I want to ask the anarchists: would they in their household families makes no “law”, ...?

In my home I am the law.

There is an old English doctrine (not followed anymore, alas) that a man’s home is his castle. What this means is that the Crown’s law doesn’t apply to a person’s home and family affairs.

Anarchists (or voluntaryists, or what-have-you) don’t necessarily reject the idea of law itself (some do, but they are confused, I think), but only the idea of government law.

Some of us think law – like others goods such as food and education – is too important to be left to the bungling mismanagement that one inevitably sees in government.

LOL

Mr. Barr said he still opposes abortion and the legalization or decriminalization of drugs, just as he did as a federal prosecutor during the Reagan administration and as a Republican in the U.S. House.

But then . . . just about anything would be a misrepresentation as Barr really has not really represented himself MUCH in regards to the drug war. His responses to being asked about his position of being at odds with the LP members is one of glittering generalities.

The LP does NOT need evasive politicking in the mold of the Democrats ans Republicans. Barr is doing just this. I firmly believe that Mr. Barr will need to reiterate his positions regarding the drug war, federalism and the continuance of the drug war at the state level.

Barr saying that he is personally opposed to drug use will not be a sufficient stance for delegates in my view.

What WOULD be sufficient is, as Mary Ruwart has clearly stated, tolerance is a Libertarian virtue . . . which must be upheld. We may be personally opposed to the decisions others make, but we uphold their right to make that decision. If Barr does not believe in tolerance as Ruwart explains, nor reiterates it to delegates, then his candidacy is doomed . . . and rightly so.

COLBERT: Now I assume that you’re an advisor for Bob Barr. Because he is, his pledge is that no more nanny state. And you seem to be anti-nanny state.
NORQUIST: I’m certainly anti-nanny state. Right now, we want a government to treat us like adults rather than like we’re in high school for the rest of our lives and too much of the government wants to run our lives and treat us as if we’re in high school.
COLBERT: We are not in high school anymore and anybody who says so is two-faced.
NORQUIST: I didn’t like being treated like I was in high school when I was in high school and I don’t appreciate it now.
COLBERT: What did they call you in high school? Come on, “Grover” must have had some good derivations.
NORQUIST: Grover was about as unique as it got. Bob Barr is a great activist…
COLBERT: Great American.
NORQUIST: Great American. John McCain has actually made commitments to oppose any and all tax increases. Has a pro-growth tax cut agenda…

CONAN: Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul with us here at the Newseum. You are listening to Talk of the Nation from NPR News. And a couple of quick last questions, Ken?

KEN RUDIN: A quick question. Ralph Nader says, to him, at least, there’s no difference between the Republican and Democratic Party. Do you feel that way, that there’s no difference between Obama, assuming he’s a nominee, and John McCain? And would you advise your supporters to sit out the election to November or go with a third party? What would you say?

Rep. PAUL: I wouldn’t tell them to sit out. But I wouldn’t tell them what to do, because some come from the left. I have a lot of Green Party people who support me, because they know my position and they’re very anti-war and they like civil liberties. You know, and I defend environment through property rights differently than they do. So, no, I wouldn’t tell them what to do.

But as far as difference goes, no difference. I mean, I like Obama, what he says on foreign policy. He’ll probably be, maybe, a little bit better. But foreign policy, regardless of whether you have Republicans or Democrats, foreign policy never changes. Monetary policy, though nobody ever talks about it, very important, it never changes. Domestic welfare policy never changes regardless of the policy. So, yes, George Wallace was right.

CONAN: Here’s an email question from Kurt in Renton, Washington. “Yes or no or nothing in between, please. Is Representative Paul going to run for president in the general election?”

Rep. PAUL: No.

CONAN: Ron Paul, thanks very much for being with us.

I want to ask the anarchists: would they in their household families makes no “law”, e.g. prohibit and warn their children from the evils of prositiuion, drug usuage, and give them pusnishment (apart from love) if they hurt themselves and family in this way, OR would they tell their children everything is allowed, they can use drugs, sell their bodies etc., and propogate that “liberty” that they have?

Liberty is NOT without values!

I have to say that Barr has support from a prominent gay intellectual: Justin Raimundo, so he would be able to win support among the “outright libertarians”, just as Paul received an endorsement from such a magazine, although he also represent social conservative values like Barr.

Paul has recently commented on a Bloomberg TV interview asked about the reason for non-success of the LP over the decades. He gave two reasons: one the media black-out, the system biase towards only two parties and two:
the public perception of the LP as being a libertine party, e.g. “pink” etc. (e.g. pot smoking, prostitution types etc. etc.).

And I am afraid the LP WILL never be able to become a “mainstream” party with substantial support and influence if it does not “combat” the libertine perception it has. I think Barr will succeed -if elected – to give the LP a “mainstream image” and to get substantial support from not only disaffected Republicans, but also Independents as well as disaffected Democrats without having to sacrifice any major libertarian principle. It is already clear that Barr will embark on a ruthless, radical slashing of government departments and huge fiscal conservatism (a pillar of LP philosophy) and will also provide more choice and liberty on the state and local level.

This year has shaped up to be the “perfect storm” year for the LP to carve out substantial support on the double digit region. If it squanders this unique opportunity, it only has itself to blame AND would at least be party responsible of less liberty for the individual in society and for failing to reserve this trend.
The LP does not necessarily have to win the election to make a substantial influence on the debate and political direction. If it scores double digits gains (Mary Ruwart has also mentioned it), then it will be on the map for the long term and the major political parties need to adjust and the LP would be able to capture quite a fee congressional seats and possibly also senate positions in 2010. If it does not, not only Barr is toast but with him also the LP IMHO. Personally I think a Barr-Ruwart ticket would be able to unify the party and also project the maximum outreach to conservatives, liberals, centrists, greens etc.
It has to be planned very strategically. The VP choice would also be important.

I await the delegates decision ! Whoever you give us, I will support the best that I can.
PEACE

My best guess is that Barr may well place first on the first ballot in Denver, but he will stall after that. His supporters will begin migrating to Root, who will then face off against Ruwart or Kubby for the nomination. And there’s always the possibility that Phillies (or even Gravel) could emerge as the compromise candidate: everyone’s second or third choice.

It should be interesting! We’ll know the results in eleven days!