P-A-U-L-I-E

And while I have graduated college, I have no picture to prove it at my disposal, and if I did, I don’t have a scanner, so I would not be able to provide it to you.

So I suppose that means I never went to college?

We are never “absolutely” free, and one should not portray the main parties as being “unfree”. One could say the LP is the most principled and consequent on how the principles of freedom should be applied.

What I want to say with regard to the drug war is that, though important, it would be a mistake to make the “drug-issue” the main issue in the election.
The context of the drug-war, like with other moral-ethical issues should be values in society as well. I said I think the LP should treat the drug issue as a medical problem, not a legal problem (e.g. that it should be outlawed by the federal government). It would be problematical to treat the use of hard drugs (for non-medical usuage) as being only an issue for liberty to those that want to use it (drug addicts), and NOT to stress that hard drugs could be an enormous PROBLEM in society and society should also be encouraged to combat this issue. The percentage of people who want to use drugs is quite small, so this issue should not be blown up beyond proportions.

In politics perception plays a very significant role. If someone has a negative perception about you/your party, you can argue with him/her till you blue in the face and present him/her with compelling rational arguments, he or she will still not be easily persuaded because of the negative perception, some partly due to the media that gave the wrong impression, some partly due to the LP as well, e.g. the perception people have of the LP as being “libertine”. Ron Paul has made this remark recently in a Bloomberg interview and cited these two reasons: the “conspiracy” by the two main parties to block out third parties and also by the LP’s own making, the impression of a “libertine partine”. Most of the people would never vote for a party they portrays itself or they have the impression of being “anarchist”. This also means even the “anarchists” among the LP, would never experience their “anarchist revolution” democratically.
WHat I also mean to say is that it would take a lot of time and power to steer the Titanic, one cannot make a 180% degree turn-around on some issues overnight.
The LP would be wise to survey the issues of freedom or liberty which affects the overall majority of people, and that involves, economic freedom, judicial freedom, more possibilities to choose with orientation etc. and the “freedom to use a specific hard drug” is quite low on the list of many.

Dondero, who doesn’t even explain what he thinks “Surrender to Al-Qaeda” is, seems to prefer proactive police states over freedom.

Sipos: “One of your dumbest statements, among many dumb statements.

That’s like saying, what’s the use of having all that kick-ass Fire Dept equipment if we never use it? No fires this year? Damn, let’s burn down some buildings so our fire engines don’t go to waste.”

Damn! I was going to make the same point, Thomas, but you beat me to it. Well done.

The police are there to respond to crimes, or to act while crimes are being committed (of course, they should be real crimes, not victimless ones). The police are not there to act in advance of crimes (i.e., preemptively). The same principle applies to the military.

It’s the LP’s job to represent the libertarian message; “libertarian-leaning Republcians” and “libertarian-leaning Democrats” and “libertarian-leaning Libertarians” can vote for whoever they like. It’s not the LP’s job to cater to the non-libertarian views of “libertarian-leaning” voters.

Dondero: “what good is all that “kick-ass Military” if you never use it?

One of your dumbest statements, among many dumb statements.

That’s like saying, what’s the use of having all that kick-ass Fire Dept equipment if we never use it? No fires this year? Damn, let’s burn down some buildings so our fire engines don’t go to waste.

Or, what’s the use of having all those kick-ass Hospitals if we never use them? No sick people this year? Let’s break some legs so the emergency rooms will have something to do.

Or, what’s the use of having all those kick-ass Police Depts if we never use them? No crime this year? Let’s murder some people so the cops will have something to investigate.

You moron! It’s a good thing not to have to use the military. The military exists to defend us from harm. If it can do that without going to war, so much the better. If we’re safely at peace, it’s doing its job.

But you apparently think, no nation attacked us? Let’s blow up some civilians so our bombs don’t go to waste.

Even as a conservative, you should appreciate that those bombs will cost money to replace (I know you don’t care about the deaths of innocent civilians.

And to repeat Susan Santarini’s request, let’s see your Navy photos?

He is already getting more attention than any of our other potential
candidates.. than any of our past candidates.

Three of his four major issues are great. Rolling back the federal spending increases imposed by Bush, rolling back the attack on the
Bill of Rights and the separation of powers imposed by Bush, and
repudiating the preemptive war and nation building imposed by Bush.

The problem area is immigration. He appears better than Paul on this
issue. (And I certainly don’t want a candidate fighting for open borders
at this time.)

I think that Barr has a great opportunity to gain the votes of libertarians—people who are fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. We have
seen polling that shows that our voters are turning away from the
Republicans. How many will turn too the Libertarians?

While I see “immigration” as a question mark in terms of emphasis, Barr’s
greatest weakness is on “the social issues.”

I actually think that his explanation of how he changed his mind is fine. Deflecting questions as “that is a state and local issue,” is OK too.

As long as the context is “There are other issues that are more important.”

The problem, however, is that the right wing press will try to pin him down on these issues as an attack to protect McCain. And even the libertal press will bring it up. From the mainstream perspective, every issue is national, the libertarian party is identified with radical stances on personal liberty, and Barr has a reputation as an extreme social conservative.

But, even if we suffer through more of the “I wouldn’t vote to legalize heroin and crack” in my state, we don’t have to fear that Barr willl potificate on what libertarians think… “libertarians beleive that crack
should be illegal.”

I also believe that we don’t have to worry about getting a flood of social
convervative fanatics into the LP. I

Absolutely. This is exactly why we need to remain steadfast in our presentation of libertarian principles and policies, rather than moving the LP closer to some hypothetical majority of voters.

We’re here to change American politics; not be changed by it!

Along the way, we need to build the Party and supporters, else our ideas will be confined to the Ivory Tower.

Right. But we need to build support for actual libertarianism, not ‘conservativism’, as Mr. Barr keeps suggesting.

ME: I’d suggest you’ve made an error here in this premise. Barr, or any L prez contender, isn’t going to use the government for anything, for he or she won’t win. Thinking thoughts don’t make things happen. This is a classic example of psychological projection.

Who builds the LP the best? Who introduces Americans to L ideas best?

The LP is in a marathon, not a sprint. Along the way, we need to build the Party and supporters, else our ideas will be confined to the Ivory Tower.

First, it is not not at all clear to me that saying ‘it should not be a federal issue’ is the sort of policy panacea that many folks would like it to be. Voters want to know where their candidates stand, and saying “I stand for not having an (official) opinion on this issue” is weak. You might get away with it on an issue or two, but as a general policy it basically sounds like the candidate is avoiding taking a stand in a vain attempt to please multiple constituencies (which, in this case, I’d say was true).

Second, “mak[ing] it more/also acceptable to both social conservative as well as social liberals” is NOT the goal – the goal is representing and recruiting Libertarians. We aren’t striving for some hypothetical mush int he middle of conservativism and liberalism; we’re striving for libertarianism.

Third, ending the War on Drug Users means ending prohibition. Period. It can be done fast or slow, but it’s silly to pretend that the Libertarian position is anything else than ending prohibition. It’s not a question of finding the position that is most palatable to most voters and running with it – that’s the game of the R/D Party, and they have that territory well staked out. Our role as the Libertarian party is to recruit and represent libertarians.

We can’t be all things to all people. People who hate freedom – or even simply fear it – will not vote Libertarian until they are persuaded that freedom is the best way to go. Pretending that we aren’t exactly pro-freedom, or positioning ourselves to agree with anti-freedom elements, will not win us votes. Anti-freedom voters already have a political Party (in a choice of flavors!). What the Libertarian Party is is a political party for those who want freedom, not just-a-bit-more freedom.

With the opposition to the “war on drugs” the LP should be aware of the perception that it is a libertine party, and party of people who loves drugs, prostitution, 100% pro-abortion. I can imagine there are many conservatives and others who just love the fiscal conservatism and financial policy, as well as peace party, but are put off by the perception of being a libertine party. This does not mean the party is a libertine party, but the perception is there and this
is not easy to combat.

Drugs are used by a small minority of people. The LP would IMHO make a big mistake if it ONLY treats the use of hard drugs for “recreational/non-medical purposes) as a liberty issue, e.g. the liberty of those people to use the drugs, and the LP as its advocate. The LP would do much better in portraying the limits of laws and treating the hard drug issue as a medical PROBLEM, e.g. not as a
“liberty”, but also as a “problem”. The usuage of drugs does or could affect the liberty of other people who do not use drugs, e.g. drug addicts are a minority and taking drugs affects one’s health, and could also affect those of your family and friends and in some cases it can lead to (or act as a catalist) rape, theft and violent behaviour. In such a sense it does affect the society and it problematical. With this being said, one should differentiate and take into consideration t hat some individuals simply use it in their own home in privacy and having no negative affect on anybody else, if taken by balance, and not in overdoze. For children especially taking it in overdoze, it could lead to death, not liberty!

I think, if Barr wants to be concrete on the drug war issue, he could announce he would release those people, drugg smugglers that were improsined and given multi year sentences, without stealing or doing other harm. Those that did other’s harm int he process, should remain in prison. He could stress the positive effect on the family life, e.g. reuniting with family of many people affected, as well as the economy (e.g. the prisons would not be so overcrowded and the whole administration process would be reduced). This would be another financial savings measure as well.
It is IMHO a good idea to leave the drug-policy issue over to the states, just like prostitution. The federal government does not have the power. The LP should take into account that the war of drugs issue was strongly advocated under the party that make “civil liberties” currently their mann issue: the Democrats. There is uspport for the war on drugs not only from conservatives, but also from liberals, under CLinton for instance and some of the most liberal judges, like Ginsburg etc. (as they so assure the power of the federal government over the state). By making the drug-issue a state issue, as it was and should be, Barr should make it more/also acceptable to both social conservative as well as social liberals. The advantage of the state issue also is that a state could “experiment” and chance can be achieved step by step, (rather than no change at all). Certain states could decide to outlaw certain hard drugs, while allowing medical mariuana, some could decide to outlaw any drug, some could decide to allow any drug, some could decide to allow some or any drugs while taxing them very high as a measure to restrict the use and/or allow pharmacies etc to sell the drugs, and in this way “regulate” it. The whole country could then see in which state it works the best, the “fears” of some could be addressed and the state where the policy works the best, could be an example to the others to follow, whereby the policy would be streamlined again with most states over time.

In short: I do not think Barr should call for any sort of drug to be allowed anywhere in the country as a way to end the “war on drugs”. There are other ways as well to work towards more freedom responsibly and so opening up to make the LP a feasible alternative/opposition. If the LP ONLY opposes the status que radically and act as a “pressure group”, it would never gain any mainstream success and without mainstream success/inroads, it would NEVER be able to implement or pressure for the changes that some of the “radical Libertarians” would like to see. With individuals in the public sphere (not private phere at home) the liberty of one does affect the liberty of another and there is sno “absolute” liberty. For example, a restaurant should be allowed to impose a smoking ban in a part of the whole of a restaurant. SMokers could use the smoking area or go to a restaurant where smoking is allowed. Smokers who use their liberty of smoking (all the more so with smoking pot), does affect the liberty of other individuals, who perhaps hate just the smell of smoke and their liberty rights should also be adhered to.

These remarks are intended to be a contribution in reaching consensus/agreement and unity among Libertarians, while allowing for differences of opinion on certain matters.

If the LP nominates a candidate who is too right-wing, I’m probably voting for Nader. I don’t like Baldwin’s erroneous historical belief that America was founded as a Christian nation or his opposition to the right to immigrate (although he is definitely alot better than Keyes). Although Nader’s economic policies would be extremely bad (except for ending corporate welfare), he can definitely be trusted on social policy and on foreign policy.

However, more to the point, I deny the existence of such a thing as “pro-defense” libertarians (meaning libertarians who support the Imperialist foreign policy of the Republicrat regime). The whole idea of a libertarian supporting a war in which 1 million Iraqis have died is an oxymoron, as is the idea of a libertarian who supports overthrowing the governments that people in other countries have chosen and replacing them with puppet governments that do whatever DC tells them. Libertarianism is a ideology that is based upon opposing the initiation of force, so it is absurd for libertarians to support the initiation of force against foreigners.

Yes, I get the exact same impression of Mary Ruwart as well, she impress me every time when I hear her in an interview or read an article, like for instance her interview last week on antiwar.com She would be able to work well with any LP candidate, whether she is on the top of the ticket or the VP nominee (except with Root IMHO. I also think Root would not go well with many other LP candidates). Ruwart is an absolute team player.

As to the quote/link you were looking for:
www.reason.com/blog/show/126404.html

“Ruwart didn’t rule out running as a VP candidate to Barr “if I felt it would be good for the party.”

BTW: I very much doubt she would same the same about Root.