINESSES ARE NOT PEOPLE!).
One’s health is a part of one’s life and liberty by definiton. Sure, we have the choice on what we put in our bodies, but those providing the substances have a liability responsibility to make sure we can get the information we need to make a truly responsible choice (not to mention cover their own behinds legally!). The problem is that the gummint regulations give these businesses the ability to hide that info, so gummint is protecting businesses at the expense of the people and not the other way around which is what they should be doing!
April 6th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
“Mr. Starr,
Thanks for your feedback, though I find the “cool your jets” comment a curious opening. If I’ve mischaracterized your comments, as you appear to be indicating that I have, I appreciate the clarification.”
Thank you, Steve LaBianca. Please feel free to call me Aaron.
Often it seems, e-mail and other electronic forms of communication are not as effective in conveying tone, inflection, etc., so misunderstandings can and do come about as a result.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Aaron (better?),
I figure that the LP National Treasurer should be addressed with “Mr.”
When Barr came to the Florida convention, I picked him up at the airport, and he needed to go to Starbucks before we got to the hotel. Stewart Flood confirmed that he is a Starbucks junkie (sort of).
I know that we have met, though I wouldn’t expect you to remember me, just one delegate out of hundreds in 2000, 2002, and 2004. I’m sure I remember seeing you (and meeting once) at two of those conventions. I’ll re-introduce myself to you in Denver.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
If Barr were to win the nomination, I believe he can be significantly undermined if Gravel were nominated for the VP slot. He is obviously hoping to draw a significant portion of his votes from disaffected conservatives. Any association with Gravel can potentially alienate these voters. In short, I think the old adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” may not hold true in this case. I think the following will: “The enemy of my enemy is a slightly-crazy marginal failed Democratic candidate and I want not part of any ticket he is on.”
Furthermore, any association with Gravel is an obvious liability. He comes across as angry, egotistical, and somewhat “off.” He is new to libertarianism and would not bring any significant amount of support to the ticket. His views are far from libertarian and would just serve to confuse any new libertarian voters. If there were a more credible “left” candidate, then great…the LP could pull from both traditional wings. That is, unfortunately, not the case.
If the LP is to gain anything lasting from a Barr run, it will be from him bringing a large amount of Paulites and McCain haters into the party. That is just one part of making it worthwhile, though. The LP then has to strive to educate and KEEP those voters. In my humble opinion, a candidate like Ruwart would be ideal for that. Barr can bring them in but let Mary ground them.
I guess I’m rambling…
April 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Breaking News: Aaron Starr comments. Critics stunned at blandness and Reader’s Digest Laughter is the Best Medicine approach. Attempts to win over Susan Hogarth with shared banality woos pundits.
Up next: Phillies and Knock Knock jokes. Can the man from Mass bring the funny back?
April 6th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
“Aaron (better?),
I figure that the LP National Treasurer should be addressed with “Mr.”
When Barr came to the Florida convention, I picked him up at the airport, and he needed to go to Starbucks before we got to the hotel. Stewart Flood confirmed that he is a Starbucks junkie (sort of).
I know that we have met, though I wouldn’t expect you to remember me, just one delegate out of hundreds in 2000, 2002, and 2004. I’m sure I remember seeing you (and meeting once) at two of those conventions. I’ll re-introduce myself to you in Denver.”
Thank you, Steve. Yes, that’s better. I look forward to us being re-introduced in Denver. Stewart Flood is great
April 6th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Brian, I’m not going to get into one of your long-winded, eyes-glaze over arguments where only you know what you’re talking about. It’s a perfect example of what is wrong with how we market the LP. You can take that ball and go home.
Michael Seebeck wins the round on this thread for Most Obvious yet Rarely Stated Thought of the night.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Aaron Starr wrote:
*******
However, I see Chuck Moulton writes:
“I attended the Heartland Libertarian conference. I didn’t write down the straw poll numbers, but the following is my recollection:
Wayne Allyn Root: 22
Congressman Bob Barr: 20
Senator Mike Gravel: 15
Dr. Mary Ruwart: 12
Michael Jingozian: 8
George Phillies: 7
None of the above: 3
Christine Smith: 2
Barry Hess: 1
No one else received any votes (including surprisingly no votes for Steve Kubby). The ballots listed all currently declared and rumored presidential candidates (including Bob Barr). They were randomly ordered with 17 different ballot configurations each listing the 17 candidates in all possible slots. Unfortunately it was not done by IRV, so all we know is the first round results, not the likely runoffs.”
Assuming the above is reasonably accurate, I’d be curious to see what conclusions other people draw from this.
***********
Chuck’s recollection is correct – these are the numbers and he described the balloting correctly.
I had not put out some sort of release/notice because I had not been able to get in touch with all the candidates. I wanted to call them all first with the results.
The Straw Poll ballots were handed out right after the debate and attendees had until 3:30 pm (at the end of the “business” portion of the event, which closed with Bob Barr’s speech) to turn them in.
There were 100 paid registrants and about 130 people there total (including speakers, candidates, campaign staff members and a few vendors working their sales/outreach booths).
Barr’s speech can be viewed right now at www.lpmo.org/heartland2008. We are hoping to have the entire debate edited and posted sometime tomorrow at the same website.
Mike Ferguson
April 6th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Aaron Starr says:
Diet Dr. Pepper ROCKS! I probably average two cans per day.
Wes says:
Aaron, please never ever again admit to such whimpiness in public again, at least not where Texans might see it. 6 Diet Dr. Pepper’s in the morning (10 AM to 4 PM) and 6 Bud Lights in the evening (8 PM to 2 AM). Anything less is uncivilized.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Wes,
Wow, six Diet Dr. Peppers. You are duh man!
I pale next to such greatness.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Why am I having bad visions of Dom DeLuise in Cannonball Run II? Must be all that Dr. Pepper floating around. LOL!
April 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“Michael Seebeck wins the round on this thread for Most Obvious yet Rarely Stated Thought of the night.”
Thanks, I think. I just call ‘em like I see ‘em.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Diet soda and light beer. How masculine. If only Itch were here, to enjoy the banter between the girls of the LNC.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Why am I having bad visions of Dom DeLuise in Cannonball Run II? Must be all that Dr. Pepper floating around.
Because it beats having visions of Starr and Hogarth sharing a diet Dr. Pepper and a copy of REO Speedwagon’s Hi Infidelity .
April 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Michael,
I don’t remember there being a Cannonball Run II.
I’m looking at the casting, and it looks like it would be a hoot to watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannonball_Run_II
It’s got Marilu Henner in it. Man, I had such a thing for her back when she was in Taxi.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Libertarian Breaking News, I prefer Johnny Walker and Tyrconnell Irish whisky myself, thank you very much
April 6th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Libertarian Breaking News says:
Diet soda and light beer. How masculine. If only Itch were here, to enjoy the banter between the girls of the LNC.
Wes says:
This would probably not be a good time to brag about eating Wendy’s hamburgers. I shoulda been going to Whataburger. Danm! Sorry to let my follow Texans down. But seriously, it was the efficiency of their operations that always impressed me—the squareness of the patties had nothing to do with it.
Do y’all have any room for a shamed Texan like me in California? There. I said it. I think I’m a Californian. Wow. I feel like a burden has been lifted off of my diet-light-Wendy’s shoulders. I’m me and I’m fine.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Libertarian Breaking News writes:
Because it beats having visions of Starr and Hogarth sharing a diet Dr. Pepper and a copy of REO Speedwagon’s Hi Infidelity .
Come on LBN, you know me better than that. I’d be listening to Chicago’s “If you leave me now.” Besides, you’re just jealous of the special thing me and Hogarth now have. You can’t take that away from us now.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Wes,
We have a special 12-step program for those who move to California or who want to move here.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Oh, by the way, I heard Bob Barr was thinking about running for President. Cool! Anybody else heard that rumor?
April 7th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Aaron,
That explains a lot.
We have a 4-step program in Texas:
1. Jack up taxes on Texas businesses
2. Offer tax abatements to Californian businesses that move to Texas
3. Offer tax abatements plus cash grants to California businesses with “green” or “clean” in their name that move to Texas
4. Bitch about all of the Californians moving to Texas
I’m against steps 1-3. Step 4 is a free speech issue.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Andrew Murphy, here’s a quick primer on the real divisions on TWP. Forget what you have heard about anarchist vs. minarchist or radical vs. reformer or even anti vs. pro-war. Since you probably took one of those tests that fancy college bound students take, I will start you off with some members of both groups, you tell me what the categories are:
Gordon, Knapp, Benedict and Dondero are in Group A. Holtz, Hogarth and her new beau, Starr are in group B.
Barr, Milnes, McMaginal and Kubby are in Group A. Ruwart, Phillies and Smith are in group B.
Seebeck and you are probably Group A. Steve LaBianca is probably Group B.
You need 3 minutes and a #2 pencil.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Trust me, there was. All-star cast. Silly movie. Worthy for a camp movie night so long as you do both I and II. Supplement with Smokey and the Bandit I-III if not campy enough. If you like Marilu Henner, go see her in Johnny Dangerously (damn, I want Piscopo’s handicapped sign from that movie!).
Hi Infidelity was OK, but “The Hits” was better. I miss the 80s!
Hey, Wes, I’ll trade houses with you here in CA for TX! Wendys is good, and Sonic is better (only one in all of LA metro!) but White Castles are still the best, even if it means my Hoosier blood is showing! But what will you do about me when I move there soon?
You can tell it’s Sunday night here at TPW.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:51 am
No, LBN, the real difference on TPW is between those with the courage to use their real name, and those who hide behind pseudonyms.
Michael, you need to distinguish between 1) what I want the LP to say to voters, and 2) what I say to anarcholibertarians to answer their arguments that the LP shouldn’t say it. What I want the LP to say to voters—instead of “abolish the state as soon as possible”—is that we stand for
All of these are just ways of reproducing the Nolan Chart in a slogan. You say “simply put, the LP is too socially liberal for the GOP and too fiscally conservative for the DP”. That’s EXACTLY what I want us to say to voters. If instead we say the LP is “centrist”, it makes us sound as confused as a Ross Perot or Joe Lieberman.
Steve, if you believe that “the principles of libertarianism, all of them” can be written in a single self-consistent document, then you would seem to be little different from the Objectivists you criticize. See
http://libertarianmajority.net/major-schools-of-libertarianism and
http://libertarianmajority.net/free-variables-in-libertarian-theory.
I agree that the key is to “move us in the direction of more liberty”, and that’s what the Platform Committee’s proposal is all about. If you (or anybody) can think of a single libertarian principle that a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree is missing from our draft (http://libertarianmajority.net/pure-principles-platform), I’d like to know ASAP so we can fix it before Denver. I keep asking this question, and nobody has ever answered it. Nobody.
I don’t see how it is that you get to advocate a stateless society as an achievable goal, but it’s somehow impractical and naive for Mike Gravel to advocate a healthcare system whose only government intervention is vouchers. However, I completely agree with you that radical decentralism is the best way to fight the ratchet mechanism of the nanny state. Instead of federal healthcare vouchers, just defederalize healthcare and let the states compete for the best policy. Instead of a Fair Tax, just end the federal income tax and send a bill to each state for its share of the radically-reduced federal budget.
Susan, thank you for educating us delegates about whether you think that the LP should be ecumenical toward Chicago-style libertarianism. Your fearless willingness to hold high your beliefs and clarify the principles you advocate for the LP is a credit to your Radical Caucus, and will surely have a major impact on your LNC race.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:55 am
“Gordon, Knapp, Benedict and Dondero are in Group A. Holtz, Hogarth and her new beau, Starr are in group B.
Barr, Milnes, McMaginal and Kubby are in Group A. Ruwart, Phillies and Smith are in group B.
Seebeck and you are probably Group A. Steve LaBianca is probably Group B.”
Me in the same group as Dondero, the Eric Cartman of TPW? PUH-LEASE!
Trust me, and this is insanity and zanity and not vanity speaking, I’m in a class by myself! How many native Hoosier-cum-Coloradoans-exiled-to-Californian are there here? Just me!
April 7th, 2008 at 1:03 am
I have little use for anarcholibertarians as it is a contradiction in terms since you can’t be for small government (implying some) or none at all at the same time. Even Jefferson and Thoreau saw them as different. Me, I’m a constitutional minarchist libertarian with the added individualist twist of believing of the ultimate superiority of the natural individual over groups (including aritifical entities like businesses) and the state (in its artifical entitiy form).
The future of the party is more than just anarcholibertarians, paleolibertarians, or any other blank-libertarians. It lies in allying with and drawing in libertarian-minded people, even if it is on only one issue, and then getting them “converted” (to use a bad term) the rest of the way.
But for now, I’m off to bed. I have to get back to work tomorrow, and I’m physically done in after a long day of yard work, floor refinishing, and dog washing.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Mr. Seebeck writes,
There are two camps within libertarianism.
The smaller, purer core of the movement are anarchists. Anarchists are not libertarians who want “small government [and] non at all at the same time,” but are rather libertarians who want no government at all.
The larger, more moderate faction of the movement are minarchists. Minarchists believe, just like anarchists, that we need to limit the government as much as possible. They differ in one way: they do not believe anarchy is realistically possible, they believe anarchism is utopian. (Anarchists would counter that any level of statism is utopian, and that the notion of a perpetually-limited government is even more utopian.)
All libertarians want to limit government as much as we practically can. The two factions simply disagree as to what is practical. In short, it’s not a contradiction in terms to call one self an anarchist libertarian, just as it’s not a contradiction in terms to call one’s self a minarchist libertarian.
Since we both agree that the government is way, way too big, to powerful, too costly, and too interventionist in our lives, it behooves our two factions to continue to work together. Once we reach minarchy, we can debate amongst ourselves whether to stop there or keep going. Therre’s plenty of time for our factions to bicker once we reach the minimal state. Let’s not let our differences divide us now, when we need each other the most.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
April 7th, 2008 at 4:00 am
April 6th, 2008 at 11:23 am
“Root’s an Arab hating racist. You are arguing over whether some fucking office is on the first or second floor when you jacktards are going to put a racist as your nominee. Same fucktards who were crying when the Ron Paul newsletters come out. Root is so good on tv. So is David Duke.
Barr at least gave money to fags Lindsey Graham and Larry Craig to make up for DOMO you Arab hating shits.”
Did Baldur just speak or did a dog fart?
April 7th, 2008 at 4:04 am
April 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“You Root dick suckers are racists fucks. The Libertarian Party is pro-WAR, pro-war and anti-Arab.”
No, not a dog farting, that was a pig.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:09 am
April 6th, 2008 at 10:38 am
“I just got informal word from the Heartland Conference that matches Mr. Dondero’s and Mr. Cohen’s: Root allegedly won the conference straw poll by two votes over Barr, with Gravel coming in third and Ruwart fourth.
So far, it sounds like a pretty damn dark day for the LP. All is lost….Root’s the worst candidate ever…Baldur gimme a hug you dirty pig you.”
hahahahaha
April 7th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Wayne Allyn Root: 22
Congressman Bob Barr: 20
Senator Mike Gravel: 15
Dr. Mary Ruwart: 12
Michael Jingozian: 8
George Phillies: 7
None of the above: 3
Christine Smith: 2
Barry Hess: 1
Binaca, I guess that liar WAR lost again….lol
April 7th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Alex Peak,
I liked your analysis of anarchist vs. minarchist. I agree, there is a long way to go before minarchists “get off the train” to the “last stop-anarchy”, so there is absolutely nothing to be gained by arguing over where it should all be headed.
The problem, as I see it, within the ranks of the LP isn’t anarchy vs. minarchy, it’s libertarianism vs pseudo libertarianism, sometimes known as “libertarian lite”. “Lite” basically sets as goals, “reduction of taxes, reduction of regulations, and reductions of intrusions” . . .as GOALS.
If the LP’s Statement of Principles (SOP) is to be adhered to and taken seriously, “libertarian lite” does not pass muster. The SOP would require that any reductions of government cannot be the GOAL, it can only be part of the strategy of getting TO the goal, which is eliminating any and all coercive authority of government. As the Statement of Principles says (and I am paraphrasing), Where governments exist, they must not violate individual rights. This in my view means government cannot coerce peaceful, rights respecting individuals. Any government regulation or tax imposed upon a peaceful person IS initiation of force, and therefore must be eliminated in order to comply with SOP.
My whole overview of the LP is that the platform must strictly conform with the SOP, and any interim steps toward those ends can only be part of the strategy or plan, but not the principles, meaning the platform.
I am always open to discuss strategy, plans, and tactics to reach the goal of a non-coercive society, starting with government, but I will not budge on the principles, nor will I support a platform which doesn’t strictly adhere to the SOP. Call me rigid, but if “candidates can’t run on our platform because it’s too rigid”, then those candidates aren’t libertarians, or haven’t figured out how to communicate that the platform is the GOAL, and their campaign’s issues are the strategy to getting to it. If a candidate or potential candidate can’t do this or something similar, then don’t run.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Alex, I agree with every word you wrote except one: “pure”. Each side of the minarchist/anarchist divide says the other’s opposition to aggression is adulterated by something, and we minarchists say anarchist opposition to aggression is adulterated by their absolutist insistence on abstaining from it. So wise minarchists never concede the “purity” of anarchists, just as they wouldn’t call a doctor “purist” for refusing to use needles or reduce joint dislocations. They instead accept any of the labels: simplistic, chaste, devout, celibate, innocent, immaculate, white-glove, or aseptic. I’d add “sterile” to the list, but I doubt it would be taken as a medical metaphor.
Also, we geolibertarians note that this particular way to cleave the space of libertarians tends to smuggle in an assumption about about the nature of property. We call that assumption “royal libertarianism”, based on the etymology of “real” estate. It’s the assumption that staking out a location is the precise moral equivalent of making it with your labor. Geolibertarians point out that spatial locations (like land, spectrum, and orbits) are a fixed pre-existing uncreatable supply, and so do not support the same moral claim for outright title (as opposed to mere possession) as material property that is created by applying effort to natural resources or to other property. Geolibertarians take seriously the Lockean proviso that location homesteaders “leave as much and as good” for others, and do not believe that first use of a site entitles a landholder to monopoly profits from increases in the value of the unimproved site qua spatial location. We hold that, just as polluters should compensate the community for pollution of a commons, so too should exclusive possessors of locations compensate the excluded community by returning the location’s geo-rent. Geo-rent is the monopoly value of the site—its excess proceeds beyond what you’d get by going into the wilderness and applying the same inputs to the best available unpossessed site. The beauty of geolibertarianism is that it solves the libertarian conundrum of financing the community’s protection of individual rights without actually violating those individual rights. For more info, see http://ecolibertarian.org/.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Brian Holtz says “Steve, if you believe that “the principles of libertarianism, all of them” can be written in a single self-consistent document, then you would seem to be little different from the Objectivists you criticize”.
I criticize the Objectivists because they excommunicated anyone who didn’t
strictly adhere to the philosophy, made “human” errors, as well as supported any practical strategy designed to achieve the goals. I am not advocating running anyone out of the party, and I certainly am not going to say “anarchy must be achieved at all costs as soon as absolutely possible”. I recognize that we libertarians will differ on how to get there, and how long a timeline is reasonable to reach the interim and final goal(s).
However, that said, since the Libertarian Party is a political party committed to eliminating force (coercion) and fraud from society, especially government, our platform must be that “bedrock document”, addressing the specific violations and potential violations of the initiation of force against peaceful, rights respecting people. I will not budge on that.
I will try to educate, or take anyone to task (time permitting), any “libertarian” who doesn’t understand the nature of the libertarian political philosophy, and the necessity of the LP to acknowledge that such a philosophy is the basis of its existence.
However, if a strategic plan, or tactic works toward th goal, I could support it. I will however, not support strategies which are designed to only slow the degradation of liberty . . . this allows “backward” movement AWAY from the goal. The “Fair Tax” is in this category, IMHO. If a candidate runs on reducing taxes, regulations, intrusions into our lives, I could support that candidate, unless that candidate has competition which offer a better strategy.
I am kind of baffled, with all the intelligent, thoughtful people who comment on this site and others, that my positions of strict adherence to principles the corresponding ultimate goal, and strategy and plans designed to achieve it over time, are so misunderstood. The burden of proof is on myself, so I will try to do a better job of saying, wording, and communicating just what it is I believe and want. Thanks, so far for listening.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Brian,
You just hit on the biggest problem I have with a “Land Value Tax”—“value” is subjective, and “excess proceeds beyond what you’d get by going into the wilderness and applying the same inputs to the best available unpossessed site” is probably not anywhere close to objectively calculable. The LVT would, therefore, be a tax based entirely on the subjective whims and prejudices of some assessment bureaucracy.
Stipulating—for the sake of argument—to the geolibertarian rather than the Lockean position on ownership in land, and to the minarchist versus anarchist position, I could see a reasonable argument for a flat tax on land possession by acreage or square footage. That would accord with the geolibertarian holding of “tax bads (removal of land from the commons), not goods (productive use of said land).” Still stipulating to those same arguments, I could also see a reasonable argument for a tax on the sale of extracted resources which are either non-renewable (for example, metals/minerals) or which are induced to flow to the property in question from other properties as the resource is extracted (for example, water).
On the question of “purity,” I think you’re being a bit disingenuous yourself. While Rothbardian libertarianism is centered on aggression as the evil to be opposed, in a POLITICAL context the aggression in question is aggression by government. As a political party, the LP favors less government (as expressed in the existence of a state). There’s no question that “no government” is the most “pure” version of “less government.”
April 7th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Steve, I disagree with your interpretation of the SoP:
http://libertarianmajority.net/does-the-sop-mandate-zero-agression-absolutism
The fundamental issue here is that not all libertarians agree precisely on what all our individual rights are. While there are quite a few free variables in libertarian theory, the SoP does point out the vast common ground we hold against nanny statists:
– mutual non-aggression among individuals
– absolute entitlement to the fruits of one’s labor
– freedom of communication
– prohibition of force initiation against others
– opposition to government confiscation of property
– prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation
– no interference in voluntary private contracts
– no sacrificing of lives or property to benefit others
– governments must not violate individual rights
I just don’t see anything in the text that says we have an individual right not to have any government ever enforce a rule for the protection of rights in a way that we can’t opt out of. For me the canonical examples would be mandatory (but contestable) government fines for measurably polluting the commons, or for consuming it in a way that measurably reduces its ability to sustain such consumption. Reasonable libertarians can disagree on such topics, and that’s why it’s good that the 315 words of the SoP don’t purport to decompress into a complete body of libertarian law.
Maybe I would understand your position better if you could explain, in all seriousness, why you don’t think the LP should be called the Anarchist Party.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Tom, see http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/FoldvaryIntellectualTyrannyApril2005.pdf.
Foldvary points out that various kinds of markets—insurance, mortgage, condominiums, real estate—routinely assess the unimproved value of land, and that this is a quite workable proxy for geo-rent. The practical question for this policy is: would it be more fair to value every acre in jurisdictions equally, or to value them according to the sort of valuations that local governments in America already compute? My experience as a landowner and a user of zillow.com is that these valuations have a margin of error of maybe 25%, but I could live with a per-jurisdiction flat per-area land tax. I can also imagine a market-based institution for appraising property, that allows the appraiser to be challenged to set aside in interest-bearing escrow a purchase amount, that must be exchanged for the property whenever the landholder decides to put it on the market.
I agree with your comments about resource extraction fees.
I’m not at all disingenuous about how I think the LP should oppose aggression. I don’t think political libertarianism is exclusively about reducing the power of the state. I think it should instead be about using political mechanisms—elections, etc.—to reduce the aggregate amount of aggression, the majority of which is indeed currently committed or enabled by the state. If you disagree, I’d like you to seriously explain why you don’t think our party should be called the Anarchist Party, and why calling it Libertarian isn’t “disingenuous” bait-and-switch. I wouldn’t have joined the LP if I thought I was endorsing anarchism as a goal, and I suspect the perception that this is our goal is one of the reasons we are so small.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Anarchy, in a general sense could allows for collectivism, with rights residing in some group, or collection of individuals. I am an individualist anarchist, or free market anarchist. I also subscribe to (without going into variations of it) natural rights theory. I do not believe that groups have rights or responsibilities beyond what the sum total of such right and responsibilities that reside in the individuals in the group.
The Statement of Principles, was (reportedly) crafted by John Hospers, likely in the same fashion that the Declaration of Independence was “crafted” by Thomas Jefferson. That is, there was collaboration for both documents, I’m sure. Hospers was/is a professor of philosophy, and had close ties with Objectivists for a time. No doubt, the SOP was crafted with Rand’s beliefs, at least partially in mind. BTW, Rothbard agreed substantially with Rand’s natural rights theory beliefs as well. My understanding is that they differed on minarchy (Rand’s belief) vs. anarchy (Rothbard’s belief).
The “oath” or “pledge” was also crafted in the 1970’s for two basic reasons. 1-it was a one sentence principle that a member certified to adhere to, and
2-In a time of radical, violent groups such as SDS and the Black Panthers,
the oath was a way of broadcasting that members were not violent, like members of these other organizations. (BTW, in a time of Patriot Acts, Military Commissions Acts, and loose definitions of “terrorist”, I believe the LP needs the oath as much now as ever)
Folks, the documents, SOP and the Oath were the party’s founding “Bedrock” documents. The platform was crafted and revised by delegates, with the understanding (express or implied) that the SOP and oath were not to be violated in the process. This scenario is not unlike the American Constitution being the “bedrock” document, and all statutes and regulations must be in strict adherence to it. We see what happens when you interpret the Constitution as a “living” document”.
If you want to sever the platform adherence to the SOP, then this is a violation of principle. The SOP must be changed first, if “leeway” is to be allowed for the platform.
As I’ve stated before, I am not going to argue anarchy vs. minarchy, but “governments where they exist must not violate individual rights”, and this includes first and foremost, the right to liberty . . . being free from coercion. The moment government coerces a peaceful, rights respecting individual, then the fundamental principles of libertarianism is violated. I am not going to argue that every government law, edict, regulation etc, will absolutely always violate rights to liberty, only that government cannot, within the framework of libertarian theory, violate such rights.
So no, I am not an advocate of having an “Anarchists Party”, because minarchy (or ultra-minarchy, which only allows for voluntary financial support for government) fits within the framework of libertarianism.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Brian,
You write:
“Foldvary points out that various kinds of markets—insurance, mortgage, condominiums, real estate—routinely assess the unimproved value of land, and that this is a quite workable proxy for geo-rent. The practical question for this policy is: would it be more fair to value every acre in jurisdictions equally, or to value them according to the sort of valuations that local governments in America already compute?”
Use of the term “compute” in the above implies that land value assessments by local governments are objective calculations of real value. They aren’t. They are “Scientific Wild-Ass Guesses” based on various criteria. If there’s going to be a land tax, my strong preference would be for “an acre is an acre is an acre,” with the rate low enough that the tax would not constitute a major burden to the person possessing even land that produces little profit.
Given a federal budget of $3 trillion, and 2.3 billion acres of land in the US, that would amount to an annual tax of about $1,300 per acre.
Of course, much of that land is not in private hands (only about 60%)—government would have a strong incentive to get it into private hands if its tax revenues were based on it being in private hands. Taxing only private land to meet the current budget (which is not met by tax revenues currently—the government runs a deficit) would increase the per-acre tax to about $2175.
As we all know, the budget is unreasonably huge. Since the amount of acreage isn’t going to drastically change from year to year, setting the budget in accordance with the known taxable acreage would be very transparent. The government would know exactly how much revenue to expect, and the land owners would know exactly what tax burden to expect.
Using the above numbers, the federal government could run a $1 trillion budget with no deficit on a flat land tax of about $725 per acre.
High-rise apartment on a one-acre footprint with 100 units renting at $1,000 a month? Tax—$725. Ranch home on a one-acre lot? Tax—$725. One acre in soybeans? Tax—$725.
Can’t make a living if you’re paying a tax of $725 per acre of land you use? Find a way to use less land to do what you’re doing, or to do more with what land you’re doing it on, or sell it to someone who can make it profitable enough to pay the tax … or tell government to tighten its belt and get that damn tax down.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I consider myself a “centrist” libertarian. In days long gone, I used to say I represented the midpoint between Murray Rothbard and John Hospers, both of whom I had cordial relations with. Today, I have friends in both the Radical Caucus and the “reform” crowd (even though I disagree with their strategic/tactical vision). I could support any of the leading prospective candidates for our presidential nomination, with varying degrees of enthusiasm. I have not endorsed any of them, although I have conferred with several of them privately.
This is not to say that any of them are perfect. Barr and Root sound too much like Republicans. (Wayne, PLEASE drop the neocon phrase “Islamo-Fascist.” Use “Islamic Jihadist,” or some other phrase.) Ruwart is a really nice person and a consistent libertarian, but not well-known or forceful. Kubby is as libertarian as anyone you’ll find, but is perceived (wrongly) as a one-issue candidate. Gravel, coming up fast on the outside, is an interesting guy and brings a breath of fresh air to the debate. Maybe it’s premature for him to run for President as a Libertarian, but his presence makes the race more interesting and has certainly gotten us some media. Let’s work to get each candidate to build on their strengths and improve in areas where they are weak.
I’m pretty sure the final choice in Denver will come down to Barr or Root vs. Ruwart or Gravel. And any of them will be WAY better than McCain or Hillobama. Let’s keep that in mind.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Brian,
You write:
“I’m not at all disingenuous about how I think the LP should oppose aggression. I don’t think political libertarianism is exclusively about reducing the power of the state. I think it should instead be about using political mechanisms—elections, etc.—to reduce the aggregate amount of aggression, the majority of which is indeed currently committed or enabled by the state. If you disagree, I’d like you to seriously explain why you don’t think our party should be called the Anarchist Party, and why calling it Libertarian isn’t ‘disingenuous’ bait-and-switch.”
I don’t think our party should be called the Anarchist Party because anarchists comprise only one segment of it—and an either irrelevant or counter-productive (depending on the particular anarchist) segment of it as far as anarchism per se is concerned.
Anarchism is a variety of libertarianism. It is not the only variety of libertarianism. I support the Libertarian Party being open to many varieties, not just one, of libertarianism.
Here’s the problem with an “Anarchist Party:”
A political party exists within a particular system, and by taking part in that system it is inherently bound by the broadest constraints that that system imposes. The broadest constraint of the system the LP participates in is the Constitution, which explicitly not only allows for, but requires, a federal government and governments specific to the several states.
An organization (in the US) which rejects the Constitution is not a political party, any more than five guys wandering around on a court randomly throwing a ball and ignoring the referee are a basketball team. The LP either accepts the Constitution as the framework within which it will operate, or the LP is not a political party.
Of course, anarchists in a political party could propose amending the Constitution for the purpose of getting rid of constraints which prevent anarchist goals from being achieved … but the more obvious reasonable goal is to first work to reduce the size and power of the state within those constraints, such that anarchy can eventually be seen on the horizon … and that’s an activity anarchists can productively work with other kinds of libertarians on.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
No Starr, I don’t know you well enough to speculate on your musical tastes well enough. I know you other than your work and your reputation. What I gather is that you are standoffish. The consensus that you are a thug with little commitment to the ideology. Not the brightest but a hard worker.
Holtz, It does take courage to parade yourself with your attitudes and lack of introspection.
That’s cruel but you generally taunt and mock others then cried to Starr when you felt threatened. This is what I know from your fellow state party members. They think that you are a loudmouth, a braggart, with an inflated sense of value to your political party. From what I read is that you are not an embarrassment but you are the average American Joe computer guy. You seem to have a hatred toward Evangelical Christians. My wife is a Christian. I’m Catholic. We home school. She doesn’t feel welcome in the Libertarian Party. We like Ron Paul but we aren’t going spray paint buildings with his name.
Reading TWP for months and seriously looking into joining the Libertarian Party, I get a general sense of there are those who really believe in a big tent and those who pay lip service. I don’t want to be relegated to the CP. When I first starting reading the this blog, I was under the impression that anarchists were bombthrowing kooks who hurt the party’s image.
You seem to have a very narrow view of the libertarian movement which you impute to everyone else who might disagree with you. You also have hostility to gays in your party judging from what one member told me. I have my personal religious beliefs about homosexuality but I don’t push that on people who don’t share them.
My wife and I attended Freedom Fest last year. That was an inclusive event with full representation of the movement. There were many religious people but there was also your friend Michael Shermer who sat a row in front of us during Brian Doherty’s presentation. You keep referring to Radicals for Capitalism Someone in the audience loudly demanded that Doherty was an anarchist. Doherty said, “yes” and continued his presentation. That impressed me. He was also very polite while signing books with his family.
Apart from Hogarth who mostly seems put upon more than anything, I find many of those who identify as anarchists to people of substance and very tolerant. As for Eric Dondero, it takes a great deal of courage for him to come here where he is always shouted down and treated rudely by everyone. I don’t agree with him on much but he has courage.
As for posting under “real names,” I don’t know who is real and who isn’t. I doubt you do either but you don’t have a career where posting on political blogs might cost us contracts or other opportunities. I do. I am glad that you have that career security.
Now, people could have not told me the truth about you but from what I have seen of your comments, I tend to agree. If this is what the Libertarian Party is about, maybe I should reconsider the CP. I will never go back to the Republican Party.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Your charge that I lack “introspection” is astonishing, since I’m all about questioning assumptions—mine and everybody else’s—all the way down to fundamental epistemology and metaphysics. I even posted a list of my life’s biggest intellectual mistakes on my blog.
I have no idea what incident in connection with Aaron Starr you could possibly be referring to. I wasn’t in the LPCA leadership until he was out of it, and he assiduously stays out of the public debates about ideology in which I defend the idea of a more ecumenical LP. I can’t think of any time in which I’ve ever initiated contact with Aaron, except one time to to ask him questions about LPCA financial history in connection with the work of our audit committee. Nearly all of our few contacts have involved Aaron trying to get me to be more likable/popular when I defend myself and my ideas from criticism—or better yet to ignore such criticism (as he rigorously does). I’m sure I’ve disappointed him on this score, but I’m trying to do better.
I know that one of my failings is that I often read people’s words more carefully than they wrote them, but I only do so in hopes that they might return the courtesy.
I also would like to know what concrete evidence your informant might have that I’m a “braggart”. I’ll admit I’m not shy about pointing it out when an argument of mine hasn’t been answered. Perhaps your informants don’t appreciate the double entendre of my domain name LibertarianIntelligence? I offer no pretenses about my “value” to the LP or LPCA, and am painfully aware that my fellow LPCA leaders aren’t much interested in the practical ideas I campaigned on:
http://knowinghumans.net/2007/04/lpca-strategy-tactics.html
I have never once expressed “hatred” toward evangelical Christians, even though I get regular hate email from some of them. On the contrary, I’ve spent way too much of my time in the past taking evangelical Christianity very seriously as an intellectual enterprise. Regarding Christians in the LP, I’m helping lead the effort to make the LP Platform be, for the first time since 1974, no longer absolutist in its “pro-choice” opposition to fetal rights, but rather to be neutral in this intra-party franchise dispute. I barely know who Michael Shermer is, and I’m sure he has no idea who I am, so I don’t see why you would call him my “friend” (aside from the fact that I appreciate his work and personal sacrifice for separation of church and state).
The notion that I have “hostility to gays” is simply libelous. On the Platform Committee I have consistently and loudly defended 1) the inclusion of gay rights in our Platform and 2) the centrality of gay rights in LP political strategy as a mainstream and winning position. I led the effort to break PlatCom’s self-imposed only-recycled-language guideline to include specifics in our draft platform about equality for gays regarding marriage, immigration, adoption, and military service. When the time came in Vegas for this plank to be considered, I went out of the room and brought back the leaders of the Outright Libertarians so they could take my novel language and improve it for us. We accepted every change to it that they suggested. Three of my closest friends on the LPCA ExCom have been its openly gay members. I’ve crashed overnight in a (big) bed with a gay friend, and have had gay housemates and gay officemates and gay dormmates. I’m living proof that gay is not contagious and gays are not predatory. You should seriously question the personal integrity of anybody who would try to play a homophobia card against me.
I agree that a disproportionate number of the LP’s deepest thinkers are anarchists/radicals. However, I would suggest that the best way to measure an LP member’s intellectual tolerance is the degree to which he 1) treats opponents and their actual arguments fairly, and 2) is willing for the LP’s foundational texts to tolerate (or be interpreted as tolerating) the major schools of libertarianism. On that standard, I invite you to compare my level of substance and tolerance with anybody’s.
I’m surprised at your claim that you’re not really sure who is real here, since you seem to think you know exactly who I am. If many of the anonymous comments here would embarrass the author if his identity were known, that pretty much underlines my point. TPW readers don’t need to be told what kind of comments the anonymous posting policy tends to encourage.
I don’t understand the need for all the vicious personal attacks that Libertarians routinely make on each other. They particularly mystify my wife. She always asks why Libertarians don’t spend more time criticizing the ideology of nanny state incumbents, and less time policing each other’s ideology through our official texts. I’m not sure of the answer. I just hope we can end the Platform Purity wars in Denver, and then start taking a torch to the nanny state, instead of protecting our flickering candle from the impure.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Dear Eric Dondero’s Guts.
Here’s the link to Devry University so that you can pursue that oh so coveted career security:
http://www.choosedevry.com/landing27/anthem2.aspx?vc=163695
See you in Denver.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Oh man.
I tried to read the entire conversation but my eyes started crossing, and my head started hurting, about halfway through.
Here’s the reality—there needs to be a vigorous debate amongst the leading candidates. Coy “exploration” needs to give way to serious candidacies soon—and those candidacies will require a campaign organization, money and well-thought-out positions on the issues.
One of the problems that I have with last-minute candidacies ala Barr, Gravel and Ruwart—despite my great affection for Dr. Mary—is that it doesn’t bode well for long-term strategy.
Dr. Phillies (my preferred choice) and the others who have been in for a while have done the hard work—the ground work and position papers and debates and rubber chicken dinners. The Johnny-Come-Latelys haven’t done those things… especially the folks who are new to the LP.
Ultimately, this race is critical to our country’s future. It cannot be a celebrity face-off—many Americans are counting on the Libertarian Party to call out Obama/Clinton and McCain on a number of issues that they’re ignoring or wavering on.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Terry, if you care about your brother, get his drinking under control. He lashes out at people on line when he drinks too much. Brian does many good things for the party. People should be nice to him. Alcoholism is a disease.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I suppose these comment sections can get off in many directions, but I would like to thank David Nolan for his thoughtful post. His statement “Let’s work to get each candidate to build on their strengths and improve in areas where they are weak.” is likely the most productive statement under this heading. Though I will have to swallow my pride, I will hope for W.A.R. to truly say what he believes, and believe and embrace the libertarian positions of peace, free markets and free choice, and prosperity that comes from it. I think all of our candidates bring something of value to the Libertarian Party’s nominating. W.A.R. brings a good speaking ability . . . now he ought to embrace libertarianism and let that Republicanism go. I will support that, and hope he gets there. Oh, and stop twisting the truth Mr. Root. That will also go a long way.
April 8th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Mr. Murphy writes,
Anarchocapitalism does not say you may not use unowned roads, it merely says that the government, being a criminal organisation, has no right to own them. Indeed, the only people who will have the right to homestead roads are those who use them.
There is also nothing wrong with purchasing services from a business; what is wrong, according to anarchocapitalism, is for the government to grant monopoly status to that business. If I get my gas from the BG&E monopoly here in Maryland, I’m not the criminal, I’m the victim. The government, in granting its monopoly to BG&E, is the criminal, as is BG&E if it petitions for or wishes to maintain its government-sponsored monopoly.
And what about taxes? Again, we tax-payers are the victims according to anarchocapitalism. We’re not giving money to this criminal organisation because we want to, but because we are being compelled to do so by said criminal organisation.
You claim that anarchocapitalists can choose. What happens if I “choose” not to surrender my money for road repair under our statism system? I go to jail. What happens if I “choose” not to surrender my money to the criminal organisation giving BG&E its monopoly status? I go to jail. What happens if I “choose” not to surrender my money to the IRS? I go to jail.
Your claim that we can simply “choose” is no different than telling a slave in the antebellum South that he can choose not to be a slave, and thus shouldn’t complain about his station in life. But what happens if he “chooses” to run away? Often, his punishment was even worse than jail.
In short, Mr. Murphy, your argument fails fully. Anarchocapitalists are not participating in the evil unless they accept welfare, or accept money working from the government working as a bureaucrat or a politician. (When I run for office, if I ever do, one of my first promises will be to not accept any money from the government as “pay.”)
Mr. Seebeck writes,
Voluntary organisations have the same rights as the members that comprise them. (And no one, not even fascists, would claim that the state is a voluntary organisation.) Businesses, operating on the free market, are clearly voluntary organisations.
I agree with you that businesses are not people, but I find that rather irrelevant. If everyone working for organisation A has the right to free speech, then why would they lose this right when speaking together as organisation A? If everyone working for organisation A has the right to self-defence against physical aggression, why would they lose this right when acting together as organisation A to repel physical aggression? If everyone working for organisation A has a right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, then why would they lose this right when standing together as organisation A?
As a person, if I wish to sell you a can without a label upon it, and you wish to buy said can, no third party should enter the equation and prevent us from making this trade. If, on the other hand, I sell you a blank can and tell you that there is mustard inside it, and you later open it to discover that ketchup was actually inside it, then I have committed fraud against you, which I have no right to do, and you have the right to seek redress for my crime.
So why would I lose this right to sell you an unlabeled can simply because I have two buddies with me and am calling this trio of mine The Super Duper Corp? Nay, I must logically retain this right, as must my two buddies. As long as we do not commit fraud our my customers, we are within our natural rights.
One doesn’t have to be an anarchocapitalist to see that this is the only rational position to hold.
Mr. Seebeck continues, “One’s health is a part of one’s life and liberty by definiton.”
One has a negative right to life, but no positive right to life. In other words, you have a right to not be murdered, and to not be a victim of manslaughter. No one may take your life without your consent, for doing so violates your rights.
But you do not have a positive right to life, or to anything else: in other words, you do not have the right to enslave someone else even if doing so is the only way to keep yourself alive. You have no right to make people give you food. You have no right to make people give you shelter. You have no right to make people perform surgery upon you.
Positive rights cannot logically exist, for their existence necessarily negates the existence of negative rights, and thus, any rights at all.
Do you have a right to your health? In the negative sense, most definitely. No one has the right to make you sick without your consent. If I tell you that I have put mustard in a can and sell it to you, and it is not actually mustard but instead ketchup, and you are allergic to mustard, then I have violated your natural right. (Even if you are not allergic, I have violated your natural right.) Likewise, if I inject you with AIDS while you are walking down the street, I have violated your natural right. But you have no positive right to your health, for the same reason you can have no positive right to your life, to food, to a house, to a television, or to anything at all.
Mr. LaBianca:
I agree that the platform must be purist. It doesn’t have to state that we want anarchy, but at the same time should not say that we want the state to do X, Y, and Z. In other words, I very much support bringing back the Dallas Accord, which I hope will once again serve to appease both the purist and moderate factions.
As for candidates, I don’t mind if they deviate from the purist position; after all, it’s rare for candidates to agree fully with their platforms, no matter what party we’re talking about. But I’m much less lenient with deviation when it comes to the presidential candidate. I’m much more lenient with deviation when it comes to local candidates.
I don’t believe the platform should be moderated because…well, what part should we moderate? All the minarchists disagree about what parts they don’t like. Some don’t like this passage, while other minarchists love that passage. Some don’t like this other passage over here, while other minarchists joined the party because of that passage. It wouldn’t make sense for our platform to say, “A, B, and C are bad; but we support rent control.” It wouldn’t make sense at all. Thus, we need the Dallas Accord, to once again bring some sort of “peace” (relatively speaking) between the factions.
Mr. Holtz writes,
I would argue that geolibertarianism is flawed, but do not believe they are necessarily not purist. Another example, other than land ownership, would be copyrights. There are anarchist libertarian on both sides of the copyright debate, and I wouldn’t say that either side lacks purity because of its position. I would say that someone who advocates that the government ban gay marriage is not a purist, even if he/she agrees with the anarchist faction on every other issue. (Not that I demand purism from our candidates. It’s just good to know what is and is not “purist.” (And the main reason I want the presidential candidate to be more purist than other candidates is purely strategic—the presidential candidate represents all libertarians every four years, and it’s not good to be having the guy representing these smaller candidates calling for federal rent control when we’re trying to show voters that we’re different—different enough that we’re not a wasted vote.))
I need to go again.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
April 8th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Alex, you ask Platform reformers “what should we moderate?” It’s no mystery—our draft is at http://libertarianmajority.net/pure-principles-platform. I would reverse the question:
What role or power of the state did the DA-compliant platforms not call for eliminating? How is personal secession not the functional equivalence of anarchism? The DA-compliant platforms essentially said we would hollow out the state, and “compromised” by not saying whether we’d throw away the empty broken shell.
What in your opinion is the most important libertarian principle that a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree is missing from the Platform Committee’s current draft?
What in your opinion are the most important specific policy questions that a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree do not have any answer in the Platform Committee’s current draft but should?
I keep asking these questions, and getting silence. (“Everything missing from 2004” does not count as an attempt to answer either question.)
The Dallas Accord was not really the minarchists compromising with the anarchists, but rather capitulating to them.
However, it’s not like the PlatCom’s proposal actually rules out anarchism. Below are the parts of the draft that are relevant to the Dallas Accord. Every sentence below was in a previous LP Platform.
– [G]overnments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights
– Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property.
– The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government.
– The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.
– We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals.
– We support the right of political entities to renounce their affiliation with any government
– Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
I agree that copyright is an example of a free variable in libertarian theory. I list 24 others at
http://libertarianmajority.net/free-variables-in-libertarian-theory. Do you think any of them have a “purist” binding? I agree that enfranchisement according to sexuality definitely does not qualify for the list.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:31 am
My support for Restore ‘04 is not based on the belief that everything in the 2004 platform must be in our platform; I simply believe the reformers through the baby out with the bathwater.
The 2004 platform, if I recall correctly, made no mention of eliminating the government-monopoly police, government-monopoly courts, the government’s standing army, or the state itself.
But with that said, the Dallas Accord does not force the platform to list everything that it listed in ‘04, it merely prevents the platform from saying something like, “Yeah, we want to get rid of X, Y, and Z…but rent control is okay. We should have rent control.”
Ludwig von Mises argues in favour of this in his book, Liberalism. Yet, Ludwig von Mises was not an anarchist, and rejected anarchism. He instead believed that the threat of secession could be a useful citizens check on the power of the state.
I’m rather sure the opposite is true.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
April 9th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Alex, while it’s true that the pre-Portland Platform didn’t explicitly call for elimination of the state quasi-monopolies on justice and defense, it also didn’t defend them, and the Omissions plank clearly said that silence does not mean approval. It remains the case that the 18,000-word pre-Portland Platform was asymptotically close to an anarchist’s wet dream, and systematically contradicted the foundational premises of the non-anarchist schools of libertarianism.
I asked you for a specific example of principles or policies that a 2/3 majority of delegates would agree aren’t covered in the proposed 2008 Platform, and all you said was that it “throws the baby out with the bathwater”. Can you please give it another try? Your hypothetical about rent control is quite wide of the mark, as the 2008 draft plainly says “We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.”
From http://www.mises.org/quotes.aspx?action=subject&subject=Secession
it appears that Mises did not support personal secession. The quotes there consistently refer to “villages” as the smallest of the sorts of things that may secede. The one outlier quote is extremely hypothetical: “If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.” I would have no problem replacing the old personal secession language with this sentence from Mises. Again, I don’t see how personal secession isn’t the functional equivalence of anarchism.
Re: “Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property.” I read this line from the 2006 Platform as echoing the other lines about “the only proper role” and “the only proper purpose” of government. I hardly think that the Portland delegates were trying to vouch for the moral rectitude of governments generally or even the U.S. government in particular. Rather, I suspect that they were simply invoking the Jeffersonian justification for government in support of the LP’s incrementalist agenda for rolling back the nanny state.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:16 am
I’m turning yellow.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 am
juicy university stone tree all kitchen german