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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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…

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.

SEE YOU IN MAY YOU BASTARD

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?”