“We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account. Government regulation of financial and capital markets inhibits investment and often creates marketplace advantage for those with political access, so such regulation should be limited to prohibition of fraud.”

You can read the following post to decide whether I’m a “monetary realist”:
http://knowinghumans.net/2007/11/liberty-dollars-and-inflation-sense.html

G.E., I find that a very reliable way to judge quality of someone’s opinion on an issue is to ask him what’s the best critique of his preferred position that he’s ever read. So, what’s the best critique of Misesian monetary theory that you’ve ever read?

When will this site cover the $1000 donation that Root sent to the campaign of neocon Senator Joe Lieberman. Root is no more a libertarian than Barr is. If the LP accepts eitherr of them it deserves to die.

Now it’s clear how to insure that the LP gets the lowest amount of votes for president in it’s history. Liberate children! Vote for child pornography! Vote for Mary!

Looks like another troll, this time with a woman’s name.

People have been saying since the 1980’s “if we elect so and so, this will be the worst vote total ever”.

Certainly from the absolute vote totals, Ruwart would have to get less than 3,000 to get the lowest vote total ever. In the context of the last 20 years, she’d have to get lower than the 288,000 that Andre Marrou got in 1992.

I will go out on a limb (not a long limb, and I’m just kidding anyway) and say that a Ruwart vote total will not go below 450,000 (this I’m serious about).

Now, W.A.R. could potentially go lower because his opportunism and slick used car salesman approach, coupled with his disingenuous flip-flopping will turn so many libertarians off that he may actually get less than the Marrou 288,000!

When I was 3 years old, my cousin and I stripped down to our birthday suits in the yard on a hot summer day to play with the garden hose. My mom took a picture of us. To this day when she breaks out the photo album she shows that picture to whomever. My grandmother PAID to have copies made for her and my aunt to have for their album’s. I think my mother showed that pic to every girlfriend I ever brought home to meet the folks. Am I victim of child pornography? Should my mother, grandmother, aunt, and everyone that ever looked at that pic be prosecuted? Does’nt everyone have a naked kid pic in their photo album?

Hell, skinny dipping was a national pastime when I was growing up.

Recently my local predator task force stung (lured) what they thought was a 22 year old man coming to meet up with a 14 year old girl (that they were pretending to be) that he met on the internet, for sex. Turned out he was 15 years old. LMAO A 42 year old predator task force member lured a 15 year old boy for sex? Or did a 15 year old boy lure a 42 year old man for sex?

A 25 year old teacher has a consentual sexual relationship with a 15 year old student. Should’nt the 15 year old be charged with commiting the same crime as the 25 year old? If they robbed a liquor store together they would both be charged. If a 14 year old murders someone they’re adult enough to do adult time, maybe face the death penalty even. So what gives people? Why does age exhonerate some crimes, but not others? Seems a little inconsistent in principle, to me. Maybe it seems a little inconsistent to Mary Ruwart too.

What about 18 yr old pornstars that look like their 12 or 14 years old? Or an underage Dakota Fanning similating a molestation scene with a middle aged man on film and shown in the theatre?

I mean the topic of controversy here is “underage pornography”, not filmed “underage rape”. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

I oppose child pornography. I oppose pedophilia. I oppose rape. I oppose when children too young to understand sexual intercourse or sodomy, being involved in it. I oppose all forms of coercion in the realm of sex (as well as all aspects of human interaction).

Not only that, I VEHEMENTLY oppose all these things I’ve just stated!

I also oppose laws, most especially at the federal level legislating on this. The federal government has no constitutional authority in it. Under current governmental structure, states would not be prohibited from enacting laws outlawing these things.

Libertarianism however, calls into question, the EFFICACY (Definitions from Dictionary.com – capacity or power to produce a desired effect) of these laws.

The FBI’s Mueller has said we need more federal agents to combat internet child pornography. Bureaucrats will ALWAYS call for more money, staff, legislative “teeth” to accomplish the goals of their agency. Strange though, how any problem never seems to get better with more money, more staff, and more legislative “teeth” which is given to government.

Libertarianism calls into question the whole concept that more government is the answer to problems in society. The track record of government pretty much answers the question as to how much government do we need to solve problem A, B, C etc.

I will submit again, either we have a free society, or we have a totalitaran state. the only way this “Child” problem will be minimized is to go to either end. Totalitarianism will work, at least for as long as it can effectively be funded, but it isn’t what libertarians, nor what virtually everybody else wants, nor should have.

The solution is to leave the responsibility of caring for children in the hands of parents most often, or those who love and most care about a child or particular children. In the extremely rare cases where there is abuse, it should be a common belief that a child has the absolute right to run away from an abusive parent. This is a much more effective and efficient way of caring for children.

...but start a thread about some EXTREMELY RARE (in my ‘hood anyway..how ‘bout yours, Republiclowns?) peepee perverts, etc., and.. ..now this seems to titillate the Party of Kneel Boor!.. ;o)

B. HOLTZ WRITES: “The 2008 Platform Committee has a pretty diverse and intelligent group of people on it, and I think that shows in the quality of the language we’ve sifted and rescued from a dozen past platforms.”

..do you have even one committee member who is an honest ‘monetary realist?’..or are they all monetary ignoramusses, ‘gold standard’ idiots, Von Mises blowhards, etcetercrats galore?.. ;o)

I think Mr. Gordon’s point was that to answer such a question, you really need to go in depth, writing many paragraphs. Do statutory laws help? Do they hurt? Do they hurt, but should be supported anyway? Do they help, but should be opposed anyway? Should the law take into account more than simply age? Would spanking your child constitute molestation? In what context would it constitute molestation? There are so many aspects of this that need to be looked at, from philosophical to ethical to positive legal considerations and questions, giving a “yes” or “no” answer simply doesn’t accurately answer the question, just as giving a simple “yes” or “no” to his wife does not answer the question.

However, Life Member requires that his answerer only give a ‘yes’ or a ‘no,’ saying that anything more is convoluted and whatnot. So, if Mr. Gordon has to give a one-word answer, he’ll simply say ‘yes.’

If I have to give a one-word answer on abortion, the one word will be “pro-choice,” even though I don’t think that answer really is an accurate description of my view. Truth be told, I have no problem agreeing with the pro-lifers that most pro-choicers have extremely poor arguments (as some pro-lifers do as well), especially when they bring up this abstract notion of “personhood,” or imply that rights are not innate. I can agree with pro-lifers that foetuses have all the same rights as adult humans, and for this reason, I believe it is a crime to place a gun against the head of a foetus and pulling the trigger. But if a foetus has equal rights, then the foetus absolutely cannot have a right to be inside of someone’s womb without her consent. If the foetus can possess such a right, and if rights are equal, then I should be allowed to crawl into any woman’s womb, whether she wants me there or not. But clearly I do not possess this right, so neither can the foetus. I also don’t possess the right to force anyone to feed me, because my right to life is a negative right and not a positive right. On the other hand, I do not like seeing babies starve to death, and therefore support the existence of private charity groups dedicated to caring for unwanted children. So, a more-nuanced and accurate answer shows that I’m really in neither the pro-choice or pro-life group, although I sympathise with both sides. I’m not in the pro-choice camp because I do not believe a person has the right to “choose” to put a gun to the dead of a foetus and pull the trigger, but I’m not in the pro-life group because I do not believe any baby has the right to enslave its parents. I sympathise with the pro-choicers because I support a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body, her own DNA; but I also sympathise with the pro-lifers because I do not like to see children dying.

“Ruwart’s supporters are holding up her anarchism as the gold standard of “pure”/”plumbline” ideology.”

Her anarchism is irrelevant to me. My primary reason for supporting her is her superior ability on 99.9% of issues to communicate libertarian values.

“There is a distinct danger that a Ruwart nomination would be used by anarchist revanchists to undo some of the progress made over the last 10-15 years in making the LP more ecumenical after the Rothbardian dark ages of the 1980s.”

I’ll be brief with this. I do not believe our platform should advocate the existence of the state, nor do I think it needs to address issues about which libertarians can hold reasonable disagreement, such as this one, the death penalty, privatisation of courts, abortion, and privatisation of police. (I will maintain the opposition to non-market regulations over immigration is very much the libertarian position, and should be included in no uncertain terms.)

“The Ruwarchist positions…”

Can we stop using that term? It literally means leadership by “Ruw.” Her positions would be known as “Ruwartian.”

Mr. Holtz writes, “But without statutory guidelines, our Courts will end up having time for little else.”

Dude, in a market economy, if there is more demand for courts, more courts will pop up to supply the demand. Common sense usually prevails.

“Don’t count on that. I served on a grand jury about 2 years ago. We had several cases like that. One case involved a 15-year-old girl who admitted to cops she had sex with her 18-year-old boyfriend when the party they were both at was raided. We indicted the 18 year old.”

Grand juries indict 95% of the time, according to my Judicial Systems professor. I can’t help but to think it would be fun to serve on one.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

Actually I’m a CP member, but I frequently vote for Libertarian candidates.

O.W.

In the context of electoral politics, “important” topics are defined as “topics may voters care deeply about at this time.” The excesses of the nanny state vis a vis age of consent, etc., seem to be beginning to produce a backlash, but I doubt that you’d find the issue on the “top five most important issues” lists of many Americans at all right now.

This whole discussion hasn’t really been about the issue, anyway. That’s just window dressing. The real substance of the thing is that some other candidate (or a supporter acting independently—the “Ruwarchy” postings and those of “Life Member” both come from the same Chicago IP) decided to see if Ruwart could be quickly and easily knocked out of the saddle with the issue. She hasn’t been and isn’t going to be. So far this thing has mainly hurt Root, and has the potential to hurt Barr if pressed, but Ruwart’s toes are still tapping.

In turn, I think that the sliding scale concept should then also be applied to the punishment of those convicted, with enhanced punishment as the age disparity increases. Bright lines are less than helpful when discussing consensual sex between teenagers.

But I must say, I have little sympathy for an eighteen year old who accepts oral sex from a 12 year old. And no sympathy for a 30 year old in that situation.

I should add that I think a LONG prison term in the case of an 18 year old offender would not be the best use of cell space.

But Sean is right, we should be discussing other issues.