Anarchism, Age of Consent Laws and the Dallas Accord

by Wayne Allyn Root

Recently a controversy has arisen over statements Mary Ruwart made in her book Short Answers to the Tough Questions regarding the rights children possess. The most salient quote on this subject is found on page 43 in her book:

Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life.

And when given an opportunity to clarify her beliefs, Ms. Ruwart recently made it clear that she continues to be opposed to all age-of-consent laws, even in the case of pre-pubescent children. In a May 1, 2008 prepared statement posted on her website she states:

Dr. Ruwart did not elaborate on how predators would be prosecuted without legislation specifying age of consent. In other discussion, she explained to delegates that courts were likely to consider that pre-pubescent children had been coerced, since desire would be absent. The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred.

One presumes that Ms. Ruwart is referring to a system of private courts in her quote, since she opposes having courts run by the state.

Ms. Ruwart readily admits to being an anarchist, and her beliefs lead her to take a position that is at odds with the vast majority of Americans, as well as with most members of the Libertarian Party.

Before I demonstrate with logic the fallacy of this position, bear with me for a moment while I speak from the heart.

I readily admit my beliefs are colored by my being the father of four young children, whom I love more than life itself. The nature of who I am and the underlying foundation of what I believe drives me to protect and nurture my children. As a parent, when I read Ms. Ruwart’s statements on child porn and the removal of all laws to protect the most innocent and helpless among us, I had a visceral reaction. I became physically ill. And I can guarantee you that my feelings on this topic are not unusual. I am certain that just about every other decent, caring parent in America would have the same gut-level reaction upon hearing this controversy.

From a purely emotional standpoint, which is the level at which most Americans make their voting decisions, having our party of freedom perceived as providing moral sanctuary to those who either produce child pornography or engage in adult-child sexual relationships is wrong and abhorrent. It is also the very definition of political suicide.

Of course, I realize that emotions alone are not the basis for public policy and Libertarian Party positions should not be based merely on popular sentiment. The purpose of this paper is to lay out the logical case for why age-of-consent laws are perfectly compatible with a libertarian society.

At the very core of libertarianism is the belief that individuals have the right to enter into voluntary agreements with others. It is not the role of government to interfere with voluntary agreements. It is the role of limited government in a free society to enforce those agreements.

And in the absence of a voluntary agreement, it is the role of government to unwind such an agreement (if possible), require that restitution be provided to the wronged party (when appropriate) and, in some cases, punish the wrong doer.

So, what makes an agreement voluntary?

For one, it requires a meeting of the minds. One person makes an offer; the other person accepts the offer. Each party needs to comprehend what is being offered by the other. In cases where one or both parties do not understand the consideration being offered, there has been either a mistake or possibly fraud.

If I offer to sell you a high-end name-brand watch for $1,000 and you accept such an offer, we have both improved our lives from this transaction because of our different subjective values. If I unknowingly sold you a counterfeit watch, you could rescind the agreement. If I knowingly sold you a counterfeit watch, I have engaged in fraud and should be required to void the agreement, return your money, pay any civil damages awarded and possibly be punished as well.

For there to be a meeting of the minds, both parties need to have sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction.

If your elderly parent suffers from dementia brought about by Alzheimer’s disease and he sells his $500,000 home for $1, the buyer’s participation in such a transaction is tantamount to defrauding the seller – and in a libertarian society it is a proper role of government to make and enforce laws against fraud. To protect those who are mentally incompetent, a court may even go so far as to appoint a guardian or conservator to care for the person’s estate.

While not every person as they age becomes incompetent, all individuals start out their lives in such a state. We begin life without the ability to reason and start out dependent on others for our safety and welfare. As we mature, our mental capacity improves and we slowly gain the ability to make competent decisions. No method is available today in the realm of science that enables us to objectively judge that an individual has become competent enough to consent to life-changing decisions. Until that day comes, we have little choice but to create a legal framework as a substitute.

Minors are allowed to enter into agreements with adults, but with some exceptions these agreements are voidable at the option of the minor. Exercising this power of avoidance is commonly referred to as “disaffirming” the contract.

The ability to disaffirm a contract provides enormous protection to minors who may otherwise be bound to uphold agreements detrimental to their well-being. The law protects minors from their immaturity, their inexperience and their tendency to engage in impulsive actions. Rational individuals understand that young minors do not understand the nature and consequences of contracts they enter into and that they are especially vulnerable to being the victims of unscrupulous adults. To allow otherwise is to give adults a license to defraud children.

So, how does this all relate to age-of-consent laws?

There are entire categories of activity where the ability to disaffirm an agreement is not a sufficient remedy to protect the welfare of children against adults who would act as predators toward them.

This is where age-of-consent laws become relevant – with laws prohibiting sex between adults and young children serving as a prime example.

Young children will do most anything to please adults they trust because it is a hard-wired survival mechanism. A young child does not understand the life-long consequences of sex – pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and the emotional damage this can bring about.

The enforcement of laws prohibiting adults from engaging in sex with children, facilitating underage drinking and drug use, and producing child pornography all act as disincentives against those considering the commission of such crimes. It is this deterrent that protects children against risks to their health, welfare and reputations – risks children cannot fully comprehend, especially when unscrupulous adult authority figures are manipulating the situation.

Now, reasonable people can argue as to where the line should be drawn.

For some activities, setting the age of legal consent to, say, seventeen rather than eighteen might be very appropriate. There are laws on the books where parents can give permission for an older child to engage in an activity (e.g. getting married), because it is assumed that for children above a certain age, parents are in the best position to judge the maturity of their children and have a keen interest in promoting their children’s best interests. And there are some statutes in place allowing for judicial emancipation of minors, when an exceptional minor can clearly demonstrate his or her ability to make decisions with the same understanding as an adult.

And fully informed juries should always have the option of deciding whether a law should be applied in a case where its enforcement would cause some grave injustice.

But for one to advocate for the complete elimination of age-of-consent laws goes beyond rational thought.

The overwhelming majority of Americans, and the overwhelming majority of Libertarian Party members, understand the need for these laws. Consider the following situations where “consent” was given.

• Imagine a priest or minister molesting a six year old boy who consents to this religious father-figure’s authority after being told “God approves.”
• Imagine a twelve year old girl who consents to sex for the promise of money and a ride in a pimp’s fancy car.
• Imagine a father or uncle molesting a daughter or niece, who consents after being told this is a natural and normal relationship.
• Imagine an obviously drunk sixteen year old girl who consents to sex with six adult men who know she is inebriated.

In each of these cases, I sincerely believe, and my sense is that most libertarians would agree, that these are crimes deserving of state prosecution against the adult perpetrators.

I’m sure that Ms. Ruwart will state she would never endorse such heinous acts – and I’m certain that is actually the case. And I’m sure that she and I would agree that in a free society, parents often serve as the first line of defense against those who would act as predators against children.

But if she is going to remain consistent with her anarchist beliefs, Ms. Ruwart would have little choice but to conclude that the government should have no role in countering those who would engage in fraud, including those adults who would prey upon and effectively defraud minors due to their lack of maturity and experience.

Moreover, in Ruwart’s utopia of private courts, only the victim (not the state) could press charges. Children would often be too ignorant, frightened or intimidated to press charges against the authority figures violating them.

People form governments to protect the majority against a small criminal minority. In a “perfect world” loving, caring parents would always be the perfect guardians. But we do not live in a utopia. Unfortunately, many criminals also have children of their own. And these innocent children are often abused by criminal parents. In the real world that we live in, some parents either fail to protect their children, or are the predators and child abusers themselves.

Anarchists may be fellow travelers with us libertarians in the sense that they want to cooperate with our efforts to dramatically reduce the size of government, but where we part company is in their desire to eliminate the state altogether.

When our party adopted its first platform in Denver in 1972 it was clear that we supported a limited government. But that changed in 1974 when anarchists lead by Murray Rothbard entered the picture at the Dallas convention. At the 1974 Libertarian convention in Dallas, libertarians and anarchists struck an informal agreement known as the Dallas Accord.

According to anarchist Carl Watner, in the Dallas Accord of 1974, the anarchists were asked to overlook their differences with the Libertarian Party and basically put off any debate they may have as to whether the ultimate goal should be less government or “no” government. In this agreement, anarchists agreed that as a political party the topic of anarchism would not even be on the table for discussion until we have achieved a limited government, libertarian country.

Whether your philosophical position is closer to Ms. Ruwart’s vision of anarchy or my position of limited government, ask yourself this practical question:

No matter how one might attempt to present the position, do you believe we will grow the Libertarian Party, or damage it, by promoting the removal of age-of-consent laws or any other laws that the vast majority of Americans believe protect innocent children from adults who would sexually exploit them?

Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his stands on important political issues, go to www.ROOTforAmerica.com.

233 Responses to “Anarchism, Age of Consent Laws and the Dallas Accord”

  1. David F. Nolan Says:

    OK, so who REALLY wrote this? WAR is releasing it under his own byline, but I’ll bet that it was written by either Scott Lieberman or Aaron Starr. There’s too much party history, and too many abstract arguments, for it to have originated with WAR. Not that this makes the points raised more (or less) valid … but I’m still curious who actually wrote it.

    Side Note: While WAR is not my first choice for the nomination, I am impressed with his continued strength after Bob Barr started “exploring.” I think WAR has a decent chance of beating Barr to become the standard-bearer for the party’s “conservative” wing. If he does, he still has to beat Ruwart/Kubby/whomever on the final ballot … but don’t count him out yet.

  2. Mike Theodore Says:

    I think with all of Root’s recent actions and attacks, he doesn’t stand a chance with the delegates that want to make the LP a new Republican Party. With tact and what not, Bob Barr leads the bullshit department. His is at least convincing.

  3. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    David: “OK, so who REALLY wrote this?”

    My immeadiate reaction too. Root’s a great speaker, I’ll give him that. But he’s no writer or philosopher.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    It’s always been fairly obvious that the effect of a Wayne Root post-nomination presidential campaign would be serious long-term damage to the Libertarian Party.

    Root’s latest actions and rhetoric—specifically his decision to make age of consent laws and child pornography centerpiece issues in his campaign—combine with earlier concerns (his endorsement of John McCain for the presidency, for example)—seriously raise the credibility level of the question of whether the intent of Root’s candidacy is to do serious long-term damage to the Libertarian Party.

  5. Chris Moore Says:

    Do you really care who wrote it, David?

    Knapp and Gordon wrote most of Badnarik’s stuff post-nomination (unfortunately, not his book.) I’m sure much of Barr’s stuff is written by someone else (maybe Gordon). It is common to have a ghostwriter.

    And thank God Root has one now, because his early stuff was terrible. His more recent stuff is orders of magnitude better with respect to the quality of the writing.

  6. Committee for Clarity Says:

    to be clear

    Root gets it. Practically and philosophically, the boy gets it.

    the committee
    ...what’s the Nolan gonna say?....dunno but he hates the Root….what’s bobarr say? What’s Dr. Phill say?...nothin its safer that way…everybody is following this guy…Root?....no bobarr…mums the word…spooky.

  7. Eric Dondero Says:

    Nolan:

    Wayne Root is PRO-CHOICE ON ABORTION. He wrote numerous editorials for various Conservative publications in 2003/04 endorsing the Pro-Choice position on Terry Schiavo. This was the beginning of his major split with Conservatives.

    He is also known as a staunch advocate of Gambling Rights.

    To call Wayne Root part of the “Conservative” wing is just ridiculous.

    Conservatives are Pro-Lifers like Ron Paul.

  8. Eric Dondero Says:

    Tom Knapp says that Wayne Root’s early backing of John McCain for President is proof that he’s not a “real libertarian.”

    Wonder if he feels the same of all the current libertarians who are backing McCain. People like Stephen Maloney of Pennsylvania, Ryan Christiano a young LP member from NJ and a current McCain for President staffer, Jason Bonham of Race42008.com, Adam Brickley of “Draft Sarah Palin for VP, James Fryar of Real World Libertarian blog, Patrick Jubert Conlon of Redneck Conservative blog, and Don Murphey fmr. MD House Delegate and current Chairman of Republicans for Drug Legalization.

    I’m sure all these fine libertarians would be surprised to learn from Mr. Knapp that they are “no longer libertarians” cause they are supporting McCain.

    Ahh yes, reduce the Libertarian Party and the libertarian coalition so far down that it will end up fitting in an old English style Red Phone Booth.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Eric,

    Nice try at linking Terry Schiavo to “pro-choice,” but no dice. The courts giving a guy special permission to murder his wife pursuant to an insurance fraud scheme is not “pro-choice,” it’s just pro-murder.

  10. Arizona Indie Says:

    All I can gather from Root is that he stands for attacking Dr. Ruwart. He doesn’t seem to stand for, or believe in, anything else. Take your money, your poker buddies and your smug personality out of the Libertarian party and don’t let the door hit you on the way out – on second thought, that might knock some sense into you.

  11. Eric Dondero Says:

    Sipos, THANK GOD ROOT IS NO PHILOSOPHER.

    We’ve tried that already with the LP in Presidential races, with disastrous results.

    What the LP needs is a Perotista-style blue collar sort who an appeal to Middle America.

    Maybe a Son of A Butcher, perhaps?

  12. disinter Says:

    This attack is a good reason to donate to Mary Ruwart:

    http://votemary2008.com/

  13. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hmm, so now you’re anti-Euthanasia Knapp?

    And whose the Conservative here? Whose the one skirting Authoritarianism by trying to run people’s lives and telling them what to do with their own bodies?

    For the record: If I’m ever in a Veg state by some car crash or getting hit by a bus, there’s only one individual in the entire world I want making the decision to pull the plug – no Doctors, no Courts, no Parents nor Relatives.

    ONLY MY WIFE HAS THAT RIGHT!

  14. disinter Says:

    “It is undeniably true that any decent human being despises child pornography and all those who produce and distribute it. After all, it is the job of grownups (in a Darwinian sense, it is their only job) to nurture children and protect them from harm, rather than exploit them. As the father of a daughter for the past 18 years, it’s been my job.

    It is a very different thing to hand that job off to a collection of statist bullies who have been assembled without Constitutional authorization—their very existence as an organization is a blatant and egregious violation of the law, as well as the Zero Aggression Principle—and whose many crimes include the wholesale slaughter of eighty-odd individuals in their home and church near Waco, Texas, in 1993, including around two dozen innocent, helpless little kids. This is the way that the FBI “protects” children. They are unfit even to utter the word “children”, let alone to make any pretense of helping them.

    [...]

    If they really want to play it this way—accusing anyone they dislike of favoring child pornography—then let them stand accused in public of ethically signing off on Waco, Ruby Ridge, the FLDS raid, and every other evil, murderous thing the state has ever done to children.”

    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle466-20080504-02.html

  15. disinter Says:

    So, how does this all relate to age-of-consent laws?

    How does any of this relate to electing a Libertarian president?

  16. Chris Bennett Says:

    and if your wife was really smart she’d pull the plug on you quickly!

  17. Raoul Duke Says:

    Kind of like how you pulled the plug on your campaign, Chris?

  18. Aaron Starr Says:

    Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    May 7th, 2008 at 10:32 am
    David: “OK, so who REALLY wrote this?”

    My immeadiate reaction too. Root’s a great speaker, I’ll give him that. But he’s no writer or philosopher.

    ***********************************
    How can you say he’s no writer? I believe Wayne Root was a contributing editor for the Robb Report and Millionaire Magazine. He also has written several books, though it wouldn’t surprise me if he went through twenty editors in the process. He’s also a graduate from Columbia University with a degree in political science, so he’s not exactly a philosophical light-weight.

    The more important question is whether what’s written here makes sense. I believe it does.

    For those who cannot counter his points, I expect we will simply get to read their comments on how Wayne Root is a bad guy. If that happens, we know that he won the philosophical debate.

    Aaron Starr
    (or at least someone who does a darn good job portraying him)

  19. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Dondero, so you think that if someone is a card-carrying LP member, he remains a libertarian despite supporting a Republican like McCain?

    In that case, you’ll also agree that a card-carrying LP member is still a libertarian despite supporting a Democrat like Obama?

    After all, we want to “grow the party,” yes?

    If a Libertarian can support McCain, than Libertarians can also support Clinton or Obama or whoever else, yes?

  20. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Eric,

    I support the right to suicide. I support the right to “assisted” suicide if the person desiring the assistance can in fact ask for it and have it be known that that is in fact what he or she wants. I support the right of anyone to record a Do Not Resuscitate order, a Do Not Feed order, etc., or even to assign a power of attorney to someone else to make such decisions on their behalf if they are injured/impaired so as to be unable to do so themselves.

    None of the above paragraph applies to Terri Schiavo. She had taken no steps to in any way imply or state that she wished to be euthanized if she was injured or fell ill in a way that cognitively impaired her.

    Furthermore, Terri Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state. She was responsive, reactive and showed both cognitive ability and improvement of said ability over time. The post-murder autopsy verified that in fact her cerebral cortex was substantially intact, as opposed to the “it went away and was just a cavity filled with fluid” claims of her killers.

    Finally, her husband had gone to court and collected a huge insurance settlement after her injury ON THE EXPLICIT CLAIM THAT THAT MONEY WOULD BE USED TO PROVIDE FOR HER MEDICAL CARE FOR THE REMAINDER OF HER NATURAL LIFE. That’s what he asked the court to order the money for. Then he turned around and blew the bulk of that money trying to secure special legal permission—in violation of the 14th Amendment’s requirement of equal protection of the law—to kill her instead. That is fraud, plain and simple. And it’s murder.

  21. Steve Perkins Says:

    I don’t think it’s realistic to make abortion (or Terry Schiavo) the litmus test for “conservative”. Most conservatives are anti-abortion, no doubt… but this isn’t the end-all-be-all dividing line between conservatives and libertarians (or is pro-life Ron Paul not a libertarian then?).

    I think Root is in the driver’s seat for the pragmatic vote in Denver should Barr get cold feet. In the event that Barr backs down, I’m not sure what the playing field would look like. On one hand, Root doesn’t enjoy the same arguments for media exposure that support Barr (he’s a sports handicapper who pops up on 24-hour news networks now and then). On the other hand, he isn’t hated by the hardliners as much because he’s unlikely to make an impact on the Presidential race… and therefore fits into the model of what they think the LP should be doing (i.e. safely sitting ignored on the sidelines and arguing among ourselves). Denver should definitely be interesting.

  22. Angela Keaton Says:

    Aaron,

    I have considered you a dear friend during my time in Los Angeles. Working for you as ED was a most productive time in my activism. I learned much from you.

    Your behavior of late including your continued association with luftmenschen like M Carling, your manipulations last July with regard to the Platform Committee, the push poll you submitted under Alicia Mattson’s name using staff resources, and your vulgar display on this site in promoting Root’s foreign policy statement (one does not toot one’s horn too loudly) is beneath you.

    Further, given that Root did ask Ruwart to step down, you were in a complete conflict of interest as to any role in advising either Shane or Stewart as to the press release or the potential resolution.

    Aaron, ask yourself this, if you had to explain this to your parents, how would you rationalize your behavior.

    The questions I ask myself: Is libertarianism possible in a world without a proper treatment of ethics? Perhaps I would fare better in an objectivist or paleo-libertarian environment where there is some grounding in what is right, good and just.

    Aaron, if you are the leadership of the mainstream of the Libertarian Party, then would it be fair to say the mainstream of the party has no moral core?

    In great sadness,

    Angela

  23. Committee for Clarity Says:

    to be clear

    The committee did not see the Nolan’s or the Knapp’s response prior to posting our own. Both have lost cred with the committee. Instead of bumming about the Root having a mind trust, what president doesn’t, why not muse about the lack of cogent thought from other candidates?

    It is tough to counter silence or to argue with the wind.

    It takes a leader (good or bad) to stake out a position in the face of ridicul and such in order to preserve the party that dummies rely on for self validation. The Nolan does this and the Knapster comes close. The rest are mere follows of the cult leader’s bent for self distruction.

    the committee is clear.
    ....so who are we saying is …you decide….can’t, we’re not allowed….Nolan what should we think?. ... He’s told you already, ...we are for the porn…who writes the Nolan’s stuff…you are so dumb.

  24. Steve Perkins Says:

    The questions I ask myself: Is libertarianism possible in a world without a proper treatment of ethics? Perhaps I would fare better in an objectivist or paleo-libertarian environment where there is some grounding in what is right, good and just.

    Yeah, sure… then, instead of sitting around all day arguing over whether someone should be excommunicated for supporting Barr or supporting Ruwart, you can sit around all day arguing over whether someone should be excommunicated because they stopped sleeping with Ayn Rand.

  25. Eric Dondero Says:

    Sipos, WHERE IN THE HELL DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT THE ENTIRE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT CONSISTS OF ONLY LIBERTARIAN PARTY MEMBERS?

    I’ve got news for you bub, the libertarian movement is incredibly larger than just the Libertarian Party. The LP occupies only the upper-right hand corner of the Libertarian Quadrant of the Nolan Chart.

    The libertarian movement consists of: Club for Growth, Republican Liberty Caucus, Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Objectivists Ayn Randians, Americans for Tax Reform, Sam Adams Alliance, Americans for Limited Government, Citizens Against Government Waste, Competitive Enterprise Inst. and numerous State Free Market think tanks like Macinac, James Madison Inst. and the John Locke Foundation all across the United States.

    How goddamned self-righteous of you to believe that one can only be a “libertarian” by having a membership card in the Libertarian Party.

  26. Chris Bennett Says:

    All I know is that, if Root wins the LP nomination, the LP is finished. We may get the big vote totals BUT the newcomers in the party won’t be here long. They’ll jump back to the “Torture” party and leave the party a mess.

  27. disinter Says:

    Further, given that Root did ask Ruwart to step down, you were in a complete conflict of interest as to any role in advising either Shane or Stewart as to the press release or the potential resolution.

    Hmm… so this IS just a ploy to smear Ruwart.

    Looks like Root feels threatened.

  28. Chris Bennett Says:

    and the destruction of the LP has always been Eric Dondero’s wet dream.

  29. Eric Dondero Says:

    Aaron Starr is right. The poster who said Wayne Root is not a good writer, is obviously ignorant of the fact that he’s written two best selling books and has been writing for major publications on politics and sports for over a decade.

    In fact, that’s how I first stumbled onto Root and recruited him to run for President in late 2006. He had written an editorial against the Internet Gaming ban that was syndicated nationwide in a number of major newspapers.

  30. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wrong Bennett. Absolutely wrong.

    The LP plays a very useful puropose in American politics. Without the LP to knock the GOP over the head on occasion, we libertarian Republicans would be a carrot without a stick. In essense, we’d be emasculated.

    I want the LP to succeed, I don’t want the LP to fail by going down the path of Anarchism and Child Porn with Mary Ruwart.

  31. Eric Dondero Says:

    Funny hearing Chris Bennett a total Newbie to the Libertarian Party crying about the “destruction of the LP” if Root gets the nomination.

    Hey Bennett, why the fuck do you care? You joined the LP in what? 2002, 2003 or thereabouts?

    Some of us have been around for 25 years Plus Newbie.

  32. George Phillies Says:

    I hope we can be pleased that we are seeing discussions being carried on in a largely civil and polite manner. I say largely because we are at comment 19, not comment 190, at least when I downloaded, so I don’t know what we will see by the end.

    It is entirely appropriate for a candidate to use speech writers and researchers. That is what real campaigns do.

    With respect to our Constitutional arguers:

    #1 Congress exerts exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. Ergo, any question that is a state or local issue is also a Federal issue.
    #2 A vast number of voters choose their candidate based on trust not on stands on issues. How do you test for trust? You look at a position that you do understand, and see what the candidate says. He may disagree, but you ask if what he says makes comfortable sense. It does not matter if the issue has anything to do with politics.

  33. disinter Says:

    The evidence is clear that Aaron Starr, Shane Corey, Stewart Flood and Bill Redpath were conspiring to destroy Ruwart, and to purge the LP of purists. But now there is evidence that Root is involved as well…. interesting.

    Time for a Purge?
    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle466-20080504-02.html

  34. End the Empire Says:

    I’m afraid some still don’t understand. Root has ran a better than average campaign and has enough “real” support to be on a third or fourth ballot in Denver. As Mr. Nolan points out here and elsewhere, Barr is still “exploring” and very well has waited too long to enter. Root (and staff) sees his main competition as Ruwart. Which is possible true until Barr gets in, if he ever does. Hence the long knives remain aimed at Dr. Ruwart. One thing that Root & Co. may not understand is that the majority of LP members “DO” understand Dr.Ruwart’s position and doesn’t hold it against her.

    I read a blog yesterday that implied that ten (10 %) percent of covention tokens are required to be included in the LP POTUS forum/debate which may be on C-SPAN. Now how many and which ones of the 14 to 15 candidates do you think will have a minimum of 70 to 100 delegates give them their tokens to see them debate ? Reality (not illusions) will be met by many very shortly in Denver.

  35. Chris Bennett Says:

    then rescind your statement on Terry Parker’s Libertarian list about your sole purpose is to destroy the LP, Eric. Or was that statement written while you were in a drunken state and you can’t recall doing such a thing. REPENT!!

  36. Steve Perkins Says:

    I hope we can be pleased that we are seeing discussions being carried on in a largely civil and polite manner. I say largely because we are at comment 19, not comment 190, at least when I downloaded, so I don’t know what we will see by the end.

    Heh? There are 33 comments on this thread at the time I type this…

  37. George Phillies Says:

    George wrote:

    “I hope we can be pleased that we are seeing discussions being carried on in a largely civil and polite manner. I say largely because we are at comment 19, not comment 190, at least when I downloaded, so I don’t know what we will see by the end.”

    “will see by the end” make that “will see uploaded while I am typing”.

  38. disinter Says:

    One thing that Root & Co. may not understand is that the majority of LP members “DO” understand Dr.Ruwart’s position and doesn’t hold it against her.

    They are a little slow.

  39. George Phillies Says:

    Steve:

    We are in the same boat. We each see a comment number and start typing. Meanwhile, the post a second crew are hard at work. By the time you were done, there were it appears 36 comments, since you according to my software are at 37, and this comment may be, oh, comment 42.

    George

  40. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Eric,

    Chris Bennett has been a member of the LP for 14 years longer than Wayne Allyn Root has been—he joined the party in 1992. And part of the upside, he has not publicly proclaimed his intention to destroy the party, as you did in 2002.

  41. Eric Dondero Says:

    Funny Bennett has “been a member of the LP since 1992” yet he just “recently graduated from college.”

    Either he was an LP member at age 6, or he’s one of these Lifetime College Kids sponging off his parents, or worse, the taxpayer.

  42. Chris Bennett Says:

    Eric, like Knapp just said I joined the LP in 1992 after leaving the Democrats. I have never left in that time and I have hung with the LP for the last 16 years and never made any statements to destroy the LP, unlike you. The third presidential campaign I ever volunteered for was the Marrou campaign in Colorado. Through these tough times, my party loyalties have outmatched yours as of late.

  43. Committee for Clarity Says:

    to be clear
    Angela Keaton

    You point is well taken concerning Aaron Starr’s total lack of clarity. He is a confused young man in that he dares to be persuasive, political, and mess with the purist side of things.

    Your point that the LP is rife with the unethical suggest to the committee that if we can’t conduct a solid cohesive cult (we mean party) then perhaps the concept of libertarianism just isn’t ready for prime time after all. So, why care who is or is not a true lib?

    it’s a political party and by default its going to be disfunctional in its thinking and filled with disfunctional people. The collective mind meld is weakening and exciting the neurons again. Snapse goes the brain cells.

    the committee
    ....is she a borg?...maybe…oh god we’ll be assimilted…is she hot like 7 of 9?....how did you get on the committee again? ....Keaton set it up…. oh really.

  44. Steve Perkins Says:

    Sorry George, I misread your original post.

  45. Eric Dondero Says:

    College Graduate Bennett, here’s my response to the “destroy the LP statement.” Yes, I made it. It wasn’t on the Libertarian Yahoo Group list, but rather made in jest in an internal RLC Discuss List in 1998. It was a sarcastic statement. It was picked up by some LP infiltrator to the List and spread all over the net. Cause I was Ron Paul’s Senior Congressional Aide at the time it carried a lot of weight.

    Bare in mind this was around the time that the LP was running candidates against Ron Paul on the ballot in each election cycle. It was also around the time that Harry Browne’s Anarchist brigades were scamming Party donors left and right out of tons of cash for Browne’s various escapades.

    It was also at a time when LP leaders were openly hostile to the Republican Liberty Caucus.

    Things have changed greatly in a decade. To the point where today we now see staunch LP diehard Stephen Gordon advocating on this very TPW site for a REPUBLICAN candidate for Congress – Al Lawson.

    Those were different times back in 1998 when I made that statement.

  46. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Bennett, I don’t claim at all to have “loyalties” to the Libertarian Party. I’m a Republican. I want the best for the LP, but only so that it will ultimately benefit my Party.

    You gotta a problem with that?

    Apparently other LP diehards don’t.

    Today, on this very site, TPW, Stephen Gordon, the Site Publisher is pumping up a REPUBLICAN candidate for Congress in North Carolina.

  47. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Eric,

    You write:

    “Either he was an LP member at age 6, or he’s one of these Lifetime College Kids sponging off his parents, or worse, the taxpayer.”

    You’re an idiot.

    Chris Bennett—who, based on his VP candidacy is at least 35 (I believe he actually turned 40 last year) is a family man who went BACK to school to improve himself and make a better life—and who did so while supporting a family and working full-time.

    Funny how whenever you know you’re wrong on an issue, your first resort is to start calling people newbies and implying that they’re inferior to you because they didn’t go to school 20 years ago on the GI Welfare Queen Bill.

  48. Chris Bennett Says:

    I’m 35 and I wasn’t interested in going to college after I graduated from HS in 1990. I have been going to school for the last 5 years balancing activism, I’m on my state party’s organizational committee, job and family plus running a petitioning drive right now and lobbying for better ballot access in Illinois. Plus I took out loans to pay for college. I’m no newbie that’s for sure.

  49. The Democratic Republican Says:

    Angela Keaton: I ABSOLUTELY share your concern about moral values in relation to liberty. I hope your website has your email info, as I would like to correspond with you more about this.

    As for many of the rest of you: can we PLEASE stop the dick measuring contests? For all of the talk about principles around here, it seems a lot of you want to come down to “I have more authority than you because I’ve been in the party longer” or “I have done more for the LP.” Newsflash: that sense of entitlement through longetivity isn’t any different than the sense of entitlement in the legislatures and institutions you supposedly oppose.

  50. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Moreover, in Ruwart’s utopia of private courts, only the victim (not the state) could press charges.

    Wrong. Others could press charges on behalf of the victim in a private justice system.

    People form governments to protect the majority against a small criminal minority.

    This is completely ahistorical. Governments are formed by ‘a small criminal minority’ to PLUNDER, not to PROTECT, the majority. The fact that government schools preach the tripe repeated above doesn’t make it so.

    Root’s funny. NEWSFLASH, he says: Some Libertarians despise Government! The Horror! They don’t want to make it better, they want to make it smaller and weaker.

    Yes, we do! And the only way to make government smaller is to consistently call for it to become smaller in all aspects of our lives. The more important something is to us, the less we should want government involved in it.

    Government screws up everything it touches. That is its nature. The idea that “really, really, important things” (like child welfare? foreign relations? power production and distribution? food?) are too important to be left to individuals working together voluntarily is anti-libertarian.

    When Root argues that there are some things too important to be left to individuals, he shows that his understanding of Libertarianism is backasswards. I’m an incrementalist – I’d be happy to have government naming holidays and official flowers and poets laureates for a LONG time. But I want government out of my, and others’, private lives ASAP.

  51. Committee for Clarity Says:

    to be clear

    Dr. Phill has been very helpful clearing up some points being missed by many on TPW regarding Fed vs State authorities etc.

    The committee still wonders what the good Dr. pontificates regarding the Root post and the Ruwart position.

    the committee waits.
    ...?...?...?

  52. Brian Holtz's Liver Says:

    helpmeineedwater

  53. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Chris Bennet, you couldn’t have squeezed in 4 years in there, to serve your country in the United States Military?

    Your friend Tom Knapp managed to find some time to serve his country honorably.

    You apparently, skipped out.

  54. Committee for Clarity Says:

    to be clear
    Hogarth has something to hide.

    the committee
    She’s and anarchist right?...yes and a sad puppy too…do anarchist have morales …yes but only if they get caught…that’s why they hate government?...you’re catching on.

  55. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Chris Bennett, were those “taxpayer funded” college loans?

    I put myself through college buddy, Florida State Univ. by working 45 hours a week as a Skycap at the Tallahassee Airport and with a little help from the Veterans Educational Assistance Program.

    You didn’t serve. You are not deserving of taxpayer subsidies for your education, which I strongly suspect you received.

  56. Eric Dondero Says:

    Yeah Tom, fine, Bennett is a “family man” as you say. I applaud him for that.

    But I’m wondering why he skipped out on Military Service, when BOTH YOU AND I DID OUR TIME?

    Also wondering if those college loans of his, were in any way subsidized by the taxpayers?

    Inquiring minds want to know???

  57. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “Things have changed greatly in a decade. To the point where today we now see staunch LP diehard Stephen Gordon advocating on this very TPW site for a REPUBLICAN candidate for Congress – Al Lawson.”

    Eric,

    As I explained on the previous thread, there is a distinct difference between advocating for a candidate and news coverage. The reasons I decided to cover Lawson on this site are: He’s is supported by many Libertarians and his campaign covers issues supported by many LPers and CPers.

    When I was last in NC, the people I discussed this race with are all Libertarians: Mike Munger, Bob Barr and Susan Hogarth.

    I personally like the guy and work for an organization which supports his campaign. This same organization supports Tom Knapp’s congressional race, as well.

    While Lawson is a Republican, there are a lot of third party ties to this campaign. Also, I’d have covered this if Lawson was running as a Democrat, too. It’s not a pro-Republican issue—more of a pro-liberty issue.

    To be sure, most of Lawson’s platform runs contrary to the GOP mainstream: He’s in favor of actually reducing the size of government and he opposes our actions in Iraq.

  58. Chris Bennett Says:

    I don’t think that there is a requirement to do serve your country right after college. It’s called choice Eric and I chose NOT to and shouldn’t be held against me. I wasn’t going to give up a good job I had after HS to get shot during Desert Storm. There are plenty of people out there willing to sacrifice themselves for our country and I honor their integrity BUT military life would have not been for me.

  59. Chris Bennett Says:

    Should say right after High School….....

  60. Eric Dondero Says:

    What a fucking selfish bastard you are Bennett.

    A BIG MIGHTY FUCK YOU COMING YOUR WAY.

    You asshole. You’re “too good” to serve your country in the Military ‘eh? Too many “personal committments.”

    It’s people like you who absolutely disgust me. You don’t serve in the Military as is your responsibility as an American male, and then you have the audacity to diss those of us who have.

    You have no right to call yourself an American.

    Fuck you. Get the fuck out of my country! fuck you, fuck you fuck yuyloh

  61. Eric Dondero Says:

    Oh, golly gee, I couldn’t “give up a good job” to serve in Desert Storm. You fucking punk.

    You suck Bennett. You are absolute scum of the earth.

  62. Scott Lieberman Says:

    Hey Chris Bennett:

    I won’t hold it against you that you did not serve in the armed forces if you do not hold it against me that I did not serve in the armed forces.

    Eric Dondero has his heart in the right place, but I don’t think he should be attacking libertarians for not serving in the military.

    And while I am at the keyboard, I might as well add this…

    As a member of the Reform Caucus, I don’t have any problem at all with anarchists or Radicals. The difference between their position and the Reform position is that we, the Reformers, are willing to triage libertarian positions, and only push those that we think help the Libertarian Party get more members ,or will get our candidates elected.

    The Radicals want to publicize all Radical positions all the time – no matter how far removed they are from what the law is currently. The problem is – that is the definition of a protest organziation or a think tank. In this country, political parties are a very inefficient method of educating the public about politics. I see thousands of comments from Radicals about ideology, but I have never seen an effective, practical argument against this paragraph. The only arguments against this paragraph have been highly theoretical ones such as: when the minarchists take over the government, the government will be so small that they will spend all of the govenment’s remaining resources going after the anarchists (I kid you not – if you search for it, you should be able to find the URL for that argument).

    The Libertarian Party could be moving public policy in a libertarian direction in hundreds of towns and cities across the country within 4 years -if LP members would follow the Mission Statement (sorry Dr. Hogarth) and just duke it out with the statists in the trenches, instead of from the comfy confines of your computer keyboards.

    BTW - I was on the San Jose Rent Commission for 3 1/2 years, and yes, it was a PITA to try to get libertarian principles put into law. But I tried, and I think I contributed to the result that our Commission did not recommend even stricter rent control in the 11th largest city in the United States. At that time, the city permitted a 7% per year rent increase in the older apartments that were under rent control – I did not like 7%, but it was better than recommending that it decrease to say, 3%.

  63. Eric Dondero Says:

    Sure Stephen, now how about a little fair coverage, huh?

    Tom McClintock is running for US Congress in California this year. This is the same Tom McClintock who has worked closely with Aaron Starr and Richard Winger on various California LP initiatives and ballot access reform efforts. This is the same Tom McClintock who has a near 100% perfect libertarian voting record.

    Why no mention of McClintock’s race?

    You cover one Republican who has libertarian support, yet ignore another?

  64. Ken G. Says:

    Wayne Root- I’d love for you to come on this forum because I’d love to talk to you about your main business Winning Edge. It seems like in doing a google search a lot, hundreds and possibly thousands of ex clients of yours have a real problem with your business model and how you conduct business. Let us know when you’ll be available to answer questions for an hour?

  65. Denver Delegate Says:

    1. Wayne Root and his supporters ought to explain how the federal government has the constitutional authority, much less the competency, to police child pornography. This issue is a red herring for a U.S. presidential campaign.

    2. Wayne Root and his supporters claim that those who advocate for individual liberty provide “moral sanctuary” to aggressors, or whomever violates the State’s laws. Recreational drug users, same sex couples seeking to marry, gamblers, and tax evaders fall into the latter category. A campaign that hints at an “everything that is not mandated is forbidden” platform should be evaluated very carefully by Libertarian delegates to the national convention.

    3. The debate of less government versus no government should be reframed as monopoly government (the State) versus competing, voluntarily contracted-to, governments. Many anarchists and anarcho-capitalists would be comfortable with the latter. Bruno Frey’s work on Functionally Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions (FOCJs) and Stefan Molyneux’s work in Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) may be helpful here.

    4. Lew Rockwell and L. Neil Smith have already written persuasively and recently on this issue.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/children.html

    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle466-20080504-02.html

  66. Eric Dondero Says:

    Lieberman, it’s one thing not to serve in the Military as an American male. Quite another to make a statement like Bennett just did that he was “too busy with personal commitments and had a good job.”

    And to top that, consistently diss the US Military and bash those of us who support America defending itself against our enemies.

    Not only is Bennett a Leftist puke, he’s a Military-hating puke on top of that.

    The lowest scum of the earth.

  67. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Bennett, still waiting for an answer.

    Those college loans you have. Are they government subsidized loans?

  68. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Steve,

    You write:

    “I personally like the guy and work for an organization which supports his campaign. This same organization supports Tom Knapp’s congressional race, as well.”

    I’d be interested in knowing of this organization—I was unaware that any organization other than my campaign committee supports my congressional campaign.

  69. disinter Says:

    here’s my response to the “destroy the LP statement.” Yes, I made it.

    There you have it folks. Dumbdero publicly admitted, again, that he seeks to destroy the LP. As if you really needed clarification…

  70. disinter Says:

    Eric Dondero has his heart in the right place

    Dumdero is a paid shill with the specific purpose of thwarting the LP and anti-war, pro-freedom candidates like Ron Paul.

    “right place” is subjective.

  71. Justin Grover Says:

    “This issue is a red herring for a U.S. presidential campaign.”

    Mr. Delegate:

    How is any ideological issue a red herring in any campaign for nomination by the Party of Principle?

  72. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Scott (Lieberman),

    You write:

    As a member of the Reform Caucus, I don’t have any problem at all with anarchists or Radicals. The difference between their position and the Reform position is that we, the Reformers, are willing to triage libertarian positions, and only push those that we think help the Libertarian Party get more members ,or will get our candidates elected.

    The Radicals want to publicize all Radical positions all the time – no matter how far removed they are from what the law is currently.

    That’s an interesting assertion, insofar as it positions Wayne Allyn Root as the radical candidate and Mary Ruwart as the reform candidate. After all, it’s not Ruwart who’s running around screaming hysterically about anarchism, age of consent and child pornography as a campaign centerpiece, it’s Root.

  73. Stephen Gordon Says:

    Tom,

    Check out the candidate list here.

    Cheers,

    Steve

  74. David F. Nolan Says:

    Lotta irrelevant stuff here. Setting aside the personal snipes and innuendo, the only real question for Libertarians is: Who do you want to be the Face and Voice of the LP in this year’s Presidential Election? There are about 14 candidates still in the race, but the odds are 99:1 or higher that the nominee will be Barr, Gravel, Kubby, Root, Ruwart or Phillies. Every delegate needs to evaluate the contenders by asking the following questions:

    Who will say the things I want them to say (and not say things I don’t want them to say)?

    Whom do I trust? Are they of good character? Do they show good judgment?

    Who will be running their campaign? Are THEY of good character?

    How good are they at fund raising?

    Will they get serious attention from the news media?

    Who will they attract to our party?

    The answers to these questions—and perhaps others—should guide our decision.

  75. Balph Eubank Says:

    Wayne Root is to be reprimanded for issuing a thoughtful and respectful disagreement based upon real world considerations. Such is unworthy of the LP.

    Angela Keaton has fortunately brought the debate up to LP standards with a delightful mix of Vulcan ethics and personal attacks.

    I was greatly dismayed (Mmmmmmm, dismayed) when Mary Ruwart muscled aside my preferred candidate—Christine Smith—as the purist front-runner. Ruwart’s nice smile and despicably well-mannered demeanor were an affront to my sense of Libertarian principles. Fortunately, enough people have seen through the sugar coating and the nastiness can continue by proxy.

    That it came via a legal defense of pediphilia is doubly delightful. Quality angst!

    Meanwhile Aaron Starr continues to live up to the Kantian Ideal by willfully suffering the whiny insults (Mmmmmmm, whiny insults) of the principled members of his party. He sacrifices his time, his name and his money to grow an organization that does not want to grow. It is so reminescent of my favorite myth, that of Sisyphus.

    In order add some fuel to the fire, I’ll rile up Angela by pointing out her misuse of the term luftmenschen. That term rightfully belongs to those whom Aaron and M conspire to keep out of LP conventions by having conventions on cruise ships and the like.

    luftmensch:
    an impractical contemplative person having no definite business or income

    No luftmensch could afford the quality suits M is known to wear.

  76. disinter Says:

    Whom do I trust? Are they of good character? Do they show good judgment?

    The only one I would trust at this point is Ruwart.

  77. disinter Says:

    Who will be running their campaign? Are THEY of good character?

    Hopefully Alan Hacker won’t be involved.

  78. disinter Says:

    but the odds are 99:1 or higher that the nominee will be Barr, Gravel, Kubby, Root, Ruwart or Phillies.

    Gravel – not gonna win.
    Kubby – not gonna win, although he is at least a Libertarian.
    Ruwart – True Libertarian, lack of fundraising and media attention are a down-side.
    Root – Statist idiot. Although he would be great for media attention.
    Phillies – Statist (prefer government forced equality). Can’t raise any money except his own. Would not get media coverage.

    The retard caucus should probably pick Root.
    Libertarian should probably pick Ruwart.

  79. Committee for Clarity Says:

    to be clear

    Still no news from Dr. Phill.. he must have dozed off again.

    Oh well to be clear Dondoro is having a major melt down over military service; like that’s a badge earned in the boy scouts. To choose not to serve is both honorable and smart. To serve is both honorable and smart. The trick is who are you following and why are you joining up. We haven’t had an honorable war since WWII if you want to call that one honorable. The last one to qualifiy as honorable in the committees opinion was called the Revolution. Drum roll please.

    Mr Lieberman is not clear. You were doing fine till your BTW comments. Rent is a play.

    The committee suggest we get back to the Root bashing…much more fun.

    the committee prays for clarity
    ....dondoro is really something isn’t he…he’s the Nolan’s foil…no thats what he wears on his head silly… oh. Look Dr Phill’s moving again…at least he didn’t pass…speaking of passing where’s Gravel these days…Dead, his campaign manager did him in. ...why?...don’t know for sure, something about dancing in his undershorts on a video, poor cm couldn’t take it any longer….that sounds like Hogarths type of porn….shut up…you shut up…no you shut up. She has a cat woman suit…ok.

  80. NewFederalist Says:

    Eric Dondero- your tirade about military service could apply to Vice President Cheney as well. Oops!

  81. disinter Says:

    Forgot Barr…

    Barr – Statist flip-flopper. Could raise money and get media attention though.

    I guess it might be a toss-up for the retard caucus between Root and Barr.

    Why Root isn’t attacking Barr (his true competition) instead of Ruwart is strange. Perhaps the retard caucus knows they have no support?

  82. Chris Bennett Says:

    Dumbdero again takes things way out of context but that’s expected. Eric, give up you are not making yourself look any better.

  83. Angela Keaton Says:

    Oh, did M get a job finally? Good for him. He has really been struggling the past few years to find a career niche for himself.

  84. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    To whom it may concern,

    I do not regard past military service as a litmus test for whether or not one is a good libertarian, or for that matter a good American.

    The fact that I take some personal pride in my own military service (and admit some personal guilt over parts of it) should not in any way be taken to imply that I regard military service as a prerequisite or qualification for participating in public life.

    Best Regards,
    Thomas L. Knapp
    USMCR 1984-95

  85. Denver Delegate Says:

    Although my preference is anarcho-capitalism, I can and have voted for libertarian moderates and moderate libertarian statements.

    But when I read a claim, such as that made by Mr. Lieberman, which reads

    The Radicals want to publicize all Radical positions all the time; no matter how far removed they are from what the law is currently.

    that doesn’t resonate with my experience as a so-called “radical.” I pick my battles and which points to lead with, but remain authentic to what I think about an issue if asked.

    I wonder if Mr. Lieberman and others who think like him feel trapped by a self-imposed code obligating them to advocate on behalf of statements—such as platform planks—they disagree with (for the sake of the collective, perhaps?).

    I don’t feel so obligated. A moderate does not need to advocate anarchism/anarcho-capitalism any more than an anarchist needs to advocate moderation.

    I think under Chuck Moulton’s categorization, that would make me a moderate purist (versus a radical purist, a radical pragmatist, or a moderate pragmatist … “radicals” favor purges per Mr. Moulton’s categorization). I prefer and will vote for purist candidates and platform statements, but I won’t reject out of hand moderate candidates and platform statements.

    Post-convention, I may still even vote for Wayne Allyn Root if he is the LP’s nominee. But it’s becoming less likely given his campaign’s latest statement, and I’m not comfortable supporting his campaign financially at this point (and I’ve donated to Ron Paul).

    Given the existing electoral landscape, I also favor nominating a purist candidate at the national level for pedagogical purposes, and nominating more moderate Libertarian candidates where they stand a better chance of getting elected.

  86. Eric Dondero Says:

    I’m not making myself “look any better?” What kind of comment is that Bennett. Do I give a flying fuck how I look?

    I care about two things:

    Bringing about liberty in our time.

    Defending the United States of America from those who wish to destroy us.

    And I will do everything in my humanly existence for the next 40 years that I have on this planet to accomplish those two objectives. My image be damned!

  87. Susan Hogarth Says:

    David writes:

    The answers to these questions—and perhaps others—should guide our decision.

    I have another: Who will best inspire current Libertarians to work together to become more active within the Party and the greater movement both locally and nationally?

  88. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Chris Bennett, still waiting on a response.

    Those college loans that you’ve got, are they government subsidized loans?

  89. Jim Lesczynski Says:

    I was going to serve in Desert Storm, but there was something good on tv. Plus the recruiter said I was “too fit”.

  90. Chuck Moulton Says:

    Denver Delegate wrote:

    I think under Chuck Moulton’s categorization, that would make me a moderate purist (versus a radical purist, a radical pragmatist, or a moderate pragmatist … “radicals” favor purges per Mr. Moulton’s categorization). I prefer and will vote for purist candidates and platform statements, but I won’t reject out of hand moderate candidates and platform statements.

    No, I said purists want to purge, whereas radicals and moderates just have an ideology. I’m a radical pragmatist. You sound like radical pragmatist to me.

  91. George Phillies Says:

    “...Still no news from Dr. Phill.. he must have dozed off again….”

    Actually, I just had an hour radio interview

    The Schilling Show WINA Charlottesville VA

    I got the interview because I have a real campaign, with press releases hitting 17,000 targeted media outlets from coast to coast on a near daily basis.

    And at 3 EST I have another hour interview

    Straight Talk with Jerry Hughes
    www.accentradionetwork.com/st.htm

    and yesterday I had a great interview with Dan Rivers 570WKBN (northeast Ohio)

    In between, I have two more campaign mailings going out, phone calls to delegates by me, and other parts of doing real politics.

    And with respect the disinter’s claim on my fundraising, if you look at the (somewhat inaccurate) FEC summary you will find that I am third among candidates, after Gravel and Jingozian, in funds raised from other people.

  92. disinter Says:

    I care about two things:

    Bringing about liberty in our time.

    Defending the United States of America from those who wish to destroy us.

    And I will do everything in my humanly existence for the next 40 years that I have on this planet to accomplish those two objectives. My image be damned!

    Good. Then you will immediately call for the arrest of the Bush regime?

  93. Susan Hogarth Says:

    SL wrote:

    As a member of the Reform Caucus, I don’t have any problem at all with anarchists or Radicals. The difference between their position and the Reform position is that we, the Reformers, are willing to triage libertarian positions, and only push those that we think help the Libertarian Party get more members ,or will get our candidates elected.

    The Radicals want to publicize all Radical positions all the time – no matter how far removed they are from what the law is currently.

    Let me echo Knapp and DD in saying this is not my experience as a radical. By ‘my experience’, I mean of myself or other other radicals.

  94. Denver Delegate Says:

    Chuck Moulton:

    No, I said purists want to purge, whereas radicals and moderates just have an ideology. I’m a radical pragmatist. You sound like radical pragmatist to me.

    That has a better feel, Mr. Moulton. Thank you for clarifying!

    So the moderates that want to purge are “moderate purists”?

  95. Todd Andrew Barnett Says:

    Folks:

    Let me tell you something here….

    Dondero is a real hoot. He certainly knows how to push people’s emotional buttons, and he’s really good at it. He expects the average person to have the word “sucker” tattooed on his/her forehead, but then that’s been expected all along.

    He expects people like you and me to shut up and act like this: “Oh, you’re right, Eric, Yup, you’re always right. Never wrong! You’re the greatest, most perfect human being on the planet. Sure, sure. You know what’s best for everyone else…” Yada, yada, yada.

    And to top it off, he thinks that, in order to define one’s own libertarianism, he has to agree that a libertarian MUST have image, personality, a cartoony form of ethics (like advocating sex with hookers while cheating on your wife), and you mustn’t be a “girly man,” which is: you must be FOR the state and the military, ALWAYS for war (peace is for losers), never be an intellectual (that’s just a drag!), and hate ragheads at the same time. Oh, and you MUST support Zionism (support the Israeli government while you’re at it).

    This is the Eric Dondero we have, folks. He lies, is a backbiter and a backstabber, and he doesn’t seem to think that there’s anything wrong with it.

    And what’s worse—libertarian principles are irrelevant, but a military record, image, and a Republican-approved, government-approved personality as supported by the state (which is dominated and controlled by this “laissez-faire” administration).

    And Eric goes out of his way to smear people who disagree with him and praise people who agree with, worship, and even deify him. Oh, and let’s not forget—he has a “right” to be self-righteous, because he WAS in the military.

    This is also the same Dondero who first supported Root, then to support Giuliani (whose own campaign tried to smear Ron Paul, but that’s another post for another day) who likes to wear a dress (but hey, there’s no accounting for taste) and doesn’t know a damn thing about foreign policy (not to mention his record as the 9/11 mayor in New York has been debunked by the infamous NYC firefighters association). And when Giuliani’s own campaign imploded, he jumped ship to support Romney whose own campaign also sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

    And now he’s back to supporting the very same candidate whose support in the LP primary polls has been stagnating for months (even though he has been #1, but many Party loyalists have been disenchanted with Root for a long, long while). And when my candidate Mary Ruwart enters the fray, gee, Root has the audacity to tell her to drop out of the race because of a red herring non-issue that Mary wasn’t even campaigning on, but it was made an issue by Dondero, Bruce Cohen, Root, and their other supporters. Hell, they were looking to find ways to cream Mary with that shitty hit piece that was designed to make her look bad, just so that Root would be coronated as King of the Party.

    It was also the same tactic employed by James Kirchick, a Giuliani boy for the The New Republic to use against Ron Paul and now the Giuliani-esque cronies in the Party want to do the same to Mary, who’s also a known Paulista.

    Eric Donder IS NOT a libertarian. And, in advance Eric, I DARE say it, and I’m fucking proud of it.

    Bruce Cohen IS NOT a libertarian. And, in advance Bruce, I DARE say it, and I’m fucking proud of it.

    Wayne Allyn Root IS NOT a libertarian. And, in advance Wayne, I DARE say it, and I’m fucking proud of it.

    To anyone who supports these individuals, YOU ARE NOT a libertarian. And, in advance to that person, I DARE say it, and I’m fucking proud of it.

    You and your numbnut losers are nothing but scum. I despise you terribly. You give libertarianism a bad name, and you know it. Don’t try to evade the matter, because there’s no way you can weasel your way out of that fact. Don’t even try to deny it, because you will be called on it every single time you try. Not a single true libertarian will believe you otherwise.

    I will say this as well: because I don’t want to be associated with the likes of you because you are evil, maniacal, and putrid, I no longer use the label “libertarian” to describe my beliefs. I NOW call myself a “free marketeer,” even though I am a Libertarian officially.

    If Root wins the LP nomination, the LP will be the enemy of freedom. And the libertarian movement will see it as having been that. It’s already that, to be honest. But Root securing that nomination will be the death knell for the Party.

    Let the war on Dondero, Cohen, and their ilk begin.

    The bright side to this is this: we will prevail, regardless of what happens in Denver. We will survive, whether we win at the convention or not.

    That’s my statement on this matter. Take it in the spirit it’s given. Do with it what you will.

  96. Committee for Clarity Says:

    to be clear
    Denver Delgate; Pay attention. Dr. Phill has already answered your question reagarding Fed jurisdiction etc.
    hours ago.

    Root doesn’t attack Barr for the simple reason he thinks Bobarr is a figment of Dr. Phillies mind. In reality Root hasn’t attacked anyone personally, just a published position that the author says can stand alone. It doesn’t; and we all know it.

    Most reformers as you folks call them, are aghast to learn about this situation and understand why Root is distancing himself from anything remotely like Ruwarts stance. See, he is getting media and underestands the irreparable damage this will cause all of us.

    Dr Phill are you awake? You sir started all of this and you sir are the major benefitiary of the fallout. Where do you stand on age of consent and the abolishment of child porn? A leader takes a stand.

    We know where Ruwart and Root stand and we know why. Smith stands with Root but her reasons are not expressed.

    But if you really want to answer the Nolans questions you must demand the other candiates declare themselves.

    the committee. two weeks and counting.

  97. Susan Hogarth Says:

    TAB writes (of Dondero):

    He expects people like you and me to shut up…

    No, he doesn’t. He expects, and desperately hopes for, you and others like you to notice him. He wants you to vilify him because then he can pretend to be outraged, when in fact he’s secretly delighted to be noticed at all. Some people find his puerility amusing, others offensive. But you need to realize that acknowledging him will simply encourage him.

    IOW: Please stop feeding the troll. Unless you like trolls and think they’re cute. Eww.

    Eric’s only purpose for the LP is pointing out bad candidates. He’s running about 100% at picking bad candidates. if you’re a Libertarian candidate and Eric says something good about you, cringe.

  98. Yoyo Says:

    I would like to see a Ruwart-Smith ticket. I think both would best represent the party and should be on the same ticket together. Plus, it would be a historic first, the first all female Presidential ticket.

  99. Todd Andrew Barnett Says:

    Dondero:

    >I put myself through college buddy, Florida State Univ. by working 45 >hours a week as a Skycap at the Tallahassee Airport and with a little >help from the Veterans Educational Assistance Program.

    Why the fuck do you care whether Chris went to school on “government subsidized loans” or not? I HAVE, and I STILL AM.

    Oh, no, no, no, you don’t get away with that fucking bullshit, just because you happened to “put [yourself] through college” while attending Florida State University. “45 hours a week”? How the hell were you able to get in any study time, Dondero, if that were the case (which I don’t believe for a second)?

    Aaron Biterman, who’s a member of the RLC, paid for his college with government loans, I’m sure. Many libertarians have, Dondero. You just admitted that you received some financial aid while you were in college. You subsidized your education like MOST of us did, you ass clown

    Are you saying that, if someone pays for their college education and not serving in the military, they have no business paying for their college education using federal tax dollars? If so, then I would be inclined to agree, except that I see it both ways: no one should be GOING to college and subsidizing their education expenses, whether they serve in the military or not. In fact, I oppose GETTING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF EDUCATION, YOU MORON, CONSIDERING YOU SUPPORT GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION, EVEN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT KIDS AND ADULTS!

    But you want it both ways. You want the government and the military to pay for some U.S. soldier’s expenses for college, but you will deny THAT money to the civilian people who don’t desire to serve in the military?? Tell me, Eric, how is THAT fucking fair??? Where’s the fairness in that???

    You’re a complete jackass, you prick!!

    Jerk. Ass hat. Ass clown.

  100. Todd Andrew Barnett Says:

    Susan:

    I’m not the only one giving him any attention. So is Chris and so is Tom. I just stood up for Chris, and I will defend any libertarian who is attacked by Dondero.

    The only reason I brought up what I said was because I basically said the truth about Dondero. Of course he’s egging us on, but that’s because he knows how to push our buttons.

    Even if we do ignore him, he will never go away. That hasn’t worked, even when people do ignore him. When he attacks a fellow colleague and stirs up crap, are we supposed to look the other way?

    We’re not feeding the troll, Susan. The troll is feeding us with his crap and his b.s. It’s the other way around.

    Just my opinion.

  101. Eric Dondero Says:

    I ain’t gonna touch that with a ten foot pole Barnette. I’ll let it stand just as it is:

    Todd Barnetts says “why the fuck do you care… I went through college on a government subsidized student loan… still am…”

    Whoah! At least he gets an ‘A’ for honesty.

  102. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Todd, like I said, ain’t gonna touch it.

    You said your peace. You’re now on record. Let’s leave it at that.

    (Though, I’m sure it will come up again in the future, this little business of you being a welfare queenie through your government subsidized college education.)

  103. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wow. So, now Todd Andrew Barnette is accusing me of “likes to wear a dress.” Really Todd? Any evidence of that?

    Coming from an admitted bi-sexual as yourself, I find that sort of slam rather amusing.

  104. Andy Says:

    Funny that Dondero attacked Chris Bennett for “maybe” recieving tax payer originated loans for college, yet Dondero ADMITTS that he used tax payer money from the Vetrans administration for college. Talk about being a hypocrite.

  105. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Chris Bennett, still waiting on a response.

    Are your college loans government subsidized?

    You claim to be a “principled libertarian” and all. Card-carrying member of the LP’s Radical Caucus.

    Do you put your money where your mouth is?

    Might as well, come clean. I’m gonna dog you on this, until you admit it one way or the other. If I’m wrong, I’ll fess up and apologize. Just say the words:

    “Dondero you fuck, I paid for my college tuition myself without any government subsidies at all…” And I will humbly and very publicly apologize.

  106. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Card-carrying member of the LP’s Radical Caucus.

    Cards? We don’t need no steenkin’ cards!

    http://www.lpradicals.org

  107. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Actually, cards would be cool.

  108. disinter Says:

    You said your peace.

    Although libertarians prefer peace while you prefer war, I think you meant “piece”.

  109. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Of course he’s egging us on, but that’s because he knows how to push our buttons.

    He sure does. Yours, at least.

    If you can’t ignore him, at least consider having the sense to laugh at him. Preferably while pointing (which, admittedly, is difficult to do in writing).

  110. David F. Nolan Says:

    I’m pretty sure the “likes to wear a dress” comment pertained to Giuliani.

  111. Karsten Says:

    I just wonder if Mary will give me HER contesnt ;)

  112. Michael Seebeck Says:

    After wading through this pile of comments, diatribes, and the back-and-forth between Dunderhead and Bennet, I have arrived at the following conclusions:

    1) David Nolan is right in the very first post.
    2) Root or his ghostwriters need to follow the KISS principle. That was a long eye-glazing mess of whatever.
    3) McClintock is pretty much a shoo-in for Congress in his district, so his coverage is minimal. Besides, he drives the socialists in Sacto nuts. But he’s no libertarian since he’s a social conservative. Fiscal libertarian, undoubtedly.
    4) I, too, never put on a military uniform, Dunderhead, but I serve in my own way, in ways you are neither smart enough or will ever be cleared properly to know or understand. Many in the LP do also, either after or in lieu of a military career.
    5) I, too, Root, am a father, but I have no issue with Mary Ruwart’s position on this issue, simply because unlike you, I understand her anachro-capitalist approach to the topic. I have no plans to have my son in anything resembling a child porn business (he’s a budding engineer), so frankly I’m not very worried about it.
    6) Party experience or longevity are strawmen that have no purpose. I’ve done my share in the LP since I joined in 2000, as have others here in other areas. It doesn’t matter! As an example, witness Holtz’s incoherent philosophical ramblings to himself. He’s been around a while in the LP, yet his longevity extends not only to his party work but also his incomprehensible waxing.
    7) Phillies may be getting a lot of media coverage at the local level. Nice, but not national, and that’s his major problem. For a national office you need national attention, if you’re running to win that office.
    8) CFC is still clueless.

  113. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Student loans are only “government subsidized” if they’re not paid back (in which case the government pays off the lender and handles the collection action). They’re government guaranteed, which may be a bad thing but is a very different thing than an actual subsidy. The money doesn’t come out of the government’s budget, it comes from a private lender who is more willing to lend because the government is effectively your co-signer.

    A subsidy occurs when you do something like, say, ride Amtrak, where the cost of your ticket is less than what it costs the train line to give you the ride and Uncle Sugar pays the difference.

  114. Todd Andrew Barnett Says:

    Am I surprised that Dunderhead would deliberately misquote when the opportunity serves him? Nope, not at all. Not by a long shot.

    Eric Dondero Rittberg calls me a “welfare queenie.” Nice. Good one, Eric. Since you admitted that you received “little help” from a taxpayer-financed government program. So guess what, Eric? You’re a welfare queenie too! You had your college education both privately and taxpayer financed as well.

    It doesn’t matter whether you get “little help” or lots of help, you’re a welfare queen, Eric.

    Besides, the collectivists whom you admire and praise so much are the ones who set up this system to begin with. Whose fault is that, huh? Pray tell, boy!

  115. Todd Andrew Barnett Says:

    By the way, Dondero,