Comments on: A Public Service Reminder: The Libertarian Party Is Not The GOP http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/ Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:38:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Libertarian Joseph http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-600578 Sat, 10 May 2008 17:55:31 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-600578 Why does anyone leave in frustration? You know, we have this thing called state/national conventions, where you get to attend and try to change/keep party planks. Ever hear of party loyalty? assholes Why does anyone leave in frustration? You know, we have this thing called state/national conventions, where you get to attend and try to change/keep party planks. Ever hear of party loyalty? assholes

]]>
by: Shawn Levasseur http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-599573 Fri, 09 May 2008 17:37:00 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-599573 Suggestion: Too many Libertarians spend too much time judging each other. We all have different visions about what is best for the party. All this yelling at each other achieves little. Some want to pull the LP out of its "Debating Society" phase. Listening to some people rant, a debating society would be an improvement. Shouting at people who aren't going to change their minds is no way to go. Redirect that passion to supporting those strategies and individuals you do agree with. Let the marketplace of ideas show who's methods are more successful. I think the LP can attract a lot of people dissatisfied with politics. But the internal Kremlinology turns them away. It's also one reason why so many people who do identify as libertarians want nothing to do with the LP. I know there are issues that concern us about the direction the LP is taking, but let's not blow our differences out of proportion. Suggestion:

Too many Libertarians spend too much time judging each other. We all have different visions about what is best for the party. All this yelling at each other achieves little.

Some want to pull the LP out of its “Debating Society” phase. Listening to some people rant, a debating society would be an improvement.

Shouting at people who aren’t going to change their minds is no way to go.

Redirect that passion to supporting those strategies and individuals you do agree with. Let the marketplace of ideas show who’s methods are more successful.

I think the LP can attract a lot of people dissatisfied with politics. But the internal Kremlinology turns them away. It’s also one reason why so many people who do identify as libertarians want nothing to do with the LP.

I know there are issues that concern us about the direction the LP is taking, but let’s not blow our differences out of proportion.

]]>
by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-598860 Fri, 09 May 2008 02:35:56 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-598860 "Alex, your candidate disagrees with you about whether the most important thing is the ability to communicate the consensus libertarian values that she wants to campaign on." It's okay if she disagrees with me, because agreement-with-me is not as important in my opinion as ability to communicate libertarian values to the people. If I held agreement-with-me to be the determining factor, I would be unable to support Dr. Ron Paul. (Moreover, I'd be unable to support anyone but myself.) Cheers, Alex Peak “Alex, your candidate disagrees with you about whether the most important thing is the ability to communicate the consensus libertarian values that she wants to campaign on.”

It’s okay if she disagrees with me, because agreement-with-me is not as important in my opinion as ability to communicate libertarian values to the people. If I held agreement-with-me to be the determining factor, I would be unable to support Dr. Ron Paul. (Moreover, I’d be unable to support anyone but myself.)

Cheers,
Alex Peak

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-598561 Thu, 08 May 2008 22:52:18 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-598561 Alex, your candidate disagrees with you about whether the most important thing is the ability to communicate the consensus libertarian values that she wants to campaign on. She told Steve Kubby: I would like to talk a little bit about the danger to our party, Steve, because you know there’s going to be a temptation here, I’m afraid, and the temptation is that if someone comes with a lot of past history, if they’re a well-known name, the tendency is going to be perhaps consider that it would be better to embrace someone like that who really may not be yet fully attuned to the Libertarian philosophy instead of a candidate that really can explain to the American people what we truly are all about. And the reason this is important is not just for our presidential candidate, but after the election our presidential candidate is the de facto leader of the party. And so if we have someone who really doesn’t have the full picture yet, who is in a leadership position in the Party, I think that could take us down the wrong road. And that’s something that I think all the delegates need to consider when they look at the candidates. Because we’re not just talking about who is the best spokesperson for liberty and who can attract the most media attention, we’re also talking about who is going to take the Party in the direction we want to go. Alex, your candidate disagrees with you about whether the most important thing is the ability to communicate the consensus libertarian values that she wants to campaign on. She told Steve Kubby:

I would like to talk a little bit about the danger to our party, Steve, because you know there’s going to be a temptation here, I’m afraid, and the temptation is that if someone comes with a lot of past history, if they’re a well-known name, the tendency is going to be perhaps consider that it would be better to embrace someone like that who really may not be yet fully attuned to the Libertarian philosophy instead of a candidate that really can explain to the American people what we truly are all about. And the reason this is important is not just for our presidential candidate, but after the election our presidential candidate is the de facto leader of the party. And so if we have someone who really doesn’t have the full picture yet, who is in a leadership position in the Party, I think that could take us down the wrong road. And that’s something that I think all the delegates need to consider when they look at the candidates. Because we’re not just talking about who is the best spokesperson for liberty and who can attract the most media attention, we’re also talking about who is going to take the Party in the direction we want to go.

]]>
by: A_S http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-598094 Thu, 08 May 2008 16:09:20 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-598094 Bob Sullentrup - Following up with an email to the LP headquarters strikes me as being nothing but an act of futility, given that the LP shut down commentary on the official website blog several months ago, justified on the laughable predicate of it being too time-consuming to police spam. Even the mediocre open-source blog codebases now have effective methods for blocking the vast majority of spam. Here, I'll pass along two words for a black-list that have a tremendous effect on lessening the load: "viagra" and "ringtones". The shut-down of the LP blog's external commenting seemed to me to really be an effort to shut-down membership input and dissent. Also, your detailing how and why Richard Vigeurie was chosen to be a keynote at the LP Convention has not served to allay my concerns. It has instead increased them to now encompass valid questions about the LP leadership's ability to discern reality. Richard Vigeurie has a history of stamping his feet, whining, and taking his ball home, whenever things haven't gone his way in the Republican Party. He has always returned at a later date, and has often flirted with third parties in the interim. He is just a tease, and trying to get the RNCC hot and jealous. Vigeurie is playing the LP as a pawn in his game. He has never shown a predilection toward libertarianism. His avid defense of political contributions as a first amendment right, should be viewed as a business strategy, not a defense of liberty. He was very critical of political contributions in testimony given in front of Congress last January about his dealings with a less than stellar veteran's charities operator, Roger Chapin, who has self-referenced himself as a "nonprofit entrepreneur". Vigeurie had received $14 million in business payments and a $1 million personal loan out of the charities' revenue stream over a three-year period, and Chapin had been fraudulently offering public figures for the percentage of revenue directly returned to veteran's services; in one instance saying 67% and another over 90%, when the truth was just a little over 25% returned. Vigeurie is not even a real conservative. He is an extreme right-sided activist, who has been a primary vector for the infection of combative divisiveness that afflicts American politics presently. Don't expect an email from me though. It's a far far better thing that I state the case to a bigger audience, a candid world. Bob Sullentrup – Following up with an email to the LP headquarters strikes me as being nothing but an act of futility, given that the LP shut down commentary on the official website blog several months ago, justified on the laughable predicate of it being too time-consuming to police spam. Even the mediocre open-source blog codebases now have effective methods for blocking the vast majority of spam. Here, I’ll pass along two words for a black-list that have a tremendous effect on lessening the load: “viagra” and “ringtones”. The shut-down of the LP blog’s external commenting seemed to me to really be an effort to shut-down membership input and dissent.

Also, your detailing how and why Richard Vigeurie was chosen to be a keynote at the LP Convention has not served to allay my concerns. It has instead increased them to now encompass valid questions about the LP leadership’s ability to discern reality. Richard Vigeurie has a history of stamping his feet, whining, and taking his ball home, whenever things haven’t gone his way in the Republican Party. He has always returned at a later date, and has often flirted with third parties in the interim. He is just a tease, and trying to get the RNCC hot and jealous.

Vigeurie is playing the LP as a pawn in his game. He has never shown a predilection toward libertarianism. His avid defense of political contributions as a first amendment right, should be viewed as a business strategy, not a defense of liberty. He was very critical of political contributions in testimony given in front of Congress last January about his dealings with a less than stellar veteran’s charities operator, Roger Chapin, who has self-referenced himself as a “nonprofit entrepreneur”. Vigeurie had received $14 million in business payments and a $1 million personal loan out of the charities’ revenue stream over a three-year period, and Chapin had been fraudulently offering public figures for the percentage of revenue directly returned to veteran’s services; in one instance saying 67% and another over 90%, when the truth was just a little over 25% returned.

Vigeurie is not even a real conservative. He is an extreme right-sided activist, who has been a primary vector for the infection of combative divisiveness that afflicts American politics presently.

Don’t expect an email from me though. It’s a far far better thing that I state the case to a bigger audience, a candid world.

]]>
by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-597438 Thu, 08 May 2008 06:59:46 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-597438 Mr. Roscoe writes, "The LP candidate should be an articulate spokesman who attacks four or five of the most egregious policies of the Dems and GOP and states what the LP would have done (will do) and why if placed into office. This kind of campaign will build votes and build understanding of basic libertarian principles." Exactly! Ruwart 2008! "We don’t need to debate age of consent for children, private toll roads, Rothbardism vs. Friedmanite economics, whether or not The David still speaks for the LP he founded, who cast a vote eight years ago for something he now regrets, etc." There's a time and place to discuss such things. Unfortunately, the anti-Ruwartians think that's what we should make our campaign about. But I'm with you, we need to focus on who can communicate the problems of the <i>status quo</i> and the benefits of a libertarian society best. Mr. Muth writes, "I find a significant difference between child pornography and under-aged sex. I believe child pornography should be illegal. If that means I’m not 'libertarian' enough, so be it." Opposing child pornography does not prevent one from being a libertarian. Supporting censorship by the FCC makes one a non-libertarian. Supporting laws against the use of 'shrooms makes one a non-libertarian. Supporting the use of the atomic bomb against innocent civilians makes one a non-libertarian. Supporting an increase in taxation makes one a non-libertarian. But opposing child pornography? No, out tent is definitely big enough to include those who oppose child pornography. Cheers, Alex Peak P.S. To be clear, I will vote Libertarian in 2008 if any of the following becomes our presidential candidate: Christine Smith, George Phillies, Mary Ruwart, Wayne Allen Root, Steve Kubby, or Michael Jingozian. (No particular order.) The most important thing is the ability to communicate libertarian values. Ideology is second to that. Mr. Roscoe writes, “The LP candidate should be an articulate spokesman who attacks four or five of the most egregious policies of the Dems and GOP and states what the LP would have done (will do) and why if placed into office. This kind of campaign will build votes and build understanding of basic libertarian principles.”

Exactly!

Ruwart 2008!

“We don’t need to debate age of consent for children, private toll roads, Rothbardism vs. Friedmanite economics, whether or not The David still speaks for the LP he founded, who cast a vote eight years ago for something he now regrets, etc.”

There’s a time and place to discuss such things. Unfortunately, the anti-Ruwartians think that’s what we should make our campaign about. But I’m with you, we need to focus on who can communicate the problems of the status quo and the benefits of a libertarian society best.

Mr. Muth writes, “I find a significant difference between child pornography and under-aged sex. I believe child pornography should be illegal. If that means I’m not ‘libertarian’ enough, so be it.”

Opposing child pornography does not prevent one from being a libertarian.

Supporting censorship by the FCC makes one a non-libertarian. Supporting laws against the use of ‘shrooms makes one a non-libertarian. Supporting the use of the atomic bomb against innocent civilians makes one a non-libertarian. Supporting an increase in taxation makes one a non-libertarian.

But opposing child pornography? No, out tent is definitely big enough to include those who oppose child pornography.

Cheers,
Alex Peak

P.S. To be clear, I will vote Libertarian in 2008 if any of the following becomes our presidential candidate: Christine Smith, George Phillies, Mary Ruwart, Wayne Allen Root, Steve Kubby, or Michael Jingozian. (No particular order.)

The most important thing is the ability to communicate libertarian values. Ideology is second to that.

]]>
by: Yank http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-597211 Thu, 08 May 2008 04:11:08 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-597211 to the Brians, Let me touch your butt. Let me touch your butt. Let me touch your butt. Leeeet me...touch your butt. Love to touch it. touch it. touch it once, touch it twice., TOUCH IT! (ass solo) Let me touch your butt. Let me touch your butt. Let me touch your butt. Leeeet me...touch your butt. Love to touch it. touch it. touch it once, touch it twice., TOUCH IT! to the Brians,

Let me touch your butt. Let me touch your butt. Let me touch your butt.
Leeeet me…touch your butt.
Love to touch it. touch it. touch it once, touch it twice., TOUCH IT!

(ass solo)

Let me touch your butt. Let me touch your butt. Let me touch your butt.
Leeeet me…touch your butt.
Love to touch it. touch it. touch it once, touch it twice., TOUCH IT!

]]>
by: Brian Holtz's Liver http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-596259 Wed, 07 May 2008 17:00:35 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-596259 heeelpmeimdrowinginbeeeridrinkallday heeelpmeimdrowinginbeeeridrinkallday

]]>
by: A_S http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-596162 Wed, 07 May 2008 16:15:31 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-596162 Mr. Holt, I appreciate the link, but I am well aware of former LP platform plank contents. I worked petition tables to secure party access during the 1st Reagan term, to offer a bit of perspective. I am also one who firmly believes that no politician should ever be trusted farther than you can swing a rope from City Hall's Old Oak Tree, and that determination is true irrespective of party, even my own. People who actively seek political power greater than what is naturally theirs to possess, are the very last persons who should ever be allowed to do so, and therein lay one of the great libertarian paradoxes, because the theory would never allow a randomization process for choosing political representatives. For possible far too many citizens, it would be perceived as an act of coercion. So we're left with the reality: that given the current state of humanity, some form of a state is essential for the provisioning of liberty, yet at the same time, any manifestation of a state is a hideous monstrosity that if left unguarded off muzzle and chain, will turn upon its masters and devour them all in an insatiable hunger for power. All the while the available pool of selectable individuals to maintain this paradoxical process strung tight around chaos have a dysfunctional inner will to power, and need be vigilantly watched, and constantly reprimanded. The concept many would posit, that a will to power motivated from a altruistic higher good is a mitigating factor, it should instead be consider a sentence enhancer. Barry Goldwater had it nailed down squarely over 4 decades ago: <blockquote>"Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny."Barry Goldwater</blockquote> It's shameful that the vast majority of individuals who presently claim an affiliation to Sen. Goldwater, preach heretical apostasy to this. That condenses my political philosophy down to about its smallest configuration. I'll check out the link you provided at some near future leisure. - - cheers Mr. Holt, I appreciate the link, but I am well aware of former LP platform plank contents. I worked petition tables to secure party access during the 1st Reagan term, to offer a bit of perspective. I am also one who firmly believes that no politician should ever be trusted farther than you can swing a rope from City Hall’s Old Oak Tree, and that determination is true irrespective of party, even my own. People who actively seek political power greater than what is naturally theirs to possess, are the very last persons who should ever be allowed to do so, and therein lay one of the great libertarian paradoxes, because the theory would never allow a randomization process for choosing political representatives. For possible far too many citizens, it would be perceived as an act of coercion.

So we’re left with the reality: that given the current state of humanity, some form of a state is essential for the provisioning of liberty, yet at the same time, any manifestation of a state is a hideous monstrosity that if left unguarded off muzzle and chain, will turn upon its masters and devour them all in an insatiable hunger for power.

All the while the available pool of selectable individuals to maintain this paradoxical process strung tight around chaos have a dysfunctional inner will to power, and need be vigilantly watched, and constantly reprimanded. The concept many would posit, that a will to power motivated from a altruistic higher good is a mitigating factor, it should instead be consider a sentence enhancer. Barry Goldwater had it nailed down squarely over 4 decades ago:

“Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny.”Barry Goldwater


It’s shameful that the vast majority of individuals who presently claim an affiliation to Sen. Goldwater, preach heretical apostasy to this.

That condenses my political philosophy down to about its smallest configuration. I’ll check out the link you provided at some near future leisure. – - cheers

]]>
by: Brian Holtz's Liver http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-596099 Wed, 07 May 2008 15:34:07 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-596099 Help me. I need water. owwww. Help me. I need water. owwww.

]]>
by: Clark http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-596076 Wed, 07 May 2008 15:16:44 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-596076 ..not so long ago..not so far away...in the land of 'ooga booga'...a scene of great political strife unfolded..: ...the ooga-boogans had long separated, largely, into two major war parties..and were again at each other's throats over 'the important issue of the day': whether to throw the virgin into the volcano at midnight..or dawn.. ..the 'Repub-oogas' argued, "keep the midnight tradition"..the 'Ooga-crats' argued for 'change' and the dawn virgin slaughter.. ...(obscure footnote: there were several very minor parties in the land of ooga booga..one of which was the 'oogabooga-tarians'..led by kneel ooga-boor and boog ooga-barr..both of whom had low-power 'coconut wireless' radio shows where they argued for 'privatization' of the virgin slaughter..) ...the greatest wise man in the land, (who also happened to have the largest 'ooga-bobo') ooga-CLARK, had, for years, shunned ooga-boogan politics..but this tribal council disgusted him so much it made him break his long silence: he screamed with the fury of a lion, "WHY ARE YOU FUCKING OOGA-BOOGA IDIOTS THROWING VIRGINS IN VOLCANOES?..THERE ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO DISCUSS!...LIKE THE FACT THAT WITCH DOCTOR$ ARE RUNNING THE CLAM-SHELL FRAUD OF THE AGES OVER AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE OOGA-BOARD!".. ...the room hushed as he stormed out..his large ooga-balls evident to all.. ...later that night a super-secret joint ooga-caucus unanimously declared that ooga-Clark had gone too far and would be thrown into the volcano at high noon the next day.. ..but when the ooga-guards came to arrest him, ooga-clark, was long gone.. ...a large group of the most beautiful 'oogaboo-girls' had alerted him...and with him safely set sail to the west...never to be seen again.. ..(ooga-boogan legend has it that when you listen carefully to the west you can still hear the ooooooo's and aaaaaaah's of the oogaboo-girl castaways as they experience total, profound, multiple 'oogasm'..) (historical sidenote: the ooga boogan women and some 'oogaboo-gays' made an exact mold of clark's legendary ooga-bobo which was worshipped in their tribal ceremonies..in some circles the search for this long-lost trophy is somewhat akin to the quest for the holy grail..rumor has it that 'acme sex toys inc.,' the world's most popular purveyor of such things, has secretly acquired the sacred object and used it as the proto-type for their all-time best-seller..) ;o) ..not so long ago..not so far away…in the land of ‘ooga booga’...a scene of great political strife unfolded..:

...the ooga-boogans had long separated, largely, into two major war parties..and were again at each other’s throats over ‘the important issue of the day’: whether to throw the virgin into the volcano at midnight..or dawn..

..the ‘Repub-oogas’ argued, “keep the midnight tradition”..the ‘Ooga-crats’ argued for ‘change’ and the dawn virgin slaughter..

...(obscure footnote: there were several very minor parties in the land of ooga booga..one of which was the ‘oogabooga-tarians’..led by kneel ooga-boor and boog ooga-barr..both of whom had low-power ‘coconut wireless’ radio shows where they argued for ‘privatization’ of the virgin slaughter..)

...the greatest wise man in the land, (who also happened to have the largest ‘ooga-bobo’) ooga-CLARK, had, for years, shunned ooga-boogan politics..but this tribal council disgusted him so much it made him break his long silence: he screamed with the fury of a lion, “WHY ARE YOU FUCKING OOGA-BOOGA IDIOTS THROWING VIRGINS IN VOLCANOES?..THERE ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO DISCUSS!...LIKE THE FACT THAT WITCH DOCTOR$ ARE RUNNING THE CLAM-SHELL FRAUD OF THE AGES OVER AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE OOGA-BOARD!”..

...the room hushed as he stormed out..his large ooga-balls evident to all..

...later that night a super-secret joint ooga-caucus unanimously declared that ooga-Clark had gone too far and would be thrown into the volcano at high noon the next day..

..but when the ooga-guards came to arrest him, ooga-clark, was long gone..

...a large group of the most beautiful ‘oogaboo-girls’ had alerted him…and with him safely set sail to the west…never to be seen again..

..(ooga-boogan legend has it that when you listen carefully to the west you can still hear the ooooooo’s and aaaaaaah’s of the oogaboo-girl castaways as they experience total, profound, multiple ‘oogasm’..)

(historical sidenote: the ooga boogan women and some ‘oogaboo-gays’ made an exact mold of clark’s legendary ooga-bobo which was worshipped in their tribal ceremonies..in some circles the search for this long-lost trophy is somewhat akin to the quest for the holy grail..rumor has it that ‘acme sex toys inc.,’ the world’s most popular purveyor of such things, has secretly acquired the sacred object and used it as the proto-type for their all-time best-seller..) ;o)

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-596012 Wed, 07 May 2008 14:43:09 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-596012 A_S, if you want to talk about past LP platforms, you've come to the right place. If you want to learn about what past LP platforms have said about Children's Rights, you don't have to go to the Internet Archive. You just need to go to the planet's most comprehensive site about the past, present, and future of the LP Platform, and look at http://libertarianmajority.net/childrens-rights-plank Steve LaBianca, if you're "working on Ruwart's campaign", then readers can decide for themselves what that says about her judgment. I'll ignore your hysterical over-reaction to what a smart Ruwart defender like Less Antman or Tom Knapp or Alex Peak would admit is a fair characterization of her views. Instead, I'll just note the humor in you initially saying that I can't characterize her views without first asking her about them, and now (upon finding out that I DID ask her) saying that I shouldn't characterize her views until she has the time to answer my questions. Thanks, but I decline to give any of our candidates such censorship rights. :-) A_S, if you want to talk about past LP platforms, you’ve come to the right place. If you want to learn about what past LP platforms have said about Children’s Rights, you don’t have to go to the Internet Archive. You just need to go to the planet’s most comprehensive site about the past, present, and future of the LP Platform, and look at http://libertarianmajority.net/childrens-rights-plank

Steve LaBianca, if you’re “working on Ruwart’s campaign”, then readers can decide for themselves what that says about her judgment. I’ll ignore your hysterical over-reaction to what a smart Ruwart defender like Less Antman or Tom Knapp or Alex Peak would admit is a fair characterization of her views. Instead, I’ll just note the humor in you initially saying that I can’t characterize her views without first asking her about them, and now (upon finding out that I DID ask her) saying that I shouldn’t characterize her views until she has the time to answer my questions. Thanks, but I decline to give any of our candidates such censorship rights. :-)

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-595996 Wed, 07 May 2008 14:30:24 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-595996 Brian Miller accuses me of debating so well in an online forum that I allegedly caused one person who tried to argue with me to "lose interest in the LP". Meanwhile, the Ron Paul phenomenon was clearly biggest tsunami to hit the freedom movement in many decades. So how did the two Brians react to it? One Brian participated in Ron Paul discussion forums, attended Ron Paul meetups, helped publicize Ron Paul rallies, gathered scores of email addresses of Ron Paul supporters by joining the top 20 California Paul meetups, and worked with the LPCA leadership on a systematic effort to reach out to the R3VOLution. The other Brian spent months posting scores of messages to major California liberty-oriented forums attacking Ron Paul, saying * Ron Paul is "a homophobic bigot"; * Ron Paul "declares he isn't a libertarian"; * Ron Paul is "a statist on health care"; * Ron Paul "voted for continued government spending on education"; * Ron Paul "committed himself to pursuing increased government funding of abstinence education in the future" You can guess which Brian is which. I repeatedly challenged Brian Miller to substantiate any of these recklessly false claims, but Miller never did. He didn't even dare acknowledge that on the last point, Ron Paul was clearly misinterpreted on his answer to the question of whether Paul would "bring abstinence education funding onto equal ground with contraceptive- based education". Ron Paul answered yes, like every good libertarian who knows that zero equals zero. I even offered to donate $1000 to the Outright Libertarians if Miller could back up his ridiculous claim that Ron Paul says (outside of the context of party affiliation) that he "is not a libertarian". Miller never even tried, but he just kept repeating this lie. It's amusing for Miller to charge that I debate in order to "protect [my] political authority in the various county, state, and national committees you sit on". First of all, I haven't been on any county committees during the time Miller lived in California. Second, my position on the LPCA ExCom may have been helped by my reputation as a defender and explainer of libertarian ideas, but what got me elected was that I was the only candidate with a detailed written strategic and tactical vision: http://knowinghumans.net/2007/04/lpca-strategy-tactics.html. Third, the only national committee I'm on is the Platform Committee, which a) is inherently about debating Platform language and b) conducts its debates on a private forum. Those are the facts. Miller offers no facts, only venom. And then lectures the TPW readership about "ethical debate". Brian Miller accuses me of debating so well in an online forum that I allegedly caused one person who tried to argue with me to “lose interest in the LP”. Meanwhile, the Ron Paul phenomenon was clearly biggest tsunami to hit the freedom movement in many decades. So how did the two Brians react to it?

One Brian participated in Ron Paul discussion forums, attended Ron Paul meetups, helped publicize Ron Paul rallies, gathered scores of email addresses of Ron Paul supporters by joining the top 20 California Paul meetups, and worked with the LPCA leadership on a systematic effort to reach out to the R3VOLution.

The other Brian spent months posting scores of messages to major California liberty-oriented forums attacking Ron Paul, saying

  • Ron Paul is “a homophobic bigot”;
  • Ron Paul “declares he isn’t a libertarian”;
  • Ron Paul is “a statist on health care”;
  • Ron Paul “voted for continued government spending on education”;
  • Ron Paul “committed himself to pursuing increased government funding of abstinence education in the future”

You can guess which Brian is which. I repeatedly challenged Brian Miller to substantiate any of these recklessly false claims, but Miller never did. He didn’t even dare acknowledge that on the last point, Ron Paul was clearly misinterpreted on his answer to the question of whether Paul would “bring abstinence education funding onto equal ground with contraceptive- based education”. Ron Paul answered yes, like every good libertarian who knows that zero equals zero.

I even offered to donate $1000 to the Outright Libertarians if Miller could back up his ridiculous claim that Ron Paul says (outside of the context of party affiliation) that he “is not a libertarian”. Miller never even tried, but he just kept repeating this lie.

It’s amusing for Miller to charge that I debate in order to “protect [my] political authority in the various county, state, and national committees you sit on”. First of all, I haven’t been on any county committees during the time Miller lived in California. Second, my position on the LPCA ExCom may have been helped by my reputation as a defender and explainer of libertarian ideas, but what got me elected was that I was the only candidate with a detailed written strategic and tactical vision: http://knowinghumans.net/2007/04/lpca-strategy-tactics.html. Third, the only national committee I’m on is the Platform Committee, which a) is inherently about debating Platform language and b) conducts its debates on a private forum.

Those are the facts. Miller offers no facts, only venom. And then lectures the TPW readership about “ethical debate”.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-595735 Wed, 07 May 2008 09:25:51 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-595735 Brian Miller, I dispute this legend of me "debat[ing] the black urban condition" with ANYbody. If you're not making this up, then either give us enough facts for me to find it in my archives, or admit that you don't care whether what you were told was remotely true. All my public debates of 2004-2006 are archived and searchable on my MarketLiberal Yahoo group. Go ahead, look for this "debate on the black urban condition". I bet you won't find it. You complain of "parliamentary tricks and shoving stuff down our collective throats. You speak of dialogue, but your voluminous posts of (dare I say) endless bullshit do nothing but wear down those who have a different point of view from yourself". Substance-free, content-free whining. Find the quotation-mark key on your keyboard, press it, then copy and paste something I've written or done, and press it again. If you can't do that, you're just a would-be character assassin whose every shot backfires. Oh wait -- you define quoting somebody as unfair. Wow! George Orwell called. He wants his eponym back. The question of whether "the Republican Party’s *positions* are homophobic" is a textbook red herring. What I quoted you saying was "the Republicans (including Ron Paul) are such homophobic bigots". I'm not going to insult the intelligence of the audience by explaining the difference. If you don't mean what you say and say what you mean, then spare me your lectures about "ethical debates". "Who really has more experience in campaigning in the gay community?" Strawman. I've never made any claims about "campaigning in the gay community". What I claimed was e.g. that gay rights are human rights, and that you misread the plain text of 10 U.S.C. § 654 (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell). That has nothing to do with "campaigning in the gay community". I'll tell you what I DO have experience doing: defending the idea of gay rights as a top priority for the LP. I've been the one educating PlatCom that our gay rights positions "resonate with a minimum of 35% of voters (gay marriage) up through 53% (civil unions) to a whopping 78% (open gay service in the military)." I'm the one on PlatCom who got all the principles from the current gay rights plank put into the majority report. I'm the one who broke our rule about novel language to add gay-rights specificity about "current marriage, adoption, immigration, or military service laws". I'm the one who left the room to go find Rob and Ruth and ask them to review that plank and then moved adoption of their tweaks. Nobody has worked harder to improve the gay rights language in the majority report. Nobody. I don't doubt that I've "alienated" you and Rob due to my documenting your lies about what my Platform proposals plainly say. (Anyone masochistic enough to still be reading this can ask me for details.) I don't doubt that I've "alienated" Allan Wallace for embarrassing him over his unfair banning of me from the Outright forum for daring to defend myself from your character assassination. If I've "alienated" Ruth, she hasn't said a word to me about it -- though I don't doubt that her opinion of me has suffered from listening to you and Rob lie about me. For example, you just added another lie to the list: "Virtually every comment you’ve made about Outright has been a negative attack". Absolutely false; you once again seem to think that you and Rob personify the Outright Libertarians, and that to defend myself from your character assassination is to somehow "attack" Outright as an organization. What I have in fact posted about Outright has been uniformly glowing. For example: "The Outrights is one of the best LP organizations, and the ranks of the best LPCA activists are overflowing with Outright members. Brian Miller's serial mendacity is only a tiny smudge on the reputation of this shining organization. The only real question here is why the Outrights are apparently unwilling or unable to convince him to cease and desist. The answer apparently lies in the above spinal reflex to label as "social conservatives" anyone who dares speak truth to Outright power." 2007-11-02 "If I thought group quotas were how the Outrights measure the commitment of fellow Libertarians to individual liberty, then I'd simply be embarrassed for the Outrights, and hope they grow to find a deeper understanding of libertarianism. However, my extensive interactions with gay Libertarians in California in the years before you showed up here a few months ago leaves me convinced that you are an outlier." 2007-10-03 "Sorry, but calmly and systematically rebutting the disinformation you choose to disseminate about me -- like your false claim that the entire LPCA ExCom had ignored a complaint that I as an ExCom member had never even heard of -- does not constitute an "attack" on all Outrights. My vast respect for the Outrights comes from my years of association with California Outrights like Rich Newell and Beau Cain and Mark Johnson and Starchild. Each of them over the years has set a standard for integrity and dedication and intelligence and fairness that your first few rabid months on the LPCA scene don't even begin to put a dent in. You can pretend all you want that you personify the Outrights, but I've worked for years with Outrights in California, Outrights are friends of mine, and from what I can tell, you're no Outright." 2007-10-03 I DEFY you to quote me EVER saying anything bad about Outright as an organization. You can't, and so you won't even try. Instead, you'll just keep lying, and say that I "attack" Outright. Stop lying, Brian. Just stop it. Brian Miller, I dispute this legend of me “debat[ing] the black urban condition” with ANYbody. If you’re not making this up, then either give us enough facts for me to find it in my archives, or admit that you don’t care whether what you were told was remotely true. All my public debates of 2004-2006 are archived and searchable on my MarketLiberal Yahoo group. Go ahead, look for this “debate on the black urban condition”. I bet you won’t find it.

You complain of “parliamentary tricks and shoving stuff down our collective throats. You speak of dialogue, but your voluminous posts of (dare I say) endless bullshit do nothing but wear down those who have a different point of view from yourself”. Substance-free, content-free whining. Find the quotation-mark key on your keyboard, press it, then copy and paste something I’ve written or done, and press it again. If you can’t do that, you’re just a would-be character assassin whose every shot backfires.

Oh wait—you define quoting somebody as unfair. Wow! George Orwell called. He wants his eponym back.

The question of whether “the Republican Party’s positions are homophobic” is a textbook red herring. What I quoted you saying was “the Republicans (including Ron Paul) are such homophobic bigots”. I’m not going to insult the intelligence of the audience by explaining the difference. If you don’t mean what you say and say what you mean, then spare me your lectures about “ethical debates”.

“Who really has more experience in campaigning in the gay community?” Strawman. I’ve never made any claims about “campaigning in the gay community”. What I claimed was e.g. that gay rights are human rights, and that you misread the plain text of 10 U.S.C. § 654 (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell). That has nothing to do with “campaigning in the gay community”.

I’ll tell you what I DO have experience doing: defending the idea of gay rights as a top priority for the LP. I’ve been the one educating PlatCom that our gay rights positions “resonate with a minimum of 35% of voters (gay marriage) up through 53% (civil unions) to a whopping 78% (open gay service in the military).” I’m the one on PlatCom who got all the principles from the current gay rights plank put into the majority report. I’m the one who broke our rule about novel language to add gay-rights specificity about “current marriage, adoption, immigration, or military service laws”. I’m the one who left the room to go find Rob and Ruth and ask them to review that plank and then moved adoption of their tweaks. Nobody has worked harder to improve the gay rights language in the majority report. Nobody.

I don’t doubt that I’ve “alienated” you and Rob due to my documenting your lies about what my Platform proposals plainly say. (Anyone masochistic enough to still be reading this can ask me for details.) I don’t doubt that I’ve “alienated” Allan Wallace for embarrassing him over his unfair banning of me from the Outright forum for daring to defend myself from your character assassination. If I’ve “alienated” Ruth, she hasn’t said a word to me about it—though I don’t doubt that her opinion of me has suffered from listening to you and Rob lie about me.

For example, you just added another lie to the list: “Virtually every comment you’ve made about Outright has been a negative attack”. Absolutely false; you once again seem to think that you and Rob personify the Outright Libertarians, and that to defend myself from your character assassination is to somehow “attack” Outright as an organization.

What I have in fact posted about Outright has been uniformly glowing. For example:

“The Outrights is one of the best LP organizations, and the ranks of the best LPCA activists are overflowing with Outright members. Brian Miller’s serial mendacity is only a tiny smudge on the reputation of this shining organization. The only real question here is why the Outrights are apparently unwilling or unable to convince him to cease and desist. The answer apparently lies in the above spinal reflex to label as “social conservatives” anyone who dares speak truth to Outright power.” 2007-11-02

“If I thought group quotas were how the Outrights measure the commitment of fellow Libertarians to individual liberty, then I’d simply be embarrassed for the Outrights, and hope they grow to find a deeper understanding of libertarianism. However, my extensive interactions with gay Libertarians in California in the years before you showed up here a few months ago leaves me convinced that you are an outlier.” 2007-10-03

“Sorry, but calmly and systematically rebutting the disinformation you choose to disseminate about me—like your false claim that the entire LPCA ExCom had ignored a complaint that I as an ExCom member had never even heard of—does not constitute an “attack” on all Outrights. My vast respect for the Outrights comes from my years of association with California Outrights like Rich Newell and Beau Cain and Mark Johnson and Starchild. Each of them over the years has set a standard for integrity and dedication and intelligence and fairness that your first few rabid months on the LPCA scene don’t even begin to put a dent in. You can pretend all you want that you personify the Outrights, but I’ve worked for years with Outrights in California, Outrights are friends of mine, and from what I can tell, you’re no Outright.” 2007-10-03

I DEFY you to quote me EVER saying anything bad about Outright as an organization. You can’t, and so you won’t even try. Instead, you’ll just keep lying, and say that I “attack” Outright. Stop lying, Brian. Just stop it.

]]>
by: A_S http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-595679 Wed, 07 May 2008 07:54:31 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/06/a-public-service-reminder-the-libertarian-party-is-not-the-gop/#comment-595679 The individuals complaining the loudest about what they perceive as Ruwart's lack of clarity seem to be largely the same individuals who prefer the LP Platform Lite, over the previous one that had been worked out over many years. Those who are confused libertarian "pragmatists" should study and reconsider the unabridged platform. Two former platform planks went much farther towards answers than any of the current arguments. Isn't it ironic that a faction that championed gutting the Party Platform in 2006, and leaving its hide on the convention floor, are also the ones most likely dazed and confused? Here's 2 planks from the LP Party Platform as Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia. It was acquired from the <a href="http://web.archive.org/" rel="nofollow">Internet Archives</a> (IA). For data assurance two separate date records were checked for differences and returned nil: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060622022832/http://www.lp.org/issues/printer_platform_all.shtml#famichil" rel="nofollow">June 22, 2006</a>, and <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20051122201607/http://www.lp.org/issues/printer_platform_all.shtml#famichil" rel="nofollow">November 22, 2005</a>. The Platform Adopted in Convention, July 2, 2006, Portland Oregon, first appears in an accessible IA record dated <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20061104115033/http://www.lp.org/issues/printer_platform_all.shtml" rel="nofollow">November 04, 2006</a>, although the change seems to have been flagged in the database on October 22, 2006, but that record has not been accessible. This is not unusual for the IA, and the time frame seems logical, because the organization attempts to keep their accessible archival records less than 6 months behind the present. -- --- ---- ----- ------ <strong>I. Individual Rights and Civil Order</strong> <strong>21. Families and Children</strong> <strong>The Issue:</strong> Government involvement in traditional parenting responsibilities has weakened families and replaced family-taught morals with government-taught morals. <strong>The Principle:</strong> Families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government -- unless they are abusing the children. Because parents have these rights, a child may not be able to fully exercise his or her rights in the context of family life. However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly. Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship. <strong>Solutions:</strong> We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger. <strong>Transitional Action:</strong> We would repeal all laws that impede these processes, notably those restricting private adoption services. In particular, we call for the repeal of all laws restricting transracial adoption. We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws. We also oppose the use of curfews based on age. We call for an end to the practice in many states of jailing children not accused of any crime. We call for repeal of all "children's codes" or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people. <strong>22. Sexual Rights</strong> <strong>The Issue:</strong> Government has presumed to decide acceptability over sexual practices in personal relationships, imposing a particular code of moral and social values and displacing personal choice in such matters. <strong>The Principle:</strong> Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity. <strong>Solutions:</strong> We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. <strong>Transitional Action:</strong> We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles. The individuals complaining the loudest about what they perceive as Ruwart’s lack of clarity seem to be largely the same individuals who prefer the LP Platform Lite, over the previous one that had been worked out over many years. Those who are confused libertarian “pragmatists” should study and reconsider the unabridged platform. Two former platform planks went much farther towards answers than any of the current arguments. Isn’t it ironic that a faction that championed gutting the Party Platform in 2006, and leaving its hide on the convention floor, are also the ones most likely dazed and confused?

Here’s 2 planks from the LP Party Platform as Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia. It was acquired from the Internet Archives (IA). For data assurance two separate date records were checked for differences and returned nil: June 22, 2006, and November 22, 2005.

The Platform Adopted in Convention, July 2, 2006, Portland Oregon, first appears in an accessible IA record dated November 04, 2006, although the change seems to have been flagged in the database on October 22, 2006, but that record has not been accessible. This is not unusual for the IA, and the time frame seems logical, because the organization attempts to keep their accessible archival records less than 6 months behind the present.
——-————-———
I. Individual Rights and Civil Order

21. Families and Children

The Issue: Government involvement in traditional parenting responsibilities has weakened families and replaced family-taught morals with government-taught morals.

The Principle: Families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government—unless they are abusing the children. Because parents have these rights, a child may not be able to fully exercise his or her rights in the context of family life. However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly.

Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship.

Solutions: We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger.

Transitional Action: We would repeal all laws that impede these processes, notably those restricting private adoption services. In particular, we call for the repeal of all laws restricting transracial adoption. We oppose laws infringing on children’s rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws. We also oppose the use of curfews based on age.

We call for an end to the practice in many states of jailing children not accused of any crime. We call for repeal of all “children’s codes” or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people.

22. Sexual Rights

The Issue: Government has presumed to decide acceptability over sexual practices in personal relationships, imposing a particular code of moral and social values and displacing personal choice in such matters.

The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.

Solutions: We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.

Transitional Action: We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.

]]>