LP Photoshop of the day

Source: Anonymous by request

108 Responses to “LP Photoshop of the day”

  1. Mike Theodore Says:

    Is this fucking newsworthy, ThirdPartyWatch? Come on. Sickening.

  2. Andy Says:

    Cool logo. Maybe this could help the Ruwart campaign like the r3VOLution logo helped the Ron Paul campaign.

  3. Mike Theodore Says:

    It’s a god damned smear, Andy! It’s tying Ruwart’s candidacy to a sect of anarchism that the party does not represent. NOR DOES SHE! Damnit, why is the site posting this?!

  4. Tom Bryant Says:

    While most of the time this site is a pretty good source of news, it is to be expected that SG would use it for inner-party struggles that he’s a part of. The LP nomination is heating up, and folks are going to get desparate and use whatever resources they have available.

    Definitely a smear, but if you dont like SG’s opinions, don’t visit his website.

  5. Peter Orvetti Says:

    “Anonymous by request”? Interesting.

  6. Mike Theodore Says:

    Excuse me, SG?

  7. Wes Benedict Says:

    As Third Party Watch is run by Steve Gordon who is a Bob Barr for President campaign leader, it’s a shame to see the Bob Barr campaign by association with Third Party Watch working to smear Mary Ruwart. Root’s in deep shit with Libertarians already because his supporters are using these kinds of smear tactics. Many Libertarians are beginning to learn that people like Steve Gordon will brand any opponent with the most controversial thing they can come up with.

    Already too many Libertarian insiders know that Root supporter Aaron Starr is widely despised by Libertarians who know him. I hope the Root campaign is starting to learn that smear tactics will probably backfire and cost him the election if he doesn’t shape up and promote his positives instead of sending out surrogates to attack other Libertarians.

    Still, no matter how you spin it, Third Party Watch is run by Bob Barr’s campaign leader. Posts like this only tie Bob Barr to smear tactics.

    Root and Barr appear to be following the Nolan-Russo campaign strategy of mutual self-destruction. Root and Barr, clean up your acts and ask your supporters to clean up their acts. Your Libertopian dreams of a Libertarian party without Libertarians or anarchists will never happen unless you change the name of the Libertarian Party and adopt the average of the platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties.

    Mary Ruwart is respected deeply the way Ron Paul is respected. I used to think Root was pursuing the Giuliani strategy and Barr was pursuing the Fred Thompson strategy, but now it appears Root is pursuing the Guiliani strategy and Barr is pursing the Hillary strategy.

    Guys, shape up or watch your asses get kicked out!

    I don’t want you to get kicked out. I want you to earn the respect of all Libertarians regardless of where they fall on the Libertarian spectrum and inspire all Libertarians to support you!

    A self-serving negative smear campaign that risks damaging the Libertarian Party is not the way to go.

    Gentlemen, please act like respectful gentlemen.

  8. Jerry Baner Says:

    Wes Benedict,

    Calm the hell down, would you?

  9. Mike Theodore Says:

    No, Wes. Let it all out. People need to hear this.
    BTW, good stickers.

  10. Stephen Gordon Says:

    While the person who provided the graphic chooses to remain anonymous, I would have posted (and probably will post) any similar content (with consideration to appropriate copyright disclosures, artistic merit and such) about any third party candidate which captures the flavor on an ongoing political issue.

    It is my belief, although I am not sure, that the person who submitted the graphic is a Ruwart supporter. If there weren’t other supporters of a similar vein (note the name of the website which can’t be mentioned here or the comments which go into the spam bin), I might not have posted this.

    Some examples might include a political cartoon with Root sticking a wad of bills in Lieberman’s back pocket, Barr burning a witch at the stake, Kubby in a fog of smoke, Smith actually on national television, Imperato talking to the pope, Phillies looking extremely professorial, etc.

    I’ve not refused to post releases and articles which negatively mention the candidate I support or have supported. I’ve been called names for trashing the people I support and called names for mentioning anything negative about other candidates. If I am going to be personally criticized for trying to present virtually every piece of third party news presented to me, tell my why I should continue.

    It is also worth noting that other people who support other LP candidates also work at this website. I’ve only recently asked one of them to modify his style a bit (but that has much more to do with technical and marketing issues than political ones).

    Alternately, I could simply shut the site down. I certainly spend a lot more time here than I recoup in any financial reward. The ratio of criticism to thank yous is probably around 100:1 right now. If the site is that bad, why does everyone seem to hang around it so much?

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    Stephen,

    Ignore the BS.

    Or—sell me TPW. =)

  12. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Wes Benedict Says:
    April 30th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

    “I hope the Root campaign is starting to learn that smear tactics will probably backfire and cost him the election if he doesn’t shape up and promote his positives instead of sending out surrogates to attack other Libertarians.”

    And those “positives” would be . . . ?

    Harry Browne always exuded a calm, quiet confidence. He learned to be that way, and thus EARNED respect over many years of success in the financial world, as well as many years of careful thought and consideration of libertarian theory and its consequences.

    By contrast, W.A.R. exudes a brash, abrasive over confidence in the world of libertarianism, and ever since the entrance of other candidates, he has misstepped over and over again. W.A.R. has earned NOTHING in the Libertarian Party, and I dare say, the W.A.R. machine is imploding because of this. Big talkers with nothing to back it up always fail. W.A.R.’s supposed extroverted personality will be his downfall, not his forte. He just can’t help himself for being the way he is!

  13. Steve LaBianca Says:

    I said, “Harry Browne always exuded a calm, quiet confidence.”

    Much like Mary Ruwart does.

  14. Andy Says:

    “Many Libertarians are beginning to learn that people like Steve Gordon will brand any opponent with the most controversial thing they can come up with.”

    How about branding Bob Barr with the Fraud Tax, opps, I mean Fair Tax? Oh yeah, he’s already branded himself with this travesty.

  15. G.E. Says:

    Trent – This is not B.S. But at least Stephen has fully come out of the closet as an anti-Ruwart smear artist. There’s no more need for speculation here on out.

  16. Steve LaBianca Says:
    1. Stephen Gordon Says:
      April 30th, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    Alternately, I could simply shut the site down. I certainly spend a lot more time here than I recoup in any financial reward. The ratio of criticism to thank yous is probably around 100:1 right now. If the site is that bad, why does everyone seem to hang around it so much?

    Though it is no secret, you and I support different candidates, but I have said nothing but good things about this site. I will not criticize for things done differently than I would do, because if I wanted to do things differently, I would set up my own site.

    I think you should use your judgment as to how to run your site. Those that disagree can just not visit or post.

  17. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    I’m flabbergasted. This is pointless smearing.

    Wes, I don’t like Aaron any more than you do. After all, I’m from RivCo and well, no need to recount all that old pain. But while he was (probably) behind “W.A.R. and Peace” I don’t think he’s behind this one. I can think of half a dozen reasons why, but well, that would be pointless smearing too I suppose.

  18. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Gordon, take this $#!+ down.

    “The ratio of criticism to thank yous is probably around 100:1 right now.”

    When you put up junk like this, is that really surprising?

    This is so blatantly a smear attempt that to claim it’s from what you believe to be a genuine Ruwart supporter doesn’t even pass the sniff test.

    Show some proper judgement and take this down.

    And the “take my ball and go home if you don’t like it” argument I’d hope to be way below you, so that doesn’t fly, either.

    The point of posting this was what again?

  19. Michael Seebeck Says:

    “I’ve not refused to post releases and articles which negatively mention the candidate I support or have supported. I’ve been called names for trashing the people I support and called names for mentioning anything negative about other candidates. If I am going to be personally criticized for trying to present virtually every piece of third party news presented to me, tell my why I should continue.”

    Big difference between that stuff and THIS stuff. With that stuff, you cited your sources and while you may have summarized the original, you kept it objective. With THIS stuff, no cited source, no summary of the original, no nothing, just an anonymous atrocious graphic. The former was being professional. This isn’t, and it isn’t “news” either.

  20. G.E. Says:

    Yes, people are free to read the site, post here, or not. But they are also free to criticize until S.G. outlaws that—which would be his right. If he decides to shut down TPW, no big deal. Someone else will create a replacement. I guess S.G. wants sunshine, hugs, and handjobs for all of his hard work promoting the anti-libertarian Barr and smearing Mary. WTFE.

  21. G.E. Says:

    Hold on, I have a theory: Maybe Joey Dauben killed the real Stephen Gordon and is posting under his name?

  22. Trent Hill Says:

    “This is not B.S. But at least Stephen has fully come out of the closet as an anti-Ruwart smear artist. There’s no more need for speculation here on out.”

    That’s rediculous GE. If someone sends me an anti-Barr graphic that is well done, I’d be happy to post it. I assure you Stephen would not be displeased with me at all. He invited me to come on board TPW as a contributor, despite the fact that the candidate I support is DIRECTLY competing for the votes his candidate is hoping to get.
    Please. If you want to rectify things, dont bitch—make an image that you think offends Barr and send it to me.

    Frankly, I dont see the point of this uproar. Ruwart IS an anarchist isnt she? What else does this picture imply that is bad?

  23. G.E. Says:

    The post is completely not newsworthy. It is Daubenesque. The source is “anonymous by request.” The name “Ruwarchy”, although used in semi-official campaign functions, is that of the anonymous smear-mongerer who opened this can of worms earlier.

    I would hope you wouldn’t post an anti-Barr graphic because it would be equally un-newsworthy as this trash.

  24. Stephen Gordon Says:

    I’m going to bed in a few minutes, so this is my last comment on this topic. Let me ask a few questions first.

    Is the real issue a bit deeper than one comment Mary Ruwart wrote about child sexual consent in a book some time ago? I see it as the role extreme libertarian radicals and anarchists have in the Libertarian Party in the future.

    I know plenty of anarchists who push for incremental political messages and candidates who might actually be electable. I know plenty of “Radicals” who are decent in real life but don’t have the balls to confront me when we actually meet in person.

    I perceive the real radical concern to be about the rejection of the Dallas Accord. It seems to be about whether the future role of the party is to project the most radical message possible or to win elections.

    My thought in capturing this graphic was that it encapsulated this debate in one single picture. Obviously I was wrong. It seems that this person who decided to risk a lot of political capital and money to oppose the Iraq War in the early days is to be branded as a neocon by people on this site.

    I’ve never met (even during my short stint as a security officer in a maximum security state prison—yes, I’ve worked for “the state” multiple times) ruder people than radical libertarians. The Rothbardian theme of disregarding the argument to trash the person seems to be the message of the day. Pretty chicken-shit stuff, if you ask me.

    But what would one ask of the sort of person who can accuse me of being a statist, Democrat, Republican, communist, pro-war, statist, globalist, anti-globalist, communist, authoritarian, etc. all within a couple of weeks.

    As f-ed up as Cartman is, he’s better than most of you. Screw you guys, I’m going home.

  25. G.E. Says:

    Here’s a logo I whipped up:

    http://archimedes.galilei.com/stlcofcc/blogimages/bob-barr-cofcc.jpg

    Oh, wait… That’s just a REAL picture of Bob Barr posing in front of a CCC (KKK) banner. Maybe Stephen should have this picture printed on a business card so he can hand it out to the minorities he so magnanimously lectures on the evil and stupidity of their own voting habits.

  26. decision .380 Says:

    Wes said; “Guys, shape up or watch your asses get kicked out!”

    So much for non-initiation of force. This comes from a guy who also says silly shit like this;

    • Wes Benedict Says:
    April 24th, 2008 at 2:10 am
    I just re-read Bob Barr’s “Issues” page. Nowhere does Bob Barr deny the right to shove a bag of Doritos up his own ass. Not only that, there’s nothing denying his right to shove a bag of Doritos up his children’s ass.

    STFU and take a vacation windbag!

  27. G.E. Says:

    “a statist, Democrat, Republican, communist, pro-war, statist, globalist, anti-globalist, communist, authoritarian”

    I, for one, never accused you of being any of the above—nor have most of your critics, Stephen. Criticism on this post in particular revolves around the total lack of newsworthiness of this “story.” Criticism elsewhere revolves, mostly at least, around a perceived disparity in the way which certain leading campaigns (and exploratory committees) are being covered. You can’t please everyone, and most people understand that. But you’re falling far short of even a generous margin for editorial-fairness error. Running a site can really suck at times.

  28. Wes Benedict Says:

    Jerry Baner Says:

    Wes Benedict, Calm the hell down, would you?

    We says:

    OK. I’m calmer now. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, while I may not agree with Steve Gordon’s every move, I have to give him credit for making things happen and having more people do real work, regardless of some of the details is important to growing our party and movement.

    I currently consider myself a Congressman Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, and Dr. Mary Ruwart supporter. I realize they differ vastly from each other and the result of whom is nominated will affect the Libertarian Party differently.

    Badnarik surprised almost everyone by winning the 2004 nomination and I think he won because of his positive message and while he had just some supporters, he had few enemies. Barr, Root, and Ruwart, and your supporters (including me), please keep that in mind.

    Steve Gordon, I apologize for going overboard on you earlier.

    Aaron Starr, with some hesitancy, I’ll apologize to you as well.

    I’ll be watching all three campaigns closely and encourage folks high up in the campaigns to keep it positive and work to keep your supporters positive.

  29. swift kick into g.e.'s clit Says:

    Criticism on this post in particular revolves around the total lack of newsworthiness of this “story.” g.e. you fucking moron!

    you’ve been around this site long enough to know that from time to time “lp photoshop of the day” is put up as a conversation piece, it’s not a goddamned smear! she is an anarchist and there is a site called r u w a r c h y . c o m. now get your entangled panties off of my foot.

  30. Less Antman Says:

    As the owner of the site whose name cannot be used because it was hijacked by a smearing poster (and I thanked Steve for removing the name, even though it prevents me from using the name on TPW as well), I think the graphic directly contradicts everything Ruwart herself stands for, and is itself a use of the word that he had indicated would not be used on this site.

    Ruwart has NOT run as an anarchist: her Short Answers in the book and on the www.askdrruwart.com site regularly refer to “libertarian governments” and she has always been respectful of all elements in the LP. It is offensive to me in the same way the use of my web site’s name by someone trying to torpedo her campaign with posts was offensive to me, and I would NEVER use such a graphic on my site, even though it is the NAME of my site, because it is the opposite of what I try to represent as well and the type of friend I attempt to be with others in the party.

    My preference would be that this graphic be removed, because of the connotation it has in relation to my site name, but I’m not going to make a big issue of it. Steve owns this site and may do as he chooses. I would NOT be supportive of similarly offensive graphics about the other campaigns. Seven wrongs don’t make a right.

    For the record, I don’t think Steve is deliberately being unfair toward non-Barr campaigns: I think he is between a rock and a hard place and is doing best to keep this board unmoderated, allowing others to use it in offensive ways. That doesn’t mean I agree with all his decisions, and I don’t agree with this one. I see no reason to believe it wasn’t made in good faith, though, and while I hope he’ll reconsider after a good night’s sleep, I’ll still consider him to be acting in good faith if he leaves the graphic with my site name up. Just so we’re all clear: I am not the anonymous submitter of this graphic.

    The nomination battle will be done in slightly over 3 weeks. Let’s not say things that limit our ability to reunite after it is done. We’re all on the same side in the most important battle for a society based on mutual respect for life and property.

  31. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Tempest in a teapot. I don’t see how it adds value to the site, but it’s hardly a “smear.”

  32. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Gordon: I’ve never met (even during my short stint as a security officer in a maximum security state prison—yes, I’ve worked for “the state” multiple times) ruder people than radical libertarians. The Rothbardian theme of disregarding the argument to trash the person seems to be the message of the day. Pretty chicken-shit stuff, if you ask me.

    Me: HT to Rothbard, he continues to instill his followers with his Leninist tactics. He does so from the grave and after he bolted the LP for the GOP. Curiously impressive.

    Engaging with Rothbardians is like purposely stepping in quicksand. Since praxeology and Leninist holding high the banner are obviously correct and there can be no deviation, communicating with Rothbardians is futile.

    The rudeness you report, however, seems to have deeper roots. Misery does love company, even sociopathic misery.

    Engaging with Rothbardians requires one to keep one foot on terra firma, using the other foot merely to expose the rampant reducio ad absurdum argumentation. Once exposed, it seems wise to move on and get on with the actual business of rolling back the State.

  33. Jason Gatties Says:

    SG has always been fair when it comes to posting info sent to him by candidates. SG just can’t please everyone apparently. When he posts a press release from Imperato, people ask why SG is wasting his time posting a press release from “that nut”.

    After the various conventions, I’m sure the libertarian writers here will post about the Libertarian candidate, the CP writers will do the same for their party and they other writers here will support their candidates as well. I do not see what is wrong at all.

    By the way, for the record, I like Mary Ruwart and didn’t see this as any sort of “smear” in the least.

  34. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey, there’s a simple choice for the LP in 2008, and Stephen Gordon is just displaying that here at TPW in strikening terms.

    The LP can be a real political party and work to receive millions of votes and elect hundreds of its members to public office with Bob Barr or Wayne Root as the Party’s nominee, or the LP can go the Anarchist route with Ruwart.

    In the latter case, it just means the massive amount of real world Libertarians will shift their support to the Republican Party as many did in 2004 when the LP nominated Anarchist extremist Badnarik.

    Recall, in one day “Libertarians for Bush” website got nearly 30,000 hits.

    Deja vu all over again, if the LP nominates Ruwart.

  35. Eric Dondero Says:

    Stephen, don’t say “Screw you guys” to all your readers. Say it to some of your readers.

    Many of us support you. You did the right thing.

    Ruwart is an Anarchist. Worse, she’s a child pornography appeasing Anarchist. Yuk!

    In light of this recent case all over the media about that asshole in Austria, I think anything even remotely associated with abuse of children should be condemned in the strongest of terms.

  36. Jason Gatties Says:

    And to “GE” who I’ve picked on a bit recently, I emailed you privately but I will apologize here in public. Even though I don’t agree with you sometimes (and I explained why in the private email), you do have the right to speak your mind. And good find with the Barr photo.

  37. Jose C. Says:

    Mary Ruwart’s supporters seem to be saying she is beyond criticism. If Phillies, Root, Barr, or any of the other candidates criticize Marry Ruwart they are being disloyal, unethical, and immoral I do not understand this. She is seeking the nomination for President of the Libertarian Party.

    What are the other candidates to do? Are they to stop campaigning and allow her to get the nomination because some want it? This is not a coronation. If these criticisms are upsetting and to tough to handle now what will happen in the general election when (if Marry is our nominee) her stands on the issues are challenged by candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader?

    What will happen in the general election when her stands on the issues are challenged by talk shows host Michael Medved, Stephani Miller, Larry Alder, and Rush Limbaugh?

    By the way in case you didn’t know Marry Ruwart is an anarchist. That is a fact. Not a smear, just a fact. We might try to hide from it now but in the general election others won’t be so silent.

  38. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I’ve never met … ruder people than radical libertarians.

    I’ve never met people more passionate than radical libertarians.

    Here’s my take as a radical

    We are the emancipationists of our day. We face enemies – and work with allies – who think that those who rule over us have the right to do so. We want everyone to be free – yesterday.

    Freedom-wise, we know yesterday isn’t happening. We know today isn’t happening. We know tomorrow is a bit of a stretch. And we happily welcome any movement in the direction of greater freedom. But we fear that, as our emancipationist forefather Garrison taught, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.” This often makes us seem (to gradualists) as if we are ungrateful for or uninterested in positive change.

    Add to this that we bear an essentially Ghandian message of non-compulsion. We live in a society where compulsion isn’t just tolerated, it’s expected and rationalized. Most of us participate in some way or other in a compulsion system. Every time we look at the tools available to us to effect real and lasting change we see persuasion and compulsion – and we know that persuasion is the only just and (in the the long term) effective tool. But most of our teaching and influences still pulls us into old habits of compulsion.

    So we face a big personal challenge – to remain calm and polite and persuasive in the face of daily assaults by our enemies and maddening capitulation by our allies – and, to be honest, by ourselves often. (Naturally I can only speak for myself, but this is my belief about many other radicals as well).

    Does all that sometimes make us cranky? You bet. With passion – even passion directed by the clearest logic, as I beleive emancipation to be – comes sometimes the risk of speaking too soon, too forcefully, and yes, too rudely.

    I apologize for any rudeness I have exhibited to my allies (oh, OK, to my enemies too – WWGD?), and ask for forbearance for future lapses. But as always I pledge to work to be a better activist, a better leader, and (last but not least) a better ally and friend.

  39. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Recall, in one day “Libertarians for Bush” website got nearly 30,000 hits.

    Very occasionally I get the wild idea that Dondero is a secret radical deliberately working to make warmongering Libertarians look silly. Statements like the one above are what fuel such amusing speculation.

  40. jre Says:

    Stevie G.

    Please tell Bob to jump on in, the water is warm.

  41. disinter Says:

    The best way to counter these smear tactics by Gordon, the LNC (Barr is a member) and its staff is to donate to Mary Ruwart:

    http://votemary2008.com/

  42. disinter Says:

    Oh and call the LP and tell them to cancel your membership.

  43. Jason Gatties Says:

    or….you can go to Denver and participate in the process to make sure your chosen candidate gains the nomination.

  44. Roscoe Says:

    Wow. For the first time ever, there appears to be the distinct possibility of a few fist fights at the Denver convention! The convention hotel has been completely sold out for weeks, so it should be a packed house. I guess the LP nomination is a real prize this time and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if pissed off losers start abandoning the winning candidate. As always, the LP has to walk the thin line about pandering for votes by watering down principles or getting a pathetic low vote total because the voting public rejects a principled libertarian candidate. If the Party hadn’t become more anti-education in recent years, maybe more voters would understand the principled positions.

  45. Susan Hogarth Says:

    pandering for votes by watering down principles

    Which is a strategy that does not work for a third party. I think we should shift thinking of our audience from ‘the voters’ to instead think of our audience as individuals who will hear and be inspired by the libertarian message. Yes, they’ll vote. They may even be a majority at any given point. But the important thing is that they understand and embrace the libertarian message. Otherwise, we are doing nothing than playing at the game of big-party politics, but without the advantage of having a big party.

  46. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    I’ve never found radicals to be rude. I’ve never known a radical to call for a purge.

    I have known reformers to over-react. Whenever I say “A libertarian is someone who believes in X,” often some reformer will respond, “So you’re saying I’m not a libertarian! You’re saying I should be purged from the party!”

    No, I’ve never called for a purge.

    Yet ironically, reformers have invited me to leave the party.

    At the ‘06 Portland convention, I spoke with some reformers who were promoting their platform changes. They were talking of “big tent” and “building the party,” yada yada. I said our job was to express principles without compromise.

    One reformer replied that I should leave the LP and join a think tank. He said it politely. He said it as though he were giving me helpful advice. He stressed the important role that people like me can play in think tanks.

    But it was clear he’d have been pleased if I’d left the party.

    Whenever I hear of reformers/pragmatarians complaining of radicals who want purges, I wonder if they’re projecting?

  47. Guy Fawkes Says:

    It is interesting to me that the anarchists should even associate themselves with a party, much less get involved with politics at all since they disagree with the need for such trivial controlling measures.

    Alas, I find myself agreeing with the despicable Eric Dondero on this issue. Ruwart would be an awful choice for the Libertarian Party who is tasked with winning elections, not appeasing a vocal minority of those who I caution to even call Libertarian.

    The Rothbardian Anarchists “pick on” their minarchist allies because there is no one else capable of even having an informed debate on such complex issues. Out of sheer boredom it seems they wish to destroy everything that the sensible Libertarians have worked for since 1971.

    In a conversation with an Anarchist friend the other day, he attacked me relentlessly for my inconsistencies on a stance that I would make child pornography, creating and selling, illegal. I find it strange that so many anarchists such as him and many of you, supported Ron Paul who of course is Pro-life and anti illegal immigration. Why does he get a special exception to their obstinate fundamentalism, and what one person rightly called, zealotry?

    I am myself excited to see what happens at the convention this year. I have heard that Stephen Gordon and Sean Haugh will have the best party rooms, I know I will certainly be attending and toasting the defeat of the anarchist fundamentalist zealots.

  48. David F. Nolan Says:

    A a non-anarchist, non-Rothbardian who has never called Steve Gordon any of the names he mentions, I will say that I think the tone of the “debate” around here often gets both silly and rude. I would hope we could discuss issues (and candidates) without insults and eighth-grade-level potty language. I’ll admit I’ve slipped a couple of times, especially in reference to Eric Dondero – but hey, he deserves it!

  49. Scott Lieberman Says:

    “Less Antman Says: May 1st, 2008 at 2:32 am

    As the owner of the site whose name cannot be used because it was hijacked by a smearing poster (and I thanked Steve for removing the name, even though it prevents me from using the name on TPW as well), I think the graphic directly contradicts everything Ruwart herself stands for, and is itself a use of the word that he had indicated would not be used on this site.

    My preference would be that this graphic be removed, because of the connotation it has in relation to my site name, but I’m not going to make a big issue of it. Steve owns this site and may do as he chooses. I would NOT be supportive of similarly offensive graphics about the other campaigns. Seven wrongs don’t make a right.

    For the record, I don’t think Steve is deliberately being unfair toward non-Barr campaigns: I think he is between a rock and a hard place and is doing best to keep this board unmoderated, allowing others to use it in offensive ways. That doesn’t mean I agree with all his decisions, and I don’t agree with this one. I see no reason to believe it wasn’t made in good faith, though, and while I hope he’ll reconsider after a good night’s sleep, I’ll still consider him to be acting in good faith if he leaves the graphic with my site name up. Just so we’re all clear: I am not the anonymous submitter of this graphic.”

    Lighten up, Mr. Antman! Haven’t you ever heard of satire? The Ruwarchy graphic is a great take-off on the vodka ads.

    As a very early supporter of Wayne Root, I look forward to seeing satirical cartoons and graphics about Wayne, even if they make fun of Wayne, as long as they are funny.

  50. Susan Hogarth Says:

    It is interesting to me that the anarchists should even associate themselves with a party, much less get involved with politics at all…

    I don’t think anyone has substantively improved on Lysander Spooner’s take on this question, so I will quote it:

    In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a [*6] man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, be finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot—- which is a mere substitute for a bullet—- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

    Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to.

    Therefore a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being.

    Out of sheer boredom it seems [radicals] wish to destroy everything that the sensible Libertarians have worked for since 1971.

    Well, thanks, comrade. I appreciate your hard work petitioning and growing your local party too.

  51. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Stephen Gordon yawned before going to bed:

    “I’m going to bed in a few minutes, so this is my last comment on this topic. Let me ask a few questions first.

    Is the real issue a bit deeper than one comment Mary Ruwart wrote about child sexual consent in a book some time ago? I see it as the role extreme libertarian radicals and anarchists have in the Libertarian Party in the future.”

    The real issue concerning this grpahic is that you exercised poor judgement in putting it up without any sourcing or explanation. I beleive I commented on that above.

    “I know plenty of anarchists who push for incremental political messages and candidates who might actually be electable. I know plenty of “Radicals” who are decent in real life but don’t have the balls to confront me when we actually meet in person.”

    What does that have to do with this? Nothing. Had you added this post as a commentary in the first place to the grpahic then maybe it would frame things completely different.

    “I perceive the real radical concern to be about the rejection of the Dallas Accord. It seems to be about whether the future role of the party is to project the most radical message possible or to win elections.

    My thought in capturing this graphic was that it encapsulated this debate in one single picture. Obviously I was wrong. It seems that this person who decided to risk a lot of political capital and money to oppose the Iraq War in the early days is to be branded as a neocon by people on this site.”

    I have no idea what the “Dallas Accord” is—before my time. And I’m not calling you a neocon, just saying IN THIS CASE you exercised poor judgement.

    Remember that a picture is worth a thousand words? In this case, you had the picture but forgot the words.

    “I’ve never met (even during my short stint as a security officer in a maximum security state prison—yes, I’ve worked for “the state” multiple times) ruder people than radical libertarians. The Rothbardian theme of disregarding the argument to trash the person seems to be the message of the day. Pretty chicken-shit stuff, if you ask me.”

    The problem here is the argument was never presented in the first place, just the graphic, and that’s part of the poor judgement. I’m not trashing you, Steve. I am, however pointing out a bad action, by a generally good person. Big difference.

    “But what would one ask of the sort of person who can accuse me of being a statist, Democrat, Republican, communist, pro-war, statist, globalist, anti-globalist, communist, authoritarian, etc. all within a couple of weeks.”

    Not by me. Others may have done so, and you are certainly justified in being unhappy with them.

    “As f-ed up as Kenny is, he’s better than most of you. Screw you guys, I’m going home.”

    Outside of the South Park reference, putting yourself in the shoes of Eric Cartman, Eric Dondero, or any other Eric is a disservice to yourself, and most of us here would expect that to be far below you.

    You made an error in judgement, and this late explanation looks like spin, which doesn’t help any. Take down the graphic, and if you want this to be a discussion on the anarchists v. radicals v. milquetoasts etc. then repost the graphic with that commentary as a means to develop that debate properly.

  52. Carl Says:

    Lighten up dudes! If Ruwart were to score the votes of those who like scrawling the circle A everywhere, she would get more votes than any LP presidential candidate has received since Clark.

    This is considerably better branding than that stupid Rollerball trophy logo they now have at lp.org.

    If you’re going to be an anarchist, be an anarchist! Hoist the Jolly Roger and go for it. Make the Libertarian Party COOL! Learn how to pose like Che Guevera. Stop being grumpy nerds who beg for signatures in front of the Safeway. Be gun-toting economists on drugs. Enough with the chameleon act.

    If you’re going to be Leninists, forget winning votes. Be the counter-conspiracy. Have purist meetings where you plot how to infiltrate other organizations and make them more libertarian.

    Recruit romantic rebels into your cause.
    —-

    This graphic is not a smear. It is an undeserved compliment.

  53. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Eric, I’ll support Root when I want to handicap the Derby or buy a used car.

    On second thought, scratch that second one. I’ve got a cousin who could use the comission more.

  54. Bollocks! Says:

    Hmmm…

    It’s quite ironic that the owner of this site banned a specific word but then allowed it to be placed on this site prominently in the form of a graphic, isn’t it?

    Somebody is keeping this pot stirred & the chef du jour is Stevie G

  55. Geofrey the Liberator Says:

    Folks, I may be an old fart on his 2nd scotch of the afternoon, but as my grand kids say, this is a “totally cool” logo and I too rather suspect it comes from the Ruwart coalition. Heck, if I was a yank, I might even vote for her now with this awesome logo! Now Mr. Kubby’s has much to be desired. I would be interested to see some more “art” for each of your other candidates. This is a lot more jolly fun than, say, child porn—don’t you think?

  56. Mike Theodore Says:

    Ok, folks. I’ve calmed down. Sorry for freaking out a bit last night. I see the reasoning in putting up these graphics and leaving them open to debate. I suggest though, Steve Gordon, that you include with the picture that your putting it up for debate. That would be better then my angry ass refreshing the page and being welcomed by this.
    On a debate side, I believe this was either made by someone trying to smear Ruwart, or a misguided anarchist. The anti-Ruwarts spread around the anarchy label, and anarchists felt welcome, I guess. Mary Ruwart has made it clear that she is NOT an anarchist. Attacking her views is reminiscent of attacking the party itself.

  57. Brian Holtz Says:

    Steve Gordon, you do a great job with TPW. Every comment here that isn’t critical of you should be taken as implicit praise.
    (SG why would Antman’s pro-Ruwart domain name be a spamword? Can’t you just deputize a few of us here to help you and Knapp etc. delete offensive comments?)

    I’m astonished that anyone could call this graphic a “smear”. Ruwart proudly wrote on lewrockwell.com in 2002 that she is an “anarchist”. (She’s clearly fooled Mike Theodore.) That anarchist “A” is a standard graphic on many anarchist sites and blogs. Her most eloquent supporter Less Antman promotes her campaign with a fan site called r u w a r c h y . c o m. Her less eloquent supporters like Susan Hogarth and Steve LaBianca vehemently proclaim here that any existence of state authority is an abomination against the principles of libertarianism. “Key Point #2” of the Radical Caucus is “Radical Abolitionism”, and Ruwart obviously is their preferred candidate.

    Less, your frank admission that Ruwart is in effect running away from her anarchism confirms what I wrote here the other day, so I’ll repeat it. Why nominate a zero-state abolitionist if she’s not going to promote and defend that position? If we want a middle-of-the-libertarian-road campaign, why not nominate a middle-of-the-libertarian-road candidate, like Phillies? Radicals criticize reformers for allegedly advocating a stealth campaign strategy of disguising their libertarian principles, but Ruwart’s anarchism is so stealth it’s simply invisible—at least to anybody who can’t do a web search.

    I have a theory that goes like this: you can lead an anarchist to the voters, but you can’t make her preach anarchism to them. I offer a challenge to every radical Libertarian reading this: nominate for us a YouTube video of an anarchist/radical LP candidate giving the most abolitionist pitch you’ve ever seen offered to a general-voter audience. Any takers? It’s easy to be an anarchist in the cozy little confines of Third Party Watch, but I advocate exactly the same-sized government in PlatCom debates as I do in local League of Women Voters debates. How many anarchist Libertarian candidates can offer video evidence that they do too?

    The Radical Caucus agenda points one and two are “Rights Are Primary” and “Radical Abolitionism”. However, Ruwart’s pitch is famously consequentialist, and her campaign message thoroughly obscures her radical abolitionism. The Radicals demand that “Libertarians must always make clear that the outright removal of the injustice and interference of the State is our ultimate goal.” Ruwart doesn’t make that clear at all, and Rothbard must be turning over in his grave. I’ve been re-reading the vicious criticisms published by Rothbard and David Nolan about the rhetoric of 1980 Clark campaign, and that rhetoric sounds quite similar to Ruwart’s—right down to the heresy that eliminating welfare will be painless because Ruwarchotopia will eliminate poverty. I guess that’s a hopeful sign of the continuing de-radicalization of the LP, but I fail to see why we should want such a disconnect between 1) our message to the voters and 2) the actual positions buried deep in our Platform and in the writings of our nominee. Steve Kubby even ended a recent campaign video with a graphic that proclaimed “Less Government”—another Clark line viciously criticized by Rothbard/Nolan. If we’re all moderates now, then why is there going to be a Platform fight in Denver?

    The most plausible explanation remains that a shrinking but still-powerful “cadre” of deontological abolitionists still want to claim the LP’s Platform as a sort of ideological tattoo, advertising to each other (but not to the voters) their political iconoclasm and non-conformism. That’s nice, but some of us have a nanny state to dismantle.

    Bob, I agree that many (most?) Rothbardians are given to rudeness and intolerance, but I don’t think most intolerant Libertarians are well-versed Rothbardians. I think the most common trait among intolerant libertarians is their simplistic deontologism. By contrast, consequentialists like Mary Ruwart and Less Antman never seem to lose their cool or act rude to anybody. The exception that proves the rule may be our young Rothbardian Alex Peak. But even he admits that Ruwart is not the only effective libertarian communicator in our field of candidates. I’d rather have a nominee who casts a wide net, and worry about radicalizing people after they join our flock. When was the last time you heard of anybody who became less radical during their association with the LP? The radicals’ notion that we’re “negotiating” with the nanny state and thus need to be as radical as possible is, to put it kindly, absurd. That’s like walking into a car dealership and trying to get the best price by making an initial offer of accepting a new car for free. We don’t need to march up to the voters and demand “Zero!” We just need to explain to them that if they want drastically more economic and personal liberty, then they should board the LP Freedom Train. We can argue later where it should stop; right now we need to focus on getting it started.

    Tom Sipos, it would be absurd to suggest that radicals never try to push people out of the LP. Wes Benedict seems to consistently vote with the radicals on LNC, and in this very thread he wrote: “shape up or watch your asses get kicked out!” At our recent county convention another radical LNC member, Mark Hinkle, proclaimed to the room that people who disagree with the 2004 platform should consider finding another party. I’ve had a radical member of the LPCA Judicial Committee (Starchild) publicly declare that I advocate “tax slavery” which contradicts the membership Pledge. In 2005, radical LPCA Southern Vice Chair Mark Selzer wrote in the LPCA newsletter that “Disagreeing with one part of the platform usually means disagreeing with all parts of it.” Less prominent LP radicals routinely tell me that I’m a violator of my membership Pledge. So please spare us this notion that reformers are projecting their desire to purge people. We just want a level playing field, so that the anarchist minority will share their veto power over Platform content with the rest of us.

  58. Still Undecided Says:

    As somebody posted above, I’m also hoping Barr will enter the race soon.

    When is an official announcement going to be made?

    There’s only 3 weeks left until the convention…

  59. Liberated Woman Says:

    David F. Nolan Says:

    “I would hope we could discuss issues (and candidates) without insults and eighth-grade-level potty language. ”

    Ditto that. We have a country to save!

  60. Mike Theodore Says:

    “David F. Nolan Says:

    “I would hope we could discuss issues (and candidates) without insults and eighth-grade-level potty language. ”

    Ditto that. We have a country to save!”

    As probably the most vulgar poster here, I’ll work on it. Bear with me though, I vent sometimes.

  61. Steve Newton Says:

    Although I am not a Kubby supporter, I give him full credit for finding a quick and funny way to nip the Ruwarchy emblem controversy in the bud.

    Humor as almost always more effective than outrage.

  62. Concerned LP Member Says:

    If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it. – Jefferson

  63. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Brian Holtz: “I’ve had a radical member of the LPCA Judicial Committee (Starchild) publicly declare that I advocate “tax slavery” which contradicts the membership Pledge.”

    I’ve always found Starchild to be friendly to all, but what qualifies him as a “radical”? Radicals are considered to be antiwar, and as best I know, Starchild supports the interventionist “wars of liberation.”

  64. Brian Holtz Says:

    Tom Sipos, the fact that you may be a litmus-tester over libervention doesn’t mean Starchild isn’t a radical. Starchild rejects the notions of “Islamo-fascism” and a “War on Terror”, and is obsessively critical of all forms of nationalism. He says that our tax-financed military liberating Iraq is no more interventionist than a tax-financed cop rescuing a non-family member from a mugger. He is so radical that he refuses to let his opposition to aggression and tyranny be constrained by lines drawn on maps by statists. On all other issues, Starchild is borderline anarchist. He is so absolutist about force initiation that he has qualms about 1) the right of the accused to subpoena witnesses and 2) compelling the accused to attend trial before they’ve been convicted.

    It’s fine with me if you want to poke Starchild in the eye for dissenting from the party line of anti-statists who say that the current borders of existing states are a central determinant of where and how aggression should be opposed—that’s a show that I love to watch every time it’s on. But to suggest that Starchild isn’t a radical is just silly.

    cc’ing Starchild in case he wants to chime in. I’ll go make some popcorn. :-)

  65. Itch Says:

    Steve-O!

    Dude, I go to rehab and everything hits the shitter. Stevie, stirring the pot. That’s manly. I respect that. Wes, calling out the Stevo and the StarrMan. That’s manly. I respect that. Tom S., Commie Hater. Setting the commies straight. That’s manly. I respect that.

    Tom Knapp, bald headed Marine dude, keeping it real.

    Susie Sunshine, talking about the Bush. She’s a chick. She should have a little. Brian’s hitting the gym. That’s manly. I respect that. Liberated Woman, not a man. That’s sexy. I repect that.

    Mary Ruwart, that’s some hot GILF. That hot bitch is gonna get the Itch token. A few times.

  66. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    I’m not “poking Starchild in the eye,” Brian. I respect Starchild.

    You can make popcorn if you like, but I doubt Starchild and I will argue for your pleasure, however much you might try and stir up a fight.

  67. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Hogarth: I’ve never met people more passionate than radical libertarians.

    Capozzi: Yes, I agree. I’m not big on passion for passion’s sake. I much prefer effective to passionate. I prefer balance to passion, too.

    I prefer the tortoise to the hare. The hare burns out. Most times, the tortoise is more effective.

    With all due respect to Garrison. And Sister Hogarth.

  68. Carl Says:

    Brian: I became less radical after I joined the LP. I was a full anarchist before I joined the party and before encountered Rothbard’s writings. The desire to win elections and efforts to convince others are factors that led me to reexamine my premises—as Stephen Kinsella as grumpily pointed out. Had I stayed away from politics, I might still be in dysfunctional cult mode.

    While I was an anarchist, I was publicly an anarchist. Spin is for the O’Reilly Factor. Even after I ceased to be an anarchist, I still publicly talked about the cult of the omnipotent state. One of my last bits of external LP activism was to give a speech at a local Kiwanis Club on “The Cult of the Omnipotent State.”

    Being honest is enlightening. You get some good counter-arguments back. Do it enough and you realize that the voters aren’t entirely stupid. Pure libertarianism is hard to defend because it does lead to unpleasant consequences when taken to its logical conclusion. No amount of cuddly words can undo this reality.

  69. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Holtz: Bob, I agree that many (most?) Rothbardians are given to rudeness and intolerance, but I don’t think most intolerant Libertarians are well-versed Rothbardians. I think the most common trait among intolerant libertarians is their simplistic deontologism.

    Me: Nice distinction, Brian. By my def., true Rothbardians take a simplistic deontologistic approach coupled with Murray’s Leninist tactics. Virtually all rude Ls share that with Rothbardians, but some are not technically Rothbardian, generally because they don’t necessarily understand Rothbard’s economics or perspectives on history. The rude non-Rothbardians often seem just unsophisticated, not very educated, and sometimes display sociopathic tendencies. These rude non-Rothbardians may not even be Leninist, per se.

    I wish them all the best.

  70. Itch Says:

    Bob C. and Uncle Carl, gettin’ down and grumpy. That’s pissy. I respect that.

  71. Less Antman Says:

    Brian, Ruwart isn’t running away from her views: she is respecting the coalition nature of the LP by only campaigning on issues on which we are in broad agreement. That is an enormous difference.

  72. Brian Holtz Says:

    Less, my complaint isn’t about what issues Ruwart is emphasizing or not. My complaint is that Ruwart (and Kubby and Smith) have taken a strong stand in favor of “restoring” the extremist 2004 platform, but that delegates are being kept in the dark about where these candidates stand on the key reformer complaints about that platform.

    Here are six controversial provisions of the 2004 platform:

    1) personal secession
    2) immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws
    3) policing of pollution only by torts
    4) privatization of all streets and pipes
    5) legalized child prostitution?
    6) private WMD

    For (5), the controversial language is “We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies.”

    For (6), the controversial language is “We oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe.”

    I’m not at all suggesting that any of these candidates emphasize any of these six issues. I just want the delegates to know where they stand. If you think you know, then quote them. For each of these three candidates, I’ll donate $25 to their Liberty Decides account for each issue on which you (or anyone else) can quote their campaign web site taking a clear written stand, either endorsing these platform provisions, or explaining how far the Platform should back away from them. I’ll also count quotes from any past publication of theirs if it’s a text that their campaign site says accurately reflects their current positions.

    A bonus of an extra $25 is available to each candidate who takes a clear written stand on the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to subpoena witnesses. The 2004 Platform defends the Bill of Rights and “full respect for the rights of the accused”, but not many Libertarians seem to realize that the Sixth Amendment endorses initiation of force.

    So how about it? The headline would be “Radicals Corner A Leading Reformer Into Campaign Contributions”. Can it be made a reality?

    P.S. Even though Phillies was a late signer to Restore04 and denies being a radical, I’ll include him in the offer, with any money going straight to his campaign since he has opted out of Liberty Decides.

  73. Brian Holtz Says:

    P.S. As I pointed out in another thread, we have some information about where Kubby now personally stands on issues 3 and 7, and about where Ruwart might have stood on on 3-6 when she wrote her book (10 years ago?). What we don’t know is what these candidates think the LP platform should say on these issues.

  74. Yank Says:

    Starchild has the best man ass in the party. He’s got the ass of freedom.
    Where’s the ass in this party? Ruwart’s ass is not a sweetheart shaped behind but it will have to do.

  75. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Brian,

    My recollection is that you disseminated a questionnaire relating to these issues prior to the California LP convention, and that you published the candidates’ responses in a flier disseminated at that convention. Do you have some reason to no longer treat those responses as valid?

  76. timothy west Says:

    I perceive the real radical concern to be about the rejection of the Dallas Accord. It seems to be about whether the future role of the party is to project the most radical message possible or to win elections.

    And just where is this Dallas Accord? I have a rather extensive collection of LP history here, but I have never been able to obtain a actual written down copy, even on a napkin.

  77. 8th grade potty mouth Says:

    shit.shit.shit.shit.shit.shit.shit. piss.piss.piss.piss.piss.damn.damn.damn.damn.fuck.fuck.fuck.fuck.fuck.shit piss damn fuck. shit piss damn fuck. shit piss damn fuck. shit piss damn fuck. lets put Doritos up his children’s ass.

  78. Yank Says:

    That’s vulgar.

  79. Starchild Says:

    Brian Holtz asks, “When was the last time you heard of anybody who became less radical during their association with the LP?”

    Uh, just a couple days ago, actually, by someone posting on your “Reform” Caucus list, Robert Capozzi (who also has a couple posts above)! He’s described himself as a Rothbardian in recovery, if I remember his words correctly.

    Should we be amused or reassured, that even an anti-radical like Brian evidently sees the value of people becoming more radical via association with the LP (presumably at least up to the point where they start to get more radical than he is)? Though I’m not sure how he expects the LP to continue to have a radicalizing effect on former Republicrats if the “Reform” Caucus succeeds in getting the party even more fixated than it already is on winning elections while locking our ideology up in the attic like a crazy aunt.

    Coercive taxation is still a form of theft and slavery—once you understand libertarianism there’s no getting around that fact. But there are worse things than advocating a little tax slavery, Brian. (Advocating a LOT of tax slavery, for instance!) Compared to where most of society is at politically, you’re still one of the good guys in my book, as is Robert.

    But you are right Brian in your response to Thomas Sipos. I do consider myself a radical, Thomas, and would even use that term to describe my selective support for extra-national military interventions (ENMIs). However I accept that I am in a distinct minority among radicals on this, and will support the LP’s opposition to ENMIs until such time as it is possible to get a majority to express support for such interventions in radical (not nationalist) terms, based on an interpretation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

  80. Brian Holtz Says:

    Tom, a gold star for your memory! Of these four Restore04 signers, only Kubby answered my survey, which is linked near the top of http://libertarianmajority.net/. Checking Steve’s answers, I see that he clearly advocates immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws. It’s not on (or linked from) his campaign site, but I will bend the rules since he was gracious enough to answer my survey. He also forthrightly endorsed the problematic 2004 language to privatize all roads/pipes and legalize private WMDs, so he vaults into first place with $75 worth of answers. His survey answer on policing pollution only with torts left him a little wiggle room, and his site’s page on the environment doesn’t definitively address the issue, but I’d be willing to take my on-air conversation with him on pollution as answering the question if as his campaign aide you’ll certify that he’s unequivocally opposed to using anything but torts and consumer feedback to regulate pollution.

    That would be a cool $100, with another $75 waiting for just a few more sentences of clarification about what the Platform should generally say on the remaining 3 questions.

  81. Starchild Says:

    Carl,

    Oh my god. Your comments are a breath of fresh air in an oxygen-depleted room. I had to read your message twice to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. How have you maintained such a confident, true-spirited, and dare-I-say-it realistic perspective on fighting for liberty? I mean, in the face of the LP’s “candidate training seminars,” articles on marketing, stultifying “board” meetings in stuffy rooms, and the like? Please tell me you will be joining us in Denver? I will gladly reward you with complimentary sexual favors if you lean that way!

    You posted:

    Lighten up dudes! If Ruwart were to score the votes of those who like scrawling the circle A everywhere, she would get more votes than any LP presidential candidate has received since Clark.

    This is considerably better branding than that stupid Rollerball trophy logo they now have at lp.org.

    If you’re going to be an anarchist, be an anarchist! Hoist the Jolly Roger and go for it. Make the Libertarian Party COOL! Learn how to pose like Che Guevera. Stop being grumpy nerds who beg for signatures in front of the Safeway. Be gun-toting economists on drugs. Enough with the chameleon act.

    If you’re going to be Leninists, forget winning votes. Be the counter-conspiracy. Have purist meetings where you plot how to infiltrate other organizations and make them more libertarian.

    Recruit romantic rebels into your cause.
    —-

    This graphic is not a smear. It is an undeserved compliment.

  82. Starchild Says:

    Ah. Reality sets in. Scrolling down, I see that Carl writes in another message, “I became less radical after I joined the LP.”

    Extremist, radical party, my ass.

  83. Denver Delegate Says:

    As someone who will likely support Mary Ruwart on the first ballot, I’m OK with the logo and don’t mind it being here.

    After all, the Ruwart campaign will be answering this question repeatedly throughout the campaign.

    Therefore, the liberty movement might as well educate a new generation of radicals on how to present a positive, pro-liberty message in response to such questions, and Dr. Ruwart is well-suited to be a leader in that effort.

  84. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Brian,

    “His survey answer on policing pollution only with torts left him a little wiggle room, and his site’s page on the environment doesn’t definitively address the issue, but I’d be willing to take my on-air conversation with him on pollution as answering the question if as his campaign aide you’ll certify that he’s unequivocally opposed to using anything but torts and consumer feedback to regulate pollution.”

    I do not so certify, as I have no reason to believe that that’s the case.

  85. Less Antman Says:

    Having a little time on the plane to write (yes, Ms. Flight Attendant, I’m in airplane mode and won’t be sending until we land), I want to comment in detail on some thread items.

    Scott – The last thing in the world I need to do is lighten up. Take for granted that I’m always smiling as I type on this forum. That said, I could and should have just taken the graaphic as cute satire: my irritation is that I was told the only way to block the smearer who brought up kiddie porn using my site name was to ban the word completely, and now it is again used. I also said I’d accept Steve’s morning after decision, and I do.

    Brian – I’ll support the candidate I think will most effectively advance our mutual cause. I most like Ruwart for the positive and appealing manner in which she expresses our ideas, and for her encyclopedic knowledge of historical examples to defend liberty, and for her sound bite skills, and for her respect for all views in the LP (which is why she will campaign only on issues with an LP consensus, and why I think a comprehensive platform matters). I would have supported Ron Paul for our nomination (still will, if he changes his mind). If Barr had actually accepted libertarianism, I would have strongly considered him, but his recent statements make clear that he still has a distance to travel before he is comfortable defending our vision of society nearly as persuasively as Paul. As you know, Paul rejects anarchism but doesn’t snear at them: his support of Ruwart’s libertarian primer and FDA Commissioner bid shows that libertarians can get along magnificently without complete agreement (you think Ruwart voted to nominate Paul in 1988 because she wanted him to leave?). Neither Ruwart nor I are members of the Radical Caucus, and the Radical Caucus hasn’t endorsed Ruwart (although they should).

  86. Andy Says:

    “Ruwart is an Anarchist. Worse, she’s a child pornography appeasing Anarchist. Yuk!”

    Eric, are you sure that all of those prostitutes around the world whom you claimed to have sex with were all over the age of 18?

  87. Less Antman Says:

    Brian, Restore ‘04 should be approved by unanimous acclamation in the first 30 seconds of the convention, allowing as much time as possible for your 6 (or 15) proposed changes to be properly considered. You’re looking at the trees and missing the forest: the point is that we were working on a document for over 30 years, then carelessly selected and deleted 80% of it in the space of a few minutes. Don’t tell me that wanting to hit the Ctrl-Z key requires thinking the undeleted working document was perfect. 2006 was like burning down the house because you wanted to remodel the kitchen. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Using a nuclear bomb to get rid of a mouse. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Rearranging the Deck Chairs in the Titanic. Crouching the Tiger Dragon. Help! Somebody! I can stop analogizing!

    We careleesly deleted 47 planks when even the biggest critics only wanted to go after 15. It was a mistake. But a few people, who hate the concept of a comprehensive platform, are trying to consolidate their gains from the Portland Massacre by starting from the burnt down house and rebuilding when we can start from the built one and call a handyman for a few repairs. I’ll be supporting some of your 6 changes.

  88. Andy Says:

    “In the latter case, it just means the massive amount of real world Libertarians will shift their support to the Republican Party as many did in 2004 when the LP nominated Anarchist extremist Badnarik.”

    Badnarik ran on a hardcore CONSTITUTIONALIST platform, not an anarchist platform.

    “Recall, in one day ‘Libertarians for Bush’ website got nearly 30,000 hits.”

    Probably from people laughing at it and wondering, “Who was the wacko who put this site up?”

  89. Michael Seebeck Says:

    I sincerely hope the Platform dispute in Denver is long and drawn out. Not that I care about that one way or another, but I have other thigns scheduled to do in town those days before the Presidential nomination and I don’t want to blow my schedule plans.

  90. Steve LaBianca Says:
    1. Roscoe Says:
      May 1st, 2008 at 8:42 am

    “I guess the LP nomination is a real prize this time and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if pissed off losers start abandoning the winning candidate. As always, the LP has to walk the thin line about pandering for votes by watering down principles or getting a pathetic low vote total because the voting public rejects a principled libertarian candidate.”

    I am sure the response to me saying this will be (from several individuals) “don’t let the door hit you in the ass”, but if the LRC gets their way, and W.A.R. wins the nomination, I’ll strongly consider leaving this party. The last nails for the coffin of a principled party will have been nearly tacked in, and I am not the captain of a sinking ship.

    The reformers are betting the principles of a third party aren’t necessary,
    and they might lead the LP to a 4 to 5% local and state election average, instead of 2 to 3% now. Good luck with that . . . no electoral success AND no principles. Not much to recommend an LP with that.

  91. Yank Says:

    I need some ass.

  92. Brian Holtz Says:

    Starchild and Less and Steve LaBianca: spare us the vapid imagery about “locking our ideology up in the attic” or “last nails for the coffin of a principled party” or “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”, and just answer the questions:

    1. Have you even read the Platform Committee’s draft? http://libertarianmajority.net/pure-principles-platform

    2. What in your opinion is the most important libertarian principle that a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree is missing from it?

    3. What in your opinion are the most important specific policy questions that a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree do not have any answer in it but should?

    If you don’t have enough testicular fortitude to answer these questions, then your whining is content-free.

    Starchild, I loudly and vigorously argue that the state may initiate the absolute minimum force to enforce a framework of legal due process, such as the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to coercively subpoena innocently bystanding witnesses. I loudly and vigorously argue that the state may use pollution “taxes” (i.e. court-contestable default point-of-sale fines) to punish pollution micro-aggression. I loudly and vigorously argue that the state may use court-contestable land value “taxes” to require site monopolizers to return the site’s ground rent to the community commons when the site’s monopolization is in violation of the Lockean mandate to “leave as much and as good” when homesteading from a commons. Now, am I in violation of your Non-Aggression Principle, or not? Am I in violation of the Pledge, or not? Do you have a firm enough grasp of your libertarian principles to answer these questions, or are your principles simply mush?

    You proclaim here on Third Party Watch that “there’s no getting around the fact that coercive taxation is still a form of theft and slavery”. Do you have any recording of you—or any radical LP candidate—ever saying “taxation is slavery” to a general-voter audience? It’s time to fact-check this urban legend that today’s LP radicals have the guts to “hold high the banner” of radicalism in front of anything but a Libertarian audience. I don’t want to hear this “taxation is slavery” nonsense one more time until you come back with a recording of it being proclaimed to a general-voter audience. Bonus points if it’s an African-American audience.

    I’m not an “anti-radical”—I claim I’m more radical than you. I oppose force initiation so vigorously that I’m willing to do more than just abstain from it. I hold individual rights—like the right of the accused to subpoena witnesses—so dear that I’m willing to protect them even if it gets a spot on my lily-white gloves. I only hope that someday you’re as radical as I am in your opposition to force initiation. I have faith that your libertarian journey is not yet over.

    Less, you have the purpose of the Platform and individual campaigns exactly backwards. You think the Platform should be a detailed extremist crypto-anarchist tract that leaves no room for principled minarchist state protections of individual rights, and yet you think that our anarchist and state-abolitionist candidates should bite their tongues and not test whether their abolitionist principles resonate with their particular set of voters. It’s far better for the Platform to state all and only the principles that unite all good Libertarians, and to let each candidate test how her own presentation of her Libertarian principles resonates with her audience. It’s far better to have every Libertarian candidate making an honest case for her own detailed vision of what she would do in office, than to put an extremist Platform albatross around the neck of each candidate and then tell them all to ignore it and stick with a uniform “libertarian lite” campaign message.

    If “libertarians can get along magnificently without complete agreement”, then why don’t we trade places? You anarchists let us minarchists write a Platform with a dozen statements that you reject on principle, and we minarchists will let you anarchists practice “getting along magnificently without complete agreement”. If the kids’ table is so great, why don’t you trade me your chair at the grownups’ table?

  93. Yank Says:

    Poll question: Which libertarian would you like to give the old strap on?

  94. Carl Says:

    Starchild:

    No, I do not lean that way.

    Regarding my comments, I’ll repeat what I have said repeatedly: either the LP should moderate and try to win elections OR the party should become the PETA for liberty making less radical organizations look moderate. One or the other.

    But not both.
    —-

    I wanted to force the issue when I started the LRC. At the time I was inclined for the LP to be the ultra-radical Leninist organization and for a new party to actually win elections and increase liberty. My friends in the LP thought the LP was worth salvaging so the LRC was born. I wanted to win or lose big.

    Having already lost the pledge vote, I was DISMAYED when the platform was mostly deleted. I was ready to do a walk-out. I HAD walked out. Got sucked back in by that pyrrhic victory.

    On the upside, without the walkout I have time to craft the message for a new party that is not simply libertarian lite, something closer to Brian’s ecolibertarian message than Cato’s corporatist message.

    If the LRC scores a stunning victory in Denver I may instead rejoin the LP, but the victory would have to be truly stunning.

  95. C. Al Currier Says:

    ..... in one day “Libertarians for Bush” website got nearly 30,000 hits.
    ...wild idea that Dondero is a secret radical …..warmongering Libertarians…. amusing speculation….Susan Hogarth Says

    HEY!
    Thanks for straightening me out!
    I thought he was with a Libertines for Bush group. I guess I should try to do a better job of staying up on the details. I get a lot of stuff from second hand sources.

  96. Yank Says:

    I like ass.

  97. Liberated Woman Says:

    Itch & Yank:

    I look forward to your entertaining and vacuous comments. :) The humor is mildly calming in a sea of turmoil.

  98. Less Antman Says:

    Brian, you are trying to make this a debate about anything but the totally inappropriate manner in which 80% of the platform was gutted. Sorry, I won’t bite. If the www.restore04.com proposal passes, you may then propose to eliminate the secression plank, will probably win, and I’ll accept the result cheerfully.

    I understand why you are hurling insults and implying a lack of integrity on the part of those who want to return to a comprehensive platform, and I respect the fact that you don’t want one, but I think I’ve made the points I need to support Ctrl-Z for those who want to consider them.

  99. Yank Says:

    Brian, if I give you 100$, would you let me touch your ass?

  100. Starchild Says:

    Carl,

    Heh. Discovering you’re that Carl (i.e. Milsted, founder of the “Reform” Caucus) is not what I expected! What was it Monty Python said about the Spanish Inquisition? Well, for being open to either a more radical or a more moderate LP, for strategic reasons, you at least deserve props for integrity in seeking out effective solutions in whatever direction they may lie!

    Hell, you could even be right that a two-prong strategy of a radical pro-freedom party and a more moderate less-government party would work better than what we have now. It’s at least worth discussing.

    The main drawback I see is that it kind of only makes sense to have one libertarian party per political jurisdiction, so as not to split the vote. At least that’s been my assumption. But thinking about it some more now, I’m wondering if you could be onto something.

    I’m just brainstorming wildly here, but what if it were possible to have an amicable parting leading to two separate parties being set up in such a way as to engender mutual cooperation? People approaching either party could be quizzed on their beliefs and approach to politics, so that radicals showing up on the moderates’ doorstep could be directed to the radical party, and vice-versa.

    The radicals would then be able to focus on activism, education, cutting loose and stirring the pot with unorthodox approaches without having to spend so much time on damage control against others trying to water down their platform or principles—the litmus tests for holding office in the radical party and its heavy ideological focus and (at least as initially seen by the public) lack of electoral prospects serving as strong disincentives for any such effort when the moderate party represented a much easier target.

    Meanwhile, the moderates would be able to focus their party on pushing “electable” candidates, having a short and non-controversial platform, being mainstream and socially conformist, marketing a non-alienating message to the public, etc., without feeling “embarrassed” or undercut by the presence of the radicals.

    The radical libertarian party could even serve as an emergency backup system for the moderate libertarian party, so that if the latter started to stray too far towards statism or was in danger of being taken over by opportunists, its remaining loyal members could invite the radicals to send a “rescue team” to assist them in doing a purge and getting back on the moderate limited government track, and then leave again. In exchange for this “poison pill” support system, the moderates would agree to use their presumed greater leverage within the political system to help ensure the ability of radical candidates to take part in debates, help defend the radical party from censorship, etc.

    Perhaps the two parties could cooperate in other ways as well, such as by not running candidates against each other, and sharing outreach opportunities, resources like databases, office space, even personnel to some degree with their counterparts, seeking to help each other in their respective missions.

    Beyond the practical difficulties of hammering out an agreement and actually getting such a plan enacted, I see two immediate problems with this: (1) Laws might prevent much of this kind of cooperation between different political parties, and (2) The human tendencies to be parochially loyal to one’s own organization, rather than to the larger libertarian movement (a tendency somewhat in evidence in the LP now) and to see another somewhat similar political party in the same jurisdiction as a competitor rather than a co-conspirator, might get in the way.

    If we were able to do it, I think the best division of assets and members would be for the moderates to keep most of the LP membership and assets, since it is an established entity already trending toward moderation—I think it would be in the interests of a new radical party not to grow too quickly anyway—but for the moderates to change the name of the party (as recommended a few years ago by moderate Mark Schreiber, who thought the Libertarian Party name had too much baggage) and give the “Libertarian Party” name and the name-related assets like LP.org to the radicals to take and start anew. It is in the interests of the libertarian movement as a whole for the name “Libertarian Party” to remain associated with a party that adheres closely to libertarian ideas, and that would clearly more likely be the radicals’ party.

    This division of resources might also pose legal problems, I don’t know. But I’m curious to hear what others think.

  101. Brian Holtz Says:

    Less, I stand by my characterization of your list of content-free metaphors as “vapid imagery”, and I stand by my “testicular fortitude” challenge—not an insult, a challenge—for you radicals to stop hurling specious blanket characterizations and to start debating specific Platform principles and language. I asked three very reasonable questions about the Platform Committee’s work. You radicals can either answer them or you can’t.

    What’s “inappropriate” is for you to suggest that the delegates did anything in Portland other than play by the rules. I (as far as I know) coined the terms “amputated platform” and “Portland crater”, so please don’t pretend that I have something to defend about the state of the Platform. Going into Portland, the Reform Caucus had voted to recommend deletion for only 15 planks, and none of us three Reform Caucus members on the 2006 PlatCom even tried to get those deletions into the committee report. I myself voted to delete only the 13 most extremist planks. And yet, the delegates rose up and voted to delete 55 of the platform’s 62 planks! The fault for this mass deletion lies as much with those who bloated the Platform as it does with the delegates who saw (more clearly than I did) that we should build for the future from a new foundation.

    Speaking of “Ctrl-Z”: 15 other planks survived by being consolidated down to 8, so only 40 planks were actually deleted. Restore04 is not proposing to simply undelete those 40 planks. Instead, they are mutating the 14,000-word 62-plank 2004 platform into what was before this week a 10,000-word 31-plank platform with a completely new platform outline and undisclosed large swaths of novel language. This week’s draft is even shorter, but my analysis of the previous draft showed hundreds upon hundreds of words of novel language never voted on by any PlatCom or NatCon, about 5000+ words of missing 2004 language, and at least 40 specific policy positions from 2004 that have been summarily left on the cutting room floor. Do you know which ones? Restore04 ain’t sayin’—except to say “trust us”. In addition, despite all the Restore04 talk of an illegitimate “rump” Portland convention, the “Restore04” draft in fact chooses 2006 language over 2004 language more often than not.

    The Rob Power platform is not “Ctrl-Z”. It’s the work of (as far as is publicly known) only two or three people, who couldn’t find the time to assemble and submit it before the PlatCom meeting in Vegas. Even now, three weeks before Denver, it is changing rapidly and still has basic editing mistakes. By contrast, what became the PlatCom’s proposal has been evolving in plain public view for a year, has no sentences not approved in a previous platform cycle, was subject to grueling word-by-word markup by the full PlatCom over two long days in Vegas, and was published for delegate consideration nearly three months in advance of Denver. Only 6 of our 30 recommendations attracted more than one nay for adoption, and only 3 of them more than two.

    The PlatCom’s proposal is a thus a well-considered unity platform that rejects both the Reform Caucus next-four-years approach and the discredited verbose Atlanta format. In a sense, our proposal is the true Ctrl-Z here, as it reverts back to the length and tone of the original 1972 platform. Delegates who read it will agree with the surprisingly favorable reviews it’s received from the radicals who have dared to actually read it. That’s surely the reason why Restore04 dares not link to it from their site. They’re afraid of what fully-informed delegates will decide to do. Delegates who want to see what Restore04 won’t show them should get the whole story—which is only available at http://libertarianmajority.net.

  102. Brian Holtz Says:

    Starchild, why would a radical state-force-abolitionist party want to use the name “Libertarian”? That name has been thoroughly “watered down” by the ACLU, by constitutionalists like Ron Paul, and by statists from Cato, Reason, U of Chicago, etc—as well as by an uninterrupted stream of non-abolitionist LP presidential candidates (or was Bergland an anarchist?).

    If your new party wouldn’t have the intellectual courage to call itself the obvious name (Anarchist Party), then you could use any of:

    Zero Aggression Party
    Non-Aggression Party
    Voluntary Party
    Non-Archist Party
    No First Force Party
    Non-Coercion Party
    Private Law Party
    Secession Party
    Anti-Politics Party
    Zero Government Party
    Anti-Statism Party

    I even have a membership pledge/quiz already prepared for your new party:
    http://libertarianmajority.net/no-1st-force-pledge

    However, fair warning: I’ve yet to find anyone radical enough to score a perfect 30 on it. But if you’re running for LNC in Denver and you endorse the whole pledge, then your campaign will get $100 from me. If you can’t score a 30 on it, then fair warning again: those who do score a perfect 30 might someday bolt your party and form a truly radical freedom party, rejecting your “watered down”/”lite” radicalism.

  103. Starchild Says: