Vortex, I am familiar with a Mike Jingozian. I also know of a John Finan. If anyone is viewed as unknown, it would be this Steve Jingozian character. Who dat?

Alex, you should never believe anything that Eric Dondero Rittberg writes. He clearly has not read the book that Harry Browne wrote, or he is deliberately distorting what he knows of it. Many hard core libertarians, such as Neil Smith and myself disliked Harry Browne on substantive grounds (corrupting the headquarters staff, e.g.) and on philosophical grounds (tax comments, 1996; screwing over the young to avoid betraying the elderly comment, 1996; etc.).

Clearly, Harry Browne was not “Mr. Anarchist” to actual anarcho-capitalists. But, the man’s dead, so Dondero would be just a bit less of a jerk if he didn’t urinate on the man’s grave.

Remember that Dondero couldn’t keep his job with Ron Paul, so anything he says against Dr. Paul is suspect. Many of my friends in the Republican Liberty Caucus have very little use for Dondero. He is more than your average sleaze, in my experience.

Why is Bob Bar in the LP? Simple. The LP has credible ballot presence in 48 states this year. North Carolina might make it 49. The LP has had 50 state presence in the past. No third party comes close. Which means if you want to run a credible campaign, and you don’t want to spend millions on ballot access (see Ross Perot’s campaigns) you want one of the top three parties. And, well, Barr as a Democrat, don’t get me started. Same for Gravel – nothing Gravel promotes in his campaign is a libertarian position except his proud work filibustering the draft.

Mary Ruwart will be viewed as tainted
Steve Kubby will be viewed as a one-issue candidate
Bob Barr will be viewed as a Republican
Mike Gravel will be viewed as a Democrat
George Phillies will be viewed as too far left by the righties and too far right by the lefties
Wayne Alan Root will be viewed as being Wayne Alan Root
Dan Imperato will drop out when he is named as John McCain’s running mate.
Steve Jingozian will be viewed as a Silicon Valley computer geek
Christine Smith will be viewed as not viable
John Finan will be viewed as being unknown

That leaves Alden Link. Nominee by default.

Whereas I agree with you that Bob Barr “is fairly committed to the LP going forward” (and would say the same is true of Mr. Gravel), I do not believe either of them could be truthfully described as a libertarian—at least not yet. You say that you think Mr. Barr is 90-95% libertarian; I do not think he’s any more than 70% libertarian.

Yours,
Alex Peak

“Mr. Peak, Harry Browne wrote a book all about Anarchism in the early 1970s, became a best-seller in fact, called ‘How I found Freedom in an Unfree World.’ It was all about dropping out of society, living in a shack in the mountains, investing in gold and having your gun ready when the Feds came to take it all away.

“For years after that he advocated Libertarians not being involved in politics at all, and just separating themselves from society.

“He was not only an Anarchist, you could argue, he was Mr. Anarchist.”

I admit that I haven’t yet read How I Found Freedom, but from what I’m aware of it, it advocated freeing one’s self from various social trappings in which people place themselves. I see nothing inherently anarchistic about this, or about anything else you’ve described in this above quote.

Simply not taking place in the electoral process does not make one an anarchist. And the fact that Mr. Browne advocated tariffs as a means of raising money for the government during his campaigns seems to indicate that he was not an anarchist. In fact, calling it anarchism seems to constitute spin.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

Not true, as far as I can tell (and that’s because it’s awfully hard to pin Barr down on anything).

When do you think he reversed these positions? I’ve seen him try to explain them away as libertarian, but not to reverse them. He said his vote on the PATRIOT Act was libertarian because it involved a deal getting a sunset provision included for some clauses.

You might call his position on the WoD ‘reversed’ if his original position was that drugs should be prohibited by the federal government and now he thinks they should be prohibited by the state governments. To me that’s hardly a ‘reversal’.

He says DOMA was libertarian because it called for getting the federal government out of marriage. As if

Has he EVER said anywhere that, if he had it to do over again, he would do otherwise on any of these votes?

Oh, and we shouldn’t forget his support for the anti-flag burning amendment. I wonder if he’s revered his position on at least that one simple stupid bandwagon he jumped on?

I’ve spoken to him personally a few times though, and he readily admits he doesn’t know everything and wants to learn from us. Maybe he’ll run for LNC at-large and get to know everyone better. That would be nice – I genuinely like the guy, and he’s probably the first person to bring some popular new ideas that aren’t downright stupid to the table in a long time. A number of other LP candidates have endorsed the “National Initiative” that Gravel has spearheaded.

“Even though the “pragmatists” all support Barr because he’s got the name recognition, none of them support Gravel even though he’s got the name recognition. Perhaps that should be explored.”

I think this is because Barr has a longer history with the LP. He voted for Badnarik in 2004, then joined the party and has been serving on the LNC. He publicly reversed his positions on the War on Drugs, DOMA, and the Patriot Act long before considering running for the LP nomination.

Gravel is a lot newer to the LP, and as far as I know, still advocates some form of national health insurance.

If Gravel makes a similar journey to Barr’s over the next few years (on different issues of course), I could easily see him attracting strong support in 2012. His age might be an issue though.

If Barr is the nominee, I think someone like Ruwart, Gravel, or Kubby would be a good VP pick to help dispell the myth that the LP is a right-wing party. As Ron Paul and DownsizeDC.org have shown, freedom has broad appeal—left, right, and center.

While a majority of libertarians are pro-choice – I do not deny that pro-life is the minority viewpoint – pro-choice libertarians want choice at the state level. Your position, federal pro-choice, is an anti-libertarian position. Perhaps you never investigated what it means to be a pro-choice libertarian.

After all, you do not understand the reasoning behind holding either the libertarian pro-choice or the libertarian pro-life positions. There is some deeper philosophical reasoning going on that separates the pro-life libertarian from the pro-life republican and the pro-choice libertarian from the pro-choice democrat. Some of this was touched on by Thomas Knapp when he discussed the issue of fetus personhood … and it went completely over your head.

It is ironic that you rail against the anarchists within the LP when you are advocating the most anarchist position with regards to abortion – it should be legal because “we’re pro-choice on everything.” Technically taken to the extreme such a sentiment could mean that we are pro-choice on issues such as murder and rape … yet you are backing W.A.R. against Ruwart and he accused her of holding sexually inappropriate ideas in an effort to bolster his failing campaign.

The libertarian position is to maximize the rights of the individual. The few issues that divide libertarians are those issues where it is unclear how to maximize the rights of the individual. Abortion is one of those, because if a fetus is not a life then pro-life enslaves women … but if a fetus is a life than pro-choice is murder.

The question is fetus personhood, and it is not a settled issue.

The other question, one on which pro-life and pro-choice libertarians agree is the constitutional issue. What does the constitution actually say? When I last lectured you on this issue I included a paragraph on how the court should have ruled, and you failed to respond. Did you not understand it? If it’s not authorized by the constitution the federal government has no business taking a side – and that includes both the pro-life and the pro-choice side of the debate. Knapp has found a possible interpretation that could authorize federal jurisdiction, but nowhere in the current decision of Roe v. Wade is there any nod to that possible interpretation. It is bad law.

Pro-life and pro-choice libertarians (which if put together make all libertarians) agree Roe v. Wade is bad law. Dondero does not agree that it is bad law. Therefore Dondero disagrees with all libertarians.

Therefore Dondero is supposed to be some sort of libertarian how exactly?

It’s not about proving we are different from the Republicans in an effort to hook up with the Republicans (?) it is about trying to apply the theory. You may have been good at handing out pamphlets once upon a time, but did you ever consider theory? It’s the basis for the positions you once advocated, and your failure to grasp the theory is the reason you strayed and are now considered a neoconservative.

There will be a BTP meeting at the LP convention – possibly at or near the end thereof, or shortly after.

You’d think that under the Patriot Act, they’d at least contract that out to Haliburton or something. In fact, there’s a big Haliburton office here in Houston. But nope. Hadn’t seen any Haliburton flunkies in trenchcoats hanging outside my house late at night.

Wuz up with dat? cuz? Where dose Haliburton/Bush/Cheyney Patriot Act guys be at??

I remember it clear as day. Nick told me, hey, “We Libertarians are pro-free enterprise like Milton Friedman, and we’re Pro-Choice.” I send, “Great” sign me up.

It was only years later that I learned there was such a thing as a Pro-Life Libertarian.

But the point is, either Nick was lying to me, or the LP has changed dramatically over the years.

I suspect the latter. Cause I can remember great bumper stickers the LP used to produce in the 1980s, “Vote Libertarian: We’re Pro-Choice on Everything.”

It puzzles me how so many here on this Forum are so concerned about being perceived as “too Republican,” or “too Rightwing,” yet these very same people are the ones, seeking to downplay the LP’s Pro-Choice position.

Pro-Choice is one way that we can differentiate ourselves from Conservatives.

Not too mention the opportunities we have to link up with Pro-Choice Repubican groups like Ann Stone and that whole crowd.