Do You Believe in Liberty?
In just a few weeks, the Libertarian Party’s national convention delegates will choose our party’s 2008 presidential nominee, who will become our de facto leader and public face of the party for the next four years. Will we choose wisely? Will we choose someone who believes in liberty?
When I first ran as a Libertarian candidate for public office in the early 1980s, many of our positions were very unpopular. For example, our call to end the drug war was considered by many to be an endorsement of drug usage and addiction. Because we didn’t see the War on Drugs as a solution to the drug problem, people automatically assumed that we condoned the problem itself. They supported the War on Drugs because they thought that a ban on them would keep drugs out of the schools.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The black-market profits created by drug prohibition virtually guaranteed that pushers would target our children. Although alcohol and tobacco have been consistently illegal for minors, students had a much harder time getting drinks and smokes than purchasing crack cocaine or heroin. The best reason for doing away with the War on Drugs was to protect our children, even though most Americans thought just the opposite was true.
These days, even many law enforcement officials support an end to drug prohibition (www.leap.org). This shift in public perception did not occur overnight, but was largely brought about by courageous Libertarian candidates who were willing to teach the American public about the benefits of liberty, even as they were “slimed” by the media. I am proud to be counted among those candidates, proud to be saving lives and protecting our children. More recently, banning guns has become the cause du jour to “save the children.” Because libertarians don’t see gun bans as a solution to violent crime, some people automatically assumed that we were content to see children die in gun accidents and school shootings. The American people supported gun bans because of their mistaken impression that they were saving the children.
Consequently, when courageous Libertarian candidates called for an end to these bans, they were often scorned and ridiculed. Studies now show that permitting peaceful citizens to carry concealed firearms lowers the homicide rate. For every life saved by gun bans, 400 lives are lost to predators who would have otherwise been stopped by their armed victims, usually without a shot fired.
Women, people of color, and children make up a disproportionate number of these 400 lives, since, once disarmed, they are much more vulnerable to attack. The fabled Gun Free School Zones are, in reality, prime targets for rampage shooters, because the teachers have been disarmed. The best reason for doing away with bans on firearms is to save the lives of our children, even though many Americans think that just the opposite is true.
For years, myself and other libertarian candidates have pointed out that “when guns are banned, only criminals will have guns.” The shift in popular perception has come about primarily because courageous Libertarian candidates are willing to teach the American public about the benefits of liberty, even at the cost of being “slimed” by the media. I am proud to be counted among those candidates, proud to be saving lives, especially the lives of our children.
Today, other bans, such as the ones against child pornography, are touted as panaceas to “save the children.” Like drug prohibition and the ban on firearms, these bans backfire, harming the very innocents they are intended to help. Anyone who believes in liberty can see the pattern. Bans and prohibitions drive vices underground, where participants have no legal recourse when they experience exploitation.
Bans make criminals out of 17-year-olds having consensual sex with 15-year-olds, because the younger partner is presumed too immature to make an informed decision. These draconian laws destroy the lives of our young people by making them carry the label of “sex offender” for the rest of their lives. Yet as late as the last century, it was not at all unusual for American boys and girls to marry and start families in their early teens!
Bans based on arbitrary age limits aren’t needed to protect those too young to make informed decisions about sexual conduct. Pre-pubescent children, for example, don’t have the physical or emotional maturity to even understand what sex is all about. When an adult engages in sexual conduct with a young child, we don’t need a law specifying an age limit in order to convict those adults of rape. All we need to do is show a jury that the child wasn’t competent to consent.
These kinds of age-based bans put prosecutors and regulators in charge of a weapon that can be used against those whose views aren’t politically correct. One of my fellow contenders for the LP presidential nomination, Steve Kubby, has had devastating first-hand experience with this fallout.
Mr. Kubby’s efforts were instrumental in passing Proposition 215, which removed the ban against medical marijuana in California. Many of you know the story of Mr. Kubby’s subsequent life-threatening incarceration for the crime of passing a law disliked by the police, his move to Canada, and his heroic return (www.kubby2008.com). While Steve was in prison awaiting the court action that would clear him, his wife, Michelle, was told that their children would be taken away and placed into permanent foster care if Steve lived with them and used medical marijuana.
It didn’t matter that several doctors in two countries have confirmed that Steve has a “life and death medical necessity” to use medical marijuana; the courts, which are part of the same government apparatus that prosecuted Steve, routinely favor purported evidence presented by “child protection” officials over testimony from physicians and other real experts.
Michelle did the only thing she could reasonably be expected to do; she began divorce proceedings against the love of her life while he languished in prison. Although his girls still spend holidays with him, and while they talk by phone twice a week, Steve Kubby’s biggest heartbreak in life is that he doesn’t get to kiss his two children good night each evening. He isn’t there to hold them when they hurt. He isn’t there to look into their eyes and hear them whisper, “Papa, I love you.”
Meanwhile, another fellow presidential contender, Wayne Allyn Root, reaps all the rewards of parenthood. He talks about the joys his four children bring to him in virtually every speech he gives. Mr. Root supports bans on vices— at least the vices he doesn’t engage in for a living. He supports the very laws that empowered the state to take Mr. Kubby’s children from him to punish him for believing in liberty. In fact, when I told Steve I wanted to discuss his situation, he agreed—provided I not name the agency that threatened his family, under orders of his attorneys, who still are concerned about reprisals against Steve for his role in legalizing the medical use of marijuana.
Mr. Root is new to the LP; he doesn’t understand how liberty works because he hasn’t done his homework. He doesn’t understand the hidden dangers in government’s monopoly on force; he scorns the notion that justice is best served when we have competition in everything, including courts, police, and national defense. He calls such competition “anarchy;” I call it “freedom from government oppression.” Had Mr. Root walked in Steve Kubby’s shoes and had his children ripped from his arms, he might consider more carefully the unintended consequences of bans and prohibitions.
Instead, as Mr. Root freely admits, he reacts emotionally to the superstitious belief that passing a law “makes it so.” He doesn’t understand how private courts work, and so assumes—wrongly—that underage victims couldn’t easily press charges. In fact, the opposite is true. Prosecution by government requires that a victim or the victim’s advocate persuade the prosecutor to take on their case; if that person refuses, there is no recourse. In a system of private courts, no such bottlenecks exist. You may win or lose, but you will have your day in court.
Mr. Root could have asked me for clarification of my positions and I would have gladly given it to him. In spite of repeated efforts by phone and e-mail to persuade me to drop my presidential bid and run in coordination with him for VP, Mr. Root did not ask me to enlighten him on my views. I can only assume that truth doesn’t matter to him—or at least that it doesn’t matter as much as the prospect of getting rid of a competitor does.
Mr. Root concludes his latest press release with this 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 the 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?”
For the record, I have never “promoted” the removal of the age-of-consent laws. I discussed the issue ten years ago in a book written to help libertarians deal with some of the tough questions we get. It is Wayne Allyn Root, not I, who has made these issues campaign centerpieces—after telling me in writing that he wanted the issue to go away and wasn’t responsible for earlier statements made by his campaign manager or the posting on his web site asking me to withdraw from the presidential race.
Do we want a presidential candidate who highlights issues he himself says are damaging to our party … if he thinks he can use those issues to drum an opponent out of the race? Do we want a presidential nominee who won’t take responsibility for his own campaign’s actions and statements?
We have always been able to grow the Party and get millions of votes. The choice has always been ours; all we’ve ever needed to do was sell out. All we’ve ever needed to do is denounce liberty so that we could avoid scorn and ridicule. All that has ever been required of us is that we stop being the Party of Principle and become the Party of Expediency. All we’ve ever needed to do was stop telling the truth to the American people, stop trying to help them understand the price they pay when they fall for statist propaganda. All that was ever needed was to support bans that harm our children, but give us the illusion of protecting them.
If I and other Libertarian candidates had taken this path years ago, the Libertarian Party might be bigger and more popular than it is today. In all likelihood, however, discussions about doing away with the War on Drugs or getting rid of gun bans wouldn’t be part of the agenda. If we hadn’t talked about liberty when it was unpopular to do so, Ron Paul wouldn’t have been so well received in his grassroots presidential campaign. Instead, we would be talking about protecting and enriching ourselves, and sacrificing our children on the altar of appearance to do so.
Is that the kind of future we want for the LP? If so, we have several candidates ready and willing to take us down the path of least resistance. Wayne Allyn Root isn’t the only “establishment-lite” candidate running. He’s not the only one who wants to keep the truth from the American people, to soft-sell our message, to denounce our most cherished values in order to make ourselves look “mainstream.” He’s not the only candidate ready to sacrifice our children so that we can have the illusion of heroism without the substance.
I’m not interested in that kind of future for our party. If we really care about the children, then we’ll tell the truth about liberty until the American public hears us instead of selling out for fifteen minutes on Fox News and the occasional mention in Jay Leno’s monologue.
For decades, Libertarians like Steve Kubby and I have told the truth about liberty. We’ve held our party’s beliefs high instead of hiding like cowards behind America’s children, even when it meant we might be subject to abuse or ridicule. Mr. Kubby has put his life, his fortune, and his family on the line for liberty—and because he did so, his fellow Californians and Americans in several other states now have access to a healing plant that relieves their suffering. If my fate is to take some slings and arrows from my fellow presidential hopefuls, the price I pay for speaking the truth of liberty is indeed small.
I’m not about to start lying to my fellow Americans now, not after all these years of telling the truth, not after seeing Ron Paul inspire so many people with an uncompromising message of freedom. 2008 is a year for us to strike while the iron is hot—to stand on our record of speaking truth to power.
We were right on the war on drugs – and now that fact is almost universally acknowledged. Around the country, states are legalizing medical marijuana, cities are telling their police forces to go after real criminals instead of drug users, and the masses are revolting against a “justice” system that now imprisons more people than any other nation on earth, mostly for victimless “crimes.”
We were right to stand firm against victim disarmament – and over and over the correctness of our stand has been proven on America’s streets. What was once our courageous minority stand is quickly becoming the conventional wisdom.
We’re right to stand up for a non-interventionist foreign policy and against the war on Iraq. The American people are already with us on that one.
We’re right to stand up for getting the market back into health care and the government out of it. The American people were with us when “Hilary care” was proposed in the 1990s—and will be once again.
And yes, when the issue is discussed, we are right to stand up against the arbitrary and capricious age of consent laws that make our young men and women into “criminals” while saving not a single child from rape or molestation. I don’t see that issue as a major presidential campaign theme, but if Wayne Allyn Root or anyone else expects me to sacrifice liberty, truth and our children to public relations considerations, think again. It’s not going to happen.
Do you believe in liberty enough to join me?
Our national convention in Denver will be a fight for the heart and soul of the Party. Will we remain the Party of Principle or will we sell out for a few more votes and a few more television shows? Will we stop telling the American people about liberty in the vain hope of gaining a bit of fleeting popularity for ourselves?
Do you believe in liberty? If so, now is the time to show it!
May 8th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I love Mary’s ASS
May 8th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Well, atleast she finally admitted that some children can’t consent. :/
That being said. . .
Wow. Enough misdirection in this one to have come from the Clinton camp.
I’m glad to know that because I don’t support her position on competence of minors to consent, that I’m responsible for Mr. Kubby’s suffering and its very likely we’ll be undoing all the LP has ever done for freedom.
She’ll undoubtedly add more people to her mass of unquestioning followers now. :/
Amazing how well she has faired and how poorly Root has because of this. Makes you wonder. . .
May 8th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Game over for Root.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
BOOM!
That was the sound of this large grenade exploding in Root’s face.
Now, with all of that being said, are there STILL any questions on where she stands?
May 8th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
We all expected Ruwart to hit the talking point that the the issue here is primarily bright-line rules that turn calendar accidents into crimes. But as her intelligent supporter Alex Peak has pointed out, such bright-line mistakes are possible in rules created both by the state and by a privatized legal system. So what I wanted to hear was Ruwart’s argument that the state shouldn’t make any such rules against aggression directed at those unable to consent.
The argument she gives is breathtaking in its audacity. She says: libertarians oppose the state’s laws against certain substances and tools (viz., drugs and guns), so you’re not a good libertarian —“do you believe in liberty?”—if you don’t also oppose the state’s laws against aggression (e.g. production of child pornography). To state the argument is to rebut it.
I don’t mind hearing weak arguments for anarchism; been there, done that. However, I do mind when an anarchist candidate for our nomination suggests that to support minarchism over anarchism is to “sell out” or to “denounce liberty” or to “stop being the Party of Principle and become the Party of Expediency” or to “fall for statist propaganda”. If Ruwart believes that there is such a thing as principled minarchism, I see no evidence of it in her essay.
Earlier today I wondered aloud if Ruwart really wanted her candidacy to be a referendum over anarchism. Well, now we have her answer.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Justin, there was no misdirection here, except in your own mind.
And your conclusions are both statist and inaccurate.
Go reread it.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I have proposed Milnes/Ruwart. I do this not because I have no disagreements with Dr. Ruwart. But because the president and vice-president are best if COMPLEMENTARY. If both are pure radical anarchists then there is no hope of expanding the tent; no hope of actually winning an upper level election. The delegates can have the best of both worlds. I can try to get the left libertarian/leftist/Green/progressive vote, potentially tens of millions. Meanwhile Dr. Mary can be the stalwart pure libertarian and be involved in every single issue & decision. If I stumble, the Lp can revoke my nomination, replacing me with Ruwart thus insuring the party of principle is preserved. I ask the delegates to consider this ticket as the best one.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Justin Grover Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Wow. Enough misdirection in this one to have come from the Clinton camp.
Name one.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Game over for Root.
I feel sorry for W.A.R,. sort of, because he fell into the wrong crowd and they totally screwed his otherwise good chances for success. On the other hand, he chose to hang with the evil ones and now he has paid the price.
On second thought, I don’t feel sorry for W.A.R., because he got what he gave. Karma is a tough lesson for recovering Republicans, but it is a lesson they need to learn.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
As usual, Milnes starts out correct and hen goes in the exact opposite direction with it and makes it wrong.
He’s right on the complementary part.
He’s wrong on the rest.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Great article by Dr. Ruwart. Very well said.
Bad move by her campaign.
She should stop focusing on reacting to mud thrown by other campaigns, and start making the issues she wants to focus on the center of attention.
Campaigns do not win by going into reaction mode.
This child porn non-issue is a distrction.
Mary Ruwart needs to put out some videos. Her talking to the camera if there is no time/money/creative ideas for anything else.
Talk about the issues she chooses, not the ones some of her opponents choose for her.
If possible, get endorsements from people in possible constituency groups she can reach out to (alternative medicine, fully informed juries, right to die, etc) who are not LP members, showing she can bring new people into the party.
Someone like the lady who spoke about alternative medicine at the Connecticut convention.
Although this was an excellent response, Root’s piece on anarchy did not deserve one.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
WAR is an opportunist, and that’s horrible. He’s got rock star charisma, though, so he’ll live, and me may do reasonably well at the convention, enough to come back in 2012.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
All the spin over the kiddie porn issue has me confused. Does Ruwart oppose age-of-consent laws only as they apply to minors having sex with other minors (as the above article subtly suggests)... or does she oppose their abolition even for sex with adults, in favor of courts applying ad-hoc tests to see whether a 12-year old can consent to sex with a 45-year old? One way or the other, how does child pornography factor into the equation? Is it okay for adults to merely FILM sex between two minors, or even between an adult and a minor who is court-deemed to have consented?
Granted, there really aren’t answers to the above questions that I wouldn’t oppose. However, I’d like to at least be fair enough to understand what precisely it is that I’m opposing. Can someone succinctly clarify the issue, without just throwing a “statist” ad hominem at me and moving on?
May 8th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Okay, so a neocon, a right-wing religious bigot, and a principled libertarian walk into a bar, and the Libertarian Party can’t figure out which one to choose. The neocon and the principled libertarian sit down at the counter, but the right-wing religious bigot remains standing in the doorway.
Suddenly, a left-wing socialist crashes in through the window, yells “NI4D!” then has a heart attack and dies.
The principled libertarian turns to the bartender and says, “I’ll have the usual.”
The bartender smiles. “One glass of ‘distrust of government’ coming up,” she says.
“Unfortunately,” says the principled libertarian to the neocon, “when people with good intentions turn to the government to fix a problem, it often makes the problem worse.”
The neocon calls her a paedophile. Then he asks the bartender for a glass of “The Islamofascists are coming!! The Islamofascists are coming!! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE
”
The right-wing religious bigot says nothing, but he’s sure the principled libertarian is practicing witchcraft.
The delegates talk amongst themselves. They realize that many people on the right have sworn never to vote for the blood-thirsty Republican and that many on the left have sworn not to vote for a Democrat if it’s not thier chosen candidate. After drinking heavily, they decide they need a weak candidate, preferably someone with a shaky record, so that all of the people tired of the lying insincere panderers in the two major parties will vote for him. They also decide to write off the left altogether, because, really, they like Republicans better anyway.
Seriously, can this end well?
May 8th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Interesting that Mary has wielded the dictatorial sword, crushing anyone who is in dissent from her and questions her position. She writes as if she owns this party. While I have understood her arguments and favor them, coming across as an authoritarian and not open-minded scares me. Is she threatening to leave the party if she doesn’t get her way? That’s problematic from an individual who is against being strong armed.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Quoth Brian Holtz:
Translation to English: “What I wanted to hear was Ruwart treating the presidential campaign as a referendum on anarchism, because that’s the only damn thing I could indict her on … and dammit, she keeps refusing to fall into my clever trap. No fair, do-over!”
Translation into English: “Shit. I can’t rebut it, so I guess I’ll just have to mischaracterize it and then, treating my mischaracterization as a statement of it, assert that to state it is to rebut it.”
Translation to English: “Ruwart doesn’t suggest any such thing, but if I suggest that she suggested some such thing, maybe people will believe me instead of their lying eyes.”
May 8th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I’m getting ASS in Denver!
May 8th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
To the person claiming to be Tom Knapp: a simple “nuh uh” would have sufficed.
The stink bomb you’re working on for Root must really be a big one, because you’re now just phoning it in here on TPW.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I’ll try to get some too.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Brian, “minarchism” is a misleading term, because it can mean almost any level of govt. It’s a relative term. Franco is a minarchist compared to Stalin.
I’m a minarchist. I’ve always considered myself a minarchist. In the LP’s radical wing, yet a minarchist.
Whereas you’re a pragmatarian, yet a minarchist.
As a minarchist, I feel politically closer to LP anarchists than to “Republican Lite” minarchists.
I think many “Republican Lite” minarchists want way more govt than my brand of minarchy (paleo-minarchy? Constitutional minarchy?).
So when you, Brian, say minarchy, you include minarchists like me, who much prefer Ruwart to Root. (Though I could be happy with Phillies or Gravel—and Kubby—as well).
May 8th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“WAR has rock star charisma”
Hahahahahoohoohoohoobwahaha! ROTFLMAO
C’mon, be serious.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“Today, other bans, such as the ones against child pornography, are touted as panaceas to “save the children.” Like drug prohibition and the ban on firearms, these bans backfire, harming the very innocents they are intended to help. Anyone who believes in liberty can see the pattern. Bans and prohibitions drive vices underground, where participants have no legal recourse when they experience exploitation.”
When murder is illegal, only criminals will be hit men. When shoplifting is illegal, only criminals will sneak merchandise under their clothes. We need safe, market-based, assassination and shoplifting services!
“When an adult engages in sexual conduct with a young child, we don’t need a law specifying an age limit in order to convict those adults of rape. All we need to do is show a jury that the child wasn’t competent to consent.”
Mary believes in ex post facto law from the jury. Yay!
May 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Paulie,
You write:
“She should stop focusing on reacting to mud thrown by other campaigns, and start making the issues she wants to focus on the center of attention.”
I don’t think she so much “focused on reacting to mud” as she used the mud to make a strong statement on where she’s coming from and what her approach to issues will be.
She managed to get the war on drugs, health care, gun control and foreign policy in there, and to articulate the case for becoming popular by choosing to be RIGHT as opposed to naively chasing after popularity for its own sake.
L. Neil Smith’s shorter-winded and opposite-gendered rendition is “great men don’t move to the center. great men move the center.” The mud involved required her to reply at greater length, but she still managed to take an attack on her and on our party and turned into a stirring declaration of both principle and strategy for her and for our party.
As far as being “reactive” goes, well, yes, that’s not the way you want to campaign all the time … but sometimes you have to take out the trash. She just bagged Wayne Allyn Root and set him on the curb for pickup. She’s called him a coward who hides behind children instead of protecting them because he’s scared shitless of giving Mrs. Grundy the vapors … and she did it convincingly. If Root gets up off the floor after this, he’s either an undead creature or the original glutton for punishment.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Steve, if you read her books, you wouldn’t be confused. You would know that the viewpoint is based on three important distinctions:
1) Lack of consent at any age means exploitation, coercion, and aggression, including rape. That’s wrong.
2) Consent at any age requires competence to give such consent, specifically the ability, knowledge, and wisdom to make a proper choice and accept the responsibility for the consequences or aftereffects. For certain ages of the parties involved, depending on the issue, consent is impossible.
3) Consent given is a private contract and government has no role in it except to make sure that the consent doesn’t move into #1.
Note that specific number ages are not part of these distinctions.
The purist position is that age should not be a factor, because different people have different competencies at different ages. If the boy Mozart was alive in 2008 USA his parents would be called exploiters for his piano concerts and we would never have heard his amazing music.
The pragmatic viewpoint is that law imposes age restrictions in a bad “one-size-fits-all” attempt at centralized planning. That may be the reality state of things, but the truth is that one size DOESN’T fit all, and centralized planning doesn’t work, either.
IOW, the pragmatic view of reality doesn’t reflect the truth of the situation. From what I gather, Ruwart is on the truth side, not the pragmatic side.
On another thread someone (and I forget who, so apologies to whomever it was) suggested a graduated system of ages. On one hand it is similar to the system we have now in that various ages can and can’t do certian things, but it is slightly different in that there would be different ages for different related acts. This sounds good at first but breaks down under scrutiny as it is simply a micromanagement version of one-size-fits-all. The problem of age laws still exists, but is now more complex.
OTOH, I suggested making everything at 18, with under 18 a child being the ward and responsibility of their parents in all cases, and at and beyond 18 a full adult with the full legal rights and responsbilities that come with it (vote, drink, drive, serve in the military, marry, etc.). It still has the same age problem, but it does simplify the issue to one age and cleans up who is responsible for what when. It’s the other extreme in its own way, and by no means do I claim it to be perfect.
The idea of competency tests in a corut isn’t a bad idea. The problem with it is that people will claim it makes Justice subjective (as if it weren’t now?). I disagree with that claim as it applies the same standards to everybody and if they pass, they pass, and if they fail, they fail.
But the idea of labelling as a sex offender a minor who has sex is just stupid. That label alrady exists for those that commit forced sex acts: rapists.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“Name one.”
Mr. LaBianca:
Mr. Kubby’s (admittedly disturbing and sad) story. The idea that Libertarian Candidates must be radicals on all issues. The equating child consent (which she STILL sidesteps) with gun bans and medicinal marijuana.
The underlying premise that she and Mr. Kubby have fought the same battles, suffered the same wounds is fairly offensive and misleading.
The not so subtle assertion that by not supporting her (or if you have to, Mr. Kubby) that you don’t support libertarianism.
Since you and others seem to cling to the claim that anyone not supporting the idea that children can consent are “statists” (an ad hominem attack), I’ll give you a statist argument:
“Can you prove, historically, that children who participated in sex with adults ( and the production of child pornography) prior to the “ban” on said activity were LESS damaged by it than they are now, after the ban?”
My assertion is that sex with a person below a certain capacity (age or otherwise) is always rape. Always. Ditto for the production of recordings of said activity. The children who have this sort of heinous act thrust on them are victims who have had their rights, probably for the rest of their lives, taken away. I will not stand by someone who refers to them as “unwilling underage performers” as Ms. Ruwart did in a previous statement. Not do I back the idea, as she seems to (given the only example she uses to back her assertion that children can consent is a “17 year old and a 15 year old” or the like), that teens/young teens are incapable of forcing sexual activity on their peers.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Brian,
I don’t think I need to work on any more stink bombs for Root. He’s so done you can’t put a fork in him—the meat would fall apart around it.
To be honest, the only thing I have going at the moment on Root is a compilation of quotes from his book Millionaire Republican. The quotes make him look stupid, shallow, vain, greedy, opportunistic and willing to sacrifice anyone and anything to whatever his immediate desire might be, but he’s doing such a bang-up job of making himself look all that and more in real time that I’m not sure a collection of three-year-old quotes would add anything.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Michael, the rules would still exist in Ruwarchistan, too, it’s just that they’d be (sometimes ex post facto) common law written by judges and juries, rather than written by legislatures. You can move the rule-writing around, but you can’t make it disappear, and the complexity of the rules is logically independent of whether a state is involved.
But good job in hitting the no-bright-lines talking point, and pretending that Ruwart’s critics don’t favor case-by-case evaluation of the circumstances. Atta boy.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Balph Eubank Said:
“When murder is illegal, only criminals will be hit men. When shoplifting is illegal, only criminals will sneak merchandise under their clothes. We need safe, market-based, assassination and shoplifting services!”
Absurd. Murder and theft are clear initiation of force and agression. There is no market for those acts. You equate clearly illegal acts with acts that are illegal but should be legal (imbibing a substance, carrying a weapon).
“Mary believes in ex post facto law from the jury. Yay!”
Sure, most libertarians do. It’s called “jury as trier of law AND fact”, as postulated by Federalist Papers co-author and later first Chief Justice John Jay.
Or as Lidia put it recently during jury panel questioning on a MJ possession case, “As an agronomist I really don’t see what’s illegal about owning a plant.” The judge smiled. The defense lawyer grinned. The prosecutor had to pick his jaw up off the floor. The other jurors saw light bulbs appear over their heads. The defendant was acquitted.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Sorry, Brian, were you mumbling something? I was busy engaging in coherent conversation….
May 8th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“Absurd. Murder and theft are clear initiation of force and agression. There is no market for those acts.”
Mr. Seebeck:
You and I both know that statement is false- there are many gainfully employed hitmen, and many very fiscally successful thieves in the world.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
What an excellent article by Mary
GREAT piece, Mary! Keep up the great work! She is absolutely right 300 percent
And that’s saying a lot from her campaign supporters, including this one right here!!
GO MARY GO! GO MARY GO! GO MARY GO! GO MARY GO! GO MARY GO!
May 8th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
If the Anarchists succeed in taking over the Libertarian Party, do they still have a right to falsely claim that they’re “Libertarians”? Shouldn’t the name of the Party be changed to the Anarchist Party?
And what incentive would be left for any Libertarian to stay in such a Party?
Would the Anarchists then engage in a purge of all the Libertarians, immediately following their takeover? Sort of a night of the long knives, or a Beerhall Putsch?
May 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I agree with Paul, this is an overreaction to mud thrown.
While I admire and feel uplifted even by the pure Liberty in her message, I also believe that the State, to the degree it exists, or should exist, exists to protect the inalienable self-evident rights of individuals against those of a democracy or rule of a forceful individual or mob.
Therefore it seems to me the state exists, in part, to protect minor children against the initation of force.
Sexual acts, by an adult on a child (child =before the age of consent, adult = after) is force.
The problem with a federal or state determination of the age of consent law is that human beings age differently.
Is there one age before which consent is clearly not possible? Certainly less than five. Perhaps less than ten. But 12 or 13? 18?
What about the intellectually challenged? Comatose? 90 year old in a nursing home?
Clearly age of consent is not sufficient. Far from it.
The determination of when a sexual act is force and when it is consensual is an issue for the courts, and Mary, perhaps with the addition of an age of consent as low as 7 years old or the like, one on which all could agree, is . . . absloutely right.
Whether this makes her the best possible candidate to advance the cause of liberty this year has yet to be seen, and I for one am excited to see her at her best in Denver.
Joe
May 8th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Think about this for a second. If the Libertarian Party becomes the Anarchist Party, than isn’t it fraud to continue using the name “Libertarian”? Isn’t opposition to fraud something that Libertarians are supposed to be against?
I don’t know the Anarchist position on fraud. Perhaps it’s perfectly acceptable for Anarchists to use fraudulant names. After all, look how many people here and at Reason.com post under fake names, instead of their own.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Thomas Sipos wrote that minarchism “can mean almost any level of govt.” Thomas, you may be confusing “minarchist” with “lessarchist”.
The notion that non-anarchist libertarians are in principle indistinguishable from socialists or fascists is profoundly un-intellectual, and the stink of this idea is all over Ruwart’s essay. Maybe this is why Libertarians have proven so bad at shrinking government; they exhibit no understanding of the different arguments for the various possible amounts of government one might advocate. I have on the back burner an essay describing a taxonomy of about 20 different categories of escalating levels of state intervention between anarchism and outright communism, with the first 10 or so being arguably minarchist. Each level can have its own justification(s), and it’s just not serious to say with Ruwart that they’re all refuted by the one-size-fits-all bumper-sticker argument for force-initiation abstention.
Wikipedia has good articles on the various schools of libertarianism. I give summaries at
http://libertarianmajority.net/major-schools-of-libertarianism. For now, I’ll just repeat Brian Doherty’s definition: “”it has been mostly definitive of libertarians to believe that government — federal, state, or local — should be restricted in its functions, generally to the protection of citizens’ lives against force or fraud and the provision of a small set of so-called public goods that could not be provided by free markets.”
Michael, you can either answer my point, or not. Either way is fine with me.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Oh my, with Brian Holtz I just do NOT know where to start!
The first and foremost problem with Holtz, is that he is blinded by this idea that someone whom he perceives as an anarchist must RUN ON A PURELY ANARCHIST PLATFORM; this so misses the point! In his mind, unless Mary Ruwart runs on a platform to totally dismantle government at EVERY level on the first day in office, she is trying to deceive us. He simply cannot see that libertarian principles are the anchor for the ship, and the currents and winds must be harnessed to the best advantage.
What is SO difficult to understand about holding to pure libertarianism, while promoting a program of getting the ship back into the right port? Bite off only what you can swallow. Rome wasn’t built in a day. One day at a time. How much clearer does it need to be? Principle—->guides strategy!
Alas, this blind spot is the inherent problem with the Reform Caucus. The inherent confusion, brought about by the impatience to achieve electoral success blinds them with the idea that the program, the strategy IS the goal! You’re a radical . . . then you MUST campaign on a totally radical program! You’re a reformer . . . then the program must be reform. See, the reformers see the program and the bedrock as one and the same.
True fundamental movements NEVER forget their bedrock, their guiding principle. Alas, the reformers say that the LP MUST become a REAL political party. Supposedly this means that the principles are no longer relevant, or that the principles must be modified to satisfy the “masses”.
If the principles are hard to promote, change the principles! This is the essence of the Reform Caucus. Principled Libertarians, when they see that the principle is difficult to promote, they figure out a better way to promote it!
Until teleporting is a known scientific reality and is economically feasible, we are relegated to accepting that it takes time and effort to get to where we are going. How does this negate the principle, the relevance of the port to anchor in?
Secondly, Holtz is blinded by the notion that success for a political party is only to be measured by how many votes are received. Mary lists several successes in this article which have nothing to do with electoral success.
Next, Holtz goes on to say “libertarians oppose the state’s laws against certain substances and tools (viz., drugs and guns), so you’re not a good libertarian —“do you believe in liberty?”—if you don’t also oppose the state’s laws against aggression (e.g. production of child pornography).”
Again, Holtz accepts as given, that a law enforced by the state is going to solve the problem. This is so unbelievably naive of Holtz that he would consider that a law which is intended to stop aggression is actually going to achieve what it was originally intended to do. Even with something as universally accepted as protecting innocent young people from aggression, it is a leap of faith that the state can actually achieve the desired result.
Certainly, libertarians understand this. How is it that Brian Holtz, a self avowed libertarian doesn’t? To the extent that Holtz speaks for Reformers, why don’t THEY understand this? I submit, that it is that blind spot again! The principle is the strategy, and whatever the strategy is, then it is correct. Since many voters still do not understand the lack of efficacy of laws of the state, the strategy (and thus the principle) is to support what the voters will vote for!
Yes, Mary has written a very excellent and insightful essay here. It IS true . . . the lines ARE drawn . . . the party IS at a crossroads . . . the delegate MUST decide if expediency will carry the day, or if the LP is in fact, STILL the Party of Principle.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
“the delegate MUST decide if expediency will carry the day, or if the LP is in fact, STILL the Party of Principle.”
Maybe the question is better. . . “The delegate must decide what set of Principles we are advocating as the Party of Principle”
Or maybe we should go back to TANSTAAFL, and stop sticking our noses into other persons’ principles, so long as they work with us.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Justin,
In reply to Steve LaBianca’s “name one (misdirection),” you write:
Mr. Kubby’s (admittedly disturbing and sad) story.
How is it “misdirection” to set forth a real-life example of how state “protection” of children is often more damaging than protecting; that it can be and often is misused for political or personal vendettas, etc.?
“The idea that Libertarian Candidates must be radicals on all issues.”
Ruwart did not specifically argue any such thing. What she argued is that Libertarian candidates should tell the truth, even if that truth may seem radical to some. While you might disagree with her on what the truth is, the proposition as stated would encompass non-radical candidacies if those candidacies are truthful.
“The equating child consent (which she STILL sidesteps) with gun bans and medicinal marijuana.”
How is this “sidestepping” child consent?
“The underlying premise that she and Mr. Kubby have fought the same battles, suffered the same wounds is fairly offensive and misleading.”
There’s no such underlying premise, and as a matter of fact she specifically disclaims such, stating that if the worst she has to endure is slimy attacks from Wayne Allyn Root, she considers herself quite luck relative to what Kubby has gone through.
“The not so subtle assertion that by not supporting her (or if you have to, Mr. Kubby) that you don’t support libertarianism.”
Bullshit. The assertion was not that you don’t support libertarianism if you don’t support Ruwart (or Kubby). The assertion was that the job of a Libertarian candidate is to support libertarianism even when it’s hard or unpopular, not just when it’s easy and popular.
“Since you and others seem to cling to the claim that anyone not supporting the idea that children can consent are ‘statists’”
Ruwart pretty directly stated in the article —as quoted above in this very comment—that children can’t consent.
Of course, part of the problem is the indiscriminate use of the words “child” and “children.” In my view, competence or incompetence to meaningfully consent to certain acts (including sexual acts) is part of the definition of childhood versus adulthood.
To me, someone who is intellectually and emotionally capable of evaluating and accepting the consequences of having sex is by definition not a “child” for that purpose whether that person is 4 or 40. While I freely acknowledge that a 40-year-old is a thousand times as likely as a four-year-old to be possessed of such capacity, picking either of those numbers or any in between to arbitrarily legally set as a point at which such capacity is presumed is sheer stupidity. That’s what judges and juries are for, and they make such determinations all the time when entertaining juvenile motions for emancipation, prosecutorial motions to try juveniles “as adults,” etc.
Ditto for other actions. For example, saying that someone must, by law, be 18 in order to sign a contract to buy a home. Do you think people selling homes are all idiots? If the person isn’t competent, the seller will get his head handed to him if he goes to court to try to collect payment … so the seller won’t even think about trying to get that four-year-old next door to buy the split-level ranch down the street. It’s a non-friggin’-problem without any “age of contract” law.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I wonder who wrote this for Mary?
May 8th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Brian, if there was a point there it was lost in the mumblings. (So what else is new?)
And I don’t repeat talking points: I MAKE THEM. Bwuuuhhahahahha!
Justin, RE: the market for hitmen and thieves: Leave the ATF, FBI, and IRS out of this.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Why is it that many modern day LP-Anarchists and Global Warming Nuts both remind me of the Catholic Church circa 1095?
Oh, because they are all on a Crusade to root out heretics.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
“Michael, the rules would still exist in Ruwarchistan, too, it’s just that they’d be (sometimes ex post facto) common law written by judges and juries, rather than written by legislatures. You can move the rule-writing around, but you can’t make it disappear, and the complexity of the rules is logically independent of whether a state is involved.”
Oh, is THIS what you call a point?
Nope, that’s assuming facts not in evidence.
The “Ruwarchistan” junk aside, there’s nothing wrong with the common (sense) law. And I never said or implied that it would disappear, nor did I make any reference to whether the state’s involvement had anything to do with complexities.
What I did imply was that the current reality didn’t make any practical sense.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Justin Grover Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
“the delegate MUST decide if expediency will carry the day, or if the LP is in fact, STILL the Party of Principle.”
Maybe the question is better. . . “The delegate must decide what set of Principles we are advocating as the Party of Principle”
How about “Libertarian Principles”: . . you know the basic principle of the non-initiation of force?
May 8th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Thomas Knapp, well said! (5-8 @6:41PM)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Mr. Grover writes, “Well, atleast she finally admitted that some children can’t consent.”
What do you mean “finally”? She has never stated, to my awareness, that very young children are capable of consent, and made it clear weeks ago on the Steve Kubby Show that they are not.
Mr. Holtz writes, “However, I do mind when an anarchist candidate for our nomination suggests that to support minarchism over anarchism is to “sell out” or to “denounce liberty” or to “stop being the Party of Principle and become the Party of Expediency” or to “fall for statist propaganda”.”
I have to agree more or less with you here, Mr. Holtz. Her apparent implication that disagreement with her on this one specific issue is unprincipled is just as annoying to me as Mr. Root’s implication that market anarchists are not libertarians, but simply “fellow travelers” to libertarians.
However, given that Dr. Ruwart calls Ron Paul, a minarchist, principled in this same peice, I have to think she inadvertantly made the implication that minarchism is not necessarily principled, rather than intentionally making such an implication.
“If Ruwart believes that there is such a thing as principled minarchism, I see no evidence of it in her essay.”
See her comments about Ron Paul.
Paulie writes,
“Great article by Dr. Ruwart. Very well said.
“Bad move by her campaign.
“She should stop focusing on reacting to mud thrown by other campaigns, and start making the issues she wants to focus on the center of attention.”
I agree.
Mr. Perkins asks, “All the spin over the kiddie porn issue has me confused. Does Ruwart oppose age-of-consent laws only as they apply to minors having sex with other minors (as the above article subtly suggests)... or does she oppose their abolition even for sex with adults, in favor of courts applying ad-hoc tests to see whether a 12-year old can consent to sex with a 45-year old?”
It’s my distinct impression that she simply opposes arresting people who are close in age to one another. I think she would be deeply troubled with the 12-year-old girl sleeping with some creepy 45-year-old priest. I think she would be much less concerned with a 15-year-old boy having sex with his hot 22-year-old teacher. And I think she would be completely, totally, and wholly against laws preventing consensual sex between a sixteen-year-old girl and an eighteen-year-old boy. (There have been cases where eighteen-year-old males have been arrested for consensual sex with sixteen-year-old girls, and been labeled a “sex offender,” despite the same two persons eventually marrying. I don’t see how any self-described libertarian could condone the manner in which the state has treated those in that situation.)
Richard asks, “Is she threatening to leave the party if she doesn’t get her way?”
No.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
May 8th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Wow, so Mary can get angry.
I think the biggest confusion is over Mary’s definition of child. Instead of defining “child” as someone who cannot consent, she defines it as someone under 18 (as traditionally defined). Thus it leads to confusion when she says children can consent to sex, and that they would be better protected if the industry wasn’t underground.
She would do better to say that adulthood should be determined on a case-by-case basis in these situations, and that sex with children (those who cannot consent) will always be illegal. Thus “adults” under 18 would be better protected if a black market for pornography featuring them did not exist. Also, she does not consider the possession of a recording of crime to be a crime itself, thus her stance on child pornography.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
“Bullshit. The assertion was not that you don’t support libertarianism if you don’t support Ruwart (or Kubby).”
You mean by titling an article rebutting comments about her stance on issues “So you believe in Liberty?” or “A house divided” she somehow isn’t claiming to be the apex of all things Libertarian (as Steve LaBianca, et al. assert in her defense)?
“There’s no such underlying premise, and as a matter of fact she specifically disclaims such, stating that if the worst she has to endure is slimy attacks from Wayne Allyn Root, she considers herself quite luck relative to what Kubby has gone through.”
But she says:
“For decades, Libertarians like Steve Kubby and I have told the truth about liberty. We’ve held our party’s beliefs high instead of hiding like cowards behind America’s children,”
Which undercuts precisely what you just said- it is specifically written to allow you to draw those conclusions, as anyone who has studied political writing can tell you.
If I said, of my military service, “Audy Murphy was the most decorated Army soldier ever, someone who fought and was wounded for our country, but whose courage stood the test of battle time and again. Both Audy Murphy and I served this great nation with courage and have never wavered in our stance that America was a great nation.” Would you not see the connection I was making, how I was siphoning glory and credentials from someone else who had actually accomplished something?
As to sidestepping the consent issue, she couches her point in long, wordy sentences filled with many examples, all meant to obfuscate the idea that she feels child consent is ONLY approachable on a child by child basis, through the courts- which is as she outlined in her book, and I commend her integrity in sticking with it, but decry her claims to ‘speak the truth’ when she is now backing away from that with every lengthy press release, every “teens should not get punished for having sex together” example.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
May 8th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I wonder who wrote this for Mary?
I guarantee you, Mary Ruwart wrote this! Did she have some input from others. No doubt. It is however, vintage Mary Ruwart!
May 8th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Mary Ruwart is an anarchist.
My source: the good doctor herself…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/ruwart1.html
“How I Became a Libertarian by Mary Ruwart
December 14, 2002
“I was easily won over to anarchy.”
****************************************************
There is nothing wrong with being an anarchist and running for the Libertarian Presidential nomination, as long you admit that you are an anarchist.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Yes, Mary, I believe in liberty. I believe in liberty for those little ones whose deaths you’d just as soon rationalize with your murdering intellectualizations. You’re not only a phoney, Mary, you’re worse than that, you’re the same kind of slime that has been selling those very rationizations in the Democratic Party for upward of 40 years now. Do us a favor, crawl back under the rock from which you emerged would you please.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Brian Holtz: “The notion that non-anarchist libertarians are in principle indistinguishable from socialists or fascists is profoundly un-intellectual,”
I declared myself a minarchist, several times, in my post. Thus I don’t see how you could have logically twisted my words into the above meaning.
Holtz: “I have on the back burner an essay describing a taxonomy of about 20 different categories of escalating levels of state intervention between anarchism and outright communism,”
Really? I wonder where you’d place you vs. me on your spectrum.
You look like a Republican Lite minarchist to me, wanting far more statism than I do. I feel politically closer to anarchists than to Republican Lites, though I’m not an anarchist myself.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
“Justin, RE: the market for hitmen and thieves: Leave the ATF, FBI, and IRS out of this.”
Mr. Seebeck, thank you for conceding the point. The market for murder, theft and aggression exists- yet we, as a party stand against it. Why can’t you see that some of us want to see Ms. Ruwart come out and say, plainly, with less hedging, that some persons are unable (through age, disease, etc.) to consent? That people who take advantage on the young, through position, power or outright force are in fact committing aggression?
May 8th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
The talk about Mary being the Final arbiter on all things libertarian, like Richard saying “Interesting that Mary has wielded the dictatorial sword, crushing anyone who is in dissent from her and questions her position.”, for example.
The title of the essay is “Do You Believe in Liberty?” she presents her case as to what she believes, now the delegates have to decide the direction of the LP.
Ms. Ruwart had no such intention, nor implied that SHE decrees what direction the party should go in. That is for the delegates. Mary Ruwart has stated her view, now the delegates will state theirs.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
BTW, I think minarchy can benefit by promoting anarchists. Anarchists are pushing society in the right direction—away from statism.
We still have a long, long way to go in that direction before I get off the train.
So I’m less worried about anarchists (not at all, really) than I am worried about Republican Lite reformers who are actually applying brakes to the train, or even turning it back toward a statist direction (as some liberventionists want to do, in the quest for Empire).
May 8th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“What do you mean “finally”? She has never stated, to my awareness, that very young children are capable of consent, and made it clear weeks ago on the Steve Kubby Show that they are not.”
Mr. Peak:
I mean finally in that everything she has written (and even on the Kubby show) she has implied, by hemming and hawing about who has the “Burden of Proof” that SOME very young children are capable of consent- if you need a jury to decide something, then the fact is in doubt.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“The majority never has right on its side. Never, I
say! That is one of these social lies against which an
independent, intelligent man must wage war. Who is it that
constitute the majority of the population in a country? Is it the
clever folk, or the stupid? I don’t imagine you will dispute the
fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely
overwhelming majority all the world over. But, good Lord!—you
can never pretend that it is right that the stupid folk should
govern the clever ones I (Uproar and cries.) Oh, yes—you can
shout me down, I know! But you cannot answer me. The majority has
might on its side—unfortunately; but right it has not. I am in
the right—I and a few other scattered individuals. The minority
is always in the right. (Renewed uproar.)”
The character Dr. Stockman, An Enemy of the People by Henrik Ibsen
May 8th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Congratulations, Steve LaBianca, I think you just set a record. Your comment contained seven separate paragraphs purporting to disagree with me, and each one of them in fact only disagreed with a strawman. I don’t hold a single one of the positions you claimed I hold.
Since only one of those paragraphs even purported to refer to my actual words, I’ll only reply to that one. You quoted me and then claim I believe that “a law enforced by the state is going to solve the problem”. No, I in fact believe that a law enforced by the state is the least bad way of addressing the problem.
OK, try again. And this time, for every sentence you write, ask yourself if you are exhibiting Holtz’s Law.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“How about “Libertarian Principles”: . . you know the basic principle of the non-initiation of force?”
Mr. LaBianca:
I’m all for that here, as far as I can tell, but I’m tired of this “purist” (read as anarchist) idea that anything short of ONE CANDIDATE’S anarchist principles are ‘statist’ and bad and evil.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Absurd. Murder and theft are clear initiation of force and agression. There is no market for those acts.
Au contraire. I had a celly who was in the market for murder. There’s even a term for it you may be familiar with: hitman.
There’s also a market for theft. A common term for such a market is “fence.”
Also, if there is a crackhead who approaches you on the street corner selling diamonds, gold watches, fur coats, or something of that nature, and you buy some of that shit from him, you may also be part of the market for theft.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
“Ms. Ruwart had no such intention, nor implied that SHE decrees what direction the party should go in. That is for the delegates. Mary Ruwart has stated her view, now the delegates will state theirs.”
Mr. LaBianca:
You only feel this way because you and she seem to hold the same view on all things. Those of us that disagree with her (on even ONE issue) seem to be seeing this as her declaration of what IS or IS NOT libertarian. In fact, many times you and others have referred to her as “plumbline libertarian’ or some equal statement, which at least one of us (me) thinks is both inaccurate and unfair to both the debate and the people participating.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Steve,
You write:
“What is SO difficult to understand about holding to pure libertarianism”
A lot of things. Are we talking about pure Rothbardian libertarianism, or pure geolibertarianism, or pure Nozickian ultra-minimal state libertarianism, or pure Hayekian libertarianism, or pure Objectivist libertarianism (real Objectivism, not rote Randroidism), or what? Hell, there are probably fifty varieties of anarchist libertarianism alone!
Nobody has a monopoly on the definition of libertarianism (all of us can agree that some things are libertarian and some aren’t, but we’re probably never going to all agree on which things are which) ... and “purity” is nothing but an assessment of how loyal one is to libertarianism per one’s preferred definition.
The failure of Holtz’s argument isn’t that he rejects “purity” (I guarantee you that he is a 100% pure Holtzian libertarian), it’s that he’s fighting desperately to portray selection of a presidential candidate who is a particular kind of libertarian “purist” as somehow inherently prohibitive of every other kind of libertarian from meaningful participation in the party.
While it’s true that control of various party apparatuses—the presidential campaign, the national committee, the national office, the party newspaper, etc.—might vest some types of libertarians (especially if they are organized as blocs) temporarily with more power in the party, that’s just a cost of doing business (to paraphrase Lee McGarrity in “the West Wing,” “when we got elected, that meant those other guys get to sit down for four years”).
Holtz is attempting a very smooth pivot here. Under the guise of preaching a benevolent libertarian ecumenicalism that puts no one “at the kids’ table,” he is attempting to preclude the possibility that one particular type of libertarian (the Rothbardian anarchist) might ever put its ass on any seat at any table in the party. Nice trick if he can pull it off—one fight and it’s all over instead of a perpetual struggle between factions—but it’s a utopian fantasy. There will always be factions, and the one he’s trying to write out of the party will likely always be one of them.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I’ll just mention that the correct LEAP organization URL Mary Ruwart mentions is
http://www.leap.cc/ (not .ORG)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
This headline should read; “Do you believe in child porn.”
May 8th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I have on the back burner an essay describing a taxonomy of about 20 different categories of escalating levels of state intervention between anarchism and outright communism.
Holtz also has a 10 inch dick but you can’t see that either.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Of course you don’t Mr. Holtz. Let’s see, this time I set a record. the last time I exceeded the, I believe it was the “irony” threshold, or something.
Anything else before I call you on it? I’m a liar, a cheat, terribly dirty, outrageously mistaken, rude, I have only ad hominem arguments . . .
If what I have said doesn’t characterize the Reform Caucus (and you are a spokesman for the Reform Caucus, yes?) then what in fact does the Reform Caucus stand for? What does the Reform Caucus want to reform? The “Zero aggression principle”? That responsibility rests with each individual? That a coercive state has no role, and ANY state legitimately only acts when asked by a victim or a duly delegated authority to do so? Is the mission of the Reform Caucus to reform the principles? If not, then why completely trash the platform and rewrite it with so many holes even swiss cheese would be envious?
Please name the areas where you believe that I have mischaracterized your position, and we can take them on point by point.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Another is “IRS”.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
“Why can’t you see that some of us want to see Ms. Ruwart come out and say, plainly, with less hedging, that some persons are unable (through age, disease, etc.) to consent? That people who take advantage on the young, through position, power or outright force are in fact committing aggression?”
To quote Sammy Hagar: “What is understood, doesn’t need to be discussed.”
The things that you want Mary to come out and say are already understood to everyone not looking to pick nits. Therefore they aren’t discussed.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Thomas L. Knapp Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Steve,
You write:
“What is SO difficult to understand about holding to pure libertarianism”
A lot of things. Are we talking about pure Rothbardian libertarianism, or pure geolibertarianism, or pure Nozickian ultra-minimal state libertarianism, or pure Hayekian libertarianism, or pure Objectivist libertarianism (real Objectivism, not rote Randroidism), or what? Hell, there are probably fifty varieties of anarchist libertarianism alone!
Thomas, Hayek was no laissez faire advocate. Geolibertarians support the bizarre (in my view) concept that land is fundamentally different than all other property, and Nozick (in his earlier years) was an ultra minarchist, but even Nozick, I believe held to the non-aggression principle. Rand certainly did, as did Rothbard. Heck, even Leonard Read wrote a book, “Anything that’s Peaceful” which supports the non-aggression principle.
The common thread that runs through libertarianism is the non-aggression
principle. Holtz wants to redefine it as “opposing and minimizing aggression”. How minimal is minimal? When, how and who decides when aggression is justified, since minimal isn’t NONE? This in my view is not a “principle” as it has no standard to adhere to . . . only whim or one or several people’s judgment.
Combine this with the LP “oath” and I think this makes it pretty clear as to what the “pure” principle” is. If someone wants to argue that in practice that zero aggression is impossible, well, I’m listening. But so far, I have not heard a practical argument yet.
Now Thomas, your statement:
“The failure of Holtz’s argument isn’t that he rejects “purity” (I guarantee you that he is a 100% pure Holtzian libertarian), it’s that he’s fighting desperately to portray selection of a presidential candidate who is a particular kind of libertarian “purist” as somehow inherently prohibitive of every other kind of libertarian from meaningful participation in the party.”,
IS in fact a practical argument against such proponents (such as Holtz) of the “impracticality” of principle and purity.
I also think Holtz is so crass as to nearly suggest that he is in a Rand, Rothbard, Read, and Nozick’s league with his arguments. I believe that he think he has developed NEW libertarian thought. He may be very smart, but I don’t believe that he’s that smart.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“The things that you want Mary to come out and say are already understood to everyone not looking to pick nits. Therefore they aren’t discussed.”
Mr. Seebeck:
Or she doesn’t believe it. The debate as about what she believes. I will not take a presidential candidate on faith of what is between the lines, especially when it seems they are working very hard NOT to say what needs to be said. That goes, in my mind, for all candidates- not just the wiggly one in question.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Good Lord, Ruwart’s learned nothing from this experience, has she?
And this:
Bans based on arbitrary age limits aren’t needed to protect those too young to make informed decisions about sexual conduct.
. . .
For the record, I have never “promoted” the removal of the age-of-consent laws.
BULLSHIT. It takes a lot of chutzpah to make the argument for repealing age-of-consent laws, and then claim to never have argued for the removal of age-of-consent laws, IN THE SAME ARTICLE.
And this is the LP frontrunner?
Those of you who aren’t anarchists… flee. Flee NOW. Salvage whatever is left of political respectability now while you still can. I learned too late, but there’s still hope for others…
May 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
perverted priest, go suck on Gordon’s dick or crawl up Holtz’s ass.
Gordon, your shit bag candidate going to run or wait until Root starts on Barr’s fucking girlfriend.
Here ya go! Hi, I’m Barrarchy and I cheat on wife number 3.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Mr. Grover,
You don’t appear to have read the same thing I’ve read. Most of the implications you accuse Dr. Ruwart of making are, no offense, imaginary.
Mr. Dondero asks, “If the Anarchists succeed in taking over the Libertarian Party, do they still have a right to falsely claim that they’re ‘Libertarians’?”
A) The anarchists do not want to kick the minarchists out, Mr. Dondero. There is no goal to “take over the party.”
B) All market anarchists are libertarians (small L), and all market anarchists registered Libertarian are Libertarians (big L). Likewise, all market minarchists are libertarians (small L), and all market minarchists registered Libertarian are Libertarians (big L).
C) There are no Anarchists (big A) that I know of.
Mr. Dondero asks, “Shouldn’t the name of the Party be changed to the Anarchist Party?”
Considering that I don’t know of any anarchist Libertarians who want the party to exclude minarchists, and considering a name-change would alienate the minarchist Libertarians with whom the anarchist Libertarians wish to work, it would not be a wise choice to change the name of the party.
Mr. Dondero asks, “And what incentive would be left for any Libertarian to stay in such a Party?”
There would be no such thing as a “Libertarian,” at least not in America, if that were to happen. You mean to ask, what incentive would be left for any minarchists to remain in such a party. The answer is none, which is precisely why anarchist Libertarians prefer for the party to be called the Libertarian Party. Anarchist (small A) Libertarians want to keep the party a big-tent, from all appearances.
Mr. Dondero asks, “Would the Anarchists then engage in a purge of all the Libertarians, immediately following their takeover?”
Again, there would be no Libertarians if the party changed its name. If you’re asking whether the Anarchists would purge all libertarians (small L) from the anarchist party, the answer would be “certainly not,” for such a purge would mean that they’d be kicking themselves out of the party as well.
Mr. Dondero asks, “If the Libertarian Party becomes the Anarchist Party, than isn’t it fraud to continue using the name “Libertarian”?”
Well, yes, but only because no Libertarians (big L) would exist anymore, at least not in America. Libertarians (small L), however, would certainly continue to exist, and there would be absolutely nothing fraudulent about market anarchists and market minarchists working within your proposed Anarchist Party from calling themselves libertarians (small L), just as there is nothing fraudulent about market anarchists and market minarchists calling themselves libertarians (small L) now.
Mr. Dondero also asks, “Isn’t opposition to fraud something that Libertarians are supposed to be against?”
A) No, opposition to fraud is something that libertarians are usually for. It’s support for fraud that libertarians are usually against. (The only libertarian I know of who had ever claimed that fraud should not be illegal was Harry Browne, and it’s the biggest issue of his with which I disagree.)
B) As demonstated above, it is not fraudulent for anarchists to call themselves libertarians so long as said anarchists believe in property rights, nor is it fraudulent for anarchists to call themselves Libertarians if they are registered Libertarian. (To use a certain classical liberal as our example, Mike Gravel is a Libertarian but not a libertarian.)
Mr. Dondero states, “I don’t know the Anarchist position on fraud.”
There is no Anarchist Party to my knowledge, so there is no Anarchist (big A) position.
As for anarchists (small A), or more specifically market anarchists, they almost universally oppose fraud. In fact I know of no market anarchist who supports it, and in fact the only person I know to have ever believed fraud should be legal was a market minarchist who ran for president in 1996 and 2000.
Mr. Holtz writes, “The notion that non-anarchist libertarians are in principle indistinguishable from socialists or fascists is profoundly un-intellectual, and the stink of this idea is all over Ruwart’s essay.”
No, I don’t detect that at all.
Mr. Holtz writes, “Wikipedia has good articles on the various schools of libertarianism. I give summaries at
http://libertarianmajority.net/major-schools-of-libertarianism.”
I have issues with your definition of left-libertarianism. My main issue with it is that I believe it’s a bit too simplified. Moreover, I consider the term redundant. Libertarianism is and has always been an inherently leftist movement. Even the Old Right, properly understood, were on the radical left.
Mr. LaBianca writes, “What is SO difficult to understand about holding to pure libertarianism, while promoting a program of getting the ship back into the right port?”
I have to agree with Mr. LaBianca. It’s perfectly acceptable to believe that no state is ever just, that they are by their very nature violent and undesirable, and yet to recognise pragmatically A) that anarchism is unlikely to be achieved in his/her lifetime and B) that incrimentalism—or Fabian libertarianism—is a valid approach.
Quite honestly, if I ever run for any office, anarchism is the last thing I’m going to be bringing up in my interviews or press releases. I don’t think anarchism will be achieved in my life-time, so the entire question is moot. All I care about is shrinking the government, so practically my approach would be exactly the same as the standard minarchist approach.
I would still consider myself principled, however, because like Ron Paul, I would never vote for a tax increase, or a new regulation.
When I do discuss anarchism, it’s only because I find it intellectually stimulating to debate, not because I think it has a shot in my lifetime. And I suspect most anarchists feel generally the same way as I do. If we succeed in limiting our currently-limitless government, that would be an amazing accomplishment, and should make every libertarian happy, regardless of which faction it is from which he or she comes.
Mr. Grover writes,
“Why is it that many modern day LP-Anarchists and Global Warming Nuts both remind me of the Catholic Church circa 1095?
“Oh, because they are all on a Crusade to root out heretics.”
The anarchist Libertarians are not trying to root minarchists out. They are simply defending themselves (in most cases, but admittedly not all) against attacks made by minarchists. To this end, the anarchists explain their viewpoints to the minarchists and try to explain why it is that they disagree. I believe you are incorrectly perceiving this attempt at explanation as a crusade to purge. I, for one, believe that both the minarchists and the anarchists are very important to our movement, and that it’s vitally important that we all work together to achieve our shared goals.
Respectfully yours,
Alex Peak
May 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Hey, it’s Kris Overstreet. He knows all about kiddie porn. He draws it.
Libertarian Reform Caucus member draws kiddie porn.
Gordon, who is Barr fucking this week? Maybe he can teach Yank something you drunken shit sack.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
A bit simple? Peak grow a pair and say it. Holtz is a moron.
Gordon, whose abortion is Barr paying for this week? At least he gets ass.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Justin wrote:
“Or she doesn’t believe it. The debate as about what she believes. I will not take a presidential candidate on faith of what is between the lines, especially when it seems they are working very hard NOT to say what needs to be said. That goes, in my mind, for all candidates- not just the wiggly one in question.”
You haven’t been paying attention much, have you?
Ability to consent by its very nature includes the fact that come people lack the mental or physical capabilities to do so, whether it be by a physical issue such as a disability, or by mental incompetence. To try to paint someone as not a good candidadte because she doesn’t dot every i and cross every t in this manner is ludicrous and utterly pathetic!
This is why it’s not mentioned, because to every thinking, rational person, it is OBVIOUS!
By your standard Ruwart and every other candidate would have to explain life the universe and everything in explicit detail, including playing the “what-if” game ad infinitum. Sorry, but no rational person does that in anything, and we settle for the best fit instead.
But if you want to go there and look stupid, go ahead. In fact, here’s your first question: In order to show that you understand basic mathematics in order to balance the federal budget, what would we get if we took the expense total, converted it to binary, inverted the bits, divided by the square root of my weight, converted it to base 8, then subtracted that from the original expense totals in base 10—would that balance the budget?
You see how absurd that is? But that’s the standard you’re trying to set, and it’s impossible to reach.
In other words, you’re reading in stuff that isn’t there, and that’s where your reasoning falls apart.
Now, show me a candidate that says the opposite, that every person is able to consent to all activities. That doesn’t exist, either explicitly or implicitly, which also proves how bad your position is.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Mr. Peak:
Just because you don’t see something doesn’t mean it isn’t there. The title, tone and conclusion of the piece are all indicative of someone who is grasping for the “moral high ground.” It is written in the grandest style of political credit stealing- Associate your side with a winning or tragic struggle, empathize, claim to be the same, then accuse the other side of attacking the other person if they attack you as well.
Since becoming active in the party again around October, I have seen nothing but preparation for a putsch on the part of certain anarchists, on the local and national level. Sadly, it is pushing myself, and I believe other people like me, toward the reformers, of all people.
I may suggest, Sir, that your apparent myopia is engendered by the fact that you generally agree philosophically with the aforementioned anarchists, and so misperceive the efforts and effects that the pre-purge is having on people.
We claim to be the party of principle, so when one group consistently argues not on the issue itself, but that their side IS THE PRINCIPLED side, than the other side of the discussion has very few choices left- continue the one sided debate anyway, return the assertion of principle belonging only to one side, or walking away.
Neither of the first two are very beneficial, so the third becomes more and more acceptable.
This is where both Mary Ruwart and the anarchists strike a poor chord with me.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Kris Overstreet Says:
“Bans based on arbitrary age limits aren’t needed to protect those too young to make informed decisions about sexual conduct.
. . .
For the record, I have never “promoted” the removal of the age-of-consent laws.
BULLSHIT. It takes a lot of chutzpah to make the argument for repealing age-of-consent laws, and then claim to never have argued for the removal of age-of-consent laws, IN THE SAME ARTICLE.”
Funny, I don’t see any mention of repealing them or advocating any legislation whatsoever. All she says is that they aren’t needed. That’s a difference you apparently missed.
“And this is the LP frontrunner?”
Could be. Maybe not. Denver will decide.
“Those of you who aren’t anarchists… flee. Flee NOW. Salvage whatever is left of political respectability now while you still can. I learned too late, but there’s still hope for others…”
A little dramatic here, perhaps?
May 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Kris Overstreet draws pictures of young girls naked.
http://www.themagnificentmilkmaid.com/home.html
May 8th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
This is kind of hilarious, actually.
On one hand we have Justin on a the Smith thread claiming he’s seeing an anarchist coup in the making, backed up by Dondero’s speculatiion here. On here we have Kris Overstreet calling on the anarchists to flee.
So, to put it all together, anarchist must prepare to flee their own planned coup! LOL!
May 8th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Mr. Seebeck:
I’m sorry that I mistook you as someone with whom I could hold a rational discussion, in that you can refrain from ad hominem attacks and understand the issues at hand.
The “child sex/porn” issue revolves around ONE STATEMENT that Ms. Ruwart made (which was prefaced by her saying that not all libertarians believe this, which was prefaced with a statement to the effect that you can take her “Answers” one paragraph at a time to understand Libertarianism):
“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 for choice is just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life.”
Since this controversy started, she has not directly refuted the BLANKET statement “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts . . .”
She has talked about how juries can be used to determine, case by case, whether who the burden of proof lays upon to prove consent or lack of.
She has discussed her dislike for age of consent laws (and then, claims to never have promoted the removal of those laws, as someone else pointed out).
She has pointed out (rightly) that the current mishmash of laws gets many people hurt for things that arguably shouldn’t be criminal.
She does NOT BACK DOWN on her statement that “”Children [can] willingly participate in sexual acts . . .”, nor does she modify it in any absolute terms as to age or ability to consent.
By suggesting that a jury be involved, she is saying that at some level ANY child can consent. Juries decide questions of fact.
Be more civil, for all our sakes.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Holtz, who protects your wall eyed dick droppings from Overstreet. You or your pinhead wife?
May 8th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
May 8th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
This is kind of hilarious, actually.
On one hand we have Justin on a the Smith thread claiming he’s seeing an anarchist coup in the making, backed up by Dondero’s speculatiion here. On here we have Kris Overstreet calling on the anarchists to flee.
So, to put it all together, anarchist must prepare to flee their own planned coup! LOL!
——I’d suggest re-reading the quote you quoted:
““Those of you who aren’t anarchists… flee. Flee NOW. Salvage whatever is left of political respectability now while you still can. I learned too late, but there’s still hope for others…”
People who aren’t anarchists… aren’t anarchists.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Mr. Lieberman writes, “There is nothing wrong with being an anarchist and running for the Libertarian Presidential nomination, as long you admit that you are an anarchist.”
Why must any person label him- or herself an anarchist, even if he or she is one? The label can be just as confusing, and indeed misleading, as the terms “liberal” or “conservative.” (In fact, I wrote about this fact just recently on my personal website.)
Mr. Lowell writes, “Yes, Mary, I believe in liberty. I believe in liberty for those little ones whose deaths you’d just as soon rationalize with your murdering intellectualizations.”
Libel.
Mr. Grover writes, “Mr. Seebeck, thank you for conceding the point. The market for murder, theft and aggression exists- yet we, as a party stand against it.”
Correct, we oppose the red market.
Mr. Grover writes, “...some of us want to see Ms. Ruwart come out and say, plainly,...that some persons are unable…to consent?”
She has. :
Mr. Grover writes, “That people who take advantage on the young, through position, power or outright force are in fact committing aggression?”
If I have a son, and I get him to take out the trash every Thursday, I’m certainly “taking advantage” of him; but I would not say that that constitutes aggression. My suggestion would be not to use vague terms like “take advantage,” and such terms do more to stop meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas than promote it.
Mr. Grover writes, “I mean finally in that everything she has written (and even on the Kubby show) she has implied, by hemming and hawing about who has the ‘Burden of Proof’ that SOME very young children are capable of consent- if you need a jury to decide something, then the fact is in doubt.”
But, Mr. Grover, you do need a court to decide, according to the traditions we Americans hold dear. Without a trial, we can’t even determine that the claim that sexual touching took place is actually true. Since our system holds, correctly, that you are innocent until proven guilty, the trial must take place. if the court determines that touching indeed did take place, then the next thing the court needs to determine is whether it was a sexual touching or not. The presumption of the court will be that the touching was not consensual if the child being touched is young. However, as I’m sure you will agree, simply placing your hand on your daughter’s shoulder is not sexual, and therefore it would be your burden to prove that you only touched your daughter on the shoulder, and not elsewhere. If it’s determined by the court that you only touched your daughter on the shoulder, the court would likely conclude that such touching did not violate your daughter’s rights. If the court determines that one’s touching of his young daughter was not confined to non-sexual touching, then he will be held liable. I think Dr. Ruwart’s position is fairly rational here.
Respectfully,
Alex Peak
May 8th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
P.S.: not to question your ability to read, but which “Smith” thread was I advocating a plot by anarchists?
May 8th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
“The common thread that runs through libertarianism is the non-aggression
principle.”
The common thread that runs through a few—not all, but some—varieties of late 20th-century and early 21st-century libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I happen to subscribe to one of those varieties, but I don’t try to treat it, or insist that others treat it, as the only variety any more than I try to treat, or insist that others treat, Methodism as the only variety of Christianity or Munster as the only variety of cheese.
“Geolibertarians support the bizarre (in my view) concept that land is fundamentally different than all other property”
Can you name any form of property other than land/resources extracted directly from land that the “owner” neither created himself, nor acquired through some chain of voluntary transactions ultimately deriving from the creator of said property? If not, then it’s obvious that land is fundamentally different from other forms of property in that particular way. The subsidiary implications of that obviosity are certainly open to dispute and debate, and I’d enjoy seeing some. I haven’t bought into the Georgist/geolibertarian argument on that issue yet, but I am troubled by the fact that the “best” libertarian theoreticians seem completely at a loss to refute it. Rothbard’s attempt was nothing short of pathetic.
I do find our discussion interesting insofar as it seems to support Holtz’s portrayal of a [insert brand name here] “purist” exclusionist tendency operant on behalf of Dr. Ruwart’s candidacy. Dr. Ruwart is my second choice only to Kubby, but I guess I’m going to have to write her and ask her for the checklist of things I have to sign off on for the privilege of supporting her. Funny, she never mentioned any such checklist to me before, and we’ve talked many times … so I have to think that the checklist in question is yours rather than hers.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Mr. Peak:
Forgive me if my terms were “vague” – I’m not trying to add any more heat to this discussion.
What I meant was “take sexual advantage of” in the first instance.
In the second instance, I meant that her position, to me, clearly is that consent should be strictly a case by case basis in a court of law- to me, that clearly renders the ACT of consent a post-fact issue. I do not think that this is her intention, per se, but that is what it will end up becoming.
It has the possibility for opening the door in some persons’ minds that all they need for consent is the ability to prove it, after the fact- not just with children or other people who, in my opinion, cannot consent (the senile, the mentally incompetent, the severely disabled), but with all cases of “rape.”
This is a regression to the era before women had full rights in our country, when it “[wasn’t] rape if she cums.”
If there is no basic standard for competence, possibly by age or some other predetermined factor, then it will be up to juries alone to decide- and juries are notorious for being both fickle and mislead.
I am not suggesting in any way that we should have a Federal Bureau of Child and Adult Rape Investigation, but that we, as Libertarians, need to find an ideological compromise on a community standard for competence to consent, in sexual and other manners.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Mr. Peak:
Sorry, in my excitement to post, I forgot to add (in reference to your comments) that I do believe in need for courtrooms, etc, and I’ll even say that I think the American system is better than most that have been implemented. However, I do not think it appropriate that they be used as the sole indicator of ability to consent.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Mr. Grover writes, “Since becoming active in the party again around October, I have seen nothing but preparation for a putsch on the part of certain anarchists, on the local and national level. Sadly, it is pushing myself, and I believe other people like me, toward the reformers, of all people.”
Interesting. It was my perception some years ago, when I first got active, of certain Reformers trying to oust the radicals that pushed me toward the radicals initially, and got me reading some of the more radical texts.
I know I get the impression from certain anarchists (but definitely only a minority thereof) on this blog that they would like to oust the minarchists. One screen name in particular pops to mind. Nevertheless, I get the impression from most of the anarchists here that they don’t mind the minarchists, at least when the minarchists aren’t attacking them.
I can’t comment on your experience in your local LP, of course.
“I may suggest, Sir, that your apparent myopia is engendered by the fact that you generally agree philosophically with the aforementioned anarchists, and so misperceive the efforts and effects that the pre-purge is having on people.”
I admit that’s possible. But for whatever it’s worth, I, as a radical, have no intention of purging anyone. Whereas I do not believe that Barr, Gravel, or Imperato are libertarians, I don’t even want to see them leave the party, especially not the first two, whom I believe do contribute something overall. Further, I believe the first two truly believe in the party. I remember when Timothy West announced on Facebook that he was leaving the party, I tried to convince him to come back. As you may or may not know, Mr. West was one of the more “reformy” of the Reformers—yet I didn’t wish to see him go, and still extend the invitation to him to rejoin. For what it’s worth.
Mr. Grover writes, “We claim to be the party of principle, so when one group consistently argues not on the issue itself, but that their side IS THE PRINCIPLED side, than the other side of the discussion has very few choices left- continue the one sided debate anyway, return the assertion of principle belonging only to one side, or walking away.”
I completely understand your aggravation here. As far as I’m concerned, this whole age-of-consent thing is irrelevant to principle, just like the abortion debate. One can be fully principled and stand on either side of the abortion debate, and I think the same applies to the age-of-consent thing.
If there’s one thing I think we can all agree with, whether reformer or radical, is that this whole contoversy has become exceedingly annoying. I think we can all agree that it was better when we were focusing on the big issues, like the drug war, of the inflationary central banking system, or the horrors of the Social Security scheme.
Both Ruwart and Root are claiming their own side to be the more principled side, and that’s one thing I’m disliking about both of their campaigns right now.
Yours truly,
Alex Peak
May 8th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
“Both Ruwart and Root are claiming their own side to be the more principled side, and that’s one thing I’m disliking about both of their campaigns right now.”
Mr. Peak:
Chalk that up as two things that the two of us, at least, can agree on.
Thank you for expressing your perspective coherently and in a collected manner.
Justin
May 8th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Mr. Knapp writes, “Can you name any form of property other than land/resources extracted directly from land that the “owner” neither created himself, nor acquired through some chain of voluntary transactions ultimately deriving from the creator of said property?”
The only thing that people create and claim to own that does not in some way come from the land or the natural resources is intellectual property (e.g. songs), and I believe Dr. Kinsilla makes a very strong argument for why intellectual “property” is nothing of the sort.
“If not, then it’s obvious that land is fundamentally different from other forms of property in that particular way.”
If land cannot be owned, I don’t see how anything (other than one’s own body) ever can.
I’m of course speaking for myself here. I don’t mean to imply that geolibertarians are not libertarians, but rather that I see absolutely zero validity to their argument that land is in any way whatsoever different from other resources.
The cell phone I have here sitting next to me is created entirely from products found on the Earth. The metals, for example, must be homesteaded by someone before they can be used to make the circuits inside of the cell phone. The only reason any aspect of the material used to create this cell phone can be owned is that someone, the homesteader, mixed his or her labour with the land from which the materials were extracted.
Yours,
Alex Peak
May 8th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
You ask me to be civil when you’re the one tilting at windmills, as has been repeatedly pointed out here?
I’m sorry you can’t comprehend the act of reducing an argument to the logical absurd extreme to illustrate how flawed it is.
Trust me, I’m being civil. If I wanted to I could probably bury you quite easily.
Now, to dissect and debunk, YET AGAIN:
“The “child sex/porn” issue revolves around ONE STATEMENT that Ms. Ruwart made (which was prefaced by her saying that not all libertarians believe this, which was prefaced with a statement to the effect that you can take her “Answers” one paragraph at a time to understand Libertarianism):”
First mistake: one answer to one topic does not an understanding of libertarianism make.
““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 for choice is just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life.””
Notice she presents a LIBERTARIAN argument, not her own personal views. You have consistently equated the two, which may or may not necessarily be true. It is perfectly valid to present a viewpoint on an issue even if you personally disagree with it while not taking an explicit position one way or another.
“Since this controversy started, she has not directly refuted the BLANKET statement “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts . . .””
What’s to refute? You haven’t stated that, either. What she said was accurate. What you negelct in your cherry-picking from page 43 is this teensy point on page 44: “Libertarians acknowledge that children have rights,..., but often disagree as to how they apply. In practice, children’s rights are limited by their inability to take responsibility for their choices. For example, a child who wishes to work, but can’t convince his or her parents to provide the necessary transportation, will be unable to exercise that right.”
Furthermore, on page 41: “Children have the same rights (and responsibilities) as adults, but normally exercise them with the help of a loving parent or guardian because they are physically incapable of assuming them at birth. For example, young people have the responsibility to support themselves, but parents usually do this job for a couple decades. In return, parents expect children to accept the ground rules for living in the family unit and the consequences of violating them (e.g., “You’ll be grounded if you don’t come home on time.”).
So not only has she stated the entire picture here, but your complaint makes it obvious that you haven’t read the book either. That entire picture: children have rights but in the family unit they seek help in exercising them wisely. The responsibility of the parents, then, is to help them make the wise choices and to teach them what those are, and more importantly, how to make them themselves. That’s the role of parenting, the role of preparing your child to be an independent, functioning, and productive member of society as an adult. with that also comes the assuming of more and more responsibility by the child as they grow and mature until they are ready to assume the full mantle of adulthood. (and even then that process never ends, it just slows down drastically!).
As a multi-grandmother, Dr. Ruwart understands this over two generations clearly.
“She has talked about how juries can be used to determine, case by case, whether who the burden of proof lays upon to prove consent or lack of.”
Yep. She has. And she’s right. To prove a crime was actually a crime and not a consensual acts, the burden of proof is that consent must be absent. For example, if I tell Lidia to smack me in the forehead for forgetting to take out the trash, that’s consensual. If she does it without me telling her, that’s battery. (No worries, Lid, it’s just an example, I WILL not forget it’s trash night tonight!).
“She has discussed her dislike for age of consent laws (and then, claims to never have promoted the removal of those laws, as someone else pointed out).”
“Dislike” is not the same as “advocating for their legislative or judicial repeal”, as I pointed out to Kris above. Again, you conflate two different arguments together and get totally mixed up. To quote again from page 43: “A libertarian society would not have laws that discriminate on the basis of age.” that’s dislike, but nowhere in her book does she advocate for their repeal.
“She has pointed out (rightly) that the current mishmash of laws gets many people hurt for things that arguably shouldn’t be criminal.”
On here we agree, and what libertarian hasn’t pointed this out?
“She does NOT BACK DOWN on her statement that “”Children [can] willingly participate in sexual acts . . .”, nor does she modify it in any absolute terms as to age or ability to consent.”
She has modified it. Go read http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/01/ruwart-answers-accusations-made-at-indiana-lp-convention/, about the 6th-9th paragraphs. And reread what I just posted above.
“By suggesting that a jury be involved, she is saying that at some level ANY child can consent.”
Nope. She implies that some people will try to CLAIM that any child can consent. Big difference between first and third parties to the disupte there.
“Juries decide questions of fact.”
Not completley. They also can decide the law. See also FIJA, jury nullification, and Brailsford v. Georgia (1796). This is relatively common knowledge among libertarians, and was common knowledge amongst the early Colonies as well, as Chief Justice John Jay pointed out in Brailsford.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“Justin Grover Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Michael Seebeck Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
This is kind of hilarious, actually.
On one hand we have Justin on a the Smith thread claiming he’s seeing an anarchist coup in the making, backed up by Dondero’s speculatiion here. On here we have Kris Overstreet calling on the anarchists to flee.
So, to put it all together, anarchist must prepare to flee their own planned coup! LOL!
——I’d suggest re-reading the quote you quoted:
““Those of you who aren’t anarchists… flee. Flee NOW. Salvage whatever is left of political respectability now while you still can. I learned too late, but there’s still hope for others…”
People who aren’t anarchists… aren’t anarchists.”
You are correct. I did misread that one.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
“Justin Grover Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
P.S.: not to question your ability to read, but which “Smith” thread was I advocating a plot by anarchists?”
Admittedly, I thought it was on there, but I may have gotten threads mixed up. Isn’t the first time, and probably won’t be the last.
OK, I’ll let that whole idea die as it should. It’s off topic anyway.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Yes, but what trash are you taking out? There’s only so much room in those (city) government-mandated trash cans. Or were you thinking of the yard waste can with all those rotting lemons?
extreme evil smirk
May 8th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Actually, it was in THIS thread at 8:11PM…
May 8th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
No honey, those lemons can go in the yard-waste can, there’s space for them.
That’s my cue, people.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Seebeck:
Calling someone stupid is not civil, and backing that up with claims about your ability to cause some form of internet harm isn’t civil, either.
” Notice she presents a LIBERTARIAN argument, not her own personal views. You have consistently equated the two, which may or may not necessarily be true.”
Her supporters equate the two, and exclude everyone else. Consistently. Furthermore, she has not denied that they were her points of view.
I acknowledged what she wrote in prefacing in her book in general, and the particular statement in specific.
You also make the same “out of context” argument that others have- which she refutes in the preface to the book, stating that you can take each paragraph in each question on your own, as you have time.
I have read, and commented on that article you link to. It only solidifies my remark that she doesn’t say, unequivocally, that she thinks that some ages of children are incapable of consent.
As far as promoting the removal of certain laws she says, in the same article: “Doing away with age-of-consent laws means that fewer teens will be unjustly convicted and sentenced to a life with a ‘sex offender’ label,” Ruwart told her listeners.” I agree with the principle of this statement, but it is most certainly promoting their removal. In the above article, she says things like ‘We don’t need a law. . .”
To argue that she is not advocating the removal of those laws is an argument in semantics.
Jury Nullification is not a universal concept, nor one that has faired well since the time of Justice Jay. I will not suppose your experience relative to yours in this manner, but from my experience, most of what people think or “know” about the concept is based in outdated or incorrect information. I would suggest that anyone who is sure they understand how it works or even what it is, and its applicability in modern courts, to study the laws carefully.
While I agree in the principle of the thing, it is not widely accepted or acknowledged.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“Actually, it was in THIS thread at 8:11PM…”
Not a conspiracy, an attitude, an effort by individuals.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Thomas you said,
“Dr. Ruwart is my second choice only to Kubby, but I guess I’m going to have to write her and ask her for the checklist of things I have to sign off on for the privilege of supporting her. Funny, she never mentioned any such checklist to me before, and we’ve talked many times … so I have to think that the checklist in question is yours rather than hers.”
Very funny. If you or others DON’T have criteria of your own, just what a libertarian is, I’d be surprised. Is my criteria more strict than others? Probably so. However, I am not going to attempt to purge or demand a “purist” exclusionist tendency operant on behalf of Dr. Ruwart’s candidacy.”
If I have seemed to be exclusionary, I wasn’t aware of it.
I welcome all Libertarians to vote for Ms. Ruwart in Denver, and if not then I think Steve Kubby is an excellent choice as well.
It is however well known that I oppose W.A.R.’s campaign at this time, as I believe that he is not yet ready to be the standard bearer . . . that is I guess with MY “exclusionary” standards. I actually really wish that W.A.R. had been more humble in his approach to the LP. He would have been far better off learning, observing, reading, listening and reflecting on what libertarianism is all about. Instead he jumped head first into the PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING PROCESS, even before changing his voter registration! He certainly had a rude awakening when he found that his warmongering positions didn’t play well with libertarians. Let’s face it, he is not ready to be the standard bearer . . . certainly not because he is outgoing or has a few media connections. His LIBERTARIAN connections
are tenuous at best.
Regarding a checklist, I ask everyone who claims to be a libertarian (if I don’t already have a good idea) if they support the non-aggression principle. If they don’t, then some work is needed. Is this a checklist . . . it is a criteria, yes but I am not going to recommend purging anyone. If someone is attracted to the LP, there is potential that he or she is well on their way to understanding, and embracing the non-initiation of force principle. There . . I said it.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I said, “Geolibertarians support the bizarre (in my view) concept that land is fundamentally different than all other property”.
All resources are limited, with respect to the planet earth. Maybe this concept would become somewhat moot if space travel and colonization is commonplace. But simply because land is limited, and not “created” doesn’t change the “limited aspect” of it. Plus, how much land, in a pristine, untouched state has economic , that is any utility, or value? Land, even in this sense has to be “created”. For farmers, soil is tilled and fertilized, for the homesteader, simply lying down on the ground is not “shelter”.
I have yet to be convinced that the Henry George concept of land as property has any value in explaining an economic or political need to treat it differently.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Steve LaBianca says, “Regarding a checklist, I ask everyone who claims to be a libertarian (if I don’t already have a good idea) if they support the non-aggression principle. If they don’t, then some work is needed. Is this a checklist . . . it is a criteria, yes but I am not going to recommend purging anyone. If someone is attracted to the LP, there is potential that he or she is well on their way to understanding, and embracing the non-initiation of force principle. There . . I said it.”
I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, but in this I think he is right. To paraphrase what a priest once said to me about faith: “Libertarianism is a journey, not a destination.” The central idea of the non-aggression principle is so foreign to this culture and this society, and requires a significant amount of thought even to begin to grasp it. It may even be—at its core—an almost post-modern concept that is much defined by the individual as by the statement itself.
That having been said, ironically, that is also my chief reason for concluding that Dr Ruwart’s essay details exactly the reason why she should not be the LP Presidential nominee.
She says, “We have always been able to grow the Party and get millions of votes. The choice has always been ours; all we’ve ever needed to do was sell out. All we’ve ever needed to do is denounce liberty so that we could avoid scorn and ridicule. All that has ever been required of us is that we stop being the Party of Principle and become the Party of Expediency. All we’ve ever needed to do was stop telling the truth to the American people, stop trying to help them understand the price they pay when they fall for statist propaganda. All that was ever needed was to support bans that harm our children, but give us the illusion of protecting them.”
This is, quite simply, a statement that Libertarian candidates for mayor, for state representative, for municipal judge, for city council, or for Congress would actually have to run away from in order to pursue the votes to win.
Dr Ruwart has defined victory not in terms of political victory, actually taking office and from there working to increase personal and economic liberty while shrinking the state, but in terms of influencing the debate over issues like gun control, the war on drugs, etc. etc.
There are two problems with this.
1) There’s no real evidence to support the idea that it has been the Libertarian Party as such that has moved the debate in America on gun control or decriminalized drugs. Just ask yourself how the LP has managed that influence without such prominent LP individuals as Dr Ruwart achieving name recognition by even as much as 1% of the populace. I have no doubt that on some issues the debate has become more libertarian—but that doesn’t mean the strategy Dr Ruwart supports has been the cause of that. Nor does she offer any direct evidence; only a correlation (with the single exception of medical marijuana, where it is documentable that lots of fellow travelers who are not libertarian have also favored such changes).
2) Even if Dr Ruwart’s conclusion that the LP, by remaining pure in its core message, has affected certain issues within the American political discourse, is correct, the sad fact is: the strategy has been an abysmal failure. During the last 30 years privacy, civil liberties, economic freedom, and the concept of a non-interventionist foreign policy have all been eroded at a record pace. The so-called Progressives sense what Dr Ruwart has missed: the emotional tide of American voters convinced that trading their liberties to the welfare state for more government goodies is running stronger than ever.
Despite her best efforts to put a good face on it, we are losing the battle.
And the approach she advocates will not help turn the tide.
Raising the Ron Paul flag is not going to work either. Bob Barr isn’t Ron Paul, nor is Mary Ruwart. And Ron Paul himself could not match the million votes he has garnered in the primaries with a million votes in the General Election if he were to be saddled with Dr Ruwart’s prescription for presidential campaigning.
I have no illusions this post will change anything. I don’t think Dr Ruwart’s post has actually changed any minds. It’s all going to come down to the voting delegates in Denver. And if anybody really knew how that was going to play out, the arguments here would be a lot less strident.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“I don’t know the Anarchist position on fraud. Perhaps it’s perfectly acceptable for Anarchists to use fraudulant names. After all, look how many people here and at Reason.com post under fake names, instead of their own.”
You just proved you don’t understand what fraud is (or how to spell fraudulent, but that’s another matter). It would be fraud to post under the name “David F. Nolan” for example, because I am representing myself as someone I’m not. But who exactly am I defrauding by keeping my anonymity? The right to be anonymous is a crucial privacy right. Just because I don’t prefer to go by by real name, that makes my actions fraudulent?
I’m also noticing a lot of people who seem ignorant of anarchism. (Most anarchism has historically been socialist, there’s a reason most libertarians don’t throw around the anarchist label carelessly.)
Also, lots of people need to reread this:
http://libertyviews.blogspot.com/2006/12/limited-government-vs-anarchy.html
May 8th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Tom Knapp, I am not “attempting to preclude the possibility that one particular type of libertarian (the Rothbardian anarchist) might ever put its ass on any seat at any table in the party”. I repeat:
BH) If Ruwart were running merely as the “best spokesperson for liberty” i.e. consensus libertarianism, then she would join Root and Phillies in my top tier of preference. But since she’s explicitly running to be the LP’s ideological standard-bearer not just for this campaign but for the next four years, she is in effect asking us to hold an LP referendum on her “plumbline” anarchist brand of libertarianism. (BH
I haven’t seen you address any of the Ruwart quotes I produced, saying she should be nominated because she “has the big picture” and is “fully attuned to the Libertarian philosophy”. She says the other candidates “haven’t quite gotten the whole picture yet. That’s OK, they will one day. But they don’t want to be running as President when they really can’t see the full picture”.
I would criticize Barr the same way if he said his constitutionalist ideology made him the purest Libertarian in the race. I’ve indeed criticized Kubby for calling himself a “plumbline” candidate, even though Steve doesn’t have any of these Rothbard’s Heels that Ruwart has. I’m not trying to “write out of the party” either Rothbardianism or anarchism; I’m just trying to give the other schools of libertarianism the same veto power over Platform content, so that none of the schools of libertarianism are relegated to the kids’ table. I’m encouraged that you’re getting very close to being able to accurately state my position, but you’re not quite there yet. However, none of the other radicals are even close.
Steve LaBianca, if you are saying that you need my help in finding you statements that I or the Reform Caucus assert, then you are simply beyond my help. They’re out there, in notoriously copious quantities. Find ‘em, quote ‘em, answer ‘em. I’d hit you with a few URLs, but TPW is set up to maximize anonymous venom and minimize intelligent references to substantive content. I guess that helps ratings or something.
Alex Peak, it’s specious to claim that the LP’s anarchists “are simply defending themselves (in most cases, but admittedly not all) against attacks made by minarchists.” The LP’s anarchists—a minority of around 15% of the party according to data I can show you—are desperately trying to hold onto a three-decade-old tacit veto privilege over Platform content. There are around a dozen statements in the 2004 platform that violate fundamental minarchist libertarian principles. As far as I’ve been able to tell, there’s only statement one that violates your fundamental anarchist principles—and it’s only because you agree with Rothbard’s wild idea that parents have a right to starve their kids.
This asymmetry between us is no coincidence. It means that the LP considers my libertarian principles to be inferior to yours. That’s not big-tent. Tom Knapp can pretend all he wants that I want to keep anarchists out of all seats of influence in the LP, but it’s actually Starchild who frankly admits he wants the LP to systematically keep non-radicals like me out of such seats of influence. You can pretend all you want that the LP’s anarchists are embattled, but the objective fact remains that even we reformers with an allegedly “stacked”/”dominated” PlatCom are not trying to write any new minarchist principles into the Platform. We’re just trying to make the Platform a level playing field. That’s why, for all the complaining about reformers, you radicals are offering zero substantive criticism of our draft platform’s principles. Instead, it’s just Sipos-style “Republican lite” name-calling. Weak.
Your cell phone is not a site—is not a set of spatial coordinates. For you to make that argument suggests that you haven’t researched geolibertarianism very deeply. Read the essay by Dan Sullivan on “Royal Libertarianism”. Read anything by Fred Foldvary. I suspect you spend way too high a percentage of your time reading stuff you agree with. That makes for a very brittle worldview.
To everybody else: all this talk of reformers “ousting” or “purging” anyone is just nonsense. If you want to see how to push people out of the LP, go see how a pro does it and read the old Rothbard newsletters. Hint: it doesn’t involve cutting up membership cards, nor does it involve merely criticizing people’s ideological grip on the Platform. There’s a lot of room in between those two extrema. The only people who today can arguably said to be trying to make their opponents uncomfortable in the LP are those who try to use the Pledge and Platform to declare other mainstream schools of libertarianism to be ideologically inferior to their own. No leading reformer is doing that, but nearly all leading radicals are. They even made a list of their names—it’s called Restore04.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
MARY RUWART WROTE: “...He doesn’t understand how private courts work,..” (END)
...although W.A.R. is an obvious douchebag, i don’t understand how truly ‘private’ courts would/could ‘work’ either..
..for example, i’m ‘ordered to appear’ before a truly ‘private court’..but i say, ‘fuck you!’...’i held my own ‘private court’ already and i dismissed the case!’..etc. ad nauseam..
..what then?
...(hint for sophists: it is obvious that any ‘institution’ etc. chartered, licensed, recognized, etc.. ‘by government’ IS, in essence, “GOVERNMENT”..)
...and folks, it appears ‘an’ (without) ‘archy’ (rule) is a ‘utopian concept’..’rule-making,’ the use of force(government), etc., are, (mostly sadly) part of human nature..at least today and yesterday it appears as such..
...but i do tend to like ‘anarchists’...
..kubby and ruwart appear as mostly knowledgeable and decent ‘libertarians’..they are my favorites so far..
...although i’m pretty sure from their writings, etc., that they are NOT honest ‘monetary realists’...and therefore, imo, are doomed to ‘flailing at the leaves of the tree of evil whilst leaving the root$ untouched’.. ;o)
May 9th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Once again, you didn’t read what I wrote.
“Seebeck:
Calling someone stupid is not civil, and backing that up with claims about your ability to cause some form of internet harm isn’t civil, either.”
I never called you stupid. I said you could be acting stupid. Big difference. And I never said anything about internet harm, you did. My definition of destroying someone involves public humiliation, and I tend to be devastatingly good on that when I want to.
“” Notice she presents a LIBERTARIAN argument, not her own personal views. You have consistently equated the two, which may or may not necessarily be true.”
Her supporters equate the two, and exclude everyone else. Consistently. Furthermore, she has not denied that they were her points of view.”
She doesn’t have to. That book was a “How-to” book, not a “What I believe” book. That is readily obvious from page 1.
“I acknowledged what she wrote in prefacing in her book in general, and the particular statement in specific.”
Page 41-44 is not the preface. It’s chapter 4!
“You also make the same “out of context” argument that others have- which she refutes in the preface to the book, stating that you can take each paragraph in each question on your own, as you have time.”
Nope. She says (Page 4): “The first paragraph of each short answer” not each individual paragraph. Once again, you read what you wanted to read, not what was actually written.
“I have read, and commented on that article you link to. It only solidifies my remark that she doesn’t say, unequivocally, that she thinks that some ages of children are incapable of consent.”
Uh, yeah she did. I suggest you go back and read through other statement on here. You’re still stuck in nit-pick mode.
“As far as promoting the removal of certain laws she says, in the same article: “Doing away with age-of-consent laws means that fewer teens will be unjustly convicted and sentenced to a life with a ‘sex offender’ label,” Ruwart told her listeners.” I agree with the principle of this statement, but it is most certainly promoting their removal. In the above article, she says things like ‘We don’t need a law. . .”
“To argue that she is not advocating the removal of those laws is an argument in semantics.”
In politics, semantics matter completely.
“Jury Nullification is not a universal concept, nor one that has faired well since the time of Justice Jay. I will not suppose your experience relative to yours in this manner, but from my experience, most of what people think or “know” about the concept is based in outdated or incorrect information. I would suggest that anyone who is sure they understand how it works or even what it is, and its applicability in modern courts, to study the laws carefully.”
It’s universal to libertarians. It has not faired well in courts because the judges don’t like it, and therefore neglect to instruct juries on it. Prosecutors hate it because it kills their conviction rates which they need to get re-elected. My information is based on a lot of legal research on the issue, beyond what FIJA puts out. But it is the law whether the judges like it or not.
“While I agree in the principle of the thing, it is not widely accepted or acknowledged.”
You might be surprised at that. It depends on where you are and how it is pushed.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:18 am
To no one in general:
Ironic on here that the few of us who actually produce the actual quotes are the ones getting the whole thing accurate and the rest are reading in implications from implications instead of checking the original sources…
May 9th, 2008 at 1:26 am
““I acknowledged what she wrote in prefacing in her book in general, and the particular statement in specific.”
Page 41-44 is not the preface. It’s chapter 4!”
Once again, you need to read what people write. The “prefacing her book n general” would refer to “Page 4” while “and the particular statement in specific” would refer to the “preface” to the section which we were speaking of. In English, the statement written to clarify what you are about to say is referred to as “the preface” or more generally “prefacing”- i.e. “Mr. Seebeck, allow me to preface what I am about to say with the comment that I generally respect most people who want to argue point for point on the internet. That being said, you are both give the impression of being less than literate and prone to what is, I am told, referred to as “e-pine stroking” among internet aficionados. ”
“And I never said anything about internet harm, you did. My definition of destroying someone involves public humiliation, and I tend to be devastatingly good on that when I want to.”
Actually, you threatened force against me where I committed no aggression, aside from your name calling.
Good Libertarian, what?
In truth, though, internet character assassination, while it may be your forte, seems to be fairly irrelevant. Again, your skills on ‘teh intarwebz’ AND the size of your e-pine matter not.
“She doesn’t have to. That book was a “How-to” book, not a “What I believe” book. That is readily obvious from page 1.”
Then why is this an issue at all? Why is she defending the position so vehemently? Why is it such horrid character assassination to talk about it?
“My information is based on a lot of legal research on the issue, beyond what FIJA puts out. But it is the law whether the judges like it or not.”
Good thing you aren’t conducting illegal research.
Whether judges “like” it a lot or not, it has not been upheld in a larger percentage of cases. Indeed, precedent SINCE Chief Justice Jay is generally against nullification, in most jurisdictions.
“You might be surprised at that. It depends on where you are and how it is pushed.”
Yes, if you ask the right group you will get agreement in nearly anything you want.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:31 am
It’s interesting to observe all the different viewpoints of all the differences and contentions among the different LP candidates. What nobody seems to realize is that it is inevitable that the LP will inevitably corrupt itself at some point, as I believe can be seen to already be happening. Unfortunately, all things man-made by nature become corrupted over time. It happens with religion, it happens with government, it’s happened with the two major parties, and it will happen with the LP as well. It’s Law. I’m not supporting or condemning any candidate by the way, I’m just noting that the inevitable has to be accepted, whether it happens this year or fifty years from now. Peace.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:03 am
i’ve been picking aluminum cans out of peoples trash for three weeks just so i can donate the money i earn to mary’s campaign, god bless you mary, and god bless kiddie porn.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:12 am
I must say that I am disappointed in the tone of this article, particular in the second half of it. It does not sound like the Mary Ruwart whose speeches I have enjoyed over the years at a number of Libertarian conventions. I suspect that one or more people “helped” Mary with portions of the essay, and in the process did a poor job of channeling her.
But that’s just speculation on my part. And I have no doubt that Mary approved the final draft and takes full responsibility for its contents, since it has her name on it.
Until the last couple of weeks I was not aware of Mary’s position on age-of-consent laws. Since I consider myself a limited-government libertarian, I find many anarchist positions to be incoherent. Anarchism begs the question of which private courts will have jurisdiction over alleged crimes and criminals; what legal standards apply and who has the authority to apply them; how people can know ahead of time what is permitted and what isn’t; how competing private courts can enforce their decisions; etc.
But the Libertarian Party is a political party. True, it can never be a “big-tent” party like the Republicans and Democrats, who are concerned only with power and are consequently willing to welcome anyone who can aggregate their numbers to achieve that power. Although the LP must be far more ideologically selective, there’s room in it for anarchists and minarchists and other fellow-travelers whose path leads in the direction of a freer society.
There’s room for some disagreements among libertarians. I have no problem with acknowledging those disagreements. I think Mary could have side-stepped this controversy by stating that this is a difficult issue upon which many libertarians have strong differences, and that her personal views are not representative of the Libertarian Party. That’s essentially what Ron Paul did on the issue of abortion back in 1988 when he was the LP’s Presidential candidate. Most LP members, including myself, were able to live with that.
Instead Mary appears to have doubled down on the issue. Instead of conceding that it is a legitimate concern, she (or perhaps her advisors) have taken the tact of complaining that her opponents should never have brought it up, and that they are damaging the LP by daring to do so. She (or they) argue that government should have no more role in outlawing child pornography or sex with children than it should have in outlawing victimless crimes. She (or they) elide the difference because they refuse to accept a role for government in anything.
If that’s the basis upon which Mary wants to be the Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate, then that’s a bridge too far for me. Much as I like Mary personally, I take strong exception to her position, and from a political perspective I think that it threatens to be highly destructive to the Libertarian Party. I’d much rather it be aired out now, before a nominee is selected, than later on when it’s too late.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Mr. Holtz writes, “The LP’s anarchists—a minority of around 15% of the party according to data I can show you—...”
Wow, really? I didn’t realise the number was that large. I always figured it was below 10%.
If you can show me data indicating that the anarchist faction is 150% the size I thought it was, then I’ll definitely defend the anarchist position 150% as much as I am currently.
“There are around a dozen statements in the 2004 platform that violate fundamental minarchist libertarian principles.”
Hmm?
If you don’t like them, simply veto them. If the minarchists get a veto on platform items they don’t like, and the anarchists get a veto on the platform items they don’t like, do we not all get a platform that we can agree upon? All the reformers have to do is take the personal responsibility of drumming up support for the removal of those planks they do not like, and wala.
“As far as I’ve been able to tell, there’s only statement one that violates your fundamental anarchist principles—and it’s only because you agree with Rothbard’s wild idea that parents have a right to starve their kids.”
Parents have no right “to starve their kids,” Mr. Holtz. Such a positive “right” would conflict with the children’s negative right to not be forcefully withheld from acquiring through voluntary means food.
Rather, my position is that all people have a negative right to not give up their own foodstuff to others, regardless of blood ties to said others or the age of said others. Likewise, I hold that all people have a negative right not to be forced to labour for the benefit of others.
I believe the difference is tremendous. Whereas in the first scenario—the one you propose—some sort of force must be applied against the chldren, thus infringing upon their natural rights, the second scenario—my position—applies no force against anyone, and thus does not violate the rights of anyone.
Positive rights cannot exist. They are logically impossible, since they would defy A=A.
“You can pretend all you want that the LP’s anarchists are embattled.”
On this blog, I have seen people make posts stating that the anarchists will be booted out of the party, and that they can’t wait to see it happen. I have yet to see on this blog anyone say that the minarchists will be booted, or even ought to be.
“That’s why, for all the complaining about reformers, you radicals are offering zero substantive criticism of our draft platform’s principles. Instead, it’s just Sipos-style ‘Republican lite’ name-calling. Weak.”
I have said nothing, positive or negative, about your proposal. I have said some very negative things about Mr. Knapp’s WSPP proposal, and some very positive things about Mr. Nolan’s Restore ‘04 proposal—which, properly understood, is of no threat to the Reformers because Restore ‘04 simply proposes to use the ‘04 platform as a base, rather than the ‘06 platform. You, in your capacity as a reformer, could easily advocate for the removal of the twelve planks you don’t like, even with the Restore ‘04 proposal.
“Your cell phone is not a site—is not a set of spatial coordinates. For you to make that argument suggests that you haven’t researched geolibertarianism very deeply. Read the essay by Dan Sullivan on ‘Royal Libertarianism.’ Read anything by Fred Foldvary. I suspect you spend way too high a percentage of your time reading stuff you agree with. That makes for a very brittle worldview.”
My phone is matter.
Not everything I read I agree with. In fact, I usually disagree with everyone on at least something. I think Descartes assumes too much. I no longer support Jesus’s cry for pacifism. But they both influenced me nonetheless. I certainly didn’t agree with Machiavelli. I had some agreements, but many disagreements, with Rousseau. Plato? Hopelessly utopian. Speaking of utopianism, I haven’t read More yet, but the book is sitting on my shelf, waiting for me to get to it. Same with the Communist Manifesto. And of course I occassionally read some pointless stuff for class.
Once the semester is over, remind me again about the essays you think are worth checking out. (I shouldn’t even be wasting my time reading blogs at this point.)
“They even made a list of their names—it’s called Restore04.”
There is nothing inherently radical about Restore ‘04. All Restore ‘04 proposes is that step 1 in the process of creating the new 2008 platform be rescinding the changes of 2006—changes which, if I am correct, didn’t please anyone, radical or reformist.
Respectfully,
Alex Peak
May 9th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Don’t worry, Alex, I’m doing my best to get the Platform into a state in which, like you, I disagree on principle with only one statement in it, instead of a dozen. It’s fascinating how, whenever I tell you that I’d like the Platform to have as little for minarchists to disagree with as anarchists find to disagree with, you’re only response is a vapid “go ahead and try”. I appreciate your permission, and note that you repeatedly dodge what is only the fundamental point of LP reform: that the LP’s fundamental texts should be ecumenical toward the major schools of libertarianism. Still, it’s nice to know that this point is so formidable that your only response to it is some hybrid of might-makes-right plus que sera sera.
Thank you also for the mini-lecture on the semantics of “starve”. It seems disingenuous for you to assume I was talking about some kind of positive right for parents to swat away any food that they see approaching their child’s mouth. It’s just silly to say that I “proposed” a scenario in which “force must be applied against the children”. If you ever spend as many sleepless nights as I have coaxing a crying infant to take a bottle, you’ll realize just how silly.
Your claim about an asymmetry between minarchists making anarchists uncomfortable in the party instead of the other way around is simply laughable. First, your claim is utterly non-responsive to my point about how the LP’s foundational texts are being used for such pressure. Second, the anonymous alleged reformer trolls you’ve seen here are nobodies. I’ll tell you what I bet you saw me tell Less Antman: A member of the LPCA ExCom, who has also been a member of the LPUS Judicial Committee, privately warned me in 2004 that some of my campaign positions constitute a violation of the Pledge, and that as a candidate I’m not allowed to “proactively oppose” any platform plank, but may merely express disagreement if specifically asked. I’ve also had a member of the LPCA Judicial Committee publicly suggest that some of my positions are in violation of my membership Pledge. And just this year I was in the room when someone who is currently on the LNC announced at our county convention that anybody who disagrees with the 2004 platform should ask himself whether he’s in the right party. Now, I defy you to give comparable examples of moderate LP leaders putting such pressure on radicals.
Re: “My phone is matter.” So? A “site” is NOT matter. A “site” is a portion of space-time. A real estate site contains dirt, and dirt is matter, but dirt is not a site. You can remove all the dirt, but the hole—the site—will still be there. That’s why I said “a set of spatial coordinates”. The next time you think one of my arguments depends on assuming that your phone is immaterial, pause for a moment and consider the possibility that you have not understood my argument.
If the 2004 platform is radical, then Restore04 is inherently radical—or do you suppose that all those signers just miss the language about homesteading Antarctica?
And of course, the 2004 platform is indeed radical: personal secession, private WMD, privatize all streets/pipes, unlimited immigration, legalized child prostitution, only torts to police pollution, immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws—you know, all the positions that Restore04 signers claim they aren’t making an issue of while they implicitly demand those positions be restored to the Platform. A neat trick, that.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:25 am
To Susan Satarini:
Don’t feel too bad for WAR. The man deserves to be hoisted by his own petard for the crock he spewed all over the Net, even hard on TPW.
Of course, I am working on a piece that will refute our entire system of age of consent laws, and I know that will go rather well—NOT! – with WAR and his statist-licking stooges.
Obviously there are plenty of statist stooges in this party, but that goes without saying.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:05 am
What Ms. Ruwart is advocating is abolishing laws altogether. This is pure Anarchy.
I don’t understand why she’s so reluctant to use the ‘A’ word?
This is yet another case of Anarchists pretending to be Libertarians. They are committing fraud on the American voting public, and on the Libertarian Party.
If Anarchists want to run for office, fine and dandy. Let them start an Anarchist Party.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Here’s a question to ponder: If Mary Ruwart isn’t an Anarchist, than who is?
If someone who advocates abolishing all laws, including laws against Child Porn and Sex with Kids is no longer viewed as an “Anarchist,” than what is Anarchism? Who represents the Anarchist view nowadays, if all Anarchists are masquerading as Libertarians?
Does that mean Anarchism is now limited to the Left, Noam Chomsky/Jello Biafra types? There’s no longer such a thing as Anarcho-Libertarians? All Anarchists are just plain ole’ garden variety “Libertarians”?
May 9th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I have taken a look at ericdondero.com to get the full picture on this clown. Let’s quote Dondero on who he thinks is a libertarian.
“I like Rudy because he can cut taxes but I like him more because he understands that the Second Amendment is different in New York City than it is in Texas. Real Libertarians limit guns in Big Cities.”
“John McCain is a Hero. He is a true American Patriot because of Viet Nam. He’s not a Sissy like Democrats and fake Anti-Defense Libertarians. He’s also a Hero for his position on campaign finance reform. ”
“Huckabee would be a Libertarian if he didn’t hike taxes. But at least he knows how to spend like a drunken Libertarian. I like him because he wants to kill ragheads in the Middle East, too. Real Libertarians love giving money to Israel, just like Huckabee. ”
“George Bush is the most Libertarian president of my lifetime. He is Pro-Defense and Anti-Tax and Pro-Spending. He’s more Libertarian than Reagan even, because he spent more money. I wish the current Republican candidates were just as Libertarian as President Bush.”
And that’s just from the last post. There is more bullshit like that throughout site. Dondero is not confused. He is a GOP entryist who is trying to screw the LP.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Mr. Holtz:
“Don’t worry, Alex, I’m doing my best to get the Platform into a state in which, like you, I disagree on principle with only one statement in it, instead of a dozen.”
I only disagree with one statement?
“It’s fascinating how, whenever I tell you that I’d like the Platform to have as little for minarchists to disagree with as anarchists find to disagree with, you’re only response is a vapid ‘go ahead and try.’”
It’s amazing that you find this amazing. All I’m doing is pointing out to you that I am not your enemy, despite my support for Restore ‘04.
“I appreciate your permission, and note that you repeatedly dodge what is only the fundamental point of LP reform: that the LP’s fundamental texts should be ecumenical toward the major schools of libertarianism. Still, it’s nice to know that this point is so formidable that your only response to it is some hybrid of might-makes-right plus que sera sera.”
Don’t know what “que sera sera” means, although I assume it’s Latin.
As a libertarian, I completely reject the notion that might-makes-no-wrong. But when we’re dealing with the platform of a political party, we’re not dealing with might. The LP is a voluntary organisation. It’s platform is a voluntary document. You’re free to change it, and changing it does not require force, aggression, or “might.” All it requires is convincing people that it needs to be changed.
I didn’t dodge anything. I stated my opinions as honestly as they could be stated.
Again, I am not “granting you permission,” and I’m somewhat offended that you keep interpreting my statements in that manner.
“Thank you also for the mini-lecture on the semantics of “starve”. It seems disingenuous for you to assume I was talking about some kind of positive right for parents to swat away any food that they see approaching their child’s mouth. It’s just silly to say that I ‘proposed’ a scenario in which ‘force must be applied against the children.’ If you ever spend as many sleepless nights as I have coaxing a crying infant to take a bottle, you’ll realize just how silly.”
You said a “right to starve.” That’s the scenario you propose, and yes a “right to starve” (which does not and cannot exist) would permit that force me applied against children, in stark violation of those children’s rights.
The fact that you have fed a child, and the fact that you probably never would refuse to feed your child, does nothing to persuade me that you misrepresented my view when claiming that I believe there is a right to starve one’s children, a “right” that would, indeed, permit that force me applied against children. The scenario that I support such a “right” is simply false.
My belief is that no person is obligated to maintain guardianship of any other person. Indeed, if such a positive obligation were possible, it would disallow people from placing their children up for adoption. The biological parent who places his/her child up for adoption obviously doesn’t feed his/her child, but this is no crime because he/she is not obligated to feed other people. There are plenty of other people in the world who will be happy to assume guardianship of the child, and to feed the child.
“A ‘site’ is NOT matter.”
The land is. The water is.
“A ‘site’ is a portion of space-time. A real estate site contains dirt, and dirt is matter, but dirt is not a site. You can remove all the dirt, but the hole—the site—will still be there. That’s why I said ‘a set of spatial coordinates’. The next time you think one of my arguments depends on assuming that your phone is immaterial, pause for a moment and consider the possibility that you have not understood my argument.”
I fail to see what you’re getting at.
“If the 2004 platform is radical, then Restore04 is inherently radical—or do you suppose that all those signers just miss the language about homesteading Antarctica? And of course, the 2004 platform is indeed radical: personal secession, private WMD, privatize all streets/pipes, unlimited immigration, legalized child prostitution, only torts to police pollution, immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws—you know, all the positions that Restore04 signers claim they aren’t making an issue of while they implicitly demand those positions be restored to the Platform. A neat trick, that.’
The 2006 platform makes us look like extremists who only care about dope.
I didn’t know there was anything about homesteading in the 2004 platform. I definitely do not support private ownership—or governmental ownership—of the atomic bomb. I didn’t know there was anything about the abolition of taxes in there (although I do support that position, of course, as did minarchist Rand). How did the platform define “child”?
Anywho, I still support Restore ‘04. The point about the proposal is that it’s only the first step. If you don’t like various aspects of the 2004 platform, fine. But the 2004 platform is a better platform to build changes off of than the 2006 platform, which makes us look like a bunch of loons.
Respectfully,
Alex Peak
May 9th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Gordon great site Kiddy Porn Watch you stupid cock sucking fuck.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:58 am
As much as I understand her immense irritation at being repeatedly attacked, Dr. Ruwart should have ignored the other article and continued with the campaign themes she selected, all of them in line with the current LP platform. Trust the delegates.
The content of the law is a separate question from whether the jurisdiction of a court is an arbitrary city, state, or national boundary or the subscribed membership of that court. There is nothing incoherent about the anarchist view of jurisdiction: the choice of legal jurisdiction just stops being an automatic package deal with the choice of where to live (although I suspect most people will choose to continue with the status quo for their location, at least in the short run, and even the POTENTIAL loss of support will improve the quality of such location-based judicial services).
But I agree with Daniel Wiener that the tone of the piece is not what I’ve come to expect from Dr. Ruwart, and I don’t want to see it become her tone. And I don’t want the LP candidate, whoever they are, to campaign either for or against age-of-consent laws unless and until it is part of the LP Platform. The reason I support a comprehensive platform is so that candidates, activists, and new members have a basis for knowing the consensus of LP members on the various issues and can choose wisely in their advocacy for the party.
If asked their position on a disputed topic, activists should do exactly what I’ve seen Ruwart do repeatedly in the past, tell the questioner that libertarians disagree on the subject (and then provide a more complete answer, if it seems appropriate to do so and the activist has a strong personal opinion). Actually, she SAID that to open the chapter on children’s rights (as well as abortion and other difficult topics) in the 10-year-old book that has been so heavily discussed. “Children’s rights is still a hotly-debated issue among libertarians” remains a good first sentence of any answer to a questioner.
A supporter of Ruwart can disagree with her on the viability of common law principles for children’s rights, and not accept her view that market processes can provide legal and security services as effectively as they provide all other services. I don’t know any two libertarians who agree on all policy positions, unless one of them isn’t thinking.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I’m pray every night to sweat Lord Satan that Mary wins the LP nomination. That uptight prude Ron Paul has ruined our reputation. I want to return to the good old days when we were still known as the Party of Vice. Drugs, prostitutes, and child porn. Now what moral degenerate wouldn’t be proud to run on the platform? Go Mary. You are my hero.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Well said, Mary. Well said. This article clearly defines YOUR views on a number of issues, including the oh-so-hotly debated one of Child pornography.
On an unrealated note, I can clearly see why the Rebublicrats don’t want to debate Libertarians. We get so much practice debating each other that they wouldnt stand a chance if we were in the Presidential Debates. Assuming that we could keep the tone civil, of course.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Alex, if the Restore04 petition is simply asking that we not start with the 2006 Platform as the baseline for the 2008 Platform, then the petition was unnecessary, as only one or two members of PlatCom ever defended doing so. If the Restore04 petition is just endorsing the idea of a platform that covers the whole spectrum of issue areas, then I’ll repeat what I’ve said elsewhere—that the petition helped the cause of Platform repair, by disabusing some holdout moderate PlatCom members of the hope that they could pass a Contract-With-America-style platform. It was only after Restore04 was announced that the moderates came together around the current draft.
Your admissions that you—one of the most fair-minded and and self-informing radicals—have not read the PlatCom’s draft and are unfamiliar with the 2004 platform’s extremism confirm my optimism that the minority who have signed Restore04 are themselves mostly unaware of the contents of the two alternatives that will come before them. The PlatCom’s draft did NOT simply begin with 2006 and start writing new planks. Rather, it throws out 2006 and restores a comprehensive platform with entirely recycled language—two thirds of which comes from 2004. The only disagreement among informed people is not on principle, but rather on the empirical judgment about how much implementation detail the Denver delegates will have the stomach and time to adopt. It’s the ignorant people who are calling names like “Republican lite”, and I’m pleased that you’re an exception.
I’ll not press you on your non-responsiveness to my core point of platform ecumenicism. If you think that the Platform is ipso facto ecumenical as long as the Platform warriors all follow the rules, then we just have different concepts of ecumenicism. I don’t merely want the Platform warriors to avoid war crimes; I want the Platform wars to end. But we moderates will keep fighting them as long as radicals think the Platform needs to contain statements that moderates disagree with on principle—even though we moderates aren’t proposing any statements that radicals disagree with on principle.
I don’t see why such an obvious principle of fairness can’t win assent from you and most other radicals (aside from Tom Knapp, Chuck Moulton, and Henry Haller).
May 9th, 2008 at 10:09 am
melikestosubmitmeplanksbackardsyahoooooo
May 9th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Yet another new low for TPW.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
to be clear
Ruwart proposes a long list of good libertarian goals and positions. One of which she claims the American people are already with us. Why does she care what the American people think? The whole point of Ruwarts diatribe is that it is only important what she believes and to hell with the sensitivity of those she represents. By god its all or nothing with this woman. Why can’t she give on just one little meaningless point? She’s the one who thinks it’s relatively meaningless but a lot of libetraians obiviously disagree.
Yet in her summary she emphatically says she will not bend on her position to end child porn. In other words she is willing to destroy the party (her concern for the majority of her diatribe) rather than let go of one single BAD position.
Politics folks requires some compromises like it or not. Nobody is right 100% of the time. Ruwart is just being a total ass like her mentor and supporting cast. If you hate the game you’re in why not leave and let us get some freedom in our lifetime. This take it our leave it attitude just reinforces the statist reality we all suffer every day.
Mary Ruwart is NOT FIT to be the representative of anyone who loves freedom.
If we are wrong get Ron Paul’s endorsement and we will leave the party. en masse. She has his number… right?
the committee
May 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Mr. Antman writes,
“But I agree with Daniel Wiener that the tone of the piece is not what I’ve come to expect from Dr. Ruwart, and I don’t want to see it become her tone. And I don’t want the LP candidate, whoever they are, to campaign either for or against age-of-consent laws unless and until it is part of the LP Platform. The reason I support a comprehensive platform is so that candidates, activists, and new members have a basis for knowing the consensus of LP members on the various issues and can choose wisely in their advocacy for the party.
“If asked their position on a disputed topic, activists should do exactly what I’ve seen Ruwart do repeatedly in the past, tell the questioner that libertarians disagree on the subject (and then provide a more complete answer, if it seems appropriate to do so and the activist has a strong personal opinion). Actually, she SAID that to open the chapter on children’s rights (as well as abortion and other difficult topics) in the 10-year-old book that has been so heavily discussed. “Children’s rights is still a hotly-debated issue among libertarians” remains a good first sentence of any answer to a questioner.
“A supporter of Ruwart can disagree with her on the viability of common law principles for children’s rights, and not accept her view that market processes can provide legal and security services as effectively as they provide all other services. I don’t know any two libertarians who agree on all policy positions, unless one of them isn’t thinking.”
I’m in complete agreement with you on these points.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
May 9th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I don’t know if Holtz has or is going to respond to my call for him to bring up, point by point how I have misrepresented his and/or the Reform Caucus positions. If it is moot by now, so be it. If Holtz prefers not to respond, that’s fine too.
I apologize Mr. Holtz, if you responded to this in another thread, or if I missed it.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
The “committee” says, “She’s the one who thinks it’s relatively meaningless but a lot of libetraians obiviously disagree.”
How does the “committee” know that “a lot” disagree? From what’s posted here at TPW? Did the “committee” take a poll or survey? If this is an informal claim, has the “committee” spoken with a whole lot of libertarians about this? Have libertarians just called him/her on the telephone, or sent an email, or a text message, or an instant message, saying they just had to tell someone how terribly wrong Mary Ruwart is?
Please explain.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I guess that if the “committee” didn’t use an alias, and told us just who he or she is, maybe it would go without saying, just how much validity the claim of “a whole lot” disagree holds.
I also guess that THAT is why aliases are used.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Yawn. Justin, we’re just going to have to agree that your words here indicate that you’re wrong and move on. You can nitpick and spin all you want, but the fact remains that you are going to read and see what you want and then jump to erroneous conclusions from that versus what is actually there.
But I’ll leave you to ponder these points:
1) Saying what someone can do is not a threat. Saying what someone will do is a threat. You should understand that difference, since it’s the concept of Free Speech vs. Fighting Words.
2) I learned English from nuns with doctorartes in that language, Latin, Greek, Persian, and Hebrew, meaning the langauge and its roots. I know what a preface is in both the literary and oral contexts, and the differences between them. You seem to not, as evidenced by your constant ability to conflate the two here.
3) Ruwart was defending herself against attacks made on her by individuals, such as yourself, who cannot tell the difference between the words put in the “How-to” book that “Short Answers” actually is versus the words put in the “Opinion” book that “Healing” actually is. The fact is, that crucial difference was lost on almost everybody. Had people simply criticized the answer as being insufficient or lacking in a detail, that’s one thing that could be justified, but instead, people, you included, turned that into personal attacks on her character, and that’s out of line. I’m sorry if you are not versed enough in different types of writings or proper discussion of such to tell the difference. And you namecall me illiterate when you illustrate here with your own words that you can’t even tell types of writings apart, which is something taught in junior-high school?
4) Jury nullification is legal in all jurisdictions since the Brailsford ruling is BINDING on all jurisdictions, until such time as SCOTUS overturns it (and they haven’t!), and any lower-level rulings to the contrary are null and void per Marbury. To claim lower jurisdictions have said no, without citing any sources, and without undertsanding the binding precedents, is a fallacious act.
5) There’s a difference between telling someone that they are acting stupid and that they are stupid. The former criticizes actions. The latter is namecalling. You should not conflate those two things either, since they are rather obviously not the same thing. You, here, are acting stupid.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a Style Committee report to write for the California Bylaws…
May 9th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Steve LaBianca, I already demonstrated how your seventh paragraph was a strawman not derived from the quote you gave. If you claim that the six other paragraphs weren’t strawmen, then quote me or the Reform Caucus actually saying what you claim we believe. You can’t. And so you won’t even try.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I’m going to get off this thread with some final points for consideration:
1) Dr. Ruwart is responding to personal attacks made on her relating to her writing in “Short Answers”. Those personal attacks are out of line, and she is justified in responding.
2) Had people actually simply criticzed the writing itself for errors, inconsistencies, logic problems, etc., then that would be completely fine. But it turned personal, and that was wrong. THAT is what I object to in her critics, that they were out of line in making it personal. Dan makes a great analysis above from an objective point of view without interjecting personal attacks in either direction but while expressing his own reactions. Thanks, Dan!
3) Considering the big picture of what is the crucial issues in this election cycle are, child porn is not one of them. Personally, as a father, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I don’t look at the stuff, my kid doesn’t participate in the stuff, and it’s a non-issue to me. I hear this same bullshit on abortion, gay marriage, and a bunch of other low-tier issues that only serve to distract from the big picture. For America that picture is the War, and the Economy, as it always is. For the LP the picture is how to grow the party and build the membership, funds, and infrastructure we need to be the player we should be at all levels. For those of you discussing the Platform, that is (for now) a small part of that, undoubtedly (more on that below). But to get axle-wrapped over words in a book written ten years ago and then using that to engage in the Politics of Personal Destruction, well, that’s just not the best way to do things, people!
4) The ultimate goal is supposed to be Liberty in Our Lifetimes. So tell me, YTF are we complaining about the type of train to use to get to Minarchist Oakland or Anarchist San Francisco, or which of those to stop at, when we’re still in Statist New York City’s Grand Central Station???? Shouldn’t that be a concern for when the train gets into California and not sooner? This is why I don’t get mixed up in that debate, people. IT DOESN’T MATTER AT THIS POINT! What matters is that we all get the train moving down the tracks. It’s been stuck in the station for 37 years. Time to blow the whistle and start the diesel and get moving!
May 9th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Seebeck:
I don’t claim you are less intelligent based on how wrong/right you are, I would appreciate you didn’t do the same to me (or anyone else).
You came into this debate late in the game, and had nothing but ridicule for the people who disagreed. Some people were actually having a fairly civil debate on the issues.
You and Ms. Ruwart can claim “personal attack” all you want- I’m not defending Root or his allies. The best you can come up with for my concerns, and others, is a combination of “Nu-uh” and “it can be assumed. . .” Neither of those points are valid. When you are faced with that, you and others revert to “it doesn’t matter, anyway” followed swiftly by “Your personal attacks on this one person are tearing apart our movement/party/dreams.” Questioning where someone stands on any issue is not a personal attack. No one here is claiming the comments on Barr/Gravel/Root/other “newcomer”s are “personal attacks.”
Threatening is coercion. Surely someone who is as learned as you claim to be should know this.
I too was taught by nuns with _ degrees. I was never taught that words on paper have different meaning than those that are spoken. How does one record the spoken word into text without changing the meaning then? Is every court reporter required to annotate a reminder somewhere on a deposition or court transcript a reminder to the reader that the words contained herein are to be taken only in their SPOKEN and not LITERARY context?
You can claim to want to discuss the ‘big issues’ all you want but between combative people like yourself and a string of ‘spokepersons’ for the party who preach only anarchy our metaphorical train will continue to be barricaded in the station by people you rile up.
Most people (that I have spoken to in the numerous outreach events we’ve done in the last 6 months) have no interest in listening to the philosophy, they want to hear the “How”.
Ms. Ruwart’s “How” seems to be to preach the philosophy, a technique that has thus far failed.
Most of our allies are single issue people, many of whom are turned off from being thus by the extremes of our philosophy. The last thing we need is someone as our ‘standard bearer’ who represents the most extreme of us.
It hurts all of us.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I just want to point out that I heard some McCain junk on the news the other night- the issue was child porn. From his issues page:
May 9th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
# Thomas L. Knapp Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Paulie,
You write:
“She should stop focusing on reacting to mud thrown by other campaigns, and start making the issues she wants to focus on the center of attention.”
I don’t think she so much “focused on reacting to mud” as she used the mud to make a strong statement on where she’s coming from and what her approach to issues will be.
She managed to get the war on drugs, health care, gun control and foreign policy in there, and to articulate the case for becoming popular by choosing to be RIGHT as opposed to naively chasing after popularity for its own sake.
L. Neil Smith’s shorter-winded and opposite-gendered rendition is “great men don’t move to the center. great men move the center.” The mud involved required her to reply at greater length, but she still managed to take an attack on her and on our party and turned into a stirring declaration of both principle and strategy for her and for our party.
As far as being “reactive” goes, well, yes, that’s not the way you want to campaign all the time … but sometimes you have to take out the trash. She just bagged Wayne Allyn Root and set him on the curb for pickup. She’s called him a coward who hides behind children instead of protecting them because he’s scared shitless of giving Mrs. Grundy the vapors … and she did it convincingly. If Root gets up off the floor after this, he’s either an undead creature or the original glutton for punishment.
I don’t think this essay has converted many, if any, members of the anti-Ruwart brigade or fence sitters.
Thus, it merely contributes to the continuation of this sordid distraction, with possible additional rejoinders from Root/Starr and further responses from Ruwart, ad nauseum, no matter how well argued (and I agree that it is well argued).
The proper tactic for Ruwart is to move on, regardless of whether her opponents do or do not.
The longer this topic continues, and the more attention is paid to it, the greater the likelihood that it will come up during whatever media interviews whoever the LP nominates gets. That will be true regardless of whether that is Ruwart, Root, or someone else.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I found this exceedingly well thought out. I do wish it’d come a wee bit sooner, but all in all, it said all of the things that I wanted to hear.
The last thing the LP needs is a mud-slinging candidate. Many Libertarians were, in fact, Republicans before becoming Libertarians, but the simple fact remains that negative campaigns were something that should’ve been left behind.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
The proper title of Ruwart’s response should be: “Do you believe in fairies?”
Then again, the existence of fairies is more probably than the idea that a political party that advocates legal kiddie porn could get traction in the U.S.
——
But, given the nature of LP conventions, it is rather easy to believe in fairies, so…
May 9th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Unintentional irony dept.:
#
Holtz also has a 10 inch dick but you can’t see that either.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Of course you don’t Mr. Holtz. Let’s see, this time I set a record.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I know I get the impression from certain anarchists (but definitely only a minority thereof) on this blog that they would like to oust the minarchists. One screen name in particular pops to mind.
Whose?
May 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Meanwhile:
“A man alleges that police entered his home illegally and ripped a catheter from his body during a child pornography investigation that led to the arrest of two neighbors.”
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Conn_man_says_police_broke_into_hom_05092008.html
Its fer da children!
May 9th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
# Alex Peak Says:
May 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Mr. Antman writes,
“But I agree with Daniel Wiener that the tone of the piece is not what I’ve come to expect from Dr. Ruwart, and I don’t want to see it become her tone. And I don’t want the LP candidate, whoever they are, to campaign either for or against age-of-consent laws unless and until it is part of the LP Platform. The reason I support a comprehensive platform is so that candidates, activists, and new members have a basis for knowing the consensus of LP members on the various issues and can choose wisely in their advocacy for the party.
“If asked their position on a disputed topic, activists should do exactly what I’ve seen Ruwart do repeatedly in the past, tell the questioner that libertarians disagree on the subject (and then provide a more complete answer, if it seems appropriate to do so and the activist has a strong personal opinion). Actually, she SAID that to open the chapter on children’s rights (as well as abortion and other difficult topics) in the 10-year-old book that has been so heavily discussed. “Children’s rights is still a hotly-debated issue among libertarians” remains a good first sentence of any answer to a questioner.
“A supporter of Ruwart can disagree with her on the viability of common law principles for children’s rights, and not accept her view that market processes can provide legal and security services as effectively as they provide all other services. I don’t know any two libertarians who agree on all policy positions, unless one of them isn’t thinking.”
I’m in complete agreement with you on these points.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
me too.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Don’t have a pot to piss in? Go to turdpottywatch.com
May 10th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Look smart go to www.turdpottywatch.com.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:07 am
“All we need to do is show a jury that the child wasn’t competent to consent.”
The problem with this is that it is subjective. Age of Consent laws make this objective. If it is subjective, then we are at the mercy of whoever has the most expensive lawyer. Let me illustrate with a fictional example:
Michael Jackson molests a 12 year old little boy. If we have an age of consent law, MJ gets to go to jail for being a sicko. Without an age of consent law, Johnny Cochrane (sp?) uses the Chewbaca Defense to demonstrate that because wookies don’t belong on endor, the little boy consented. The sheeple of the jury fall for it. The sicko goes free.
Although it is remotely possible that the Chewbaca Defense might also be able to somehow prove that 12
June 26th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Many people are missing the point: most governments on Earth have age of consent laws, meaning that the 50 US states and the feds can be excused for exercising government control in that area. Outside the Judeo-Christian west, that age is often 14 and it is mostly 15 and 16 in the Christian west. Punishments get more and more severe for every year a minor is below that age. This is the way it is in almost every country on Earth.
What we do NOT need in the USA, however, would be emotional political propaganda where Christian evangelist or feminist attempts to raise the age of consent to 18 and more run parallel with comments like “the liberals are all child rapists” or “the libertarians are all child rapists”.
The reaction of other socalled libertarians to Mary’s red herring comment about a 17 year old and a 15 year old were unfortunate because MOST of the US population agrees with her on that and Romeo & Juliet laws abound now in many states. If Root opposes these laws because he feels that a 17 year old male victimizes his 15 year old girlfriend by sleeping with her, then he is worse than the Republican evangelists we are in the process of permanently voting out of office.
But these Romeo and Juliet laws create another problem, that of the government deciding what age differences are OK between people.
A commenter put words in Mary’s mouth above when he made the seemingly anti-male statement that it was OK for a hot 22 year old female schoolteacher to have sex with a 15 year old boy, but not a 45 year old male to do the same. Sure…he made the younger person “12” in the case of the 45 year old male and, thus, turned his comparison into a meaningless apples and oranges remark…but he was actually touching on a can of worms that does exist in that the real motivation for many new laws is to punish “Dirty Old Men” and not to protect sexually active teenagers from being traumatized by their own sexually active lifestyle with other people under 30.
A 22 year old woman teacher molesting a willing 15 year old boy is no different from a 45 year old male soccer coach molesting a willing 15 year old girl. You cannot say that the boy would love the experience and always cherish it while saying the girl would be traumatized and badly damaged. That kind of thinking is pure feminist hatred of men. You have to punish both crimes the same or remove the crime.
Here is an example of this outright hatred of “older males” put into legislation, where the government decides that “age difference” somehow traumatizes and not “sex with adults”:
The State of Delaware actually has a Romeo and Juliet Law that says that the age of consent in the state is 16…unless the adult is over 30.
Obviously, the people who wrote that law did not really believe that a 17 year old is incapable of consent with an adult. They just felt extreme hatred toward older males. In fact, this form of hate speech is called the “Dirty Old Man” Law.
This trend of “regulating age difference” has then developed into online dating laws that say that men who date adult women much younger than themselves are “probably abusers”.
This fits a mentally sick, but common, concept that a 45 year old man must not be allowed to date a 22 year old woman (and especially not an 18 year old woman)...because he must be controlling her and she must be desperate for cash.
The Libertarian Party has no business joining in the trend of American state and federal governments to regard older males with hatred or even suspicion for being attracted to females (or males) above the current average age of consent in the western world.