Root asks Ruwart to step down

From the Root for America campaign (presumably about this topic):

Our campaign is disappointed and saddened to have learned about statements attributed to Mary Ruwart. As a result of these statements we feel that is appropriate for Mary Ruwart to immediately withdraw from consideration for president and/or vice-president.

115 Responses to “Root asks Ruwart to step down”

  1. brian Says:

    wow. please withdraw your nomination for the libertarian party’s presidential candidacy because of your advocation of libertarianism.

    this is the sort of ridiculous b.s. that makes me even more certain that there can never be progress toward reducing state power through political means. people seeking power want just that: power. and libertarian philosophy will always take a back seat to that (if it even stays on the bus at all). when the party of principle becomes the party of nothing-in-particular, what do we have left but an addition to the establishment?

    you know, root, there’s no need for you to promote the LP, there are already two established parties for folks like you.

  2. Mike Theodore Says:

    My God. This controversy has barely smeared the home page of ThirdPartyWatch, and he’s already demanding her to drop out. I’m sick and tired of his monopoly on the party. I’m sick and tired of him acting like he’s running for the GOP ticket. I’m sick and tired of his pompous “I”m The Best” ways. I’m sick and tired of typing these comments while flanked by two Root pictures surrounded in the flag. GOD DAMNIT WAYNE! Let the people work this out. Shut up, and act honorably for once in your ill-gotten live.
    Those who think I’m a Ruwart fan simply sticking up for her, I’m actually a Gravel supporter. Just sick of Root staining this proud party.
    ...
    Go with the real choice.
    Milnes/Theodore
    Lets Throw Rocks At Root

  3. Jeremy Young Says:

    Okay, this is very much NOT cool. Plenty of people have the right to ask Ruwart to withdraw from the race because of her comments. Her rivals for the nomination are not among those people.

    Imagine Hillary Clinton asking Obama to withdraw from the race because of the Wright controversy. This simply wouldn’t happen in a major party. Root’s now shown us what a classless cad he is.

  4. Mike Theodore Says:

    Jeremy, give me a god damned hug! I love you right now!

  5. Jared Says:

    Root sucks.

  6. Hugh Jass Says:

    So, the person advocating a War on Islamofascism is asking Ruwart to withdraw because she advocates repealing age-of-consent laws.

  7. BillTx Says:

    LOL, Wayne Allyn Doof sure doesn’t waste any time, does he?

  8. Fred C. Says:

    Meh. As pissy as I am about the whole subject, I’m not calling for her to withdraw. I’m just calling for her to lose. If you want her out, Root, then beat her.

  9. ABW Says:

    Root is such a jerk.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    LOL … I just sent an email to a friend hypothesizing that not even Root is stupid enough to jump on this grenade. Guess I was wrong.

  11. Mike Theodore Says:

    I haven’t met a Root supporter on this site once. Where are these vulnerable little pissants? I want someone to defend his worthless honor.
    I apologize for my vulgarity. I try to be more professional with all of you. But this just pisses me off. The party is supposed to be above this.

  12. Jerry Baner Says:

    Christ.

    Here goes the assholery of Root. I wish that Barr would jump in already just to see the two of them duke it out for douchebag of the party. I believe that position is also determined at the convention.

  13. Richie Says:

    @Mike Theodore – Surely you’ve seen Eric Dondero’s paranoid rants. He’s a Root supporter.

  14. Mike Theodore Says:

    I don’t consider Eric Dondero a person. Not anymore, at least. No, after many nights of lying crying in the moonlight, I”ve concluded that he is nothing more than a figment of a deep dark section of my imagination. Oddly I’m not alone. Everyone seems to be seeing my delusion of the great demon monster.

    Do you want my psychiatrists number? I need a new one. This one keeps telling me that Dondero exists.
    Spoooooky

  15. Jerry Baner Says:

    Actually, thinking this through, it might make sense for Ruwart to drop out.

    If the MSM gets ahold of this, it will look incredibly bad for the Libertarian party as a whole.

    I’ve never found myself agreeing with WAR, but he may have a point.

  16. Mike Gillis Says:

    I really hope the Libertarian Party is smart enough to send this huckster clown packing.

  17. Mike Theodore Says:

    Jerry, I don’t give half a damn whether or not she should. But Root, a candidate for President of the United States, shouldn’t be the one to ask her to drop out. It comes down to the citizens to pressure her. This isn’t the way a candidate runs! That’s what he is, folks. By God, a candidate for President of the United States! Do even his supporters want to see this man in the White House.
    When it comes to issues of honor, do this. I do it alot. Would you do this? If you were running for an office, would you have the gall to ask your competition to drop out just to level the playing field? I wouldn’t do it to my worst enemy, and here’s this prick doing it to a well-respected Libertarian.
    This is a jerk move, and I can’t see someone I could respect pulling this off.

  18. Jerry Baner Says:

    @Mike

    I hate Wayne Allyn Root, I truly do. What his campaign is doing here, however sleazy it may be, is incredibly intelligent. He’s making these comments a story, when before they were just comments.

    It’s going to end up benefiting people like Jingozian, Barr, Phillies, and Gravel, not Root, but WAR thinks he’s doing something smart.

  19. Denver Delegate Says:

    Root just lost his eligibility to get my vote or financial support at the national convention.

  20. Stefan Says:

    I think this is ridiculous statement by Root, and not to the advantage of the LP as a whole. Mary Ruwart will be at a LP conference the whole Friday and Saturday in Indianapolis, IL and I am sure she will clarify her view there. If Root asks for Ruwart’s resignation from the race over this issue, then fellow LP candidates can ask for his immediate resignation from the race from having advocated the killing of innocent people through his former support of the Iraq war, where people have actually been killed. Root should also then advocate the impeachment of Bush, Cheney and all those responsible for the decision to go to war. Note that Ruwart has never advocated child pornography in any way (not even to mention child prostitution).

    Note: I am not advocating for anyone to drop out, though I do want some clarity on this issue with regard to Ruwart’s sentence, which I am sure she would give. If an age definition of a child was provided, there would have been no problem and I do not think there will be any problem after Ruwart’s response.

  21. Mike Theodore Says:

    Jerry,

    Although dragging the story into the limelight is a benefit, the fact is that the first thing you think is “Root’s a prick”. I barely give half a damn about the statements now. I just want to bludgeon the prick with my Freedom 2X4.
    This does hurt Ruwart by dragging the issue on. I don’t like this, even as a Gravel supporter. Ruwart is a smart woman, she’ll take them on. Or she’ll defend them to the end, and only the loyal will be with her. shrug. Personally, I don’t think it matters which way she takes. But come on, people. We are staining our reputation with this nonsense. Let’s play real here and run a campaign.

    Milnes/Theodore
    That’s Right, It Just Got Creepy

  22. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Jerry,

    You write:

    “If the MSM gets ahold of this, it will look incredibly bad for the Libertarian party as a whole.”

    The point of having a Libertarian Party is to gain support for what we stand for, not to change what we stand for any time it might be good for a few more votes or any time we start fearing that “the MSM might get ahold of this.” That’s why we’re called the Libertarian Party rather than the Schmoo Party.

    While I agree with Mr. Holtz that there are a number of issues on which libertarians differ, I definitely draw the line at accepting as “libertarian” someone who advocates drawing a number out of a hat and arbitrarily declaring anyone engaging in otherwise legal actions on the wrong side, or with someone on the wrong side, of that random number a criminal.

    There’s nothing libertarian about such a position. There’s nothing compatible with traditional American values about such a position. There’s not even anything SANE about such a position. It’s stump-stupid, and if increasing vote totals have to wait until we can convince people that it’s stump-stupid, better that increasing vote totals wait than that we acquiesce in stump-stupidity.

  23. Glen Says:

    Stefan, if you want to impeach Bush/Chaney, you also need to advocate legal action against Bill Clinton and the US members of Congress during the 1990’s who set the wheels in motion for 2003. Bush may have cut the grass but Clinton put the fertilizer down.

  24. Stefan Says:

    WAR = a real SOB

    Note: “B” does not only stand for butcher
    This action may just cost Root any chance for the nomination, and Ruwart could get a lot of extra sympathy with a clarification that satisfies us all: how ironical
    As I suspected, Root is not a team player.

  25. Mike Theodore Says:

    Sure, Glen. Put them all in jail. I’ll kick down there ill-gotten lawn flamingos.

  26. Steve LaBianca Says:

    I had a hunch before, but now, with this W.A.R. “request”, it is becoming so much clearer as to who was behind Ruwarchy! the troll on TPW.

    If you go to the ORIGINAL Ruwarchy! post here, this was stated:

    Ruwarchy! Says:
    April 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    3)America needs to know that we need to leave Iraq as quickly as possible, leaving all of our equipment behind. This way, they can sell the food and equipment to help rebuild what we broke.

    I had not heard any other LP presidential candidate bring up the idea of “leaving all of our equipment behind”, or who has expresses any concern about equipment . . Huh . . . is equipment worth more than human life?

    However, when I listened to W.A.R.’s interview with the Northern Virginia Patriot show, (recorded a few days ago) he called for leaving Iraq in 12 to 18 months, because WE CAN’T LEAVE $1 BILLION WORTH OF EQUIPMENT BEHIND! And that leaving Iraq quickly, would put at risk the fragile Iraqi democracy; in essence leaving Iraq “broken”. Coincidence . . . hardly.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put this together.

    That’s right W.A.R., when I asked you several months ago to “please withdraw from the LP presidential race”, it really stuck in your craw didn’t it!

    And when you started feeling that Mary Ruwart actually was going to beat you, well, the humiliation would be nearly unbearable if someone swiped the nomination from you (as if it was yours to begin with).

    And it really stuck in your craw when you were called to the mat on your constant flip-flopping, and lies, by myself, Tom Knapp and others.

    And when I sent you another email saying that your campaign was toast, because a popular Libertarian, Mary Ruwart was now vying for the nomination. All this must have really stuck in your craw!

    For W.A.R., success has been easy, with the smooth talking go get ‘em style. W.A.R. will have none of this real competition, especially from a long-time, libertarian like Mary Ruwart. And it really stuck in your craw that Mary, jumping into the contest after you had been at it for over a year, and was very likely to get the nomination, which YOU HAVE GUARANTEED (to me in an email, and publicly several times) THAT YOU WOULD GET!

    I guess it really stuck in your craw that Mary Ruwart won the straw polls in Ohio, North Carolina, and tied with you in Louisiana. SHE can’t do that . . . boohoo, I’m W.A.R. and I’ve been at this for over a year!

    And now you have the transparency to call for Ms. Ruwart to withdraw from the LP nominating process? Well, W.A.R. you ARE aggressive; you are a liar, and now we can add one more despicable quality; you are a dirty snake in the grass. You were betting that you could get some folks to back you up and smear Ms. Ruwart, and betting that some people would blindly believe the smear as truth! After, you ARE in the Odds making business. How very clever of you . . . however not at all libertarian of you; which I have been saying about for some time. there is very little about the core of W.A.R. that is libertarian. The exterior . . well W.A.R. can be anything he wants. as he is GOOD at getting people to believe the worst in others. the worst in Arabs, immigrants, and now libertarians.

    Whatever the outcome of this, you Mr. W.A.R. are tarnished beyond repair. You ARE toast, or as David Nolan said (and THIS, from the founder of the LP) YOU ARE ROAD KILL . . . and THAT must have REALLY stuck in your craw! From this day forward, you will forever be remembered as the dirty politician who thought he could take over the LP. Like the corporate takeover guru, it’s “just business”.

    Once upon a time, Libertarians formed a party, in part because of how dirty and shameful politics is. As Harry Browne might say, you have turned the dignity of Libertarian politics, of calling out statism, by turning it totally inside out. If anything, it is YOU Mr. W.A.R who may have ruined the LP, not Mary Ruwart.

    Libertarians will NOT forget what you are. Nor should they. Ever.

    p.s. So W.A.R. how much did this cost you? Answer: it didn’t cost, it was an investment in W.A.R.

  27. Nigel Watt Says:

    Given that the President of the United States has no influence in this area of law, who gives a damn?

  28. Glen Says:

    Just want consistency. Clinton put in the no fly-zones, the food embargo that killed thousands of Iraqi children and passed the Iraq Liberation Act with 98 Senators voting “yes” that the USA should remove Saddam Huessin October 31, 1998. The Bushies used the Liberation Act as legal cover many times leading up to the war

  29. Mike Theodore Says:

    Folks, I hate to be the cypher of doom, but this debate has no end. I recommend pulling it back to President Root (just seeing how it would look) and his deforming ways. Just a suggestion.

  30. Steve LaBianca Says:

    BillTx Says:
    April 24th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

    LOL, Wayne Allyn Doof sure doesn’t waste any time, does he?

    Bill, waste time? W.A.R. started it!

    Hugh Jass Says:
    April 24th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    So, the person advocating a War on Islamofascism is asking Ruwart to withdraw because she advocates repealing age-of-consent laws.

    Mary Ruwart does NOT advocate infringing upon the rights of children. ANYONE who actually believes that Mary Ruwart believes in or advocates infringement of the rights of children couldn’t be more wrong. Anyone who believes that W.A.R. believes anything other than an all-out War on Terrorism and “Islamo-fascism”, is just as wrong.

  31. Glen Says:

    Root was wrong to ask her to step down however I am troubled by her remarks. Not that she is implying child sex, but I think we libertarians some times like to push the envelope. I hope she briefly address’ this at the Convention and moves on.

  32. Stefan Says:

    Glen, I was talking about Root, I am not a presidential candidate and in no position to ask it. Of course CLinton also has responsibility with his 1997 act, but he did not decide to invade, although he prepared the ground for it, and he has already gone through the process of impeachment. I read that Barr has actually indicated that the action of the US govt. warrant more than impeachment actually, but that it would not be practical or productive to call for it now, and I fully agree. An impeachment process take make months – as he enjoys diplomatic immunity – and is complicated and by that time, Bush/Cheney-term may already be over. It is interesting to to note that Root said he would not went to far so as to ask for it. Barr has a much better understanding and experience of the law than Root.

    I wish Barr could make a mediating statement like a leader in this “dispute” between Root and Ruwart. If both of them are present in a next debate, one can imagine the feelings will not be so good between them…

  33. Mike Theodore Says:

    I like the “briefly” part. Ruwart needs to pull off some politicalness here and shut this comment down. Risky business, but she could do it.

  34. ABW Says:

    Without a doubt, Mary will clarify this issue in Indianapolis this weekend, when she can do so in person. Since the comments that were posted were not complete, Mary will be able to turn this back around. She’s a smart woman and a true honorable Libertarian that will still be the one to beat in Denver. She has some of the strongest true Libertarian advisor support, that will help bring Root down over this one, while many, many people will stand back and laugh at how he totally stuck his foot in his big, obnoxious mouth. Bring it on boys!!

  35. Stefan Says:

    Glen, she may most probably have “only” meant child pornography, and not implied child sex. Personally I disagree with both in the strictest sense. As you say, we hope she briefly address this Friday and then move on.

  36. Steve LaBianca Says:

    For anyone who is interested in listening, here is W.A.R. on the Northern Virginia Patriots radio show. the interview doesn’t start until about 15 minutes in, but the leave Iraq in 12 to 18 months, and not leave the equipment behind is all there.

    http://www.mypodcast.com/cached/nvp_20080421_1719-216354-102389-2-25.mp3

  37. Andrew Murphy Says:

    Root should have just left this alone. I am no Ruwart fan by any means, but her views will be stated during the Convention, and if people don’t like it, they will not vote for her. I disagree stefan, Bob Barr should stay above the fray on this.

  38. Andrew Murphy Says:

    Hey stefan, check your gmail.

  39. LifeMember Says:

    As you say, we hope she briefly address this Friday and then move on.

    Without a doubt, Mary will clarify this issue in Indianapolis this weekend, when she can do so in person. Since the comments that were posted were not complete, Mary will be able to turn this back around.

    Here’s Ruwart’s quote:

    “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have
    the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography,
    the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

    The only way she can begin to address it is to first answer yes to this question: Do you support laws which protect young children from sexual predators?

    Then she will have to say she was totally wrong about this and many more anarchistic statements she has made in the past. If she cries better than Hillary, she may regain some of her lost support over this issue. She will never get it all back.

  40. George Phillies Says:

    “...introduced by a candidate…”

    Actually, no. I came in rather later. The discussion of the Phillies defense policy proposal was borrowed by a group of people, one of whom asked about the topic being discussed here, there, and everywhere. I responded to LifeMember, posting on April 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 am , who responding to something I cannot find.

    Life Member asked an entirely sensible question. Because I do not want my name attached by error to the policy he references, an error he did not make, a response was posted, comparing the Ruwart and Phillies stands and letting the readers decide.

    Now it is true that I did open a discussion, at http://TheDailyLiberty.Com , of a Ruwart proposal. However, that discussion was on the national debt and the proposals in Ruwart’s book for dealing with it. Again, the reader may decide which position you prefer. I repeat that discussion here:

    #1 What is the Libertarian response to handling the National Debt? (pp. 91-92)

    Ruwart: The national debt represents loans to government secured by its willingness to tax (steal from) its citizens. Thus, some Libertarians view buying government bonds as encouraging a thief and have no qualms about repudiating the debt. Others believe that government property (including over 40% of the U.S. landmass) should be liquidated to repay the debt, wholly or in part.

    Phillies: Three choices for solving the national debt are paying it, selling assets, and repudiating it.

    I say that we should eliminate the National debt by paying it.

    Can we? It’s exactly like paying off a house mortgage. If you want to pay off a mortgage over 30 years, your monthly payment on the principal starts near a tenth of a percent of initial debt. We have nine trillion dollars of national debt. A budget surplus around $100 billion a year and constant future payments makes our funded national debt go away by 2040.

    What about alternative solutions?

    Sell Federal lands? That simply won’t work. Why? America has around a billion acres of Federal land. Parts of that land, such as the Grand Canyon, simply are not going to be for sale. To pay off the national debt by selling other Federal lands, we’d need to sell for around $10,000 an acre. In contrast, in eastern Kansas and Western Missouri, real estate ads show farmland for one or two thousand dollars per acre. Selling all our Federal lands would raise, being optimistic, perhaps one trillion dollars, ignoring what would happen to real estate prices when 40% of our land area hits the market. That’s only a tenth of the funded National debt.

    Repudiate the national Debt? Ask yourself: What happens next? Huge numbers of Americans hold T-Bills for their retirement. Their retirement savings would be wiped out. Many foreign governments hold dollar reserves in Treasury bonds. If those bonds vanish, so does the value of the dollar. Banks hold financial reserves in Treasury bonds. If the bonds vanish, those banks are insolvent. Their doors would close. The economy would collapse. Other parties have a three-word position on repudiation: “Repudiation is theft.”

  41. Andrew Murphy Says:

    LifeMember, thank you for that quote. She does need to clarify her position then because that quote seems to say child porn shouldn’t be outlawed.

  42. Mike Theodore Says:

    wow, I’m loving seeing a candidate on here that isn’t Milnes. Even though I have proclaimed myself his running mate. I’m a little confused though. Whose talking about the debt?

  43. ABW Says:

    Life Member—-
    You obviously know nothing about Mary Ruwart. Stand back and watch.

  44. Bill Wood Says:

    Well this is a fine kettle of fish to find our Candidates in. I’m wondering if Wayne asked Mary to step down or was it a Staff Member. I see Wayne will be on FOX Business news in the morning, he might be asked about Marys statement. Is there any word from Mary’s Campaign about any of this?

  45. Andrew Murphy Says:

    George, the other issue about cutting government and selling off assets is that the dirty little secret in American politics is that Americans are against big government in general but all for it in specifics.

  46. Mike Theodore Says:

    Bill, I take this kettle of fish and down it raw. Bones and all. Make sense? I guessed not.
    Milnes/Theodore
    That’s Right, It Just Got Creepy

  47. Steve LaBianca Says:

    LifeMember Says:
    April 24th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    The only way she can begin to address it is to first answer yes to this question: Do you support laws which protect young children from sexual predators?

    LifeMember, how very naive of you. Almost to a person, if not unanimously so, Libertarians distrust the government. Libertarians abhor violence and aggression.

    Your question presupposes an answer. This is like asking someone, do you still beat your wife?

    A truly excellent question is for you to ask yourself Mr. LifeMember, “Do you believe that laws passed by coercive government ACTUALLY protect young children from sexual predators?” If you answer yes, then you are truly naive and clueless. Answering in the negative will totally call into question your wrongly held beliefs that government is to be trusted to pass laws which actually work toward their stated aim. Answering in the positive will truly shed light onto your faith and belief in the goodness of government, just as Democrats and Republicans, just as as all believers in the state do.

    It really is the old myth, that if you want to fix something, just pass a law and it is magically fixed that is at work here. Read “The Dictator Syndrome” (chapter 5) of Harry Browne’s WHY GOVERNMENT DOESN’T WORK, and you will agree that passing laws to fix problems, whatever such problems may be is the WORST way to achieve the desired ends. Yet very few people attacked Harry Browne as a crazy person, or as a believer in abridgment of rights. This is IMHO, what Harry Browne said, is all that Mary Ruwart is saying. Yet the shallowest of you want to paint Mary as some kind of kook. If Harry was alive today, I believe he would be standing by Mary’s side, defending her as a great Libertarian. Because she is.

  48. disinter Says:

    Yea! She was an evil bitch that should be burnt at the stake in another thread, but since Root chimed in she is suddenly a good person… damnit.

  49. Bill Says:

    Is the Ruwart quote LifeMember posted accurate? Comparing children(and at what age? 14? 8? 6?) Commiting sex acts and adults (I’ll assume 18+) drinking? That’s…stretching the free market a tad. Without a response, and the words reject and denounce may need to come up in it, that may tilt toward the “wingnut” aspect many outside the blogosphere have about the party if she achieves either the Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination.

    After hearing her speak, that may not be exactly fair, as she does have some good points in her main stump speech. However this is is very shocking. More shocking than realizing a pastor is diffferent from a politician. This may be the first dealbreaker I’ve heard from any candidate for any major party other than my personal views on issues. This quote, if accurate, goes further than any one particular issue, and I imagine it would in the eyes of most “outsiders”.

  50. brian Says:

    steve,

    don’t waste your time on lifemember with logic or reason, that just isn’t his/her cup of tea.

    not to mention that lifemember wasn’t hired by root’s campaign to give in to your (and my) logic on the issue. he/she was hired to smear…

  51. disinter Says:

    don’t waste your time on lifemember with logic or reason, that just isn’t his/her cup of tea.

    He/she is a member of the CP?

  52. Tom Blanton Says:

    I think Root needs to step up and take a stand on the age of consent as it relates to the elderly. When should the age of consent be limited? At age 70, 80 or 90?

    The disgusting practice of young adults engaging in sex with skanky old broads wearing Depends is disgusting. Does Root endorse this offensive behavior? Does Root think the government should protect old timers with dementia from being sexually molested by youngsters – even when they consent to it?

    Mainstream voters will never support a Libertarian candidate that encourages turning America’s nursing homes into dens of sexual depravity. Somalian nursing homes – maybe.

  53. johncjackson Says:

    First they came for the child molesters..

  54. Mike Theodore Says:

    Tom, you just turned me off. FOREVER. jeez

  55. Steve LaBianca Says:

    disinter Says:
    April 24th, 2008 at 9:27 pm

    He/she is a member of the CP?

    Unfortunately disinter, since LifeMember is trying to broadcast that he/she is a Life Member of the LP (I am one) this person is most likely an LP member.

    Time was (Anaheim 2000 LP convention and prior) that when Bumper Hornberger tried to paint Harry Browne as a bad seed in the LP (for various reasons) most Libertarians frowned very heavily on this sort of character assassination from candidate to candidate (yes Hornberger DID finally throw his hat into the ring), but now, with the advent of the free for all W.A.R. style of tough, aggressive “learned it on the street of New York” approach, we’re supposed to believe that civility is a thing of the past in the LP.

    This loss of civility is a crying shame, and I put this terrible loss right at the doorstep of W.A.R., In his own promotional strategy, W.A.R. is the only Libertarian who can get “publicity”, the only Libertarian who is “good TV”, the only Libertarian (ever!) who is a “good debater”, and the only Libertarian who won’t make the mistake (as allegedly Ron Paul did) of “bad wording” regarding the causes of 9/11 , or the mistake of “marginalizing ” yourself, by calling the war on terror a “fraud”.

    No folks this is the new and improved Libertarian Party of Wayne Allyn Root. Like the Democrats and Republicans, it’s all just politics.

    And like the Democrats and Republicans, we can kiss civility goodbye, because as W.A.R. says the problem with the LP members is that they are too peaceful. Yep, welcome the new and improved LP of W.A.R.

  56. Steve LaBianca Says:

    And now for some comic relief Heeeeeereeeessss Tom Blanton

    Great to see you weighing in on this Tom.

    Hope you’re doing well.

    Great post by the way. I loved it!

  57. Mike Theodore Says:

    my god, steve. If my stuff wasn’t comic relief, I have no explanation for what it could be.

  58. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Sorry Mike . . . yes your stuff is quite hilarious! It is just that Tom Blanton and I are old friends, from when I lived in Richmond, Virginia.

  59. Mike Theodore Says:

    His comment killed my sexual drive like a boner seeing Rosie O’Donnell for the last time. What monster would know this?

  60. Mike Theodore Says:

    *first
    bahahaha

  61. Steve LaBianca Says:

    first time, last time ANY TIME for that matter!

  62. Mike Theodore Says:

    *shudder
    Jeez. Need to find some Zac Efron pictures to revive this puppy. Before it’s to late.

  63. Barrnone Says:

    Fuck Root, what a complete jerk he is. The man is obnoxious enough without resorting to this sort of rot. If the bastard comes near me at the convention he’ll regret it. It’s bad enough he is a conservative but now he wants to attack Mary. He is an indencent prick. And if the language gets me banned all I can say it that is fully and completely expresses my contempt for this Right-wing infiltrator from the Republican Party.

  64. Mike Theodore Says:

    Barrnone,
    Don’t worry, I got vulgar too. I try to keep professional (refer a few posts up) on this site, but this just pisses me off.
    I wish I could go to the convention. I’d take a razor to that perfect hair of his. Just one swipe. That’s worse than a bullet for Root. I can see him falling to the ground screaming and grabbing at his hair.
    content sigh

  65. Alex Says:

    I support Dr. Ruwart’s candidacy, and I even support her comments on this issue.

    With that said, I don’t understand why everyone is so upset at Root for saying what he’s said. Is it really “unclassy”? Was it really “uncivil”? I don’t see how.

    I agree with Nigel Watt: this is not a federal issue, so who cares? States make laws on sex, the federal government has no constitutional authority to get involved.

    Ruwart also says, “Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as a rape victim. We can and should prosecute their oppressors.” But, this doesn’t matter either, because prosecuting rape is not a constitutionally-allowed function of the federal government. I bring this quote up simply because none of the anti-Ruwartians are going to mention it, as they’re attempting to smear her and take her words out of context.

  66. Former Life Member Says:

    I like kitty porn.

  67. Mike Theodore Says:

    Former Life Member, I’m bi and like gay porn, but I don’t post links. Wow. I’ll never look at my cat the same again. God.

  68. Mike Theodore Says:

    BTW
    This site gets creepy at night. I’m just waiting for Robert Milnes to jump out from a corner wielding an ax.

  69. disinter Says:

    I’m just waiting for Robert Milnes to jump out from a corner wielding an ax.

    He doesn’t always use axes:

    http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/militia-fail/

  70. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Seems like Root is getting desperate. Considering the underage sex trade in his home town, he ought be an expert on the subject in one way or another. (What those ways are, I have no idea, and is left to the reader’s imagination.)

    As for the Ruwart questioning, that’s really on a different thread (the Huballoo one) and this one is about Root making asinine comments.

  71. Fred C. Says:

    “But, this doesn’t matter either, because prosecuting rape is not a constitutionally-allowed function of the federal government. ”

    You might want to take a seat for this one – some people actually care what a candidate says when evaluating them as a person and the platform they’re running on, even when it’s not directly germane to the conversation. The statement isn’t part of her presidential program as far as I know, but it’s still a part of her. Everything she’s ever said, written or done is fair game, and now that the fact she argued against child porn laws in general has become a campaign issue. Whatever the goal of the presidential campaign may be (building the party, winning votes, helping local candidates, spreading the message), that sort of baggage is counterproductive to it.

    “I bring this quote up simply because none of the anti-Ruwartians are going to mention it, as they’re attempting to smear her and take her words out of context.”

    No one’s mentioning it because no one disagrees with it, so it’d be moot. I’m disagreeing because I believe it doesn’t jive with her attempt at a market argument against child pornography laws. If a child has the same rights and recourses of a rape victim, then presumably child rape shouldn’t have a source of legal funds and the trauma of the experience shouldn’t be made available that’s interested in the child’s exploitation.

    I don’t think children can consent to sex, and think that the rule of law is essential to ensuring a proper authority exists to “prosecute their oppressors.” The age of majority and how it’s defined is a side issue, since obviously at some point a person can make the decision to enter the porn industry. That doesn’t mean we can simply do without any legal guidelines with which to prosecute. A reliance on some sort of unwritten standard and a worldview we might hope everyone shares with us doesn’t cut it.

  72. Fred C. Says:

    *shouldn’t be available to anyone that’s interested

  73. Dave Williams Says:

    I agree Root…Ruwart is a heartless bitch and should be burned at the stake…along with her child sexual predator supporters who are apparently lead by Steve LaBianca.

  74. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Dave, that was uncalled for.

  75. Bill Woolsey Says:

    Ruwarts answer to the question about child pornography implies that she believes that legal toleration of child prostution is morally required.

    There was nothing at all about age, and so, that would include children who have not reached puberty.

    The usual age of consent questions (18, 16, 14..) are not germaine.

    My ideal candidate for U.S. President would emphasize that the problem is paternalism for adults, but that of course children need good parents. When to children become adults? Sometimes I think it is X.. I am almost
    there…ha, ha, ha. This difficult issue is something our Constitution wisely leaves to each state…

    I consider it a disqualfication for a candidate to start with “the libertarian view is..” and then go on to explain some scheme for privatizing age of consent or dealing with it through common law.

  76. Alex Says:

    Everything she’s ever said, written or done is fair game, and now that the fact she argued against child porn laws in general has become a campaign issue.

    Did she? All we know is that she, accurately, that laws against them can have negative consequences. Are the anti-Ruwartians really going to pretend that that is not accurate?

    If a child has the same rights and recourses of a rape victim, then presumably child rape shouldn’t have a source of legal funds and the trauma of the experience shouldn’t be made available that’s interested in the child’s exploitation.

    I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Please reword the statement.

    I agree Root…Ruwart is a heartless bitch and should be burned at the stake…along with her child sexual predator supporters who are apparently lead by Steve LaBianca.

    Now that is what I call uncivil.

    There was nothing at all about age, and so, that would include children who have not reached puberty.
    Not necessarily, the absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense.

  77. Nexus Says:

    The LP is already called the ‘party that wants to sell heroin to 6 year olds’. Are we now going to be labeled the ‘party of pedophiles’? It is a basic rule of politics, if you don’t define yourself your opponents will do it for you.

  78. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Nexus Says:
    April 25th, 2008 at 8:35 am

    The LP is already called the ‘party that wants to sell heroin to 6 year olds’. Are we now going to be labeled the ‘party of pedophiles’? It is a basic rule of politics, if you don’t define yourself your opponents will do it for you.

    The unfortunate truth of this charge of “party of pedophiles” is that it all comes from the W.A.R. campaign (I now am in possession of VIRTUALLY bullteproof and irrefutable evidence that the W.A.R. campaign is behind this “smear” campaign of Mary Ruwart), which is supposedly IN the Libertarian Party.

    The party used to be civil in discourse. With the wonderful addition of W.A.R. into the LP, such civil behavior is virtually gone. Welcome to the NEW Libertarian Party, the “Party of Gutter Politics”, presented by W.A.R.

    The “Party of Principle” is now dominated by Aggression, Lies, and now Incivility, and we have Wayne Ally Root to thank for bringing the LP this “winning strategy”.

  79. Denver Delegate Says:

    Libertarian Party National Convention delegates should consider whether it’s a good idea to nominate Wayne Allyn Root, and give him the ability to malign the libertarian message through the misuse of delegate and voter lists.

    After this episode, I don’t think it’s a good idea to nominate him and give him that opportunity.

    And I agree with Ruwart’s position. Separate parenting and state.

  80. Former Life Member Says:

    Please cite one place where the LP has been labeled “the party that wants to sell heroin to 6-year-olds.”

    Any citation in the last 36 years will do.

  81. ABW Says:

    You sly California boys are going to take a nose dive on this one—-taking Root right down with you.

  82. debra dedmon Says:

    HOW DARE HE EVEN ASK THAT , HE MUST BE CRAZY. HE GOT HERE HOW LONG AGO? HES BEEN REGISTERED LIBERTARIAN BARELY LONGER THAN A YEAR AND HES ASKING AN LP ICON TO STEP DOWN , HE KNOWS NOT WHAT HES DONE.

    I DIDNT THINK I COULD LIKE HIM ANY LESS I WAS WRONG .BESIDES HE SHOULD BE MORE WORRIED ABOUT BOB BARR , ALL OF HIS DELEGATES WILL RUN TO BARR IF HE RUNS. RUWARTS DELEGATES WOULD HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR THAT JOKER ANYWAY . LIKE NIGHT AND DAY THEY ARE.

  83. C. Al Currier Says:

    I sure wish Wayne Allen Root would ask the Pope to step down. When it comes to old men having sex with children, the problem seems to be quite a bit in the church.

  84. Tom Says:

    What’s the difference between an Anarchist running as a Libetarian and a former Republican running as a Libertarian?

    The Anarchist wil paint ALL Libertarians as willing to accept a child consenting to a manipulative adult as a reasonalbe defense for a horrible act, while insisting the child can protect themselves if they feel abused. She elevates a child to the level of “contracting” for gods sake. I can’t get adults to understand a contract. She goes further saying the adult can sue the child for lack of performance?

    She goes further to insist no law should be in place to tell/warn the adult; you are doing a very wrong thing and if we find out you did a horrible act we are going to cut you balls off. Never take advanstage of a childs innocence and eagerness to please.

    We all (or at least some of us) know there are many adults who love to do very bad things to children and this Ruwart statement says to anyone out there…join us we agree, you can do anything you like with a child if you can get the child to say its ok. Chlldren do not have the capacity to make adult like judgements but a lot of adults don’t either. I’m reading a bunch of them on here.

    I have Ruwart’s book and it’s not a quote out of context and its not something libertarian at all. It anarchist. it isn’t going to be explained away either. She should drop out of the race and you folks defending her should drop out of the LP as well.

    The American public is going to kill the LP over this unless we disavow her and her statement entirely and demonstrably as not representing the libertarian philosophy of limited government and certainly not the LP.

    Root’s action to seperate himself from this incredible stupidity isn’t just a political move it’s simply moral. As a father he does not have to suffer this sleaze. He has every right and as a candidate, even a duty, to call for her to step down and so should all the other candidates. Unless of course you want every libertarian to be asked this question over and over again for life. I’m sure I don’t want this question to even be a remote possibility… maybe Root doesn’t either.

    She is not just a run of the mill nut case candidate. She’s painted a picture speaking as an “authority” “dispenser of truth” for libertarism that says ALL libertarians believe her position on child consent to be true. WRONG ! She has gone beyond a candidate thinking wacky thoughts that can be dismissed. She’s authored “the” book on how to “spin” an answer to a tough question alright. Why would anyone even have that kind of question in their mind in the first place. GEEESH!

    Root was acting in self defense, and in every other libertarians defense in my view. Once I read the book Mary Ruwart wrote I had to take a shower. She doesn’t speak for anyone with a soul or consentience.

    God bless Wayne Allyne Root! At least he isn’t hiding where he stands.

    Where do all the other candidates stand? They won’t be able to duck this question. Because they too are libertarians. Oh how I long for the debate over how to get rid of taxes.

  85. Freeman Says:

    The only part of this sex-before-adulthood issue that worries me is moralists pushing laws that make living a good life illegal.

  86. Steve LaBianca Says:

    So free market anarchism, or individualist anarchism isn’t libertarian, Tom? WOW, that is one of the most misinformed statements I have EVER heard!

    The fundamental political principle of libertarianism is that of non-initiation of force. Anarchism, most especially the free market and individualistic emphases pass this most fundamental with the highest flying colors possible.

    From such total ignorance by “Tom”on “libertarianism”, how could anything that he says be expected to be grounded in anything to be trusted? Beats me!

  87. Tom Says:

    Steve L
    I suppose trusting a pedophile is more to your and Ruwart’s taste. I’m glad you cleared that up for me.

  88. Steve LaBianca Says:

    “Tom”,

    Such a misrepresentation and erroneously derived connotation is only meant in a slanderous way, and deserves no response.

  89. Fred C. Says:

    “Did she? All we know is that she, accurately, that laws against them can have negative consequences. Are the anti-Ruwartians really going to pretend that that is not accurate?”

    Not at all. Typically when a libertarian makes an argument that a law creates negative consequences it’s because they’re arguing to repeal them. Did Ruwart write that just to hear herself type, or was she trying to make a point?

    “I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Please reword the statement.”

    I corrected an ommission from it in the next post, but maybe it didn’t help. What I was trying to say was that since we’re agreed that rape is a crime, it follows pretty naturally to me at least that funding rape through tape sales is also a crime. We can argue all we like about the age of consent and how to determine it, but to me it’s not one of the issues here. I pretty much agree with half the people I’m arguing over this quote with that there’s no magic number or easy solution. My beef here is two-fold:

    1) Ruwart is apparently advocating the repeal of a law designed to prosecute an act of aggression. You’re saying she’s not even doing that, in which case I’d like to know what the hell the point was of even making the statement.
    2) We’re talking about running a candidate that has a one liner on record that seems to imply she wants to liberalize child porn, and no heady discussion of majority or market forces after the fact is going to wash that away. The framing of the statement sucked, and the natural result of it is this argument. All the positive’s I’ve heard (and honestly believed) from Ruwart’s supporters was that she was a great communicator that could reach out to the left, explain libertarianism to the common man and foster intelligent discussion. This represents a monumental failure on all those grounds. I also believe it’s going to hurt the party.

    There’s a good opportunity here for another candidate to start an honest and rational debate about the age of consent and its consequences, and to phrase it well enough to avoid this kind of mess. IMO, Ruwart’s blown it.

  90. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Fred C. – The same old tired arguments keep coming back, and believe me they ARE tired. Like “LifeMember” constantly asking DO you support laws protecting children . . .”. The premise here is that Laws PREVENT the infringement of the right of a child NOT to be aggressed against. I rebut the presumption, as laws are administered by bureaucrats, much as welfare is, and police are gov’t bureaucrats as well. There is so much less incentive for bureaucrats than people who actually care about children or any particular child, to look out for children while they aren’t yet developed enough to know if or when their rights are being infringed. It also makes sense to protect children via caring people, as it ism much less likely to happen. Such events as molestation are very likely to be very traumatic . . . no child deserves that. There IS however, great incentive for bureaucrats to perpetuate the bureaucracy, which becomes the substituted purpose of the bureaucrat and bureaucracy, not the welfare of the child. If you disagree with this, Fred C., you are not a libertarian, or at the very least are severely limited in your understanding of it. In the mold of the “Prohibition Party”, maybe you ought to consider starting a “Children Protection Party” where the sole platform is to introduce, pass, and execute laws that are administered by the compassionate government bureaucrats, which are designed to “protect” children from pedophiles and the like. Let’s not forget however, the agenda of the Prohibition Party was tried, with laws “protecting people from the evils of alcohol” was an experiment in futility. Good luck with THAT.

    Lest you think that I don’t know that you will say something like, “you can’t compare adults drinking alcohol to children being violated!”, it is agreed that every specific area of government law, regulation, prohibition etc is a different application, but the common area is that it is government administering it. Justice cannot be provided efficiently or effectively when it is run by non-market developed organizations or bureaucracies. Government is the worst of all bureaucracies, due to its possessing the monopoly on the use of force.

    SO my question is, Do you trust the government to “protect” children? Say yes and that will telegraph your trust in the benevolence and effectiveness of government to achieved its stated goal.

  91. Kevin Says:

    “I agree with Nigel Watt: this is not a federal issue, so who cares? States make laws on sex, the federal government has no constitutional authority to get involved.”

    (K) Incorrect. There are federal laws on the books, regulating age of consent for making pornography, and Americans having sex with underage while abroad (even if legal or tolerated in, say, Cambodia).

    I would have phrased things differently than what Mary has done,
    but she has great courage and compassion and realism, while Root
    has over-reacted.

    I don’t think Root is hawkish enough on foreign policy, and his
    knee-jerk lack of respect for Mary has pushed me into neutrality
    on the LP nomination. If Root is going to be this way, libertarian
    hawks might as well support John McCain, who at least is more
    pro-defense than Root.

  92. Fred C. Says:

    Steve, before I get to your post, can you please point out where I said a law protects anyone or prevents anything?

  93. Steve LaBianca Says:

    It is implied.

  94. Steve LaBianca Says:

    1) Ruwart is apparently advocating the repeal of a law designed to prosecute an act of aggression. You’re saying she’s not even doing that, in which case I’d like to know what the hell the point was of even making the statement.

    Answer-Government can’t accomplish administering justice.

    2) We’re talking about running a candidate that has a one liner on record that seems to imply she wants to liberalize child porn, and no heady discussion of majority or market forces after the fact is going to wash that away.

    The implication is all yours, and all incorrect. The answer for #2 is the same as #1. Government cannot administer justice.

    Any implication of any personal judgment on Mary Ruwart’s part is pure conjecture, and is inappropriate. You don’t like her answers, don’t like it. I don’t like leaving justice in the hands of a bureaucracy which has no market feedback mechanism. Justice, like everything administered by government fails.

  95. Fred C. Says:

    Okay. You keep on inferring that I’m not a libertarian because I think aggression against rights should be defined and prosecuted. I’ll keep on inferring that Ruwart’s either opposed to or inconsistent towards the same idea.

  96. askyourself Says:

    “God bless Wayne Allyne Root! At least he isn’t hiding where he stands.”

    What an absurd quote giving Root’s doctoring of his views to try to get the nomination. Root has a long history of being a neo-con. The GOP takes on his gambling industry and he suddenly wants to go after them on that. But he finds that certain views he held and promoted are obstacles so he suddenly converts.

    This is a man who just two years ago gave $1000 to the Lieberman campaign. Lieberman is one of the biggest neo-cons in the Senate. Root was pushing the GOP to run a McCain/Lieberman ticket. When his prowar view started effecting his campaign he told everyone he changed his mind.

    Root posted remarks on his own website saying he opposed marriage rights for gay couples. When that started to hurt him with libertarians (Barr doesn’t count) he tried to make it better by saying he is a state’s rights advocate. What about individual rights?

    Look at how he plays the issue of the war on drugs. He does say the war failed but the only reform he supports is to try legalizing medicinal marijuana. Even drug warrior Bob Barr is willing to go that far.

    Root attacked Gravel, at Voice of America, because Gravel is a “liberal” not a libertarian. Then he describes himself as a conservative. Well, a conservative isn’t a libertarian either.

    Now who planted the comments about Ruwart here in the first place? Remember that they appeared on this site and then Root responded. I think you will find the comments were placed here by a Root activists from Southern California. I sincerely doubt that Root was just responding to a “controversy”. I suggest his people created the controversy anonymously to give Root an excuse to respond. That is pretty underhanded. Barr may be the worst on the issues but Root is the worst when it comes to honesty and integrity.

  97. Fred C. Says:

    “The implication is all yours, and all incorrect. The answer for #2 is the same as #1. Government cannot administer justice.”

    Okay, let’s follow that. The government cannot administer justice, so I’m all incorrect in assuming she wants to cut the government out? Where did I go wrong here?

  98. ShadowOutlaw Says:

    askyourself- Root may very well be involved, but it was Phillies who brought all this up. If you look through the comments, you’ll find his:

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/22/phillies-issues-defense-policy-statement/#comments

  99. Joseph Marzullo Says:

    I agree with Ruwart’s stance but she’s too radical to build the Party IF she’s nominated.

  100. Michael Seebeck Says:

    ShadowOutlaw, I would clarify that it is someone who “claimed” to be George Phillies and hyperlinked that name to the Phillies website that made that claim. In all fairness to George, whom I do not support and wish he would quit sending me mail, how can we prove it was him?

  101. Abraham Lincoln Says:

    (Continuing what I posted under my own name above)

    ShadowOutlaw, see what I mean? Anyone can claim to be anybody on here. it’s quite easy to do, as evidenced by the occasisonal Dondero spoof that shows up where and the line of “Wonderfulness by Wes Benedict” posts that showed up on a different thread lately.

    So unless George puts out on his site that he did bring that up, it cannot be concluded that he did.

    BTW, if he didn’t, then of course the question is, “Who did?” and the followup to that is the same as if he did, which is, “Why?”

  102. Mike Theodore Says:

    He took it off his site. Off his site! HAHAHA SMELL THE TIDES TURNING AGAINST YOU WAYNE, BUT IT IS TO LATE!

    SEE YOU IN MAY YOU BASTARD

  103. ShadowOutlaw Says:

    Indeed, it could be someone impersonating him, but he is a known visitor to the site. He could clear this all up rather easily. Either way, there is more evidence towards him having posted it than Root.

  104. George Phillies Says:

    The person who posted on the topic, on the thread on the Phillies defense proposal, was ‘life member’ and I am not that person. I answered that person, supplying the full Ruwart answer to the question of interest, as opposed to the answer with the very important positive lead paragraph clipped. However, ‘life member’ was responding to a comment that is not immediately prior. Someone with a serious surplus of time should try tracing the actual chronology.

    There are a series of points where Ruwart and I differ. My campaign had planned to post polite comparisons of differences and let delegates decide. The actual first of these is at http://TheDailyLiberty.com . I had planned to follow with a discussion of Root’s tax plans, but it seems unlikely that anyone would notice at the moment.

  105. Bill Wood Says:

    Mary wrote this back in 1998 in her book of short answers. Now people are playing the blame game on who posted this information on the internet. I guess one of the candidates time traveled back to 1998 and crossed out what Mary said and wrote in this statemant that is causing all the fuss, knowing it will come back in 2008 to possibly hurt her campaign. ;-)

  106. Michael Seebeck Says:

    So, George, in doing so, you opened a can of worms on another candidate in the process. Did you think that one out at all?

    Sorry, that’s the kind of thing the LP doesn’t need. We have enough infighting in the LP already without that kind of bullshit on top of it.

    Gee, that takes another name off of the consideration list for Denver…

  107. Alex Peak Says:

    Tom asks, “What’s the difference between an Anarchist running as a Libetarian and a former Republican running as a Libertarian?”

    You should not capitalise “anarchist.” There is no party called the Anarchist Party.

    An anarchist running as a Libertarian is not a big deal. Libertarianism (small L) is a big-tent philosophy that accepts both minarchists and anarchists. (There were even rumours when the party was created that a prominent anarchist philosopher, economist, and ethicist (who is now dead) was going to be our first presidential candidate, but he didn’t want the job.)

    Republican (big R) is a label assigned to the Republican Party. But, former Republicans are not Republicans, they’re simply former Republicans. The Libertarian Party is a big-tent party that accepts both former Republicans and former Democrats.

    So, in answer to your question, very little difference. One is an ideology and the other is a party affiliation. That’s the only difference.

    “Chlldren do not have the capacity to make adult like judgements but a lot of adults don’t either.”

    Does this mean all sex should be banned? I recommend, when dealing with philosophy, that you choose your words more carefully, otherwise someone who reads this sentence will come to the logical conclusion that either A) you oppose all age of consent laws, Tom, or B) that you believe all sex should be banned.

    “I have Ruwart’s book and it’s not a quote out of context and its not something libertarian at all. It anarchist.”

    That’s like saying, “The ink isn’t printed in red, it’s printed in Red Dye #9.”

    Anarchism is a sub-set in the set of libertarianism. Minarchism, likewise, is a sub-set in the set of libertarianism.

    I take just as much issue with minarchists claiming that anarchists are not libertarians as I take with anarchists claiming that minarchists are not libertarians. And I have heard both of these false claims.

    “Where do all the other candidates stand? They won’t be able to duck this question. Because they too are libertarians. Oh how I long for the debate over how to get rid of taxes.”

    No you don’t, you long for a debate on paedophilia.

    “I suppose trusting a pedophile is more to your and Ruwart’s taste.”

    Your ad hominem argument does nothing to disprove Mr. LaBianca’s accurate statement that market anarchism indeed does fall within the boundaries of libertarian thought.

    Tom, I would like to recommend that you read Radicals for Capitalism by Brian Doherty. In that book, Doherty does not shy away from pointing out that there have been certain libertarians who have held opinions outside the fray, but who nevertheless are part of the movement. For example, Robert LeFevre, who was a complete pacifist, held that if a murderer/thief were tying you up with his own rope, you have no right to cut his rope in an effort to free yourself, since you would be infringing, according to LeFevre, upon the property rights of the murderer/thief. Now, I think that claim is much more outrageous than Ruwart’s, and I think everyone here, including yourself, is going to agree. No matter how much you disagree with Ruwart’s position, LeFevre’s position (that a man falling off of a building has no right to grab onto a flag pole if he does not own said flag pole) is ten times more disagreeable. (And, no, saying that LeFevre’s position is more disagreeable than Ruwart’s does not make the person saying it a supporter of Ruwart’s position. So it’s safe for you to agree.) Then you have Galambos, who believed that no one had a right to even talk about another person’s ideas without paying him/her. He took intellectual property to its absurd extreme.

    What I’m trying to say is, it’s okay if you disagree with Ruwart’s position. But just because she holds it doesn’t make her un-libertarian. You have every right to oppose her opinion, to think it’s horribly stupid, to even be disgusted by it. That’s fine.

    But she certainly shouldn’t have to leave the party because you happen to not like her position. Hell, even though I wrote this about Barr, I’m not asking him to leave the party.

    The only people I would ask to leave the party are racists and such.

    Mr. C. writes:

    “’Did she? All we know is that she, accurately, that laws against them can have negative consequences. Are the anti-Ruwartians really going to pretend that that is not accurate?’

    “Not at all. Typically when a libertarian makes an argument that a law creates negative consequences it’s because they’re arguing to repeal them. Did Ruwart write that just to hear herself type, or was she trying to make a point?”

    The most we can assume is that she believes people should think about the consequences of the ban before actually drawing their own conclusions. If we assume any more than that, then we’re being presumptuous.

    Moreover, even if her position at the time was everything her dissenters infer it to be, there is no evidence that she still holds the same opinion (nor any evidence that she doesn’t.) For this reason, I would appreciate if she would briefly address this issue so that it can be covered on this blog, cleared up, and forgotten. (But I don’t think she should post her position on her campaign website, because that would give the media the false impression that this is a big issue to her campaign, when in reality it is just a big issue to a handful of bloggers, viz. us.)

    “What I was trying to say was that since we’re agreed that rape is a crime, it follows pretty naturally to me at least that funding rape through tape sales is also a crime.”

    That sounds rational, although I cannot in all good conscience take a position regarding the justice or injustice of such a ban. The issue is essentially a fair-trade issue. If we know that a certain product is made entirely by or in part by actual slave labour elsewhere in the world, is it a violation of the non-aggression axiom to purchase the good, or a violation to prevent the purchase of the good. I know in which direction I lean right now, but I do not want to pigeon-hold myself by taking an official stance until I’ve figured out a few things. This issue also relates in many ways to the question of whether copyrights are just, and to whether a business that receives a perk from violent state action without asking for or petitioning for the violence or the perk bears any repercussions. As much as those things might sound like they’re not interrelated to this, they certainly are.

    Hopefully within the next five years, I’ll actually know where I stand on everything, rather than simply on most things as I know now.

    “We’re talking about running a candidate that has a one liner on record that seems to imply she wants to liberalize child porn, and no heady discussion of majority or market forces after the fact is going to wash that away.”

    You say it “seems” to “imply.” But I see her statements as being much more vague and ambiguous. I will admit that the vagueness and ambiguousness is not a positive feature in a book that should give quick and persuasive answers, but that’s what it is, vague and ambiguous.

    The fact is, we are not positive where she stands on age-of-consent, just as we’re not positive where Root stands on age-of-consent. We might want to infer where Root stands, but until he doesn’t have a stance on the matter on his site, and not even this press release mentions the issue.

    “The framing of the statement sucked, and the natural result of it is this argument.”

    I absolutely agree there. All the more reason she should, without much fan-faire, make her position quietly known to those few blogs that have covered it, so that we can all get passed this and back to the issues that really need to be focused upon in this campaign.

    “All the positive’s I’ve heard (and honestly believed) from Ruwart’s supporters was that she was a great communicator that could reach out to the left, explain libertarianism to the common man and foster intelligent discussion. This represents a monumental failure on all those grounds.”

    She is a great communicator, this topic notwithstanding.

    Mr. Kevin writes, “Incorrect. There are federal laws on the books, regulating age of consent for making pornography, and Americans having sex with underage while abroad”

    Yes, there are unconstitutional federal laws on the books regarding sex, regarding drugs, regarding guns, regarding all sorts of things. But the point that unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional stands.

    askyourself writes, “Root attacked Gravel, at Voice of America, because Gravel is a ‘liberal’ not a libertarian. Then he describes himself as a conservative. Well, a conservative isn’t a libertarian either.”

    Thank you!

    “I sincerely doubt that Root was just responding to a ‘controversy.’ I suggest his people created the controversy anonymously to give Root an excuse to respond. That is pretty underhanded. Barr may be the worst on the issues but Root is the worst when it comes to honesty and integrity.”

    I’m seriously not into conspiracy theories.

    ShadowOutlaw posts a link to a thread, the second comment in which states, “She’s a pacifist, like all good anarchists should be.”

    This is just wrong. Whereas I would say that all informed pacifists must be anarchists, it is absolutely false to say that all anarchists, or even many, are pacifists. In fact, the only anarchists I can think of who were pacifists are LeFevre and Tolstoy. Most anarchists, from Tucker to Rothbard to Knapp to myself are not pacifists. And, anyone who has actually read Ruwart’s work can see for him-/herself that she is absolutely not a pacifist, since she has no inherent problem with capital punishment, and since no pacifist could ever support any form of physical punishment.

    Sincerely,
    Alex Peak

  108. MY WAR! Says:

    Alex, why do you support pedophilia?

  109. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wayne Root is Pro-Choice. He has always been Pro-Choice. He was harshly critical of Republicans in the early 2000s over the whole Terry Schiavo affair.

    It is completely impossible to be a “NeoCon” and be Pro-Choice.

    Pro-Lifers like Howard Phillips are more “NeoCon.” They are in favor of government control of people’s reproductive lives and sexual lives.

    So, I think you have this all bass ackwards.

  110. Eric Dondero Says:

    Debra Dedman asks how long Wayne Root has been with the libertarian movement?

    I’ve seen his name as early as 2000 or so. He’s been listed as a “Libertarian Celebrity” on the Advocates for Self-Government site at least for 5 or 6 years. I won’t swear to it, but I seem to remember a short newsblurb from LP News in the late 1990s about him calling himself a “libertarian.”

    And he first emerged as a leader in the anti-Internet Gaming ban movement in mid to late 2006.

    So, he may be a relative newcommer to the Libertarian Party. But to the overall libertarian movement, he has been around for a few years, at least.

  111. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Eric,

    I seem to recall that Root publicly identified himself as a “libertarian” in 1999 on Bill Maher’s show. Perhaps earlier than that, even.

    On the other hand, you seem to have a rather malleable definition of “newbie.” If it’s someone you don’t like, then they’re a “newbie” unless they’ve been in the party since the early 1980s; if you like them, then a few years is plenty long.

  112. Alex Peak Says:

    “MY WAR!” writes, “Alex, why do you support pedophilia?”

    Are you referring to me, or to the Alex without a last name?

    As I’ve made it clear elsewhere, I am sickened by paedophilia, and believe that all rapists should be executed, or in the very least have their dicks cut off.

    Just because I oppose the existence of statutory law does not mean I do not advocate following natural law. And under natural law, it is illegal to rape, murder, steal, enslave, commit fraud, and damage others’ property. It is likewise illegal to rape children, murder children, steal from children, enslave children, commit fraud against children, and damage the property of children.

    The reason I’m an anarchist is because I believe the state should also follow the law, and any state that does follow the law ceases to be a state. The state is an entity that, by definition, places itself above the law. I would have no problem living under what Auberon Herbert called the voluntaryist state—I just don’t actually consider it a state.

    Mr. Dondero writes, “It is completely impossible to be a ‘NeoCon’ and be Pro-Choice.”

    That’s not true at all.

    Sincerely,
    Alex Peak

  113. Stefan Says:

    There seems to be difference of opinion of the definition of “neocon”. Ironic that Howard Phillips is been called a “neocon”, while he has saying Allan Keyes is a “neocon” and explained the difference of the party he founded with any “neocon”
    position. “Neocon” has to do with an interventionist foreign policy. You have neocons. also in the UK, but nothing comparable is to be found in any other country IMHO. Perhaps one can call “neocon” the new “colonialists” in the world.

    Of course there is no direct relationship between “neocon” and pro-life”. I mean Ron Paul is pro-life and a staunch enemy of the “neocons” in both the GOP and the Democratic party.

  114. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Stefan,

    Mr. Dondero’s inability to understand what neoconservatism is is a function of his claimed fame as a linguist. He has a copy of a book about the Religious Right called “The New Right,” and since “neo” = “new” and “conservative” =”right wing,” he has convinced himself that the Religious Right and the neoconservatives must be the same movement. I correct him on this every two or three months, but he persists in the error.

    As to why he thinks supporting state-sanctioned murder of an adult for the purpose of letting her husband get away with insurance fraud has something to do with “pro-choice,” I haven’t the slightest idea.

  115. V Says:

    Oy Vey…

    While I always try to put aside my preferences about the “best” candidate until the actual National Convention, it’s always handy when a candidate shows himself (that’s “himself” – not himself or herself) to be underhanded, unsportsmanlike, and unprofessional like somebody has here. Backstabbing, sabotaging, and otherwise taking cheap shots at your opponents shows a character flaw.

    I can see why he would do such a thing though. While the candidate in question may have the money and charm (if you’re a blind person, that is) to handily beat the other previously-announced candidates in the race, it’s clear that the newbie is frightened by Ruwart’s brains, experience, and incredible ability to communicate circles around the rest of the field.

    Very poor form Mr. Root. That’s one very big strike against you – and in this game – one strike is all it takes to put you in the also-ran category. You rubbed me the wrong way when you blew-off our state convention, but I put that personal affront aside. Now that you’ve publicly and ostentatiously revealed youself to be the type to take a cheap shot a a highly-respected, Veteran and accomplished spokeswoman for our Party – I have no problem putting a line through your name before I even get to Denver.

Leave a Reply