You are most entirely welcome.

Let me again urge people interested in what Federal campaigns and PACS spend go to the original source http://www.FEC.GOV . Go to the left column, the top entry that pushes out a rightgoing side bar.

“Electronic filings” gets you both readable pages and a downloadable that can be read by Microsoft Excel and others.

The paper filings, miscellaneous filings, and copies of the FEC inquiries are in the adjoining link.

Best,

George

So, Phillies wants to further entrench the idea that marriage is for the government to oversee,eh?

Basically, yes.

The LP’s site should also IMHO be revamped and improved, especially with this specific election year, as many people new to the LP may well have a look and the impression provided is also important.

Personally, I think they should take some initiative and construct websites for money bombs for not only the presidential nominees, but also to promote and fund the respective LP candidates for state senate, congress and senate and invite the candidates to co-ordinate and help them with their campaign (brainstorming, ideas etc.). I know the nominees and some candidates will campaign, but they need extra help or can share from previous experience.
Good luck with the rest of your campaign! The dailyliberty website is also a good idea, hope the young people can promote it further.

Oh, wait, I’ve been saying that all day and they don’t listen.

This doesn’t move us closer to liberty, because it simply mandates that all gay couples register with the state government, and that unelected judges maintain the power to overrule the wills of the people. Libertarians should be working to abolish unconstitutional marriage licensing, and allow all couples to freely marry.

Exactly. Don’t tell that to the Outright Liber-Nazis though, they don’t comprehend.

I never defended Jim Crow laws. I was saying that Phillies is using a bad libertarian example since they were essentially replaced by the even more totalitarian federal “Civil Rights Act”.

I tend to think that we should embrace rulings and laws that destroy the power of state, local, and federal governments to use their powers to marginalize anybody—and hail any incremental improvements that move us closer to liberty.

I think such positions will win us a lot more support in the general population than the “angry Republican guy” positions of “Hugh” and Mike Nelson.

But this ruling didn’t destroy the power of state, local, and federal governments to marginalize everybody; it simply replaced gay people seeking “marriage” with private churches who disapprove of “gay marriage”. This doesn’t move us closer to liberty, because it simply mandates that all gay couples register with the state government, and that unelected judges maintain the power to overrule the wills of the people. Libertarians should be working to abolish unconstitutional marriage licensing, and allow all couples to freely marry. It seems sad that no Libertarian candidate thus far wishes to express these views.

The LP.org web site is being willfully dishonest. I specifically warned them about the issue, and they refused to correct the record.

Romney’s money spent as well as the other kind. Unfortunately for him, every time he heard Obama say ‘change’ he thought it was a reference to his stands on his issues.

Here is a link to Tamara Johnson’s web site and the full analysis
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/comparison-of-fec-candidate-reports/

However, here are the numbers she generated for fundraising:

Mike Jingozian
Others $ 13,090
Total $228,525

George Phillies
Others $ 16,727
Total $198,254

Wayne Allyn Root
Others $ 34,409
Total $ 59,410

Christine Smith
Others $ 16,244
Total $ 16,244

Steve Kubby
Others $ 16,219 (inferred from previous filings))
Total $ 16,219

Mary Ruwart
Others $ 5,655
Total $ 10,655

Bob Barr
Others $ 0
Total $ 0

Mike Gravel
Others $447,880
Total $521,396

Daniel Imperato:

Imperato filing appears to have a corrupted computer file. His most recent report claims his receipts for the quarter ($39,574) are larger than his total receipts for the cycle ($12,500), which is impossible.

I do think the LP should unite next weekend and it is something for consideration that the candidates that do not make it for the nomination for presidential or VP candidate, should strongly consider running for congress and concentrate. They already javbe raised some money and have some profile and in a 4 party race or even 3 party with very hard work, it may be just possible to get at least one LP member elected to congress. Would that not be a breakthrough?

I also know what your answer is and would not agree. MY answer would be “more freedom”. A person does still have freedom, freedom to vote, etc etc. you cannot so there is NO freedom or liberty at all, unless you are an anarchist.
It is the first time I heard about the term “libertarian anarchism”. I know about “anarcho-capitalism”.
Question: is their one country in the world that was or is an example of successful “libertarian anarchism”?
On the other hand can refer to a few countries that are very much liberianism, like Switzerland, Hong Kong (in any case earlier) etc. In HK there was and is no “democracy”, but it is one of the economic most free countries in the world.

Now I do not know much about Ayn Rand. DO you follow her? I have read Kant, Hegel, Nietsche, Heidegger, Gadamer etc. and follow more the European philosopical tradition. I read somewhere that Rand did not even really study Kant, whom she criticized.

Well, I was referring to the COnstitution, as such. This is the document every congress member, senator, and president should swear to uphold, and NOT their party platform. SO the constitution takes preference. It is not a perfect document, and can be amended, but a very good starting point, libertarian document.

If so, then the LP has it all wrong on their website. Note: I think Dr. Phillies was referring to 100 k of his own money that would be available. This does not count as “money raised” unless he/you want to use a “Romney-speak”... check out
newsmeat dot com It does not seem as if he has so many donors…I accept that the info is not 100% up to date.

“because conservative bigots start bleating about their Jim Crow ‘states rights’ doctrine. Patriotic Americans know the truth: States have no right to take away your liberties.

I’d love to see him 1 on 1 against Barr in a debate”.

Indeed! Phillies is de facto also taking on most countries of the world with the exception of Belgium, South Africa, Canada, Spain etc. and 48 of the 50 states with regard to his interpretation/understanding. Good luck Dr. Phillies persuading most African and Asian countries especially.
Also: is he also going to enforce churches etc. to allow this, otherwise it would be seen as “discrimination” and “withholding of civil liberties”in this radical understanding. Note that most West European countries accept civil unions for homosexual partners, not marriages, like in France, which is a social quite liberal society with a radical divide between church and state.

Note: I take more the democratic position of the majority in the world.

This turn of phrase, in my experience, usually means “my interpretation of the constitution, which ignores the bits that I don’t like.”

They are the exception, not the rule.

Ron Paul and various other well-known Republican politicians who often take the “let’s get marriage out of the government’s purview” argument all have marriage licenses. Gay people are just asking to be treated the same as Ron Paul, and his response is “I’m principled enough to oppose you getting a license—and self-interested enough to grow government power by getting one for myself.”

I’d love to see him 1 on 1 against Barr in a debate.

Reason Magazine is holding a debate that is excluding Dr. Phillies, despite the fact that he’s raised more money than any other candidate and has built up a considerable campaign infrastructure.

If we want to see Dr. Phillies in a debate of Libertarian candidates, we should write Reason Magazine and ask them why they’re excluding a number of top-tier candidates from their debate.

He’s got some fight and gumption in him! Well said, George.

“because conservative bigots start bleating about their Jim Crow ‘states rights’ doctrine. Patriotic Americans know the truth: States have no right to take away your liberties.

I’d love to see him 1 on 1 against Barr in a debate.

No, and no.

I do think logically more autonomy to the states and less power to the federal government would enable more freedom fro the individual as well.

Yes. The thing is this: the next president of the US is not going to be a Libertarian. So we have to decide what we want to tell the people who do listen to us is the goal. Is it ‘more freedom’ or ‘freedom’? I know what my answer is.

Now, I do think there is not one single definition of libertarianism.

I agree.

People can often use their own understanding as THE standard of libertarianism, and the others who do not fit into it, are not.

Of course. It’s natural for people to think they are right until they are demonstrated to be wrong (and sometimes well after, alas).

The best would be to take the basic constitutional principle as your basic definition.

Obviously, I disagree. Well, actually, I’m not even sure what you mean by ‘basic constitutional principle’.

There are anarchists in the LP also, but this does not mean the LP has this principals. I am sure any anarchist would see any law or any person believing in certain laws as not being libertarian…

I don’t think you understand libertarian anarchism particularly well. But setting that aside, the LP’s Membership Form has one requirement – that you sign this certification:

https://www.lp.org/members/newmember.shtml

“To validate my membership, I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”

That doesn’t say anything about constitutionalism. You can argue that such a certification not be used (and people do, of course), but that is the current structure of the LP.

What is your position on Root? Between Barr and Root, which one do you “detest” the least?

I don’t tend to rank candidates by which one is least preferable. If I did that, I’d be racking my brains over Obama/McCain.

I think eveybody should also study as and consider the positions of other candidates they do not like this week, so as to be prepared.

We are certainly in agreement there.