Comments on: Anarchism, Age of Consent Laws and the Dallas Accord http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/ Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:08:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: James Patterson http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-667022 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:10:57 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-667022 Wow. I am entering this thread really late. It was interesting to read, especially knowing who won the nomination and knowing that Barr/Root are doing fairly well with the media and initial polls. They can blackmail the Republican Party to become more libertarian. I agree with Dondero that at least most of the potential libertarian voters out there are males who were pro-war regarding Iraq and even Iran. Whether or not KOS sent his own troops to infiltrate the RP movement...the anti-war crowd sure succeeded in deep-sixing RP's chances of winning the Rep nomination. Thus, Barr's pandering to the anti-war crowd is a bit annoying right now (late June), but it is not enough for me not to pull for him like I continued to pull for RP (despite RP harping on the war like he thought his followers wanted him to - many did not). Regarding age of consent: isn't 16 the age of consent almost everywhere in the world except California and Idaho where it is 18? Root is supposed to know such facts. Guys above who claim it "should be 18" do not sound much like libertarians but rather social conservatives who probably have an asexual opinion of what might go through their heads if a 17 year old in a bikini tried to seduce them and who want big government to upset the current laws and make it so hundreds of thousands of males might end up in jail next year for something that is still legal this year. They sound like socons with an agenda of social reengineering...or else just buffoons who are completely unaware that 16 is the age of consent in most places (in Sweden it is 15 and the British public wants it to be reduced to 14). You don't have to want to sleep with a 17 year old in order to want to keep big government out of taking regulation control of people that age that has not historically (up to the current moment) been given to big government. Sadly, I think the former is more at play...socons are willfully ignoring current laws in order to bully the public into thinking that 18 is the consensus age of consent in the US today. I agree with Root otherwise, that Mary did not seem to understand how to having a populist enough position to get elected. Wow. I am entering this thread really late. It was interesting to read, especially knowing who won the nomination and knowing that Barr/Root are doing fairly well with the media and initial polls. They can blackmail the Republican Party to become more libertarian.

I agree with Dondero that at least most of the potential libertarian voters out there are males who were pro-war regarding Iraq and even Iran. Whether or not KOS sent his own troops to infiltrate the RP movement…the anti-war crowd sure succeeded in deep-sixing RP’s chances of winning the Rep nomination. Thus, Barr’s pandering to the anti-war crowd is a bit annoying right now (late June), but it is not enough for me not to pull for him like I continued to pull for RP (despite RP harping on the war like he thought his followers wanted him to – many did not).

Regarding age of consent: isn’t 16 the age of consent almost everywhere in the world except California and Idaho where it is 18? Root is supposed to know such facts. Guys above who claim it “should be 18” do not sound much like libertarians but rather social conservatives who probably have an asexual opinion of what might go through their heads if a 17 year old in a bikini tried to seduce them and who want big government to upset the current laws and make it so hundreds of thousands of males might end up in jail next year for something that is still legal this year.

They sound like socons with an agenda of social reengineering…or else just buffoons who are completely unaware that 16 is the age of consent in most places (in Sweden it is 15 and the British public wants it to be reduced to 14).

You don’t have to want to sleep with a 17 year old in order to want to keep big government out of taking regulation control of people that age that has not historically (up to the current moment) been given to big government.

Sadly, I think the former is more at play…socons are willfully ignoring current laws in order to bully the public into thinking that 18 is the consensus age of consent in the US today.

I agree with Root otherwise, that Mary did not seem to understand how to having a populist enough position to get elected.

]]>
by: Todd Andrew Barnett http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-608454 Fri, 16 May 2008 17:03:56 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-608454 I hate to belabor a bone of contention that was raised by Eric Dondero in this thread, but I must. Eric says that Daily Kos founder and publisher Markos Moulitsas "ordered DailyKosers to infiltrate the libertarian movement and spread the hardline Anti-American/Pacifist/Anti-War message." That's an interesting accusation, although it has no merit whatsoever. At the risk of defending the leftist blog and its pro-Big Government stooges (despite its "antiwar" and "anti-Iraq war" rhetoric), it's a baseless accusation at that. It carries no meat-and-potatoes substance to it, and there's nothing that Eric indicates which supports his claims. Where's the proof that Moulitsas "ordered" this "infiltration" into the pro-liberty movement? Where's the evidence of it? And, if there is a scintilla of proof of it, then why hasn't the government media made a huge stink over it? Such hollow statements, particularly when they involve the liberty movement, lack intrinsic and substantive value. And since Eric's claims has no substance to it, why should anyone believe him? That's what I'd like to know. I hate to belabor a bone of contention that was raised by Eric Dondero in this thread, but I must.

Eric says that Daily Kos founder and publisher Markos Moulitsas “ordered DailyKosers to infiltrate the libertarian movement and spread the hardline Anti-American/Pacifist/Anti-War message.”

That’s an interesting accusation, although it has no merit whatsoever. At the risk of defending the leftist blog and its pro-Big Government stooges (despite its “antiwar” and “anti-Iraq war” rhetoric), it’s a baseless accusation at that. It carries no meat-and-potatoes substance to it, and there’s nothing that Eric indicates which supports his claims.

Where’s the proof that Moulitsas “ordered” this “infiltration” into the pro-liberty movement? Where’s the evidence of it? And, if there is a scintilla of proof of it, then why hasn’t the government media made a huge stink over it?

Such hollow statements, particularly when they involve the liberty movement, lack intrinsic and substantive value. And since Eric’s claims has no substance to it, why should anyone believe him?

That’s what I’d like to know.

]]>
by: Thomas L. Knapp http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-599223 Fri, 09 May 2008 11:15:55 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-599223 Brian, You write: "Tom, I’m touched by your newfound concern that the LP’s reputation be protected from the efforts of competing campaigns to air each other’s dirty laundry. This cycle has truly seen a lot of personal growth in many Libertarians." Yes, but not in me. I am not at all concerned that the LP's reputation be protected from the efforts of competing campaigns to air each others' dirty laundry. This is politics, not a New Age Mutual Affirmation Circle. However, as an established, reputable and practicing hypocrite myself, I'm hardly above pointing out the hypocrisy of Wayne Root simultaneously positioning himself as the party's protector and running around screaming "this issue damages the party ... so let's talk about it, lots!" Brian,

You write:

“Tom, I’m touched by your newfound concern that the LP’s reputation be protected from the efforts of competing campaigns to air each other’s dirty laundry. This cycle has truly seen a lot of personal growth in many Libertarians.”

Yes, but not in me. I am not at all concerned that the LP’s reputation be protected from the efforts of competing campaigns to air each others’ dirty laundry. This is politics, not a New Age Mutual Affirmation Circle.

However, as an established, reputable and practicing hypocrite myself, I’m hardly above pointing out the hypocrisy of Wayne Root simultaneously positioning himself as the party’s protector and running around screaming “this issue damages the party … so let’s talk about it, lots!”

]]>
by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598854 Fri, 09 May 2008 02:32:04 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598854 Regarding natural law theory and consequentialism, see <a href="http://tiger.towson.edu/~apeak1/writtenwork/otherworksworthreading/radicalsforcapitalism/excerpts.html#2" rel="nofollow">pages 4–5</a> of <i>Radicals for Capitalism</i>. Mr. Holtz writes, "P.S. Alex, it’s still simply false that Murray Rothbard was a founder of the LP. I’ve already pointed you to the old issues of Rothbard’s Libertarian Forum where he criticizes the newly-formed LP." I had already known that Rothbard thought it was silly to create an LP when we did. That's common knowledge. But is it untrue that Murray Rothbard and Roy A. Childs were there? Is it untrue that the two of them cast a vote in the matter, one way or the other? If they did, then they constitute co-founders. For clarity, I wish to point out that I have disagreements with Rothbard, just as I have disagreements with the Tannehills, with Ruwart, with Spangler, with Rockwell, with Hess, with Konkin, etc. I don't mind describing myself as a left-Rothbardian, but most accurately, I'm just a Peakian. :) I do believe I need to acknowledge Rothbard, because he did have a huge impact on my philosophy. So did Harry Browne. Between the two, I'd take the personality of Browne any day of the week. Other philosophers have had huge impacts on me, albeit probably not as much as the aforementioned two. Rand, Jesus, Descartes, Locke, Thoreau, Badnarik, Spooner, Jefferson, Bastiat, Orwell, etc. Sincerely, Alex Peak Regarding natural law theory and consequentialism, see pages 4–5 of Radicals for Capitalism.

Mr. Holtz writes, “P.S. Alex, it’s still simply false that Murray Rothbard was a founder of the LP. I’ve already pointed you to the old issues of Rothbard’s Libertarian Forum where he criticizes the newly-formed LP.”

I had already known that Rothbard thought it was silly to create an LP when we did. That’s common knowledge. But is it untrue that Murray Rothbard and Roy A. Childs were there? Is it untrue that the two of them cast a vote in the matter, one way or the other? If they did, then they constitute co-founders.

For clarity, I wish to point out that I have disagreements with Rothbard, just as I have disagreements with the Tannehills, with Ruwart, with Spangler, with Rockwell, with Hess, with Konkin, etc. I don’t mind describing myself as a left-Rothbardian, but most accurately, I’m just a Peakian. :)

I do believe I need to acknowledge Rothbard, because he did have a huge impact on my philosophy. So did Harry Browne. Between the two, I’d take the personality of Browne any day of the week.

Other philosophers have had huge impacts on me, albeit probably not as much as the aforementioned two. Rand, Jesus, Descartes, Locke, Thoreau, Badnarik, Spooner, Jefferson, Bastiat, Orwell, etc.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

]]>
by: Michael H. Wilson http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598530 Thu, 08 May 2008 22:31:40 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598530 Brian QUOTES ME: MW) How about a giant friggin banner across the top that says “SUPPORT the BILL of RIGHTS”. (MW BH)I replied: BH) No, there is at least one provision in the Bill of Rights that radicals find morally objectionable. I leave as an exercise in lpradical internal education to figure out which provision it is. So how about a giant banner that says: ‘The Bill of Rights—void where prohibited by LP radicals’ (BH To this day, your readers probably still think they are staunch defenders of the Bill of Rights… (end B.H.) Brian neither the democrats, or repugnicans have much concern for the Bill of Rights and where it is not perfect, it might prove to be a good start with a lot of people in this country and elsewhere as a matter of fact. Sometimes you have to get the confidence of people before they'll take a ride with you. Last time I looked at my principles I was an advocate of civil liberties, economic freedom and a non interventionist foreign policy and know full well that the eventual goal is a society without coercion. Perhaps I am wrong but there is no peace where there is coercion, nor is there any respect for others. MHW Brian QUOTES ME:

MW) How about a giant friggin banner across the top that says “SUPPORT the BILL of RIGHTS”. (MW

BH)I replied:

BH) No, there is at least one provision in the Bill of Rights that radicals find morally objectionable. I leave as an exercise in lpradical internal education to figure out which provision it is. So how about a giant banner that says: ‘The Bill of Rights—void where prohibited by LP radicals’ (BH

To this day, your readers probably still think they are staunch defenders of the Bill of Rights… (end B.H.)

Brian neither the democrats, or repugnicans have much concern for the Bill of Rights and where it is not perfect, it might prove to be a good start with a lot of people in this country and elsewhere as a matter of fact. Sometimes you have to get the confidence of people before they’ll take a ride with you.

Last time I looked at my principles I was an advocate of civil liberties, economic freedom and a non interventionist foreign policy and know full well that the eventual goal is a society without coercion. Perhaps I am wrong but there is no peace where there is coercion, nor is there any respect for others.

MHW

]]>
by: Yank http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598500 Thu, 08 May 2008 22:13:25 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598500 Smile, Allen likes ass! Don't lie Allen. You love ASS! Smile, Allen likes ass! Don’t lie Allen. You love ASS!

]]>
by: Yank http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598488 Thu, 08 May 2008 22:04:28 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598488 I don't want to touch Brian's butt anymore. I don’t want to touch Brian’s butt anymore.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598486 Thu, 08 May 2008 22:03:53 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598486 Tom, I'm touched by your newfound concern that the LP's reputation be protected from the efforts of competing campaigns to air each other's dirty laundry. This cycle has truly seen a lot of personal growth in many Libertarians. By all means, let's ignore this distraction about the libertarian principles of the "plumbline" theorist running to rescue the LP from the "danger to our party" of a nominee "who really doesn't have the full picture yet", and let's get back to the core issue of the Better Business Bureau record of one of Wayne Root's enterprises. Tom, I’m touched by your newfound concern that the LP’s reputation be protected from the efforts of competing campaigns to air each other’s dirty laundry. This cycle has truly seen a lot of personal growth in many Libertarians.

By all means, let’s ignore this distraction about the libertarian principles of the “plumbline” theorist running to rescue the LP from the “danger to our party” of a nominee “who really doesn’t have the full picture yet”, and let’s get back to the core issue of the Better Business Bureau record of one of Wayne Root’s enterprises.

]]>
by: Allen Hacker http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598480 Thu, 08 May 2008 22:00:01 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598480 Susan, Here's a hoot for you: When I judge myself, I'm arrogant, and when you judge me it's being judgemental. But then, I'm judging me on actions, and you're judging me on, what, conformity? Otherwise, thanks. Yes, you weren't in the exec session. But since you had to leave the room when it commenced, you did know that I had said I wouldn't discuss the dirt in public. And that requesting the exec session cemented that. The smiley billboard/sticker was part of a two-pronged campaign, something most libertarians seem to want to forget. As I described above, there is great contempt for us out there, and I saw the necessity of a separate parallel effort to reposition the LP with the voters. Selling Mike was going to be only half the job. Unfortunately, the people who gave us this situation, the anarchists, absolutists and extremists, don't have a clue as to how they are viewed by the voting public. I sincerely hope that the next pres campaign does some real marketing beyond simple name recognition surveys. There's a lot to be learned out there, but as far as I can tell, no one really wants to hear it. Or be responsive to it. Just look at all the denial in this thread. Which reminds me. Thank you for the direct answers. -0- Susan,

Here’s a hoot for you: When I judge myself, I’m arrogant, and when you judge me it’s being judgemental. But then, I’m judging me on actions, and you’re judging me on, what, conformity?

Otherwise, thanks.

Yes, you weren’t in the exec session. But since you had to leave the room when it commenced, you did know that I had said I wouldn’t discuss the dirt in public. And that requesting the exec session cemented that.

The smiley billboard/sticker was part of a two-pronged campaign, something most libertarians seem to want to forget. As I described above, there is great contempt for us out there, and I saw the necessity of a separate parallel effort to reposition the LP with the voters. Selling Mike was going to be only half the job.

Unfortunately, the people who gave us this situation, the anarchists, absolutists and extremists, don’t have a clue as to how they are viewed by the voting public.

I sincerely hope that the next pres campaign does some real marketing beyond simple name recognition surveys. There’s a lot to be learned out there, but as far as I can tell, no one really wants to hear it. Or be responsive to it.

Just look at all the denial in this thread.

Which reminds me. Thank you for the direct answers.

0

]]>
by: Steve LaBianca http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598475 Thu, 08 May 2008 21:54:25 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598475 Holtz again: "This pretense that delegates can only evaluate a candidate on her three favorite issues . . ." Most delegates IMHO use the issues campaigned on as PART of their requirement to support a candidate. For many, if not most Libertarians, purity is definitely important, but so is being able to effectively communicate their message. So is showing the voters that the LP has a top of the ticket candidate as well as down line candidates who work together. If a candidate comes close to providing the complete package, then that candidate will win. Harry Browne passed the smell test on all these things, though I believe where he underperformed was in his campaign style . . . he didn't get out to meet voters or campaign with local Libertarian candidates nearly enough. Mary Ruwart has dedicated herself if nominated, to campaigning and working with local candidates. What's not to recommend her? Some silly non federal, not starter issue which was brought up with the express purpose of discrediting her? Give me a break. Holtz again: “This pretense that delegates can only evaluate a candidate on her three favorite issues . . .”

Most delegates IMHO use the issues campaigned on as PART of their requirement to support a candidate. For many, if not most Libertarians, purity is definitely important, but so is being able to effectively communicate their message. So is showing the voters that the LP has a top of the ticket candidate as well as down line candidates who work together.

If a candidate comes close to providing the complete package, then that candidate will win. Harry Browne passed the smell test on all these things, though I believe where he underperformed was in his campaign style . . . he didn’t get out to meet voters or campaign with local Libertarian candidates nearly enough. Mary Ruwart has dedicated herself if nominated, to campaigning and working with local candidates. What’s not to recommend her? Some silly non federal, not starter issue which was brought up with the express purpose of discrediting her? Give me a break.

]]>
by: Susan Hogarth http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598465 Thu, 08 May 2008 21:47:21 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598465 <i>My political principles aren’t dictated by the Constitution...</i> Oh, I know that very well. My political principles aren’t dictated by the Constitution…

Oh, I know that very well.

]]>
by: Steve LaBianca http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598457 Thu, 08 May 2008 21:41:37 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598457 "I think you underestimate how much support Phillies will get from reformers, but otherwise I agree that Root and Barr would get most of it." Phillies is good for 8%, maybe 10-12% TOPS from all delegates on the first ballot. That isn't major in my estimation. George had ticked off way too many people in the LP over the years, and rightly or wrongly, will suffer because of this. Barring (no pun intended!) a monumental shift of health, campaign blunders, or other deviation of this campaign, George Phillies is not a major player for this nomination. “I think you underestimate how much support Phillies will get from reformers, but otherwise I agree that Root and Barr would get most of it.”

Phillies is good for 8%, maybe 10-12% TOPS from all delegates on the first ballot. That isn’t major in my estimation. George had ticked off way too many people in the LP over the years, and rightly or wrongly, will suffer because of this. Barring (no pun intended!) a monumental shift of health, campaign blunders, or other deviation of this campaign, George Phillies is not a major player for this nomination.

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598445 Thu, 08 May 2008 21:32:40 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598445 Susan, the answer to your question is: I think the *criminally accused* have the right to force others to appear in court for questioning if the accused can show that the witnesses are sufficiently material to the case. My political principles aren't dictated by the Constitution, but feel free to pretend they are if it helps you rationalize not offering arguments against them. Amusingly, this reminds me of an message of mine that you censored a year ago from reaching the virgin ears on your LPradicals list. Michael Wilson had proposed: MW) How about a giant friggin banner across the top that says "SUPPORT the BILL of RIGHTS". (MW I replied: BH) No, there is at least one provision in the Bill of Rights that radicals find morally objectionable. I leave as an exercise in lpradical internal education to figure out which provision it is. So how about a giant banner that says: 'The Bill of Rights -- void where prohibited by LP radicals' (BH To this day, your readers probably still think they are staunch defenders of the Bill of Rights... Less, I quoted Ruwart campaigning on the theme that her competitor candidates "haven’t quite gotten the whole picture yet". The three issues you list aren't "the whole picture". Wake me when you begin to grapple with the Ruwart quotes above -- and when you realize that her unique claims about ideological correctness make her entire oeuvre fair game. This pretense that delegates can only evaluate a candidate on her three favorite issues is simply beneath you. I remember you advocating the Fairy Godfather theory that markets could protect kids from their parents better than the state could. I don't remember you explicitly saying that you don't think parents should have no right to constrain a child's decisions other than by denial of parenting services. Susan, the answer to your question is: I think the criminally accused have the right to force others to appear in court for questioning if the accused can show that the witnesses are sufficiently material to the case.

My political principles aren’t dictated by the Constitution, but feel free to pretend they are if it helps you rationalize not offering arguments against them. Amusingly, this reminds me of an message of mine that you censored a year ago from reaching the virgin ears on your LPradicals list. Michael Wilson had proposed:

MW) How about a giant friggin banner across the top that says “SUPPORT the BILL of RIGHTS”. (MW

I replied:

BH) No, there is at least one provision in the Bill of Rights that radicals find morally objectionable. I leave as an exercise in lpradical internal education to figure out which provision it is. So how about a giant banner that says: ‘The Bill of Rights—void where prohibited by LP radicals’ (BH

To this day, your readers probably still think they are staunch defenders of the Bill of Rights…

Less, I quoted Ruwart campaigning on the theme that her competitor candidates “haven’t quite gotten the whole picture yet”. The three issues you list aren’t “the whole picture”. Wake me when you begin to grapple with the Ruwart quotes above—and when you realize that her unique claims about ideological correctness make her entire oeuvre fair game. This pretense that delegates can only evaluate a candidate on her three favorite issues is simply beneath you.

I remember you advocating the Fairy Godfather theory that markets could protect kids from their parents better than the state could. I don’t remember you explicitly saying that you don’t think parents should have no right to constrain a child’s decisions other than by denial of parenting services.

]]>
by: Thomas L. Knapp http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598426 Thu, 08 May 2008 21:23:12 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598426 Quoth Brian Holtz: "She can’t have it both ways. She can’t both 1) run on her reputation as a 'plumbline' ideologue and 2) say that her personal ideology doesn’t matter. That would be a neat trick to pull off, but I think the delegates will be smart enough to notice." Yes, they would -- but since she's not trying to do any such thing, there won't be any of it for the delegates TO notice. Ruwart has never denied that her "personal ideology" matters. What she has denied is that she's campaigning on her personal ideology's implications with respect to an issue that quite simply doesn't even appear on presidential voters' radars this year. Ruwart has mainly sold herself as a strong communicator who can give a coherent and defensible libertarian answer on <em>any</em> issue ... but that doesn't mean that she'll be campaigning on <em>every</em> issue. Obviously some people don't find her answer on these particular issues to be defensible. That's their call to make when they decide whom to support. As for myself, I can think of a few answers that Steve Kubby might give to questions which I wouldn't find defensible ... but since the issues involved aren't issues I expect him to campaign on, I'm okay with that and can still support him. Ditto for Ruwart if she's the nominee. Once again, so far, the <em>only</em> candidate actively campaigning on and emphasizing issues of age of consent, child porn and anarchism is Wayne Allyn Root. Not only are his answers on those issues far less defensible than Ruwart's <em>in my opinion</em>, but his decision to purposely emphasize issues that <em>he himself</em> says are embarrassing/damaging to the party demonstrates that he either lacks good judgment, or that he's utterly unconcerned with, or possibly even actively opposed to, the party's best interests. As Ruwart says -- and as you take her to task for saying -- the LP's presidential candidate is its <em>de facto</em> public face for four years. I'd much rather the party have a candidate who gives consistently libertarian answers (even if those answers are NOT "consensus" libertarian answers that please everyone and answer to every possible definition of libertarianism -- I've supported pro-choice LP candidates even though I'm pro-life, for example) than a candidate who continues to prove that he's not just willing to expose, but enthusiastic about exposing, the party to embarrassment and ridicule. Quoth Brian Holtz:

“She can’t have it both ways. She can’t both 1) run on her reputation as a ‘plumbline’ ideologue and 2) say that her personal ideology doesn’t matter. That would be a neat trick to pull off, but I think the delegates will be smart enough to notice.”

Yes, they would—but since she’s not trying to do any such thing, there won’t be any of it for the delegates TO notice.

Ruwart has never denied that her “personal ideology” matters. What she has denied is that she’s campaigning on her personal ideology’s implications with respect to an issue that quite simply doesn’t even appear on presidential voters’ radars this year.

Ruwart has mainly sold herself as a strong communicator who can give a coherent and defensible libertarian answer on any issue … but that doesn’t mean that she’ll be campaigning on every issue.

Obviously some people don’t find her answer on these particular issues to be defensible. That’s their call to make when they decide whom to support. As for myself, I can think of a few answers that Steve Kubby might give to questions which I wouldn’t find defensible … but since the issues involved aren’t issues I expect him to campaign on, I’m okay with that and can still support him. Ditto for Ruwart if she’s the nominee.

Once again, so far, the only candidate actively campaigning on and emphasizing issues of age of consent, child porn and anarchism is Wayne Allyn Root. Not only are his answers on those issues far less defensible than Ruwart’s in my opinion, but his decision to purposely emphasize issues that he himself says are embarrassing/damaging to the party demonstrates that he either lacks good judgment, or that he’s utterly unconcerned with, or possibly even actively opposed to, the party’s best interests.

As Ruwart says—and as you take her to task for saying—the LP’s presidential candidate is its de facto public face for four years.

I’d much rather the party have a candidate who gives consistently libertarian answers (even if those answers are NOT “consensus” libertarian answers that please everyone and answer to every possible definition of libertarianism—I’ve supported pro-choice LP candidates even though I’m pro-life, for example) than a candidate who continues to prove that he’s not just willing to expose, but enthusiastic about exposing, the party to embarrassment and ridicule.

]]>
by: Steve LaBianca http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598425 Thu, 08 May 2008 21:23:09 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord/#comment-598425 More Holtz: "However, I hope she doesn’t announce this, because if she does and thus wins, then many radicals will still claim that her election was a referendum on her ideology after all." Why would anyone think that you either get the nomination for your campaign issues, that is your strategy alone, OR your "plumb line ideology" alone. Many, if not MOST Libertarians want an "ideologue", combined with a campaign that is designed to reach the voters in ways that they approve. I believe that Mary Ruwart the Libertarian, and Mary Ruwart the candidate satisfies BOTH of these desires extremely well, for any Libertarians. W.A.R. cannot reach the LP members this way. He is no ideologue and is still learning what libertarianism is! Barr, is essentially in the same boat. More Holtz:

“However, I hope she doesn’t announce this, because if she does and thus wins, then many radicals will still claim that her election was a referendum on her ideology after all.”

Why would anyone think that you either get the nomination for your campaign issues, that is your strategy alone, OR your “plumb line ideology” alone.

Many, if not MOST Libertarians want an “ideologue”, combined with a campaign that is designed to reach the voters in ways that they approve. I believe that Mary Ruwart the Libertarian, and Mary Ruwart the candidate satisfies BOTH of these desires extremely well, for any Libertarians. W.A.R. cannot reach the LP members this way. He is no ideologue and is still learning what libertarianism is! Barr, is essentially in the same boat.

]]>