Mary Ruwart asks if LP 2008 is a divided house
From the Mary Ruwart for President Committee:
Every year, thousands of young children are kidnapped and forced against their will to perform degrading sexual acts in front of a camera. “Kidde porn,” as the resulting product is often called, is a profitable business run by criminals who use and abuse their unwilling underage performers.
As a three-time grandmother, I find this practice more than abhorrent; I find it personally terrifying. To think that my grandchildren might ever face such horrors is beyond my wildest nightmare.
Consequently, you can understand my shock when Mark Schreiber, “quoted” me as saying that “pedophilia is OK” in my book, Short Answers to the Tough Questions, this weekend at the Indiana LP Convention. Mr. Scribner is the campaign manager for LP presidential hopeful Wayne Allyn Root.
Next, Schreiber repeated an earlier demand made by Wayne Allyn Root that I withdraw my name from consideration for both the presidential and vice-presidential nomination, since my stand on child pornography made me unfit for consideration. My withdrawal would have conveniently eliminated one of Mr. Root’s chief competitors.
Do I think that pedophilia is OK? Of course not! In my 25 plus years in the Party, I can’t recall a single person who would have said such a thing. I invited Indiana convention attendees to look through the copies of Short Answers on my display table and see for themselves.
Mr. Schreiber’s comments, made in an indignant and angry tone, apparently were intended to call my character into question. Evidently, truth was unimportant. Will Mr. Root show a disregard for the facts reminiscent of his campaign manager during our nationally-televised debates in Denver? Will he have some shocking lie or disinformation about other candidates that leaves the American public with the belief that Libertarians are degenerates?
These are the kinds of tactics used by the Democrats and Republicans. As the Party of Principle, we try to set a higher standard. Indeed, what sets us apart from the other parties is that we believe in doing things differently. Why? Because it does matter how you do things; it matters a lot! Hopefully, we live by our principles and reject fraud as the means to our ends.
When we join the Party, we sign the pledge as an affirmation of our intention to do just that. When we violate our principles, as the Root campaign has done, we endanger our Party and everything it stands for.
When we are willing to misrepresent a fellow libertarian’s comments for our personal gain, we show our disregard for the very liberty we are trying to achieve. Instead of supporting each other against a common enemy, we wound each other and our cause.
These wounds render us unable to fight our real enemies who lay waiting to devour us when we falter. By abandoning our principles, we play right into their hands.
This incident has made me even more committed to becoming the LP’s presidential nominee. This is a pivotal year for the Libertarian Party, a crossroads at which we will decide the direction of the Party for years to come. If we allow our nomination process to be dominated by fraud and divisiveness, the LP, like the house divided, will fall.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am
This is a new low for Root. The plot was orchestrated by the Barristas and executed to a tee. Other candidates, Root and Smith, specifically, jumped on this shit grenade and sullied themselves, making them unfit for consideration. Mary has taken some damage here, too. But the Barr cabal’s dirty tricks and abuse of power will be to no avail. If Mary can’t win the nomination, it will be Steve Kubby’s.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Watch for a shit grenade against Kubby next.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:19 am
W.A.R. doesn’t care about hurting the Party. W.A.R. cares about W.A.R., nothing else.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I can understand Ruwart’s being upset at this. Being mislabeled a supporter of pedophilia is almost as bad as pedophilia itself. Mary Ruwart for President!
April 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Thomas L. Knapp Says:
April 26th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Quoth Kira R, a/k/a Dave Williams, a/k/a MY WAR! etc. (IP 68.92.207.162):
“Why do you continue to support child pornography?”
I don’t—and you’d know I didn’t if the truth mattered to you enough that you could be bothered to check your facts before posting falsehoods. I’ve addressed the issue in detail, and have linked to it several times.
Ruwart’s take on the issues of child sex and child pornography is such a tempest in a teapot that “Ruwarchy” had to clip and caricature it, and even then had a case so weak that he or she was too embarrassed to put his or her real name on it (for the record, I suspect that “Ruwarchy” is either Brian Holtz or a composite including him, but I could be wrong).
What I’m really interested in knowing is whether Corey’s completely unprofessional reaction and abuse of the party’s communications apparatus to heighten the effects of the smear was a function of stupidity, or of collusion on behalf of one of Ruwart’s opponents.————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
LifeMember Says:
April 18th, 2008 at 4:10 pm e
Paulie, why all the biased questions? Everyone knows that Barr has changed since he left Congress except for the radicals who refuse to pull their heads out of the sand.
Gordon, this was a blatant attack on Barr. I say you use TPW to go after Ruwart and Kubby and expose anything negative they’ve ever said or done. There’s enough in Mary’s book to ensure that no one in the mainstream media ever touches her. There’s enough on Kubby with the arrest and all to keep him in loosertarian status forever. If you show their dark sides, Barr can win. Come on, Gordon. Take off your gloves.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:35 am
“Do I think that pedophilia is OK? Of course not! In my 25 plus years in the Party, I can’t recall a single person who would have said such a thing.”—Well Ms. Ruwart, you should read the various postings on TPW. Apparently you have a rabid following who believe that 5 year olds having consensual sex with 50 year olds is just fine and dandy. They even appear to speak on your behalf. Nice of you to finally respond to this subject madame, however you have yet to answer the questions posed. So who is acting like the typical political beast now? Please answer, what do you think the proper role of the Federal Government is in protecting those that can not protect themselves? Do you support the USLP Press Release on this subject?
Thank you.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:35 am
This ought to put away any of this “hullabaloo”. Root, you disgraceful fucking snake. The party was set up to avoid this kind of nonsense. Try running for President in the Republican Primaries in 2012. See how far you go. Dickhead.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Mr. Paulie—Please ad the above two questions to your list to ask all the candidates.
PS —Was it not Mr. Phillies who started this all and not Mr. Root or his Manager? Why is Ruart going after Root then and not Mr. Phillies?
April 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Please answer, what do you think the proper role of the Federal Government is in protecting those that can not protect themselves?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
April 28th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Dr. Phillies now says that he was only reacting to the anonymous “Ruwarchy” poster.
He did mention to me some weeks earlier that he believed there were some serious problems with Mary’s book, and advised me to re-read it carefully, but I don’t recall him specifying what he believed the problems are.
There is some speculation that “Ruwarchy” is a Barr or Root supporter, but I haven’t seen any direct evidence. I did just post the call from LifeMember to go after Ruwart and Kubby from Apr. 18; LifeMember appears to be a Barr supporter.
Root and his campaign staff are the only ones who have gone after Mary and asked her to resign. Smith is on record agreeing with the extra-constitutional release from LP national. I’m not awareof George Phillies having any campaign position on this, although he has said he disagrees with the implications of the statement in dispute, and I hav heard nothing whatsoever from Bob Barr or any of his spokespeople on this issue.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Root isn’t the only one conspiring to destroy Mary Ruwart. Stewart Flood, who introduced the ridiculous statist “motion” just happens to be a Barr supporter:
“The motion is a campaign stunt by a prominent Barr supporter, Mr. Flood.”
http://disinter.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/lnc-further-marginalizes-itself/#comment-6657
Then Gordon, who works for Barr, perpetuated this nonsense by promoting Reason’s (neocon rag) take on the matter.
Then Shane Corey got his panties in a wad and issued a LP press release on the matter – which has only one obvious goal.
Connect the dots.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Good comment from George Phillies on disinter’s blog
George Phillies Says:
April 28, 2008 at 9:14 am
The motion is a campaign stunt by a prominent Barr supporter, Mr. Flood.
The motion calls for an increase in spending on a government program.
Where is the evidence showing that more money will do any good? Certainly, in my state, when a child has disappeared under conditions suggesting foul play, vast resources and huge amounts of volunteer time became available for the search.
Let me suggest a matching motion on the same The Sky is Blue level. It deals with an actual issue in a 2007 gubernatorial primary. To maintain parity, it is also a political stunt, since it also criticizes one of our Presidential candidates.
(And if you didn’t know that one of our commonly-listed Presidential candidates campaigns for school prayer, well, we’re Libertarians, and it seems there is no issue we all agree on.)
“Whereas, freedom of religion is a fundamental American value, and
Whereas furthermore, for the past half century our Supreme Court has protected American children against compulsory school prayer, and
Whereas furthermore, teacher-led prayer can never be said to be anything other than compelled on young children,
Be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee salutes the Supreme Court for protecting our children from compulsory prayer, and
Be it further resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee condemns, as enemies of religious freedom, politicians who call for public school prayer, and politicians who campaign on their behalf.”
April 28th, 2008 at 11:00 am
“Was it not Mr. Phillies who started this all and not Mr. Root or his Manager? Why is Ruart going after Root then and not Mr. Phillies?”
Phillies is innocent. He did not start this. But . . . what if he had? It seems anything Mary Ruwart has written is off topic as a campaign issue. But if this is so than anything Philles, Root, Smith, Kubby, Barr, and others have written should be off limits also.
Obviously this is not so. Anything any of the candidates have written that could be a political issue is fair game. If you seek the office of President of the United States and if elected will hold the office of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, and live in the house of Madison, Lincoln, and Jackson you should be prepared to answer the tough questions.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am
It would seem to me that the libertarian thing to do would be to leave the issue of school prayer for the states to decide.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:10 am
It would seem to me that the libertarian thing to do would be to leave the issue of school prayer for the states to decide.
A) Like child porn laws?
B) Why?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
This is a blatant act of aggression, perpetrated by Libertarians?!
If you are either an LP Presidential Candidate, or someone employed by one, and you can’t be bother with the most basic tenet of the LP - The Pledge – then what the HELL are you doing around this party?
I’m shocked and appalled.
And I suggest that anyone involved in this slanderous attack crawl back into your hole and stay there.
The last thing the LP needs is D/R style political aggression.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:24 am
My good friend Paulie Cannoli writes
“Paulie Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Dr. Phillies now says that he was only reacting to the anonymous “Ruwarchy” poster.
He did mention to me some weeks earlier that he believed there were some serious problems with Mary’s book, and advised me to re-read it carefully, but I don’t recall him specifying what he believed the problems are.”
Phillies: To avoid this thread going astray, I note that I was actually responding to ‘life member’.
I believe that there are a wide variety of very serious problems with Dr. Ruwart’s positions on a whole range of issues, just as there are very serious problems with Wayne Root’s tax proposals and with Bob Barr’s activities while on the LNC. I agree with Paulie’s memory that I did not tell him what the problems were.
I anticipate issuing polite statements debating real issues on these matters on a regular basis over the next few weeks.
Politics1.com incorrectly reported that I had asked Mary Ruwart to withdraw. The report was in error. I asked politics1.com owner Ron Gunzberger, who has done more for third parties than many of the posters here, if he would make a correction, and he promptly corrected the report.
With respect to the LNC draft motion
“WHEREAS government has a proper role defending the rights of individuals, including those who cannot help themselves; and
WHEREAS government has a proper role in pursuing, prosecuting and punishing criminals who violate the rights of others; and
WHEREAS such punishment tends to serve as a deterrent against these criminal acts; and
WHEREAS young children are not capable of informed consent and require protection from those who will act as predators toward them; and
WHEREAS sex between adults and young children is a particularly heinous crime and pornography using children is inherently abusive; and
WHEREAS the government’s focus on victimless crimes diverts attention and valuable resources from crimes against young children;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee calls on state governments to divert resources from victimless crimes and vigorously enforce laws that prohibit the production and distribution of pornography involving young children and pursue adults who sexually exploit children.”
I have urged my LNC regional representative to object to consideration of the motion if it is made. I also gave him a counterproposal, which I agree is equally not innocent:
“Whereas, freedom of religion is a fundamental American value, and
Whereas furthermore, for the past half century our Supreme Court has protected American children against compulsory school prayer, and
Whereas furthermore, teacher-led prayer can never be said to be anything other than compulsory for young children,
Be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee salutes the Supreme Court for protecting our children from compulsory prayer, and
Be it further resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee condemns, as enemies of religious freedom, politicians who call for public school prayer, and politicians who campaign on their behalf.”
With respect to the latest LP News, I would urge you to see if there was similar front page coverage when the other candidates declared their candidacies (which, of course, Barr has not done.) The answer, of course, is that there was not.
The last time the National Party staff tried to influence the outcome of the Presidential campaign there were negative outcomes, as detailed in one of my books, and I expect that the result this time is likely to be worse.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Geoffrey the Liberalfaker – Why don’t you go surrender to some Germans and shut the fuck up.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:30 am
silver – The states can decide on school prayer, but the federal government needs to be 100% out of education. I’m sure you agree. Just as it is unconstitutional for the federal government to ban religious expression in schools, it is also unconstitutional for them to have anything whatsoever to do with schools!
April 28th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Said it before, will do so again: This thread is a diversion. It was initiated by an anonymous poster who deliberately took her comments out of context.
Unfortunately, the national LP fell into his trap; and now this thread has been fed fuel by the media release from national headquarters, with apparent acquiescence of the LNC. As long as national headquarters & the LNC continue to fan the flames against Ms. Ruwart, the flames of this thread will continue.
At the Virginia state convention on March 29, I sat at a table that included Wayne Root. While discussing things, he trotted out one of the usual attacks you have all heard—that the Party’s biggest problem is people (which usually means radicals like you and me) “who want the Party to be a small pond so they can be big fish.” In response, I said That’s not the Party’s problem”.
Root said “What is it, then?” To which I said “it’s people who complain about others in the Party—but who haven’t done the first thing to organize even their own precinct, much less their own county. Wes Benedict, the Exec Director of Texas, said it well: the party fails because we don’t answer our telephones.” Root said he couldn’t argue with that.
Ruwart’s comments do NOT indicate she is in any way in favor of kiddie porn. They were indeed taken out of context.
This is a diversion.
Now that the national leadership has walked onto the glue, here we will stay until the convention and probably afterwards.
All I can ask at this point is “who profits from this”?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Phillies: To avoid this thread going astray, I note that I was actually responding to ‘life member’.
Thanks for the catch!
That is an interesting piece of evidence.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Ruwart’s response is nonresponsive to the issue at hand.
She asserts that Root’s campaign manager stated that Ruwart
claims that “Pedophilia is OK.” Assuming this is a precise
quotation, it is, of course, inaccurate. But, like so many
of her partisans here, Ruwart drags the red herring. Everyone
knows that the issue is that Ruwart apparently believes that
child pornography must be legally tolerated. Ruwart makes further
use of the red herring by pointing out that she opposes use of
kidnapping and force in the child porn industry.
And, making a mountain out of a molehill, she is claiming that the
issue here is the loose language used by Root’s campaign manager.
Of course, libertarians should be especially sensitive to the difference
between what should be outlawed and what is OK. But failing to be
precise is hardly a sin.
In fact, the loose language by Root’s manager provided an opportunty
for Ruwart to change the subject.
I never said pedophilia is OK and I am totally opposed to some of the things that pedophiles (or those catering to them) do.
That is perfectly consistent than her sorrowful account of how we must accept the perhaps poor decisions of children to star in pornographic films.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:46 am
“Ruwart’s response is nonresponsive to the issue at hand.” Bless you Bill! Denile on the part of Ruwart says so much.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am
“Ruwart’s response is nonresponsive to the issue at hand.”
Yes.
I, for one, am worried about her assertion about children consenting to sexual acts. We can argue the definition of ‘child’ all we want, but that, too, is not the issue at hand.
I’m also worried by her clear side step of the issue, which to me, is the Dr. advocating that children of (fill in the blank) age can consent to sexual acts.
The whole Root thing is an issue in and of itself.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
“Denile on the part of Ruwart…”
‘Denile’... is that the big river in Egypt?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Let me note that there are a series of State Convention debates that have been taped, whose tapes have not yet been put up on the net.
It would be a great benefit to the party if those tapes, most recently the Indiana and Ohio conventions, were made generally available, so that everyone can hear what was actually said.
I do not support Wayne Root’s call for Mary Ruwart to withdraw as a candidate. I urge that our delegates come to their own conclusions about each of us at our convention.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Ruwart on The Steve Kubby Show, 04/28
Posted by Thomas L. Knapp—- April 26th, 2008
Mary Ruwart, candidate for the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential nomination, will appear on Steve Kubby’s Blog Talk Radio program. Monday, April 28th, at 6pm Pacific.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stevekubbyshow
Likely topic of discussion: Exactly what you’d expect.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I think it’s a river in the United Kingdom from another anonymous poster, ‘Geofrey the Liberator’.
I personally think that politics is serious business, and that TPW should require real names from those who opine and/or deny. Our lives and reputations are at stake.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
“I personally think that politics is serious business, and that TPW should require real names from those who opine and/or deny. Our lives and reputations are at stake.”
Not a bad idea, at all.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Actually with the big parties Mark Schreibner, especially with the way he treated a multi decade long respected LP politician, by making such repulsive misrepresen- tations, could be asked to resign. With CLinton vs Obama we have seen various advisers from both sides who had to resign on a single incident or incorrect remark. Wayne Root, who is a strong proponent for the legalisation of online gambling, could also be – using these smear tactics and misrepresentation – asked whether he apparently also approve of the consequences of gambling with some, e.g. people losing everything in a high stakes game, putting everything on the line and as a result of it commit suicide or family murder in extreme situation..
Gambling is also an addiction, just like with drugs and just like others with (online) porn. There are software that make viewing online porn impossible by children, which parents can use with their computers for instance. In this case it is a private case, not for the government to develop and implement. In certain countries certain website are blocked, but then again, you cannot block every sort of website, there would always be new and more websites that escape government control. A private company is much better able to be on the top of this.
This whole issue has been totally blown out of proportion.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
There is an old saying that if you repeat something often enough, others will believe it.
Well, Bill Woolsey and “Geoffrey the Liberator”, and Justin Grover will just continue to draw ridiculous conclusions simply because they have an agenda to discredit Mary Ruwart. Saying the same, tired old things IS, as Marc Montoni points out, a diversion, and a diversion on what really matters, liberty in America.
It wouldn’t matter if the topic was “does 1 + 1 = 2”? Mary Ruwart could say that in her understanding of arithmetic it in fact DOES, but there are certain mathematical theories which say that it isn’t.
THIS WOULD BE PROOF, according to Bill Woolsey and “Geoffrey the Liberator”, and Justin Grover that Ruwart is in denile (sic).
Reasoning with people who have as an agenda, to twist facts to fit their agenda to discredit Mary Ruwart IS A DIVERSION! I for one, am done trying to reason with these people who make such ridiculous charges of Mary Ruwart’s supposed SUPPORT for “kiddie porn or child molestation or pedophilia. Mary Ruwart DOES NOT support such things . . . PERIOD!
April 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
C. Al
I disagree. Anonymity is an important tradition in political discourse.
As ENM says
The right to anonymity is a basic right. It is a right which I exercise everytime I log onto this blog. It is a right which I exercise in my personal life on a fairly regular basis. The fact of the matter is that no one is entitled to know my name, in real life or on the internet. I’m not doing anything wrong, and in fact I do a lot to help others in life, but I like my privacy.
Why do I think it is important for me to post under a pseudonym? There are several reasons, all of which I feel are perfectly valid.
I used to regularly bust scammers on Quatloos, cooperating with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to get these slimeballs behind bars where they belong, and in that capacity I angered some extremely dangerous people. Once I even angered a man who was a dirty ex-NYPD cop, and a former enforcer with the Colombo crime family (yes, the mafia). He had stolen millions from people in a scam wherein he pretended to be a loan company for people who can’t get conventional loans, and he would charge them a large up-front fee. He did his best to ascertain my real identity, and made multiple threats of physical violence against me, including both murder and rape.
In a situation like that, I have two choices. I can either bust the guy under a pseudonym, and be able to sleep at night, or I can do so under my real name, and end up moving every few months. I choose to stay put.
As most of you are aware, I am a professional writer, and I write about true crime as well as criminology issues. However, I didn’t sign up for the publicity which comes with that. I have a unique name, and I don’t want people coming onto this blog to ask me the same questions I’ve been asked (and answered) a million times, and harassing my friends who visit this blog; yet I have every reason to believe they will do that, because that’s what they did when I had a professional website. I just want to be me when I’m here, and I want others to feel comfortable posting here as well.
I have some of that going on too.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Correction: Mark Schreiber, not Mark Schreibner.
Root made an equally fast dismissive statement about Gravel when he joined the LP. So much for broadening the tent…..while Barr welcomed him.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
This whole thing has convinced me not to vote for Root if he is the nominee (which he won’t be), and I had thought I probably would. I’m guessing I’m not alone in that.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=664064495
April 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
oops, reposted my link by mistake
April 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Dear Mr. LaBianca, I have nothing against anyone in particular other than fools who obviously have a different agenda then advancing the Libertarian cause, nor have I’ve seen any posts to indicate that Bill is supporting one person over another. I am simply an observer of the absurd.
I have stated my desire for each of your candidates to address the issue at hand and answer two simple questions. Ms. Ruwart has chosen to be a political ass and skirt around the issue rather than addressing it. Thus, one draws perhaps mistaken conclusions.
She should simply answer what does she think the proper role of the Federal Government is in protecting those that can not protect themselves? Does she support the USLP Press Release on this subject and if not, why not?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“Ruwart’s response is nonresponsive to the issue at hand.”
That’s because it’s not Ruwart’s responsibility to be responsive to the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is why one faction in the LP is attempting to hold the party’s presidential nomination hostage to its threat of making that contest embarrassing to, and divisive of, the party. Since Ruwart is not a member of that faction (“the reformers”), she’s neither qualified nor obligated to respond on that faction’s behalf as to why it’s attempting to do so.
Unfortunately for the “reformers,” they seem to have greatly overestimated the extent to which libertarians find libertarianism embarrassing.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Marc Montoni Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 11:35 am
“Wayne Root . . . trotted out one of the usual attacks you have all heard—that the Party’s biggest problem is people (which usually means radicals like you and me) “who want the Party to be a small pond so they can be big fish.” In response, I said That’s not the Party’s problem”.
Root said “What is it, then?” To which I said “it’s people who complain about others in the Party—but who haven’t done the first thing to organize even their own precinct, much less their own county. Wes Benedict, the Exec Director of Texas, said it well: the party fails because we don’t answer our telephones.” Root said he couldn’t argue with that.”
Marc, you may not realize it but YOU HIT ON ONE OF THE MAIN, SERIOUS, CHARACTER AND CAMPAIGN FLAWS THAT IS INHERENT IN W.A.R. When challenged for his ridiculous assertions, W.A.R. backs down without nary a fight.
Why do you think that whenever he is interviewed, he tries to dominate the conversation? He does so because it limits the challenges to his stances, positions and assertions.
All you need do is listen to this North Virginia Patriots radio interview and you’ll agree that this is a most common reaction of W.A.R to being challenged. Several times when challenged, W.A.R. backed down.
http://www.mypodcast.com/cached/nvp_20080421_1719-216354-102389-2-25.mp3
The reason he backs down . . . he has no depth, no solid understanding of Libertarianism. He cannot counter or support his assertions and positions.
In short W.A.R. isn’t really a libertarian, he only can try to sound that way.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Steve LaBianca: one wonders whether Wayne Root is in the meantime aware of the link on his own website to http://www.ReformTheLP.org , of which he was not aware of last week with the interview… and how much it says about how aware a candidate is of his own website/positions. He was not even aware of the Libertarian Reform Caucus.
If people want to debate issues, why on the pros and cons of this caucus AND how the two big parties can best be combatted, ideas for an effective strategy and outreach needs to be worked on, not wait till the LNC.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Paulie/Thomas: I notice that IP address is located at Houston, Texas.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Stefan – True that he said in that interview that he essentially had no idea what the LRC is, or that they linked to his site, and his linked to theirs.
Honest answer . . yes, but still a pitiful admission.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Why are people talking about IP addresses? I wonder who is behind some of these masks also, but I don’t see any IP addresses in any of the comments.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I said, regarding W.A.R. “The reason he backs down . . . he has no depth, no solid understanding of Libertarianism. He cannot counter or support his assertions and positions.”
I will reiterate once again, do Libertarians want a presidential candidate who has neither the depth or cojones to stand up for his (alleged) beliefs and positions, or do we want a candidate who is so steeped in libertarianism, that defending the position when challenged, is natural and well supported.
W.A.R. fails this test horribly. Only Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby pass this most important test.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Marc,
Paulie copied a post from another thread which contained this info. It is the 5th post from the top in this thread.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Paulie,
“There is some speculation that ‘Ruwarchy’ is a Barr or Root supporter, but I haven’t seen any direct evidence. I did just post the call from LifeMember to go after Ruwart and Kubby from Apr. 18; LifeMember appears to be a Barr supporter.”
“Ruwarchy” and “LifeMember” are the same person—or at least they post from the same Chicago-area IP.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The LRC is even listed as #2 under the tab “Wayne’s FAVORITE links.”
April 28th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
At the NYLP convention on Apr 26th, each candidate who spoke could use their 15 minutes of time in whatever fashion they wanted. He or she could have played a video of Kruschev saying “we will bury you” speech for all we know!
W.A.R. chose to speak for 15 minutes, and take no questions. How very convenient, where in a “public forum”, W.A.R. did not leave the opportunity for him to have egg on his face and have to back down yet again.
I am told that he spoke individually with NY LP convention goers and asked for questions, but the only potential damage using that format is the loss of one potential vote at the LP convention in Denver. His “backing down” could not be broadcast all over how he “Backed down yet again”. Wimp!
W.A.R. absolutely must be taken to task in Denver. The candidate debate must be formatted to force W.A.R. (and all the candidates for that matter) to support his positions with counter arguments. I believe he cannot. If this type of format is followed in Denver, W.A.R. will be exposed for what he is . . . a phony.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
So instead of focusing how we can get some state legislature seats, we’re arguing about kiddie porn? Fuck you guys.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Go Nigel!
April 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Well, this is depressing. We have a real opportunity here to grow the LP and make some inroads into the American political process. Instead we wind up with alot of infighting that will probably result in the creation of a splinter party.
Also, check Root’s web site. All references to asking Mary Ruwart to withdraw from the race have been taken down.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
April 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“Also, check Root’s web site. All references to asking Mary Ruwart to withdraw from the race have been taken down.”
Just one more bit of evidence that W.A.R. has no backbone, no cojones. He is a phony . . . in short, W.A.R. would make a TERRIBLE representative for the LP as its presidential nominee, if for no other reason than he can’t hold up under fire!
April 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
April 28th, 2008 at 10:19 am
W.A.R. doesn’t care about hurting the Party. W.A.R. cares about W.A.R., nothing else.
AMEN to that Greg. I’ve been saying this for months, and at least for a few weeks here at TPW. I am hoping that others are coming to their senses as well, about W.A.R.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Steve
Lets give Root the benefit of the doubt and give him a chance to explain himself. No more knee-jerk reactions. We’ve had enough of those lately. The last thing we need it the LP losing memberships to some splinter party because of infighting. This is why there are now 5 or so different Socialist parties.
To my fellow Libertarians,
Please, STOP the infighting. Come together. Work for liberty and freedom.
We need to grow the party, not tear each other apart!
April 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Nexus,
I am all for giving “benefit of the doubt”. This is why I am suggesting that the debate format be a true “debate format”, where candidates for the LP presidential nomination have to be able to defend their position beyond making an initial statement. W.A.R. is good at the “initial” (coached and contrived) statement. He cannot support it upon challenge.
I would like to see this in Denver, and I suggest that any remaining state LP convention organizers adopt this format.
Any suggestions on how the “debate committee” or those in charge of the convention can be impressed upon to adopt this format?
April 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Tell that to Stewart Flood and Shane Corey.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Nexus,
I agree with you 100%. However, the LP has been falling apart for a couple years now, especially at the local level. We can all unite around a presidential candidate but it won’t change the fact that we have too many idiots running the show locally. Until that changes, the LP will continue to have “turmoil”.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I said regarding W.A.R.,
All you need do is listen to this North Virginia Patriots radio interview and you’ll agree that this is a most common reaction of W.A.R to being challenged. Several times when challenged, W.A.R. backed down.
http://www.mypodcast.com/cached/nvp_20080421_1719-216354-102389-2-25.mp3
I would ask you to contrast this with the interview that the same hosts had with Mary Ruwart, 4 days later (4/25):
http://nvp.mypodcast.com/
Folks, there ain’t no comparison . . . Mary Ruwart has such a command of all things libertarian, W.A.R. is an unbelievable lightweight by comparison!
April 28th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
LP Abandons Libertarianism, Constitution
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020742.html
April 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
In the link that disinter lists above, Stephan Kinsella asks:
“Would Harry Browne feel left out of what the Libertarian Party has become?”
I would respond with a resounding YES, Mr. Browne WOULD feel left out , and would likely be purged as well!
It is absolutely shameful what Shane Cory and his staff has done. The LP no longer even upholds strict constitutional limits to the federal government?
Cory should be fired immediately, along with any other staffer who collaborated on the press release!
April 28th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Geofrey claims, “Apparently you have a rabid following who believe that 5 year olds having consensual sex with 50 year olds is just fine and dandy.”
I don’t recall seeing anyone specifically support this. Do you have any quotes?
What I do recall are us all saying that we don’t like or support paedophilia. In at least two threads, I called it sick.
I do recall a number of Ruwart supporters saying that anyone who rapes a child ought to be executed, or in the very least have his dick cut off. Mr. G. E. and myself took this position.
I do recall Paulie saying that he, at age 11, was capable of consenting and did consent. Paulie made no comment about anyone as young as five, and I suspect Paulie would say that age five is very different from age eleven.
I do recall one of Ruwart’s opponents saying that states should be able to have age of consent laws as low as 14.
I do recall Dr. Long and Mr. Knapp taking the position that some sort of age of consent must be determined, but that using “18” as some magical number is rediculous.
I don’t recall anyone saying that five year olds could consent. Maybe I was simply skimming too much, though, to catch it. Got a quote?
“Please answer, what do you think the proper role of the Federal Government is in protecting those that can not protect themselves?”
I think everyone should know the answer to that.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Mr. LaBianca:
For someone who is claiming agendas from everyone around you, you seem to have one yourself.
I don’t have an “agenda.” I disagree with what she wrote, think it is bad for the party, and haven’t seen anything, including the original post above, that seems to indicate that she has changed her stance on the issue. (That issue, for me, is that she seems to endorse, while admitting not all libertarians think thusly, that children can freely and openly consent to sexual relations/acts/recordings/what have you).
I think what she wrote will bite the LP in the behind in November (provided she is our nominee), and I don’t see how the original post above contradicts what I feel is the negative side of what she wrote.
My summary of what Dr. Ruwart wrote(including the preface of the chapter) is, essentially “While not all libertarians agree, I think children (of any age) have the right to consent to sexual activities, and their recording.”
Her response was, summarized “Violent exploitation of unwilling children is bad. Mr. Root’s campaign ambushed me with a loaded question, which may reflect poorly on his character. ”
I have also posted on this site that I am strongly against the national party’s current string of actions, as well as Mr. Root’s public denunciation. This is an issue for the delegates to decide (which I am one from my state).
While I have not made her acquaintance, Dr. Ruwart seems to be an intelligent and eloquent person, and I’m sorry if my comments are viewed as character assassination or anything else of the like, but this is, to me, an important issue.
Before this issue burbled up from wherever, she was one of my top three choices for nominee, but at the moment I have very strong reservations about both her continued candidacy and her suitability as the nominee.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
The whole thing is worth quoting
LP Abandons Libertarianism, Constitution
Posted by Stephan Kinsella at April 28, 2008 02:30 PM
The Libertarian Party has issued a press release calling for “increased coordination and communication between federal and state law enforcement agencies in order to help to apprehend and convict child predators and those who engage in child pornography.”
While child abuse is obviously evil and unlibertarian, it is still bizarre that the LP would issue this release. To specifically call for the national police force to work more with state and local police is not just something radical libertarians would have trouble with. It is also unconstitutional. Under the Tenth Amendment, criminal justice questions–-including murder, rape, arson, theft, child abuse, violence against women, drug policy, gun laws and the like—are to be handled by state and local governments, not the federal government.
There is some gossip that this release was a stupid inner-party power play, to make radicals, including believers in decentralist law enforcement, feel uncomfortable in the party. By forcing this issue over the very emotionally charged issue of child porn, some people in charge of the party are trying to force anarchists and other radicals to admit they do not think the federal government should be involved in such questions. Specifically, they are attacking one presidential candidate, Mary Ruwart, over this and using it as an excuse to alienate radicals.
Ruwart—who spent 19 years as a pharmaceutical research scientist for Upjohn Pharmaceuticals and holds a PhD in biophysics—says she has been unfairly attacked and her words have been misrepresented in a smear attempt. Apparently the sell-outs and compromisers are trying to destroy her career.
In any case, why should a presidential election even have anything to do with this? The 1996 and 2000 LP presidential candidate, Harry Browne, used to point out that “The Constitution recognizes only three federal crimes — treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to deal with any other crimes.” He convincingly argued that this was a reason even pro-life libertarians should oppose federal abortion laws. (And Ron Paul would argue that pro-Choice libertarians, for similar decentralist, Constitutional reasons, might oppose Roe v. Wade.) (See Browne on prohibition and drugs; Browne on abortion.)
Would Harry Browne feel left out of what the Libertarian Party has become?
David Nolan, the minarchist founder of the Libertarian Party, was outraged by the press release. He wrote:
“The question is, how does society best protect its members from these bad things? And the LIBERTARIAN answer is ‘rarely, if ever, by giving more power to governments, especially at the Federal level.’ I am appalled at the national HQ staff putting out a press release that implicitly disowns one of our candidates over such a relatively minor issue. First, because that’s not a proper role for paid staffers to assume, and second because several other candidates have taken overtly anti-Libertarian stances on a number of issues, and none of them have been shot at by the national staff for doing so. This whole fiasco just reeks of cronyism and witch-hunting.”
This is why I hate political activism and electoral politics. The desperate attempts to seem respectable, the constant disingenuous smearing of more principled opponents as racists or pro-pedophiles, the selling out of even Constitutional government to hysterical federal wars on terrorism and child porn, and under-the-belt punches. It’s all very disgusting.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Justin Grover Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Mr. LaBianca:
For someone who is claiming agendas from everyone around you, you seem to have one yourself.
In case you hadn’t noticed “Mr.” Grover, my “agenda” is to nominate the best Libertarian candidate. I have been around this party for more than 20 years, and I am a firm believer that ONLY a candidate strongly grounded in the full breadth of libertarianism, its general and specific stances and positions is qualified to be the “standard bearer” for the LP.
Mary Ruwart is THE candidate who fits this criteria. With the exception of Steve Kubby, none of the other candidates do, with W.A.R. being the worst of them. W.A.R. is a total opportunist with no libertarian history or fundamental libertarian bearings to guide him. He is not only an “image only” candidate, but under scrutiny, he fails miserably in standing his ground in defense of libertarianism when challenged.
W.A.R. would be the worst possible mistake the LP could make in nominating him.
The agenda of you folks seems overwhelmingly to discredit the ACTUAL Libertarian candidate(s). Mine is a positive “agenda” . . . yours is purely negative, and disgusting.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I do recall Paulie saying that he, at age 11, was capable of consenting and did consent. Paulie made no comment about anyone as young as five, and I suspect Paulie would say that age five is very different from age eleven.
I would think so. But when I was 14, my girlfriend’s cousin, who was maybe 8 or 9, offered to give me head. It was not my idea or suggestion. I think she was taught to offer that, but this is one of those cases where I am honestly not sure whether she was capable of understanding what she was taught. Her family was living in a trailer parked illegally on the side of a mountain because they got kicked out of trailer parks and were not allowed in any trailer park in their area (WV-KY-VA).
April 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Distractions on the Road to Freedom; or, What Would Harry Browne Do?
28 April 2008
I guess I wasn’t the only one thinking of Mr. Browne recently. I listened to his ‘96 acceptance speech last night. It’s such a good speech!
Dr. Kinsilla says the press release fiasco looks like a move to alienate radicals. It’ll do far more than that.
Given that Ron Paul also believes that the federal government has no role in pornography of any kind, I can’t help but to think that this move by the Mr. Cory will scare away Constitutionalists and Ron Paul Republicans. Hell, even Michael Badnarik is at risk of getting yelled at by some of these people. Ron Paul’s right: people have gotten used to ignoring the constitution and the tenth amendment.
Sadly,
Alex Peak
April 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Alex Peak, I wasn’t in D.C. for the Browne nomination in 1996, but I WAS in Anaheim in 2000. I was in total awe of Harry’s acceptance speech:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/WeBelieveInYou.htm
It is excellent reading, but it was ABSOLUTELY AWESOME HEARING HIM GIVE IT LIVE!
I miss Harry, in more ways than this but . . . he would be so helpful in resolving this “brouhaha”.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
So instead of focusing how we can get some state legislature seats, we’re arguing about kiddie porn? Fuck you guys.
No one in the LP will be winning ANY state legislature seats if the media and the other candidates are able to even tangentially link the LP to child sex. Do you expect them to fight fair? They won’t.
If winning elections is of any importance at all, then we’ll need to not run people who can plausibly be painted as “tainted goods”.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
April 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“I do recall Paulie saying that he, at age 11, was capable of consenting and did consent. Paulie made no comment about anyone as young as five, and I suspect Paulie would say that age five is very different from age eleven.
I would think so. But when I was 14, my girlfriend’s cousin, who was maybe 8 or 9, offered to give me head. It was not my idea or suggestion. I think she was taught to offer that, but this is one of those cases where I am honestly not sure whether she was capable of understanding what she was taught. Her family was living in a trailer parked illegally on the side of a mountain because they got kicked out of trailer parks and were not allowed in any trailer park in their area (WV-KY-VA).”
cue the fkn banjo music! no wonder you are a scumbag child porn perv.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
To all:
As a Libertarian (and in the interest of full disclosure, a Phillies supporter), I find the treatment of Dr. Ruwart, the recent press release, and most apparently the process behind the press release as reported in the online media to be beyond shocking.
We (meaning everyday LPers and prospective delegates to the convention) can argue all day long about the policies around this issue and other issues, and make our own decisions as to how we intend to deal with them in policy. That’s the purpose of our convention and our party platform—and that platform has been completely overruled through a press release by staffers at the national office. That is unacceptable. It is the sole domain of the delegates and party members to debate these issues, the LNC to debate and pass resolutions on them, and the staff to execute solely on the mandate provided by both the membership and the LNC.
The staff, under no circumstances, should have “ideological independence” or the ability to impose their own worldview superceding the instructions of the LNC and the Libertarian Party platform.
What’s worse is that this isn’t the first time this has happened—staffers have also incorrectly advised the media that the Libertarian Party’s position on abortion is “leave it to the states”—a direct countermanding of our existing platform.
Here’s something even worse.
This entire brouhaha grew out of posts on the LP-endorsed “Third Party Watch” web site. While some on the LNC made the decision to issue a resolution on their interpretation of Ruwart’s statements, Outright requested that misstatements about the Libertarian Party position on gay marriage be clarified.
The same executive director who issued a press release on a non-issue like child porn told Outright’s Chair, a Torch Club member and tireless Libertarian county chair who has received coverage in the national media including Newsweek, the Washington Times, the New York Times, and the Advocate to stop “bitching” and told him nothing would be done—not even a post to the web site in question clarifying the LP’s position.
Based on recent developments, the LP’s position on the issues is no longer what’s in our platform, but rather what our Executive Director decides it is—independent of the guidance and approval of the LNC, if recent leaked e-mails are to be believed.
Well, as someone who lives in the real world, I’d like to inform the LNC and the LP community of a few things as this new status quo unfolds:
1) Women vote. In fact, women are changing the outcome of the Democrats’ race as we speak. So what’s the best way to reach out to women? Not slamming and marginalizing one of the LP’s longest-tenured women. Not distorting the LP’s platform position on abortion.
2) The LP is supposed to be the “party of principle,” and my own preferred candidate has been attacked repeatedly by others for being “not pure enough.” But here we have a press release advocating a big-government, unconstitutional federal law enforcement apparatus that overrules constitutionally-mandated federalism to address a question that nobody is asking—yet the same executive didn’t want to clarify the LP’s position on a gay rights issue that is front in center in a great deal of the electoral media today.
3) The LP is a bottom-up organization, democratically operated with an elected representation in the LNC and a clear platform that is passed by our delegates at convention. It is not the personal podium for staff members to editorialize on issues or make unilateral decisions to issue statements in our collective name on issues that are not addressed by the platform—or that run counter to the platform (both of which apply to the recent press release).
Dr. Ruwart is owed an apology by the individuals in leadership—appointed or elected—who are smearing her, and every single member of the Libertarian Party is owed an explanation by both LNC members and LNC staff as to how such a press release, counter to our platform, could be authored and released without review and approval—when the same staff insists there aren’t enough resources to address actual electoral issues that are front and center in this race. Further, we’re owed a detailed audit of the situation, with a plan to address the problem and ensure it won’t happen again—as well as any other actions necessary to ensure that this is a thing of the past and not the present or future.
I personally intend to pursue this question, in concert with many other concerned Libertarian Party members, all the way up to and through our national convention, if necessary.
Brian Miller
Outright Libertarians
April 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“The agenda of you folks seems overwhelmingly to discredit the ACTUAL Libertarian candidate(s). Mine is a positive “agenda” . . . yours is purely negative, and disgusting.”
Mr. LaBianca:
I’d thank you to not include me in “you folks” especially since I am not a “you folks” kind of person.
You seem to be making the argument that anyone questioning Dr. Ruwart’s stance on something is the following:
a) not a (L/l)ibertarian
b) trying to ‘play dirty’
c) a supporter of Mr. Root
I contest all of your above assertions, as they pertain to me. The last is the easiest, as I am not a supporter of Mr. Root, except in the broadest sense that I try to encourage all those who ‘self identify’ as libertarians.
As to the first two charges, I am a Libertarian, and I always have been, for as long as I can recall. Furthermore, to my recall, we have not as of yet, imposed a screening method (secret handshake, trivia test,intelligence test, issues test, blood or dna test, or any other methodology) for those wishing to ascribe to, identify with, or become a member of the Party- aside from The Pledge itself.
If you wish, you may contact me offline and I will be gladly forward to you a certified copy of a membership form bearing the pledge and my signature.
Short of that, Sir, keep your McCarthy-ist/John Birch/Spanish Inquisition xenophobia inspired agenda away from me.
Yes, you are seeking the most qualified, most libertarian, best candidate for the nomination as Presidential Candidate for the Libertarian Party- but unless (in a further over stepping of their bounds) the LNC or Mr. Cory has recently appointed “Official-est Candidate Chooser Supremo Dude”, then, sir, we (all delegates to Denver) have a say in the matter of Presidential Nominations.
That “say” should be the most informed choice we, as delegates, can make. If, in the course of events leading to that choice, we, the delegates, come across some aspect of a candidate, or a candidate’s record, that would, in our opinion, negatively impact the Libertarian Party, the Nominee his/herself, or our other candidates in a negative way, we are allowed to express that opinion.
You, sir, are obviously in accord with this assessment of the rights of the delegates, given your outspoken opinion of Mr. Root, so It bewilders me why you can, in good Libertarian conscience, proclaim those who question the stance/wording/opinion/history/etc. of one candidate as “disgusting” while you, in the same breath, detract from another candidate.
In what world can a libertarian appoint her/himself the unequivocal judge over the Libertarianism of all others (and having so judged, does his best to silence the “unworthy”)?
April 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
no wonder you are a scumbag child porn perv.
Got any evidence of your libelous statement, douchewad?
April 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“1) Women vote. In fact, women are changing the outcome of the Democrats’ race as we speak. So what’s the best way to reach out to women? Not slamming and marginalizing one of the LP’s longest-tenured women. Not distorting the LP’s platform position on abortion.”
some women also murder their young, and others advocate that children having sex with 45 y/o men is ok, like dr. ruwart. so we should be shooting for those women as potential voters? why not just go down to the local county lock up and start signing up every criminal piece of shit that walks out the door. that would be some kick ass political power house there now wouldn’t it?
April 28th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Too bad “swift kick in the ass” is a one legged man. He doesn’t do too good in ass kicking contests.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
April 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
no wonder you are a scumbag child porn perv.
Got any evidence of your libelous statement, douchewad?
self incrimination, paulie, you’re doing a fine job of fucking yourself and those like you. now go join the greens, pussy.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Ruwart dodged the question. Does she think “consensual” pedophilia should be LEGAL? Her soundbite indicates “yes.” She should issue a “what I meant to say” correction or be willing to take the criticism for her apparent stand.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Not that I’m a major poster here or anything, but I’ve decided to no longer comment on any thread about this issue. Folks on all sides of it are saying it’s a non-issue or a manufactured issue, and the best way, in my humble view, to end it is to just stop talking about it. Maybe I’ll go make fun of Alan Keyes.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
April 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Paulie,
“There is some speculation that ‘Ruwarchy’ is a Barr or Root supporter, but I haven’t seen any direct evidence. I did just post the call from LifeMember to go after Ruwart and Kubby from Apr. 18; LifeMember appears to be a Barr supporter.”
“Ruwarchy” and “LifeMember” are the same person—or at least they post from the same Chicago-area IP.
a good old fashioned witch hunt. pitch forks and torches in hand the anarchist masses unite and rise up against, some guy in chicago? now that is funny.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Swift kick in your own ass,
I have not made any statement about being into child porn, therefore your statement remains libelous.
Go join the American Nazi Party, perforated colon.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Too bad “swift kick in the ass” is a one legged man. He doesn’t do too good in ass kicking contests.
That leg has been stuck up his own ass for some time now. No wonder he can’t think straight, it’s giving him a hell of a headache.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Justin Grover Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Short of that, Sir, keep your McCarthy-ist/John Birch/Spanish Inquisition xenophobia inspired agenda away from me.
This is a statement of no validity . . . it attempts to paint me as a “purger” or leveling a conspiratorial charge . . . nothing could be further from the truth.
My statement attempt to only indicate that this is the Libertarian Party, and not some populist party guided by what “the people” want. Certainly I wan the people to want liberty . . . that only comes through persuasion, and # of votes is secondary, especially if the votes are for a watered down, almost non-libertarian LP candidate for president.
Grover also said “You seem to be making the argument that anyone questioning Dr. Ruwart’s stance on something is the following:
a) not a (L/l)ibertarian
b) trying to ‘play dirty’
c) a supporter of Mr. Root
for a) not true, but it is likely that such a person is deficient in this area of understanding liberty and allowing government to assume responsibility out of the hands of where it belongs,
for b) Playing dirty is one thing, making silly and ridiculous conclusions and painting a candidate (Ruwart) as a supporter of child molestation is downright lying and deceitful.
for c) The “folks like you” could be Phillies, Barr, Smith, Gravel or other candidate supporters, out to discredit the most principled Libertarian candidate in the contest. Such “interaction” by “folks” is a clear attempt to “pile on” as each of their respective candidates could potentially benefit from a “damaged” Mary Ruwart. Conspiracy isn’t a necessary explanation for “piling on”.
Lastly, the LP as a private political party, is going to nominate who the delegates support, in accordance with the procedures enumerated in its bylaws and constitution. I am calling this contest as I see it, and from a perspective that Libertarianism is the fundamental principle of this party. My history in the LP is long and strong enough to see where candidates would be flawed in representing Libertarianism. Some, most especially Reform Caucus supporters are attempting to RE-define what Libertarianism is, which is obviously their right, but the burden of proof is on them to prove their case. Any lack of success of the LP has had in electing droves of candidates in the past is not a sufficient argument for redefining what support for individual liberty is.
I have said before, and I ‘ll say again, the Reform Causus is attempting to fix WHAT ISN’T BROKEN! We need to do a better job of persuading voters that liberty is natural for the human condition, and when present, gives people the best chance at a happy and fruitful life. We do not need to move toward the statist position, that is become more “mainstream” just because the Democrats and Republicans are.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
April 28th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Ruwart dodged the question. Does she think “consensual” pedophilia should be LEGAL? Her soundbite indicates “yes.” She should issue a “what I meant to say” correction or be willing to take the criticism for her apparent stand.
Carl, the Ruwart has an open advisory spot in their campaign . . . you’d be perfect, as you seem to be so unbiased and analytical in getting to the crux of the “problem”.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Oops my bad (to borrow from Carl) that should have been “Carl, the Ruwart CAMPAIGN has . . .” sorry for the missed word.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I suggested that TPW require real names for those who opine, however, I also suggest that they refrain from FBI style ‘witch hunts’ for anonymous posters.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Mr. LaBianca:
I plan to listen to the We Believe in You speech tonight. I want to go back and listen to his speeches and his statements, because I believe I can improve myself as a communicator for Liberty by studying from the best.
Mr. swiftkickintheass writes, “some women also murder their young, and others advocate that children having sex with 45 y/o men is ok, like dr. ruwart.”
Sir, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Nowhere has anyone presented a shred of evidence that Dr. Ruwart supports anything like this.
You, on the other hand, are in a political party named the “Party of Pedophiles.” I had not heard of such a party before, but you proudly proclaimed to be a member. Therefore, if anyone here advocates paedophilia, it is probably you, sir.
Swiftkickintheass continues, “why not just go down to the local county lock up and start signing up every criminal piece of shit that walks out the door. that would be some kick ass political power house there now wouldn’t it?”
Is that what your political party does, sir? We in the LP eschew child-molestors. I therefore humbly request that you stick to threads about the candidates from your party, rather than the candidates from ours.
Swiftkickintheass writes to Paulie, “self incrimination, paulie, you’re doing a fine job of fucking yourself and those like you. now go join the greens, pussy.”
Are you saying that being offered something is a crime, regardless of whether or not you accept it? Or, are you saying that people are guilty until proven innocent?
Whatever your position, you have a foul mouth and clearly no respect for this blog. You behave immaturely, accuse people with no evidence, and make a general fool of yourself. Are you are ready to grow up, sir? Until you are, I shall make no further replies to you. It’s not worth my time, or anyone else’s here.
Good day.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Mr. LaBianca:
I’d like to start by saying I’m not a “Reformer” either.
You argue by painting a box of inference around your opponent- that is the basis for my argument that you are, in effect, acting as a “purger.”
You grouped me negatively in a category (“you folks”, etc.), then differentiate based only on ‘taking the high ground’ in absolute terms, asserting that only your version of libertarianism is correct, backing that up with unneeded claims to longevity and excellence in the party. Once this is done, you swirl around, describe the group as persisting in negative behavior, and then using a classy word like “disgusting” for the lot of “us.”
If that isn’t McCarthyistic, well.. Let me restate your argument in more generic words to show you how it is:
“You people shouldn’t speak poorly of Candidate A. I’ve been a Libertarian since the Big Bang, and I am only trying to help the party pick the most libertarian candidate around. Candidate A is the ONLY Libertarian candidate out there. Candidate D is a horrible person who doesn’t know anything about libertarianism. Smearing Candidate A shows how bad you people are.”
Substitute “American” for “Libertarian” and you’ll see what I mean.
As to arguing on the issue, I notice you really haven’t done that. Maybe the reason is I have been unclear on some aspect of where I think Dr. Ruwart’s statement and the material she previously published s inappropriate/does not fit with libertarian ideals.
She wrote (after prefacing it by saying that the ideas of child rights haven’t been fully worked through):
“Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally.”
She made no choice to discuss as part of her answer, or as part f her disclaimer, “age of consent”or competence.
Nothing in what is written above (her statement from today) addresses this. At all.
I think her choice of words in her statements, both above and in her published works, is thoughtful and intentional. I think she chose the words “unwilling underage performers” and asked if anyone could find support for “pedophilia” very specifically- so that she could “respond” to this issue (or not, only time will tell) WITHOUT actually changing what she had previously written. I think she chose to respond this way because, I am guessing, it maintains her integrity of philosophy, while hopefully dumping the issue on the back burner.
Many Libertarians do not think children can consent to contracts/business/agreements/sexual acts. This is evidenced by the ongoing discussion of “Age of Consent”, etc. Many of us even believe that the government shouldn’t have the final say in whether someone is competent (able to consent).
I do not agree with Dr. Ruwart’s assertion that children can consent to sexual activity. I think that stance, unmodified (in my opinion) by her statement today, is non-representative of many Libertarians and, as written, reflects poorly on us to the general public. I further assert that should this remain as it is, it will be used against our candidates on local, state and national levels throughout the remained of the election cycle, and will damage one of the best chances the party has had in its proud history for electoral success.
Is that smearing Dr. Ruwart? I don’t think so. Is it an attack on individual freedom? No.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Mike Gravel would be a terrific Presidential candidate to grow the Libertarian Party
Nominate Gravel!
April 28th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
So, hypothetically speaking, if I accepted the blowjob that the 8 or 9 year old girl offered, would that make me a child molester?
But wait. I was 14 at the time, so according to many here I was not capable of moral agency at the time either.
I’m not saying this to be a smart-ass, I really don’t know the answer. It’s an unresolved question in my mind.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Steve LaBianca wrote:
SL) We need to do a better job of persuading voters that liberty is natural for the human condition, and when present, gives people the best chance at a happy and fruitful life. (SL
Exactly. Reformers simply believe that this job is hindered, not helped, if the Platform is a straightjacket requiring all of us to defend personal secession, privatizing every street, unlimited immigration, no laws against consensual child prostitution, etc.
SL) We do not need to move toward the statist position, that is become more “mainstream” just because the Democrats and Republicans are. (SL
Do you really think that the reason reformers want to move the Platform away from official quasi-anarchism is because we somehow admire the nanny-state parties? Wrong. It’s because we want to tear the fracking nanny state down to the ground, and we’ll fight better if we aren’t required to fly the black flag of zero-state-power quasi-anarchism. There are more varieties of principled libertarianism in heaven and Earth, dear Steve, than are dreamt of in your narrow anarchotopian philosophy.
Read the next two sentences ten times if necessary. I think I’m a purer libertarian than you, and I will debate you on that question any time, any forum, at any length, but I don’t need the Platform to certify that I’m purer than you. I already know it, and I don’t need you to admit it to fight alongside you against the nanny state.
Can’t you say the same thing?
April 28th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Paulie:
I’m not sure of the answer, either, except that I know that some people, because of age, disability or power imbalance cannot truly “consent.”
What the standard is, and how we set it are excellent topics for debate.
I know that the “16/18/21” standards set by the government are broken, but I’l unwilling to say any breathing person is capable of providing true consent- I’m also unwilling to relegate ability to consent to an “after the fact” issue, as it seems would be the alternative offered.
Very complex issue, this one.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
This entire debacle only strengthens my support for Mary Ruwart. I think she has an excellent chance of winning the nomination. I also hate to think what could become of the LP if the wrong person receives the nod.
And the Shane Cory memo—very UNlibertarian. What the hell?
April 28th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Except one thing is missing here, Mary does nothing to address the comments from her book that started the whole bruhaha. Does she or doesn’t she still beleive what she wrote in her book?
April 28th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Mary Ruwart should withdraw. this whole thing shows why libertarianism doesn’t work and why we need the Obama Revolution to destroy American sovereignty and institute one-world socialist Christian Democracy government.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
“I suggested that TPW require real names for those who opine, however, I also suggest that they refrain from FBI style ‘witch hunts’ for anonymous posters.”
1) The poster was not anonymous, (s)he was pseudonymous.
2) There was no “witch hunt” involved, such as an attempt to discover and divulge the “real” identity of, ban, etc.—merely a notation that someone was posting under two different pseudonyms, presumably for the purpose of conveying the false impression that (s)he is two different people.
If you don’t want it publicly mentioned that you’re up to fuckery, don’t get up to fuckery.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:36 am
.....lease answer, what do you think the proper role of the Federal Government is in protecting those that can not protect themselves?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
No “libertarian” anarchist supports any form of government at any level – and proudly says so. They certainly dont support the Constitution or Bill of Rights or refer to them to support their positions when they dont believe in the entire institution of elected self government itself.
They also tend to make absurd claims that Jefferson and other founding fathers would approve of their positions, be Libertarians, et. al support them if they were alive today. 2 hours of research will disabuse you of this notion.
Cant have it both ways. Either the Constitution/ BOR is valid and the force of law it compels is valid or it’s not. A significant portion of the LP says not, another portion says so. Denver will solve nothing, no matter which side “wins”, because the parties involved are irreconcilable.
The LP is the Middle East of Politics. They exist to fight with each other and for no other reason I can discern.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:48 am
full support of children’s sexual ‘rights’ used to be in the platform years back. It was really pure and true and shit. It also caused me as a LP candidate to have to try to answer to some woman in a audience of close to 500 voters in the largest candidate forum here why I, as a member of a political party which advocated adult-child sex should not be run out of town instead of elected.
I found out later she was a plant, but it didn’t matter. The Platform pretty much said it all.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Ruwart dodged the question. Does she think “consensual” pedophilia should be LEGAL?
Come on Carl, you know she cant answer that question. Either yes or no, the answer would grant legitimacy to any form of government, and a good true libertarian just doesn’t do that.
There’s no such thing as “legal” or “Illegal” to a real true libertarian. To even consider it, you must grant that the institution of government is legitimate and has the power to enforce the rule of law.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:04 am
The truth is that the LP has two candidates running who are NOT libertarians—that is Root and Barr. It certainly appears Root manufactured the smear of the leading principled libertarian in the race, Mary Ruwart.
And it appears that something is very rotten in the LP head office when the executive director can violate LP principles and the Constitution in one press release. The executive director deserves to be fired immediately. He has no right to take positions on behalf the party especially when his positions are unconstitutional and unlibertarian.
The problem with any discussion on the topic used to smear Mary is that the entire issues is surrounded by vague, non-specifics. “Child” can be 17 1/2 years old or two years old. Pornographic can mean anything. I’ve run into Fundamentalists who think Michangelo’s “David” is obscene. If you can’t objectively define “child” and “porn” how can you rationally discuss child porn? Actually children are like porn—everyone knows it when they see it—they just don’t see it the same as everyone else.
Any bondary that is drawn is necessarily arbitrary. What is too high for one person, and thus a violation of their rights, is too low for another thus subjecting them to exploitation by scumbags. I’ve tried to make sense out of this issue for decades and I don’t think libertarianism answers it well at all—no matter what position is taken. Mary tried to answer it consistently with libertarian principles.
Those principles are damn good but they are not divine and maybe there are times, like age of consent, where they simply don’t give us hard and fast answers but vague bondaries. That sort of difficult issue means that libertarians are all over the damn place on the issue because there is no clear cut RIGHT answer. For Root to use something like that for his smear is really bad news since Mary was being consistently libertarian. And I can see how others who oppose are also being libertarian. And the problem for that conflict lies with the difficulty this issue poses. No one can specify a rational age of consent based on objective principles. The best anyone can do is state preferences.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:09 am
“In my 25 plus years in the Party, I can’t recall a single person who would have said such a thing.”
disingenuous, like most libertarian arguments. The platform called for support of the full sexual rights of children and was worded in a manner that could very easily been construed as advocating adult-child sex.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:13 am
After seeing her attacked over this issue, Mary Ruwart is my choice for the LP presidential nomination now more than ever.
Don’t some of these Libertarians crying “pedophilia!” realize that getting worked up over anything having to do with children and sexuality in a cultural climate like the one we’re in, is like jumping on people for saying anything that might be interpreted as pro-communist during the McCarthy era when people were being hauled in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee?
Right now in California there are about 700 men who have been labeled “registered sex offenders” being held at Coalinga State Hospital (really a prison) against their will, allegedly for “treatment” after having already served out their full sentences behind bars.
This is an egregious and scary abuse of human rights equivalent to what was going on in the former Soviet Union with dissidents being sent to psychiatric hospitals. These men are the canaries in our collective coal mine, and of course the government cavailierly violates their rights in this manner, and is (so far) getting away with it, precisely because this group is so socially demonized, and few people have the courage to stand up for them.
Have some of us already forgotten, or failed to understand, Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous poem about Nazi Germany, “First they came for the communists, and I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t a communist…” etc.? Since when is it the LP’s job to give aid and comfort to the thought police?
I agree that the official press release which went out was disgraceful. But is Shane Cory mostly to blame? Was the LNC’s reluctance to “micromanage” staff, and the fact that it is (or was) considering its own shameful resolution on the topic, seen by the executive director as a tacit green light to do this?
Has the party’s ongoing emphasis on winning, “success,” and electing candidates, and its de-emphasis of ideology in general and the Non-Aggression Principle in particular, sent a signal that we no longer care about children’s rights or government discrimination on the basis of age, and are more about demonizing people in order to “protect our children” from the bogeyman of the hour, “sexual predators?”
April 29th, 2008 at 1:16 am
P.S. – You can read about what’s going on at Coalinga and some of the other frightening insanity being carried out around the United States with regard to people labeled as sex offenders at http://www.sexgulag.org/
April 29th, 2008 at 1:18 am
K, I had something to say and I did it. Gone until next time I have something to say.
BTW, I’m still alive.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Starchild, I utterly reject this Orwellian notion that to insist that the legal system protect children from parental aggression is “a signal that we no longer care about children’s rights”.
By the way, do you agree with Rothbard that it’s a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to insist that parents have a positive obligation not to let their children starve to death? Does your commitment to the NAP pass Rothbard’s test, or are you “libertarian lite”?
As I’ve been trying to explain to you for nearly three years, many of us disagree that white-gloved abstinence from force-initiation is always and everywhere the best way to minimize force initiation.
Needles cause pain. Doctors use needles. Do you conclude that doctors do not have a fundamental goal of minimizing pain?
You can call me “lite” or “statist” or “socialist” or “nerf” or “unprincipled” or “watered-down” or any other name you want, but none of them will ever mean that abstaining from something is always the best way to oppose it.
You and I each consider ourselves a better libertarian than the other, because we each think our method and strategy for opposing aggression is more principled and more effective. The difference between us is that only one of us has some kind of psychological need for the other to be tacitly considered an inferior libertarian by the LP’s fundamental texts. This schoolyard insistence on a pecking order is why, as Ruwart notes, the LP is a “divided house”. I hope nobody missed the irony when in her interview with Pat Dixon she said the reason she is the best candidate to unite the LP is because she’s the purest libertarian in the field.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall….
April 29th, 2008 at 7:40 am
I believe that the Flood’s resolution before the LNC is a good thing, because it repudiates Corey’s ambiguous call for a federal role in the suppression of child pornography.
I am not necesarily against a federal ban on child porn in principle, but I do prefer that the U.S. government stick to a narrow construction of the U.S. Constitution. This, I think, would limit Federal legislation to restrictions on buying and selling child porn across state lines. Especially in that context, I have no problem with a Federal role in communications among states seeking to ban the possession or production of child porn within their states.
All that being true, Corey’s press release suggests support for Federal policing of crime, primarily a function of state and local government. Of course, his press release was aimed at separating the LP from the extreme children’s rights faction of the LP, but he caused unneeded controversy by bringing up the federalism issues.
The LNC resolution pulls away from that. And I think that is a good idea.
Phillies suggests an alternative resolution, but shows himself unable to make decent analogies. The analogy would be for the LNC to call on each state government to maintain separation of church and state, blah, blah, blah…
It would avoid calling for the Federal government to enforce this on states (ie, celebrating the actions of the US supreme court in this regard.) And, it wouldn’t specifically condemn politicians (unnamed) who hold the opposite view.
(Phillies’ analogy comes a bit closer to the National office press release with its call for a federal role, though it is less ambigous, with its celebration of the US Supreme Court.)
Anyway, I would have no problem if the LNC supported Phillies proposal. Or one that was more analagous to what has actually been proposed on child porn.
I have no problem with the national office taking sides on issues that are controversial within the LP. For example, press releases criticizing the iraq war. Or pro-life stuff. Whatever. While the national office are just employees, they are employed by the National Chair. If the ideological direction is a problem, then it is up to the National Chair to fix it. If the National Chair has a national office that takes the wrong ideological direction, then choose a different one. I do think that the LNC should be able to impose ideological direction on the National office too. I really don’t think they should try to fire National staff. (Defunding their jobs or something.) But, they could prohibit the staff from opposing voluntary child porn or supporting Federal polcing, or whatever.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Justin Grover Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Mr. LaBianca:
I’d like to start by saying I’m not a “Reformer” either.
(I’m glad . . . reformers are misguided)
You argue by painting a box of inference around your opponent- that is the basis for my argument that you are, in effect, acting as a “purger.”
You grouped me negatively in a category (“you folks”, etc.), then differentiate based only on ‘taking the high ground’ in absolute terms, asserting that only your version of libertarianism is correct, backing that up with unneeded claims to longevity and excellence in the party
Well, if you are correct and I am wrong, then answer this . . . Do you or do you not believe that the fundamental principle of libertarian political theory is that initiation of force (coercion) should be prohibited?
Your answer will give me something to either agree or disagree with.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Having said what I needed to say regarding Mary Ruwart and this controversy to my own microscopic audience at Delaware Libertarian
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/04/mary-ruwart-child-porn-and-libertarian.html
I don’t see a need to repeat it here.
But here’s a process comment: being engaged in trying to rebuild a functional Libertarian Party in Delaware (where we essentially have one-party Democratic rule and a GOP collapsing faster than it is on the national scene), I have to worry about what happens when Libertarian philosophy becomes an obstacle to organizing people to achieve greater personal and economic freedom, and to start rolling back the power of the government.
I’m trying to bring DE’s GLBQT community into the Libertarian tent here. When fighting a Dem/GOP “bipartisan” State constitutional amendment that would not only outlaw gay marriage but also civil unions, when fighting for State recognition of an individual’s right to name any other person he/she damn well pleases as their decider/next of kin in a medical situation, and when fighting to keep our Statists from passing legislation to make it tougher (or even impossible) for gay couples to adopt children. . . .
It makes that task a lot harder than it needs to be to have Libertarians destroying themselves at a national level arguing over (and engaging in serious name-calling personal attacks) the finer points of non-aggression philosophy as applied to the distinction between a child of five and a child of fourteen having the capacity to consent to sex with an adult, another child, a farm animal, or a cucumber.
What that discussion does is invoke emotionally protective responses in people without a strong grasp of the concept of individual liberty and person responsibility, and it makes it almost impossible to reach them.
That’s why, as much as I respect Dr Ruwart as a Libertarian philosopher and scholar, I do not believe that she will make a good presidential candidate. Running for President is not about creating the opportunity to educate people on the Libertarian philosophy. It is about the pragmatic business of breaking the Statist stranglehold on the electoral system and fighting an effective battle to slow then stop and ultimately reverse the creep of government intrusion into our lives. That unfortunately rules out Dr Ruwart in my opinion, just as their long record of supporting the increase of State power rules out Mike Gravel and Bob Barr, regardless of their name recognition. (Universal health care? Patriot Act? Defense of Marriage Act?)
(Truth in advertising: I support and have endorsed George Phillies.)
April 29th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Steve,
For the record, it was not Mary Ruwart who brought up the age of consent issue in the campaign. I think she is a far wiser presidential candidate than to run on such a divisive, emotional and (most importantly) non-federal issue. My understanding is that someone with an opposing campaign going through her writings brought it up, and blessed us with this conversation just prior to our presidential nominating convention.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Brian Holtz Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Steve LaBianca wrote:
“Exactly. Reformers simply believe that this job is hindered, not helped, if the Platform is a straightjacket requiring all of us to defend personal secession, privatizing every street, unlimited immigration, no laws against consensual child prostitution, etc.”
Do you also believe that the libertarian non-initiation of force principle “straitjackets” libertarians as well?
If that’s the case, why not just SAY we’re for liberty, and then use state coercion ONLY when we believe that liberty is not in the best interest . . . “at this time”, “not until the tax system is more fair”, or “when the crisis is over”, “when the education system properly turn out rational people”, or “just as soon as we stop government funding of xyz program” etc.?
“SL) We do not need to move toward the statist position, that is become more “mainstream” just because the Democrats and Republicans are. (SL
Statism – (from one dictionary) – The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy. (in my view this means ANY individual control item or instance)
Or Wikipedia – Statism (or Etatism) is a very loose and often derogatory term that is used to describe:
1. Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
My view is that in context of libertarian political theory, any SPECIFIC state intervention in any matter involving society (social, personal, economic aspects of human life and interaction) is evidence of statism.
If you advocate statism in any fashion, then you are attempting to move libertarianism in the direction of the other parties.
“Do you really think that the reason reformers want to move the Platform away from official quasi-anarchism is because we somehow admire the nanny-state parties? ”
Loaded question, with using the intended slander of using the phrase “official quasi-anarchism” but I’ll answer that. No. However, your question, response really addresses something I didn’t ask . . . I never asked if reformers admired the nanny-state. I am simply asking if reformers feel that they cannot, or will not or are simply afraid to defend “non-initiation of force” in every case . . . and if so, they are comfortable in embracing statism, however little that may be.
So, Brian how much violence ARE you willing to tolerate being imposed on peaceful people? If you can support ANY level of government not violating the initiation of aggression (force) principle, you’ll have to make that point before, clear as to HOW that would be accomplished before I personally would entertain taking ANY or EVERY potential act of aggression, especially by government out of the platform.
“Wrong. It’s because we want to tear the fracking nanny state down to the ground, and we’ll fight better if we aren’t required to fly the black flag of zero-state-power quasi-anarchism. There are more varieties of principled libertarianism in heaven and Earth, dear Steve, than are dreamt of in your narrow anarchotopian philosophy.”
Again, tell me how ANY existence of the state would NOT violate the initiation of force principle? I’m listening. Plus, any “varieties of principled libertarianism” is fine with me, as long as it doesn’t violate the “non-initiation of force” principle. The burden of proof is on you and the LRC to prove that your “program” doesn’t violate this principle. BTW, I don’t accept “missing pieces”. Silence in my view is acceptance of statism in that realm or topic, unless specifically stated that ALL acts of violence and aggression not covered or addressed are implicitly wrong.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Starchild
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that if you offer yourself as a candidate for President, anything you have ever written or said is fair game.
I don’t doubt it was brought up as the product of “opposition research”; that’s not pretty but it is the way American politics currently works.
In a way you make my point: Mary Ruwart is a Libertarian philosopher, not a politician. Running for President is a political act and a de facto acceptance of the reality of the environment you’ve chosen to enter. The treatment she’s received is no different than that meted out other candidates over the last several decades. It should have been expected as part of the package.
The Democrats are divided almost split down the middle between two candidates. The conservative wing of the GOP feels disenfranchised with McCain. 25% of the Constitution Party delegates were willing to bolt toward a man who had not even joined their party.
The Libertarian Party divisions are symptomatic of the current American political culture and the failure of our system to provide meaningful access for a wide range of candidates. That’s why we constantly hear the refrain, “The best people won’t go into politics.” Unfortunately, it’s true, as this presents a case in point as arguably the single most outstanding radical Libertarian theorist gets a pie in her face.
What astounds me is that she (or anyone else) is surprised by it. Was she expecting a nominating fight or a coronation?
April 29th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Steve Newton Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 9:02 am
(Truth in advertising: I support and have endorsed George Phillies.)
With Phillies supporting heavy immigration controls, trade restrictions, and fiat currency administered by the Federal Reserve, this makes him a good “Libertarian candidate”?
April 29th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Steve Newton Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
“Running for President is a political act and a de facto acceptance of the reality of the environment you’ve chosen to enter. The treatment she’s (Ruwart) received is no different than that meted out other candidates over the last several decades.”
Oh really? So the treatment of making innuendos and drawing false, unreasonable, non-rational conclusions like “Mary Ruwart SUPPORTS pedophilia, child pornography, and children having sex, “is no different than that meted out other candidates over the last several decades”? Even if such “treatment” has happened before, that makes the attacks on Mary acceptable?
It sounds like you believe it is.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Steve, I say that the fundamental principle of libertarian political theory is that force initiation should be opposed and minimized. So answer this: do you or do you not instead believe that the fundamental principle of libertarian political theory is that force initiation should be abstained from, regardless of the consequences?
April 29th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Brian Holtz Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am
“Steve, I say that the fundamental principle of libertarian political theory is that force initiation should be opposed and minimized. ”
Mimimized . . by whose standard, and when is minimized reached?
“So answer this: do you or do you not instead believe that the fundamental principle of libertarian political theory is that force initiation should be abstained from, regardless of the consequences?”
Yes. Yes to “force initiation”, however force, such as when I would retaliate when someone attempts to punch me, and I wrestle that person to the ground and (using force) put my knee on his throat to restrain him is not initiation of force.
That is what Libertarian political theory MEANS. If you believe in making exceptions, then you are a “libertarian who makes excuses for aggression” (and I’m being nice).
I am not.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:58 am
“I hereby pledge that I do not believe in nor advocate the initiation of force or fraud as a means of achieving political or social goals.”
EXCEPT, we should only be MINIMIZING initiation of force, according to Brian Holtz.
Sir, your belief is at odds with the “pledge”. Do you want to toss that in the trash as well?
April 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am
BTW Brian, I am, as a practical matter, in agreement that “minimizing” in initiation of force is fine as a strategy, but “the fundamental PRINCIPLE of libertarian political theory” is ZERO tolerance for initiation of force.
I’ve long said, the problem with the LP is NOT its principled stand. The Rform Caucus is trying to fix what isn’t broken. The problem(s) is/are twofold
a- the strategy and a realistic program needs to be better defined and enumerated,
b-The LP needs to “do a better job of persuading voters that liberty is natural for the human condition, and when present, gives people the best chance at a happy and fruitful life.”
This is part of the strategic plan, NOT THE PRINCIPLES!
Please reformers, stop gutting the platform . . . the platform SHOULD, and has in the past represented the PRINCIPLES of libertarianism.
IF you reformers REALLY want to do things right, reinstate a revised, current LIBERTARIAN PROGRAM, like the one that existed in the early 1990’s. The “program” was a “supplemental” document designed to address the most pressing issues of the day, and offers a practical solution to getting back to a non-intervention approach. Notice this is a “getting back” process. The PLATFORM is NOT A PROCESS. It is the foundation!
April 29th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Steve,
Yes, I believe the innuendo against Dr Ruwart is exactly within that political continuum. Nowhere did I say it was acceptable, but I do believe it is inevitable in our current political milieu. I’m only surprised that it has taken this long to infect the LP. I made a factual observation about political reality; dispute it if you will, but try to stick to the quality of the observation rather than drawing motivational conclusions.
Everybody chooses to emphasize different key issues in a Presidential candidate. I believe Phillies’ foreign policy stance is the best one currently offered by any candidate and the only rational policy for backing America off an imperialistic, interventionist course. I also believe that Phillies offers the most rational starting point for beginning the job of rolling back the massive Federal government. You may believe otherwise, and that’s fine.
Brian,
I will answer your question, but first let me note that last time I checked neither you nor anyone else had been selected as the guarantor of the purity of Libertarian thought.
Here’s the answer:
1) Your question is inconsistent. Sentence one refers to force initiation being “opposed and minimized,” while sentence two uses the verb “abstain,” which is fundamentally different from “minimized.” But I perceive you mean me to deal with sentence two.
2) Abstention requires me to agree that force initiation is never, under any condition, justified, analogous to a pacifist who says that war is never, under any conditions, justified. No, I don’t believe that.
If you enter my house in the middle of the night I reserve the right to initiate force against you, even if your entry was made through an open door.
No society can completely eliminate the initiation of force. Much of the time the initiation of force is an emotional rather than rational decision. Human beings are strongly driven by emotions. I don’t believe we will change that. At best we will control it and restrict it to the smallest possible universe.
Show me, if you will, any historical example of a society or culture that proves otherwise.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am
April 29th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Steve Newton Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 10:17 am
“If you enter my house in the middle of the night I reserve the right to initiate force against you, even if your entry was made through an open door.”
Actually Steve, I think the question from Holtz was addressed to me,
but I will differ with the portion of your analysis above.
When someone enters MY house uninvited, the initiation of force is already implied, at least potentially. The prudent action, depends upon the particulars. If it is 3:30 a.m. I shoot first, ask questions later. If it is broad daylight, most often (if I see the person) I would attempt to make the person leave, but failing that I’d “force” him or her out if necessary.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Steve
You may be right about who was supposed to answer the question
Here’s why I don’t completely buy your analysis: “When someone enters MY house uninvited, the initiation of force is already implied, at least potentially.”
Ah, there’s the rub. Now we are back at what exactly constitutes the initiation of force and even the “potential” initiation of force. There was a case in Philadelphia last year when a drunk man mistook his neighbor’s house for his own, entered an unlocked door, and was pounding around downstairs cursing and bumping into things. The man who owned the house (and whose house had been broken into before) perceived the initiation of force against him and responded with his pistol—killing him.
My point here is that it is not always the actual initiation of force at issue, but the perception of the initiation of force.
But I realized after I wrote my answer why Brian’s question had no merit. The Libertarian pledge discusses the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals, so the issue of breaking into my house is not even germane.
As you example illustrates, however, the definition of force and its initiation (or the perception of its initiation) is the devil in the details.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Steve LaBianca (not Newton) writes:
) Tell me how ANY existence of the state would NOT violate the initiation of force principle? [...] If you advocate statism in any fashion, then you are attempting to move libertarianism in the direction of the other parties. (
There you have it, plain as day. The litmus test for Platform content is its consistency with anarchism, and any deviation from anarchism is attacked as advocating the same thing that the nanny state parties advocate. Is this Mary Ruwart’s plan for uniting a “divided” LP?
Steve, there are more political philosophies in the world than just anarchism and socialism. The world is just not as simple as your bumper sticker wants it to be. For example:
Do you support the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to subpoena innocent third-party witnesses? That’s initiation of force, but it’s for the purpose of protecting individual rights.
Do you support the arrest, detention, and compulsory trial of those accused—but not yet convicted—of violent crimes (e.g murder)? That’s a force-initiating policy unless you magically know that innocents will never be arrested. (Compensation after the fact is no excuse, because that’s the same argument used to justify any allegedly Kaldor-Hicks-efficient nanny state policy. If you don’t know what Kaldor-Hicks efficiency is, Wikipedia can tell you.)
Do you support enforcement of a positive obligation on parents to not let their children starve to death? Murray Rothbard (and perhaps Mary Ruwart) calls that initiation of force, but again, it’s for the purpose of protecting the individual rights of the children.
Do you support class-action tort rulings that apply a uniform default penalty to a broad category of micro-aggression (such as tailpipe pollution) without a jury-determined calibration of the penalty to the circumstances of each aggressor? That’s force initiation, but it’s for protecting individual rights of Lockean access to the atmospheric commons.
Do you support copyright? patents? the right to blackmail? Any answer you give can be described as force-initiating by some principled libertarian.
Do you support the taking and maintenance of a monopoly claim on a land parcel (or any other uncreated natural resource) without respecting the Lockean proviso of “leaving as much and as good” for others? That’s force initiation, and we geolibertarians say that such force initiators must compensate those they exclude from such land, typically through the community collection of ground rent (i.e. a land value tax).
The fundamental question here is: do you or do you not accept that there is a principled distinction between socialism and various kinds of minarchism (i.e. non-anarchist libertarianism)? If you do, then why should the LP implicitly declare that anarchist principles are better than minarchist principles? If you do not, then why aren’t you trying to purge us socialists from the LP?
We need a Denver Accord that rejects your brand of bumper-sticker-sized exclusivist litmus testing, and instead builds a Big Tent LP that offers every principled libertarian—whether anarchist or minarchist—an equal seat at the grownups’ table.
You ask “what does ‘minimizing’ force initiation mean”? Entire books have been written on that subject. If you want a Platform-sized answer, then see the proposed 2008 LP Platform, or google for my EcoLibertarian Manifesto. If you insist on a bumper-sticker-sized answer, then the best I can offer is:
“Outlaw only fraud and force initiation. Tax only land rent and polluting/ congesting/ consuming the commons. Provide only network natural monopolies and protection of life and liberty. Do it all decentrally, democratically, with due process and without discrimination.”
If your bumper sticker isn’t that big, then with some lossiness I can squeeze it down to: “What you do or make is fully yours, but what you take or spoil is not.”
I’m deeply sorry if you wanted this world to come packaged with an available political philosophy that fits on a bumper sticker and mechanically computes the ethical answer to every political question. If we lived in such a world, then all libertarians—indeed, all ethical people—would already be Randroids by now. But alas, the world is just not that simple.
You ask “who decides” about minimizing force initiation. Fundamentally, we each have to decide for ourselves. We know from Euthyphro’s Dilemma that there can be no bearded man—or Platonic realm—beyond the clouds where all this hard thinking is pre-thought-out for us. As we make up our individual minds, we as social mammals come together in groups (like the LP) to build social institutions (like governments, or bodies of common law, or whatever). The process is messy, and again, I’m deeply sorry if that disappoints you. As Morpheus told Neo: “I didn’t say this would be easy. I just said it would be the truth.”
Thank you for admitting that you believe that the core belief of libertarianism is that “force initiation should be abstained from, regardless of the consequences”. That is indeed our fundamental disagreement, and very few radicals have the mental clarity to recognize it. The next question is: do you believe that the LP should treat you and me each as first-class citizens, or should the LP’s texts declare—implicitly or explicitly—that your vision of libertarianism is better than mine?
Thank you for also admitting that you consider me to be in violation of the Pledge. Very few radicals have the intellectual courage to say that, but many try to imply it. I believe David Nolan when he tells us that the Pledge is against revolt, not for anarchism. But yes, to resolve this ambiguity, I favor replacing the Pledge with this one: “The Libertarian Party will always advocate increasing liberty and decreasing government on every issue. As a member of the Libertarian Party, I will not attempt to change this.” However, rewriting the Pledge is not on anybody’s agenda for Denver.
Steve Newton: abstention and opposition/minimization were alternatives I offered to Steve L, not an inconsistent single principle I was offering to you. I’ve never said I’m “the guarantor of the purity of Libertarian thought”, and I’m arguing in detail that Steve LaBianca shouldn’t be either. However, I have been selected to serve on the LPUS Platform Committee for this cycle and the previous one, so I cannot honestly disclaim all responsibility for helping shape the LP’s official thoughts. However, I’m also a NatCon delegate, and our delegates hold ultimate and total authority to reshape the LP however they please.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:13 am
“I’m also a NatCon delegate, and our delegates hold ultimate and total authority to reshape the LP however they please.”
Funny, I thought ultimate and total authority to shape or reshape the LP was actually vested in the members, and only delegated to you guys. Sort of like that US Constitution/sovereignty argument.
The irony is that I probably much more closely agree with your views than Brian’s in a philosophical sense, but I think he and I would find your closing sentence equally chilling (assuming it was not just poorly worded).
April 29th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Brian Holtz Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Steve LaBianca (not Newton) writes:
“Tell me how ANY existence of the state would NOT violate the initiation of force principle? [...] If you advocate statism in any fashion, then you are attempting to move libertarianism in the direction of the other parties.
There you have it, plain as day. The litmus test for Platform content is its
consistency with anarchism.”
NO BRIAN, there you DON’T have it! I asked a question. You could answer the question, say “I’ll get back to you” as you craft a thoughtful answer, or say you’ll consider it and reflect for a while.
BUT NO, the response is, THERE YOU HAVE IT!
Should I ask again, or will you just deflect and slander again? I WILL BE POLITE and ask again, or let me rephrase . . .If you think that a “state” or “government” can exist without initiating force, please explain how it would be organized, and would function. Straightforward, though not necessarily
an easy answer.
Your response is BS, Brian, and is intended to avoid answering my question. If you think the question is unfair, tell me how so? But don’t give me this crap. You might save face by not answering at all, but this? It’s very unbecoming of someone who, so I’ve heard is a very bright guy. Your response however, is not a bright answer.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Holtz, in short advocates statism. It can’t be plainer than that. If someone is not willing to eschew all initiation of force, there is the element of statism, however small it may be.
Holtz there are already a whole gamut of political parties in America advocating statism to on degree or another . . . the Libertarian Party should continues its uniqueness as one that advocates individualism, or as Spencer titled his book “The Man versus the State”. Unless you think the LP should just offer up its own brand of statism?
Who should decide . . . your position allows for the state to decide for me. That my friends is UN-libertarian.
Unless you agree to answer or ask for clarification of my question which you so conveniently deflected and avoided, I’ve said all that I’m going to say about this, other than Brian Holtz and virtually all in the LRC support the state deciding for people.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Your answer will give me something to either agree or disagree with.”
Mr. LaBianca:
I prefer to use the word coercion. “Force” gets you into a semantics argument with too many people who either think that it seems to limit our goals as a party (political force) or who want to waffle.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Mary Ruwart’s brain is a “divided house” IMO.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“So answer this: do you or do you not instead believe that the fundamental principle of libertarian political theory is that force initiation should be abstained from, regardless of the consequences?”
Nothing should be done ‘regardless of the consequences’. It is precisely a regard for consequences which will lead a libertarian to the conclusion that a person or group of people should not aggress against another person or group.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Hlotz writes:
Reformers simply believe that this job is hindered, not helped, if the Platform is a straightjacket requiring all of us to defend personal secession, privatizing every street, unlimited immigration, no laws against consensual child prostitution, etc.
Interesting analogy. I see the platform as a backbone rather than a straightjacket. I think of each plank as a vertebra. A candidate is free to move in any direction outward from the platform, but he has it to support him.
Or in simpler terms: the LP needs to grow a spine
April 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Feminazi.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Steve LaBianca asked “Tell me how ANY existence of the state would NOT violate the initiation of force principle?”
That depends on what you mean by the “initiation of force principle”. The existence of the state does not violate what I call the Anti-Aggression Principle. I agree with Roy Childs contra Ayn Rand that it would violate the Zero Aggression Principle. For details, see the links near the bottom of http://libertarianmajority.net/.
There, I answered your question. Now, I asked you eight questions about various kinds of force initiation, and about whether you acknowledge any principled distinction between socialism and minarchism. I’m perfectly happy for you to ignore them and call them “B.S”, because I guarantee you that this discussion will end with you ignoring a lengthy posting of mine (like my previous one). That’s just how I roll. Given how busy I am, I’m fine with that happening sooner rather than later.
If you define “statist” as “not an anarchist”, then congratulations, you’ve convicted me of the crime of statism. Further, if you define the Non-Aggression Principle as caring more about abstaining from force initiation than about opposing and minimizing it, then congratulations again, you’ve convicted me of upholding a principle that I consider to be superior too—and more libertarian than—your corresponding principle. Whether or not you think I qualify as libertarian, I still think you qualify, and I don’t need to waste energy trying to make the LP’s fundamental texts say that I’m more libertarian than thou. I’ve got a nanny state to dismantle. Don’t you?
Susan, you didn’t quite answer whether your fundamental principle is 1) that force initiation should be absolutely abstained from, or 2) that force initiation should be opposed and minimized. It’s news to me that you’re now a consequentialist anarchist. In the past you’ve given a perfect imitation of a vehemently deontological anarchist, saying that we cannot know what policies will lead to the least amount of force initiation, and so the best we can do is not initiate force ourselves. I’m glad to hear it if you apparently no longer find that position defensible.
I’m also glad to see you whole-heartedly subscribe to my “spinal reflex” metaphor. You say the LP needs to grow a spine, but I say it needs to start thinking more with its brain, and less with the brain stem that the Rockbardians left behind. What I’d like to know now is: do you yet have enough “spine” to tell the delegates how many of the 30 elements of the No 1st Force Pledge you endorse? I’m stilling willing to contribute $100 to your Radical Caucus if you’re hardcore enough to endorse them all. And I’ll double that to $200 if you endorse Rothbard’s position that there should be no rules against parents letting their children starve to death. My cash is yours if you have enough spine here.
Steve Newton, it’s not really disputable whether the rules say that LP members delegate ultimate power to their delegates. The only limit on that power are the rules about proper notice for certain things, but anyone who could hypnotize enough NatCon delegates can essentially do anything to the LP that she wishes. The Bylaws Committee is trying to foreclose the possibility of a hostile takeover by having the Judicial Committee members serve longer and staggered terms, so that a single convention can’t elect a quisling JudCom. But that only protects the LP from the officers the delegates elect. Nothing can protect the LP from the delegates themselves.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
“Nothing can protect the LP from the delegates themselves.”
Somebody (maybe a lot of people) seems to have forgotten who actually constitutes the party.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Susan, you didn’t quite answer whether your fundamental principle is 1) that force initiation should be absolutely abstained from, or 2) that force initiation should be opposed and minimized. It’s news to me that you’re now a consequentialist anarchist.
Brian, I suspect no one ever ‘quite answers’ a question to your satisfaction until they’ve said what you want them to say, so I guess you’re just going to have to be satisfied with continuing to make up phrases like ‘consequentialist anarchist’ and ascribe them to me.
If anyone else is in doubt about my position on the initiation of force, I’d like to know.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:58 am
I’ll double that to $200 if you endorse Rothbard’s position that there should be no rules against parents letting their children starve to death.
I’m disinclined to get into an ethical pissing contest with a man who thinks the deliberate slaughter of entire cities full of civilians is an acceptable way to reduce aggression in the world. It’s just too bizarre for me.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:05 am
I’m also glad to see you whole-heartedly subscribe to my “spinal reflex” metaphor.
What? Your metaphor was that the platform is a straitjacket. I offered the metaphor of the platform as a backbone. Suddenly that’s me ‘whole-heartedly subscribing’ to something you didn’t say – or said elsewhere and imagined I’ve read breathlessly, as if anyone could stand to read more than two paragraphs in a row of your endless bilge.
Jeezus, you’re annoying. Why don’t you go help Andrew Davis write a press release or something?
April 30th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Susan, I wrote about “spinal reflexes and phantom limbs” on TPW yesterday before you wrote that “the LP needs to grow a spine”. Anyone who’s followed any of our past discussions can decide for himself whether I’m under any illusion that you are an attentive reader of my arguments against LP radicalism. If you don’t like your metaphors ricocheting back at you, well, you should pay more attention to where you aim them.
It’s understandable why you find it “annoying” to reveal whether you consider the fundamental principle of libertarianism to be 1) absolute abstention from force initiation vs. 2) actively opposing and minimizing force initiation. After all, it’s only the core argument I’ve been making for the last three years against deontological radicals like you. I’ll drop the pretense that I don’t know which of these two positions you take, if you drop the pretense that you haven’t already taken it. (You can also drop the pretense that you don’t know what words like “consequentialist” and “deontological” mean. So much for the Radical Caucus mission of “educating LP members about the Party’s core principles”. Educator, educate thyself.) You told us here on March 4 that you are not
SH) an omniscient being who could See All and Know All and understand perfectly the interplay between cause-and-effect perfectly – oh, and who could predict how individual humans with their supposedly free will would react as well. [...] I’m afraid my Magic 8 Ball isn’t good enough for that sort of moral calculus, so I’ll have to content myself with trying not to aggress at all. [...] I can only strive to add a “+1” to the non-aggressors column, and convince others to join me. (SH
Only a month later, you completely flip-flopped when you published your Radical Caucus Key Points document saying: “there is no essential separation between rights and utilitarianism – that is, the morally correct choice will always yield the most benefit for the greatest number of people.” (Hint: for the purposes of this discussion, you can treat “utilitarianism” and “consequentialism” as synonyms.) It seems that you are a fair-weather utilitarian, and I’m your own personal rain cloud.
Interestingly, the ellipses in your words above were precisely the same red-herring smear you wheel out against me now: the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. I’ll just cut and paste below my rebuttal from last year that you’ve never attempted to answer, but first some observations.
1) It’s, um, interesting for your Key Points document to say that “hiding or abandoning our principled positions is ineffective”, and then desperately grasp for any excuse for you, “Murray Rothbard’s intellectual love child”, not to answer whether you agree with Rothbard that parents should have a legal right to starve their own children. Do you “hold high the banner” of principle, or not?
2) My position is that unique historical circumstances created a forced choice to attack “a major supply and logistics base for a militarized society completely mobilized in support of a war of territorial conquest and racist genocide”. Your characterization of “deliberate slaughter” of “cities full of civilians” is inaccurate and unfair—but par for the TPW course these days.
3) Truman’s was a forced choice in 1945 under a unique one-time set of historical circumstances that have never been, and will never be, repeated. By contrast, somewhere in America an abusive parent subjects a child to mortal neglect probably every day. As a declared wanna-be Advertising and Publications Review Committee censor, you either have the spine to tell delegates where you stand on this topic, or you don’t. I’m sure we’re all quite impressed that you have the spine to oppose the “deliberate slaughter” of “cities full of civilians”.
4) Invoking my position on Hiroshima is a clumsy red herring, as I am not running for office in Denver, and so my personal positions and judgments do not need delegate scrutiny—even though I’m flattered about any I receive, and always happy to answer it. I predict that you’ll still be leaning on this Hiroshima red herring all the way through Denver, and will very likely feature it in printed handouts that attack me personally as weak substitute for criticizing the Platform Committee’s proposal. If you do, then I will get to brag about how well my “Crystal Ball” works.
—————————
My position on Hiroshima is the same as my position on the Trolley Problem or the ticking-nuclear-terrorist-time-bomb or any other forced-choice lifeboat thought experiment. It is this: the moral agent should do what he thinks is right under the circumstances, and then turn himself in to face possible trial by a jury of his peers. I absolutely oppose any legislation authorizing anyone, especially agents of the State, to have legal carte blanche to decide to kill one innocent in order to save even one billion innocents. That is a question for a jury, not for a legislature or an executive.
I repeat the argument that I would make to Truman’s jury:
The citizens of Hiroshima were living in a major supply and logistics base for a militarized society completely mobilized in support of a war of territorial conquest and racist genocide. In addition to all the Japanese troops and civilians whose lives were saved by not having to invade the imperial homeland, the bombing also stopped the deaths of over 100,000 Asian noncombatants each month living under Japanese conquest—as well as the lives of hundreds of allied prisoners under orders to be executed upon invasion. The atomic bombings killed about 200K Japanese. The projected fatalities for invading Japan included hundreds of thousands of Americans, and over a million Japanese. Leaving Japan alone would have been better for people in North Carolina, maybe—at least those whose primary concern is their clean hands. Not so good, however, for the hundreds of thousands of slave laborers controlled by the Japanese, or the tens of thousands of “comfort women” abducted from Korea and China for use in Japanese army brothels. Not so good, especially, for the roughly 100K Asian non-combatants who were dying each month under Japanese military occupation, joining the six to ten million Asians that had already been slaughtered by Japanese aggression. See the Wikipedia article Japanese_war_crimes if you can stomach further details.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:42 am
BH:
It is this: the moral agent should do what he thinks is right under the circumstances, and then turn himself in to face possible trial by a jury of his peers.
Well, of course. A human as a moral agent should and can only always ‘do what he thinks is right’. We are in agreement there. The bigger question, to my mind, is what do you think is right? or what do you think is wrong?. Obviously you think Truman’s decision was right, and I think it was wrong. You think it was right (if I understand your argument correctly) because an analysis shows you that a greater amount of net aggression would have occurred if he had not taken that action. I beleive both that your attempted calculation is superficial and fundamentally impossible, and that it is morally wrong to sacrifice others for a goal of your choosing.
Only a month later, you completely flip-flopped when you published your Radical Caucus Key Points document saying: “there is no essential separation between rights and utilitarianism – that is, the morally correct choice will always yield the most benefit for the greatest number of people.”
This is neither a flip nor a flop. I maintain that doing what is right (in the context of this discussion: not aggressing against others) is by the nature of things the best utilitarian solution as well as the morally correct one.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“I’ll double that to $200 if you endorse Rothbard’s position that there should be no rules against parents letting their children starve to death.”
I’ll accept $200 if you wish to mail it to me.
I don’t believe any human has any innate obligation to feed other humans, no matter at what age. I also don’t believe a parent has any right to prevent me from feeding his/her starving child, nor do I believe any parent that neglectful retains any guardianship of said child.
Yours,
Alex Peak
April 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
It’s trivial to deny making a flip-flop if you only quote one half of it.
And of course, still no word from “Murray Rothbard’s intellectual love child” whether she agrees with Dad that parents should have a legal right to starve their own children. Don’t worry, Susan; he’s dead. He can’t hurt you any more. It’s safe to answer the question.
Now, back to consideration of Susan’s red herring. Shane Cory was unavailable, so today’s distraction from the examination of radical Libertarian principles is—wait for it—Harry Truman. Susan Hogarth wrote:
SH) Obviously you think Truman’s decision was right (SH
No, I just think it was less wrong than his other available decisions. Please re-read the words “forced choice”. That may be the difference between you and me—you apparently will sit on your hands unless you have some conveniently high amount of evidence that action can be taken that will leave your hands spotless. Your world may be monochrome, but the real world isn’t.
SH) it is morally wrong to sacrifice others for a goal of your choosing. (SH
As I have patiently tried to explain to you by citing the philosophical literature on the Trolley Problem, the red herring you’ve introduced here concerns an excruciatingly rare thing: a forced choice between the deaths of different sets of innocents. The nature of such a forced choice is that, ex hypothesis, innocents will die no matter what. The only question is how many extra innocent deaths you’re willing to watch in order to have clean hands. Thus I repeat your own charge back at you: it is morally wrong to allow extra innocents to die just to keep your hands clean. You earlier in fact said that you might “kill one person rather than let five others be killed if I could imagine no alternative”, but then you later called the Trolley Problem “stupid” and said that only an “Evil Genius™” could set one up.
Alas, the unique horror of World War II featured more than one Evil Genius. In August 1944 the leader of the Rescue Department of the World Jewish Congress forwarded to the American government a request to bomb Auschwitz, even though it was known that doing so would kill innocent Jews. The request said the “Germans might possibly stop further mass exterminations especially since so little time is left to them”. If the available evidence had suggested that such a bombing would save many times more Jews than it would kill by disrupting the Nazi’s extermination infrastructure, would you have still opposed it?
Alex, the prize for Susan is a doubling of her $100 reward for subscribing to all 30 elements of the No 1st Force Pledge. Doubling zero still yields zero. However, I’m willing to put you on commission. If you can get any of our presidential or LNC candidates to fully endorse the N1F pledge, I’ll match my payment to them with a payment to you. Good luck.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:09 am
technical suggestions:
1) Post the IP address of each poster along with the post. (Those who wish to remain anonymous – or psuedononymous – can just use a proxy server)
2) Implement a cookie-based ignore filter that will allow each individual to filter out comments from anyone they wish.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I would like to know why Wayne Allyn Root continues to support the massacre of children in Texas and in Iraq. His views on the Branch Davidian massacre were statist and atrocious at the time, and his views on the butchering of small children for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan are among the most foul things I’ve read. Of course, if these comments misrepresent in any way Mr. Root’s views, too bad.
December 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Bush said the work “hasn’t been easy, but it has been necessary for American security, Iraqi hope and world peace.”