The latest from Robert Milnes

From an e-mail Robert Milnes sent out [Editorial note: Probably due to a formatting issue, paragraph breaks weren’t included in the email we received. We are guessing as to where Mr. Milnes might have wished to insert the line breaks.] to his list:

Yesterday the President held a press conference. He said several things about the economy and gas and food prices and Income Tax Refund Stimulus rebates and ANWR. As usual most of what he said was reactionary, misleading and, well, wrong.

I guarantee that if the Libertarian Party nominee were to go to the subsequent Green Party convention & secure their endorsement of the LP executive ticket (thus creating a Progressive Alliance which has the potential of getting 34-40% of the vote which is a little better than Teddy Roosevelt got in 1912), then announce that a Progressive Administration would immediately begin to phase out fossil and biofuels and go directly to hydrogen, the price of oil will sink like a fossilized rock. And would subsidize residential greenhouses and Victory gardens including rooftop utilization, the price of food would fall like a stuck balloon.

A solar panel on every roof! An electric car in every driveway! A greenhouse attached to every house! What we now call a gas station/rest stop could offer hydrogen fuel or charged batteries for quick exchange or electric plug-in charging service in addition to repairs and food etc. This is the service station of the future. We MUST NOT drill in ANWR. Or build another refinery or nuclear power plant. These are just some of the proposals and solutions a Progressive government offers the American people.

Now, how do we get a progressive government? It is going to have to be voted into office by the American people. It will not be by voting republican or democratic party & working within them. The green party does not have enough ballot access. Only the libertarian party as third party (split off from the republican party as Teddy Roosevelt did) Progressive Party equivalent, has enough ballot access and access to enough votes to possibly mathematically win in the Electoral College.

The Libertarian Party also has such proposals and solutions for the American people. As does the Green party. If enough Libertarians and Greens are elected a Progressive Government could be formed. This is the third alternative the American people crave. The Libertarian Party is to be May 22-26 in Denver.

44 Responses to “The latest from Robert Milnes”

  1. Greg Says:

    We MUST NOT drill in ANWR. Or build another refinery or nuclear power plant. These are just some of the proposals and solutions a Progressive government offers the American people.

    I know Robert is well-intentioned, but I don’t think he has the slightest clue about what the LP stands for. It’s about much more than just being “anti-establishment”, it’s about the government getting out of the way.

  2. silver Republican Says:

    I fear that a day may soon come where the Milnes and the Progressive Alliance and Catholic Trotskyist and the Fringe Alliance will battle it out for world domination. This is truly the begining of the end.

  3. Mike Theodore Says:

    In my opinion, Robert just looks at the party as being anti-two party system. I’ve heard him call those that have usual LP principles “losertarians”. Honestly, Robert seems more Green than anything else. But like the Libertarian Party, he couldn’t secure their nomination in any race.

  4. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    I kinda like nuclear power. All the “progressive” nations of Western Europe have them.

    From what I read, long ago, the plant in Chernobyl didn’t have a containment wall, otherwise there wouldn’t have been all that radioactive fallout.

    And Three Mile Island proved the nuclear energy is safe. All problems were contained.

    And what’s this about “subsidizing residential greenhouses and Victory Gardens”?

    That said, poor Robert can’t do math, and can’t interpret history. People have repeatedly pointed out his mistakes to him, but he refuses to listen.

    • 2008 is not 1912. The issues and population are different.
    • The LP and GP are not remnants of the Bull Moose Party, despite the GP using the term “progressive.”
    • Combining the LP and GP’s past vote totals might yield a few percentage points, not 34-40%.
    • Milnes is not a former president.
    • Milnes doesn’t even have ONE supporter, yet he expects tens of millions to vote for him in November if only the LP and GP coronate him.

    And on, and on, and on…

  5. Roscoe Says:

    Again, let us see Robert Milnes secure the Green Party and LP nomination for US Senator in New Jersey and, through this “lab test”mechanism, demonstrate to us all that his Progressive Alliance strategy will work.
    Then it can be rolled out in 2012 when the country is even more fed-up with whichever Party is in power.

  6. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Nuclear power? Sure—just as soon as the Price-Anderson Act is repealed and the reactor operators start covering their own insurance costs (IF they can find insurance on the market) instead of having their potential liabilities assumed by Uncle Sugar.

    Drilling in ANWR? Sure—if Exxon is willing to buy the land on a competitive market and pay the costs of exploration, etc. instead of expecting to socialize the costs through corporate welfare and privatize the profits.

  7. will Says:

    milnes is not welcome in the green party. you folks in the LP can keep him!

  8. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom Knapp, thank you. & obviously if we go directly to hydrogen, we will not need any more refineries. & nobody seems to want nuclear waste buried in their back yard.

  9. Robert Milnes Says:

    will, go trash a classroom like a good red fascist.

  10. G.E. Says:

    Why should we look to Milnes as energy czar when he lacks the energy to get off his lazy ass and get a fucking job?

  11. C. Al Currier Says:

    Abolish the DOE (formerly Atomic Energy Commission).

    That’s libertarian. Free markets, free minds.

    (Some may want to call it conservative or Reaganish)

  12. Mike Gillis Says:

    Milnes, you seem to think that a candidate’s merits or ability to win support is somehow irrelevant in the total of votes they’d get. That any candidate who could win both the GP and LP nomination will automatically win 30-40% of the vote.

    But you forget that Teddy Roosevelt was a former president with ALOT of supporters. His running mate was the sitting governor of California. When he broke off from the GOP, half of the delegates followed him to form the Progressives.

    You don’t have any of those qualities. You’re a mumbling former mental patient without ONE SINGLE SUPPORTER. And you fail to realize that while the Greens and Libertarians do have some overlap on their values, they are diametrically opposed on just about every economic issue and are totally incompatible for electoral alliances.

    And there occasionally HAVE been candidates who have won the nominations of both parties, like John Murphy of PA and Kevin Zeese of MD, and neither of them got the 30-40% and they were both MUCH better candidates than you are.

    And even if you were serious, you’d think that you’d actually campaign for either of the two nominations. Where you just post on the internet for one and act entitled to the other one.

    And weirdest of all, you call other people losers. People with thousandfold the support that you have – or could have.

    Ralph Nader has thousands of supporters. Bob Barr and Mike Gravel have thousands of supporters. Even Wayne Root and Mary Ruwart have hundreds.

    You don’t even have one. And you aren’t likely to get any, especially if you call people spoilers and losertarians.

  13. Chris Moore Says:

    There is one tiny problem with Milnes’ plan: it takes more energy to make hydrogen than you get when you burn it or react it in a fuel cell. That happens to be why the cost of hydrogen per “gallon” is higer than an equivalent amount of gas, and it will continue to be higher for quite some time.

    http://www.ilovephysics.com/archives/2005/09/07/a-hydrogen-economy/
    http://www.ilovephysics.com/archives/2006/10/23/no-blood-for-platinum-cheaper-alternatives-for-fuel-cell-catalysts/

  14. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. Knapp writes,

    Nuclear power? Sure—just as soon as the Price-Anderson Act is repealed and the reactor operators start covering their own insurance costs (IF they can find insurance on the market) instead of having their potential liabilities assumed by Uncle Sugar.

    Drilling in ANWR? Sure—if Exxon is willing to buy the land on a competitive market and pay the costs of exploration, etc. instead of expecting to socialize the costs through corporate welfare and privatize the profits.

    Not just Exxon, but any business. Other than that, I think we’re in complete agreement. :)

    Mr. Gillis writes, “And there occasionally HAVE been candidates who have won the nominations of both parties, like John Murphy of PA and Kevin Zeese of MD, and neither of them got the 30-40% and they were both MUCH better candidates than you are.”

    Mr. Zeese got 2%. Quite frankly, I do not believe he’d be able to secure the LP of MD nomination a second time. Not even his position on gun rights were as libertarian as I had originally anticipated when I supported his nomination. If I had known prior to his nomination that he supported government heathcare, and minimum wage, and social security, and “free” education, I would not have supported his nomination. Nevertheless, I did vote for him during the election, as a protest against Cardin and Steele—especially against Cardin.

    Yours,
    Alex Peak

  15. Honey Porter Says:

    Victory Gardens? bbbbbbbbwwwwwhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha

  16. Mike Gillis Says:

    “If I had known prior to his nomination that he supported government heathcare, and minimum wage, and social security, and “free” education, I would not have supported his nomination.”

    And if I knew the opposite of a candidate, I would not support them for the nomination of a progressive party.

    But that’s because we’re principled.

    People with principles that they are unwilling to waver on. That’s what Milnes seems to have no concept of. That to some of us, these issues are paramount.

    And he tells us to sacrifice these principles in the name of “winning” (as if such a thing is possible with him on the ballot). But isn’t being sick of giving up principle in the name of winning elections why we all became third party activists in the first place?

  17. G.E. Says:

    Robert Milnes has principles to.

    1. The LP should give him welfare.
    2. American Indians should be subjected to Eugenics.
    3. African Americans should be deported.
    4. All newscasters should bow to his sexual demands.

    I will say a lot of negative things about Robert Milnes, but I will never say he does not have principles!

  18. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris Moore, myopic physicist Chris, the production of hydrogen could become a by-product of establishing solar & wind power farms. So the energy costs of production become $0.00. How does that figure into the equation?

  19. Chris Moore Says:

    So the energy costs of production become $0.00

    Please explain how wind and/or solar facilities can be operated and maintained for $0. Also, you are using the term “by-product” incorrectly. You can electrolysize water using a photovoltaic cell. However, the energy used to break the molecular bonds is energy that can not be used to power a TV or iPod. The hydrogen would be a product, not a by-product.

    Photovoltaics is a field in relative infancy. This is good in that there is a lot of potential for lower costs and effciencies in the future. However, right now solar is not competitive in most markets with oil and/or natural gas. This may be due to oil subsidies, but you have to remember that damn near every lab studying photovoltaics at any level is NSF funded, so solar is heavily subsidized as well. I honestly don’t know which would “win” in the market place right now. It would probably vary depending on area.

    However, as long as fossil fuels are as cheap as they are today (and relative to other energy sources, oil is cheap), then hydrogen will remain more expensive. That is because something like 98% of all of the hydrogen produced results as an actual by-product of the oil industry. This is why conspiracy theorists that claim the oil industry is holding back hydrogen don’t know what they are talking about. If it was viable, the oil industry could make just as much money off of hydrogen as they could off of oil. In fact, they make money off of both right now. You wouldn’t solve many environmental problems switching to hydrogen right now, anyway. The stuff is made from fossil fuels!

    Of course, none of this gets to the more fundamental point: the government has no business deciding which fuel is the best fuel. A real Libertarian knows this.

  20. Michael Seebeck Says:

    First of all, there’s nothing wrong with modern “Victory Gardens” (or whatever you want to call them). In fact, with the rising prices of food, the decline of conventional monocrop agriculture from environmental problems and increased costs for diesel and fertilizers, and the current economic state, growing your own is the best way to go, another form of the overdue decentralization away from centralized government and corporatism. On that point Milnes is, believe it or not, correct, even if his call for subsidizing it is way off-base for anyone calling themselves Libertarian (tax credits are much better).

    Second of all, there needs to be a weaning off of burning hydrocarbons for energy. While that goes on, new technologies need to be implemented to replace them. It will take a mix of them, not one single technology, however. Chris Wood is incorrect in that he states that photovoltaics are in their infancy. I suggest he pay a visit to NREL in Golden if he’s in Denver for the LP convention to see what they’ve developed, and also to understand that what we in the aerospace industry are developing solar cells far more advanced than what is seen on the commercial market (which is in its infancy and is what Chris probably refers to). Solar panels on every roof? Why not? Heck, you can even buy solar cell roof shingles now! some manufacturers are making solar cell fabric for clothing, and Toyota recently prototyped solar cells on a Prius roof. BTW, the major solar cell producers right now in the commercial market are BP, ConocoPhillips, and Sharp. The major wind producer is GE.

    The point is that the key to alternative energy success lies not in government intervention or subsidies but in decentralizing the system. Our hydrocarbon-buring energy grid is centralized from the power plants generating power to the homes and businesses. Flip that over using the same grid and have homes and businesses generating power and sending it back onto the grid, and then you’re getting somewhere. What makes more sense, a single solar plant that generated 160Mw, or the 100K homes that plant powers doing that and more? National Geographic reported last year that solarizing the roofs of Manhattan could power the eastern seaboard from Boston to Norfolk. Solarizing LA could power the entire west coast. What’s missing is the market force and political will to let it happen.

    And that doesn’t even touch solar-powered water desalinzation plants to solve the western water woes…

    Milnes touches on the right ideas with the wrong implementations, and that’s one of many reasons he has no support and no chance.

  21. darolew Says:

    Progressives != libertarians, and vice versa. Sure, there is an ideology called “progressive libertarianism”, but even that sticks true to basic libertarian ideals—advocating non-government solutions.

    The Green Party and the Libertarian Party could not be more diametrically opposed on economics. Mutual distaste toward the major parties and a general agreement on (many) social issues cannot bridge that gap. Milnes seems near delusional for not realizing that.

    The “Progressive Alliance”/”Fringe Alliance” are neither possible or desirable.

  22. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    I am glad that i have reached the level now where I am at least thought of whenever Robert Milnes is mentioned here. I was once sympathetic to Robert Milnes’s Progressive Alliance strategy, but he has not even, so far as I am awhere, acknowledged the existance of the fringe alliance strategy, and has not provided his thoughts on it though I have requested him to do so on numerous threads.

    The Fringe Alliance Strategy is more principled than any other third party initiative, or any major party campaign, even the Obama revolution. It seeks for us to understand that the entire system of our elections needs to be abolished, and that only direct action Gandhian/Martin Luther King disruptive, headline-grabbing protests can bring about the constitutional amendments. Continuing to run candidates, even if the Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist and all the socialist parties won’t do anything, as I know all of you will agree. But working on a common goal will change this country.

    I also work on the principle that Barack H. Obama is God’s chosen candidate to win the presidency, and if we do not choose him we are spitting in the face of God. You may disagree with it, but you can’t say it’s not a principle.

    Glory to God in the highest and peace to God’s people on Earth.
    Please pray for the pope and please pray for Barack Obama.

  23. disinter Says:

    milnes is not welcome in the green party. you folks in the LP can keep him!

    No, you take him! PLEASE take him!

  24. Mike Theodore Says:

    “No, you take him! PLEASE take him!”

    We’ll take him at the Theodore Campaign.

  25. Michael Seebeck Says:

    darolew, the fringe alliance is a satire on Milens being propagated by Catholic Trotskyite, who is perpetually satirizing to the point of incoherent absurdity not seen since the last They Might Be Giants album.

  26. Michael Seebeck Says:

    darolew, the fringe alliance is a satire on Milnes being propagated by Catholic Trotskyite, who is perpetually satirizing to the point of incoherent absurdity not seen since the last They Might Be Giants album.

  27. Yank Says:

    What’s Milnes’s stance on ass?

  28. Bryan Says:

    That is because something like 98% of all of the hydrogen produced results as an actual by-product of the oil industry. This is why conspiracy theorists that claim the oil industry is holding back hydrogen don’t know what they are talking about. If it was viable, the oil industry could make just as much money off of hydrogen as they could off of oil. In fact, they make money off of both right now. You wouldn’t solve many environmental problems switching to hydrogen right now, anyway. The stuff is made from fossil fuels! – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –
    The one alternative fuel I saw the W.Bush regime get excited about was hydrogen. No…the oil industry is not keeping hydrogen off the table…they want it to be the “fuel of the future”.

    At a time when electric/gas hybrids are in mass production, why are “conservatives” still hyping hydrogen as the answer to our fuel crisis? These hybrids are the first step to “the masses” being free of oil, and the gas stations they are tied to.

    If the oil companies are in a conspiracy, it is to promote hydrogen as the next major fuel. Think about it…hydrogen is a “product” that will need distribution points…Oil companies own a very large percentage of “gas stations”...do you see the “profitable opportunities”???

    Why not intensify the work that has been, and is being, done with electric vehicle technology???

    As to the article I am responding to…If Libertarians are willing to accept a national health care system, a woman’s right to chose, affirmative action, an increase in the minimum wage, an expansion in public parks and natural resource areas, etc…etc…I can talk about supporting the Libertarian candidate.

    Thanks for listening…

    votebryansmith.org

  29. Robert Milnes Says:

    Bryan, it isn’t necessary for greens to turn into libertarians or vice versa for this to work. It is vote COORDINATION. Do you have a libertarian on your ballot? The Honor System would be whichever got on the ballot first stays. The other does not get on in the first place or withdraws. That way the progressive vote will not get split. The executive ticket is the awkward exception. Some sort of compromise or hybrid or fusion solution.

  30. Robert Milnes Says:

    To ask the GP to endorse a radical libertarian ticket would be a hard sell.

  31. Robert Milnes Says:

    Mike Gillis, 1. Ken Bank, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/1/141314/6151

  32. Robert Milnes Says:

    2. Kent Mesplay. He said he would try to address the LP convention about this favorably. I suggested he submit his name as a candidate for nomination.

  33. Mobert Rilnes Says:

    spandex. satan loves you. spandex. satan loves you

  34. Robert Milnes Says:

    Sorry, never did acid.

  35. Robert Milnes Says:

    If Bob Barr can wait until the last minute to announce, so can Kent Mesplay.

  36. darolew Says:

    “darolew, the fringe alliance is a satire on Milens being propagated by Catholic Trotskyite, who is perpetually satirizing to the point of incoherent absurdity not seen since the last They Might Be Giants album.”

    So Catholic Trotskyist is a joke identity? I sure hope so.

  37. Robert Milnes Says:

    Mike Gravel, George Phillies, Mike Jingozian, why don’t you announce that if you get the LP nomination, you will go to the Green convention & ask them to endorse the LP ticket?

  38. Chris Moore Says:

    that what we in the aerospace industry are developing solar cells far more advanced than what is seen on the commercial market (which is in its infancy and is what Chris probably refers to).

    I was refering to the commercial market, which in the context of Milnes’ diatribe is all that matters. Currently, photovoltaics are not competitive in the marketplace. I can’t wait for a future where rooftops are blanketed with solar panels (and as you state, it’s not that far off). However, right now oil is cheaper. That will change. And I have plenty of faith in the ingenuity of mankind to do what has to be done. Some of my research intersects with fundamental studies that serve as the foundation of photovoltaic research. I could go on and on about the possibilities in the near future. My point is certainly not to downplay solar.

    I have ZERO faith in the government to get anything right. I get crapier gas mileage because Virginia thinks its a good idea to put more expensive corn in my gas tank … and I have to pay more for the corn I eat, as well! The market will get it right so long as the government stays out of its way.

    My points are (1) hydrogen has its own set of problems (not insurmountable, but real), (2) making hydrogen from solar is inefficient on a large scale because it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you get out of it, so you might as well just use the solar power directly (of course, there are many applications where solar is not practical and hydrogen is), and (3) ALL energy sources are subsidized, not just big oil. In fact, I would not be surprised to find out that hydrogen and/or solar get more federal coin per kilowatt-hour that oil.

  39. Mike Gillis Says:

    Milnes, those people aren’t supporting your candidacy. They just like the idea of a multi-party coalition.

    I would bet a lot of money that they don’t envision you as the standard bearer.

    Hell, one of them is a candidate themselves. A candidate will small support, but far more support than you.

  40. Mike Gillis Says:

    “To ask the GP to endorse a radical libertarian ticket would be a hard sell.”

    To ask the GP to endorse a candidate with any libertarian economic views would be a hardsell. Harder when that candidate has no history with the party.

    If you’re so set on winning both nominations, why haven’t you tried to win the Green nomination too?

  41. G.E. Says:

    All three are candidates, Gillis.

  42. Robert Milnes Says:

    Mike Gillis, I was trying for both LP & GP nominations like Jingo. But it came down to LP was first & bylaws required LP only. Then I came up with try for LP only first, then GP endorsement.

  43. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, I’m surprised you are so dumb on this issue. Hydrogen from petroleum? That just makes my point of phasing out petroleum. Hydrogen from WATER using free & bountiful solar. That hydrogen then has the portability advantage for personal automotive use. Of course the petroleum industry is stuck on petroleum. Once that crap gets on you, it is really hard to get off. Just ask the Valdez wildlife.

  44. Chris Moore Says:

    Chris, I’m surprised you are so dumb on this issue. Hydrogen from petroleum? That just makes my point of phasing out petroleum.

    You want to take a net positive and replace it with a net negative that currently costs more. It certainly does not make your point.

    Hydrogen from WATER using free & bountiful solar.

    Why is a large majority of the hydrogen sold come from the petroleum industry? Becasue it is a hell of a lot cheaper than by other means. I’m not sure where you got this idea that solar is free, but it is wrong. You are also completely discounting the major hurdles hydrogen still must clear: storage issues and catalyst cost.

    Solar will get better. Solar will begin providing a lot of our energy needs. Solar will become competitive VERY soon (and in some cases it already is). Hydrogen will clear those hurdles (in the article I linked to above, I provide a short review of the scientific literature on non-precious catalysts).

    The mechanism behind this progress is certainly not government.

Leave a Reply