What’s the frequency, Ilya?

It happens every election cycle. Some libertarian writes about how the Libertarian Party should be abolished (or at least no longer run candidates). The latest comes from Ilya Somin, who writes:

Libertarians often emphasize that failed enterprises should be liquidated rather than kept going on artificial life support. That enables their resources to be reinvested in other, more successful firms. The point is well taken, and it applies to the Libertarian Party itself. For 35 years, the Party has consumed valuable resources, both financial and human. The money spent on the LP and the time donated by its committed activists could do a lot more to promote libertarianism if used in other ways.

In the current economic and political environment, libertarians face many difficult challenges, including a potential massive expansion of government. Now more than ever, we can’t afford to fritter away our limited resources on failed political strategies. The time has come to admit that the LP is a failure and spend our precious time and money elsewhere.

He failed to note that this election cycle, Libertarian Party earned media coverage (I would think this counts as promotion of libertarianism) that was fairly significant. Here (from an e-mail from Bob Barr’s campaign manager Russ Verney) are the latest unofficial media tallies from the Barr campaign for the last three months of the campaign. Keep in mind that there was a decent amount of media coverage before this period, as well.

Stephen,

Here is a summary of just the interviews and events Bob did between August 2 and November 3rd. This list does not attempt to include news stories or news coverage that resulted from speeches, events, public appearances, news conferences, news releases etc.

From August 2 through November 3rd Bob did at least:

31 national TV interviews including 15 on CNN and 8 on Fox News Network
31 local TV interviews
90 radio interviews
38 newspaper interviews
8 magazine interviews
3 news conferences
36 speeches, most at Universities
1 debate televised on C-SPAN

Russ

I’d like to know when Professor Somin has done national television and other media appearances with this frequency? Or even Reason Magazine, who brought Somin’s article to my attention.

49 Responses to “What’s the frequency, Ilya?”

  1. Carl Says:

    And how much did Barr spread libertarianism vs. conservatism? How many were persuaded to take a more libertarian outlook due to the Barr campaign? How much outreach could LP members do if they weren’t haggling over platforms, getting ballot access, running paper campaigns, running for low level offices where libertarian principles are largely irrelevant, etc.? How did the Barr campaign compare with the recent libertarian running as a Republican (Ron Paul)?

    How much does the lp.org web site promote libertarian ideas?

    America does need a pro-freedom party set up to elect pro-freedom candidates, but the LP is not such a party. Half its members go apoplectic when the LP tries to go into true election mode. Note the lukewarm support for Barr.

    The LP could use its campaigns as message campaigns if it didn’t also have its pretentions of trying to win. With a political campaign you can sometimes get screaming radio deals as a candidates. I put together some silly Libertarian commercials some years ago. That year, the local Clear Channel station had some amazing deals available for political campaigns. We didn’t run the ads because our local candidate thought they would hurt him. Later did a much smaller run in a year where such deals were not availalble. I think you (Stephen) got the best mileage out of these ads.

    Unless the LP wants to finish its reform efforts and go on a serious rebranding effort to distance itself from its radical past, it should turn the reigns over to Ernie Hancock and become a fun protest organization. Use that official political party status for something other than running up pathetic vote totals.

  2. Clark Says:

    AN APPARENT REPUBLICRAT DIMWIT DROOLED: “He failed to note that this election cycle, Libertarian Party earned media coverage (I would think this counts as promotion of libertarianism) that was fairly significant..(END OF SHIT)

    ...WHEN STINKING, FUCKING REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE KNOW-LITTLES ARE THE ONES ‘PROMOTING’ “LIBERTARIANISM,” THEN “LIBERTARIANISM” AMOUNTS TO FUCKING REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE SHIT, you goddamned republicrat fools!...

    GET THE FUCK OUT, YOU STINKING, LOUD, REPUBLICAN KNOW-LITTLES..GO BACK TO YOUR STINKING GOP AND RETARD/REFORM IT!!

    (with dipshits like these guys i’ll have to start using the word ‘republicratarian’) ;o)

  3. Steve Says:

    As a significant contributor to Libertarian Campaigns I would like to point out that those resources aren’t ours they belong to the individuals who contribute them. It is these individuals, the candidates and the activists who get to decide when and if to pull the plug!

    According to the FEC, Ilya Somin has no record of making a donation. In the last election cycle Ilya was not a candidate. Despite being a professor of law at George Mason University located in Fairfax County Virginia, Ilya holds no leadership position at least at the Libertarian Party of Virginia state level.

    In my book Ilya has no stake in the Libertarian Party and thus his opinion has little value. To put it bluntly, Ilya non of those resources are yours!

  4. Hallmonster Says:

    It would be nice if someone like former governer and libertarian minded Gary E. Johnson ran for president under the Repulican ticket in 2012, won, and made it a lot easier for third parties to be heard. There is nothing wrong with the LP running candidates. Many of them are smart people but few of them are ever heard or invited to debates.

  5. George Phillies Says:

    And, meanwhile what is the Libertarian National Committee doing?

    You can read the agenda of their December meeting at

    http://www.thedailyliberty.com/story/2008/11/25/162812/35

    That’s their agenda, and ‘Discipline of Angela Keaton’, a prominent radical at large member, is near the top of it.

    You would think they would be more interested in their financials, which show that at the end of September they had $3287 cash on hand and over $50,000 in liabilities.

  6. ken Says:

    While I’m sure Mr. Verney tried his best, I’m concerned the Barr media seems small compared to past campaigns.

    I know they were turning down opportunities for appearances and there were complaints ts of poor co-ordination, so perhaps this is no surprise. The evidence is that no real media effort was underway beyond the obvious except perhaps with campus appearances, which seem good.

    Street media in the form of campaign workers was non-existent. The campaign apparently refused to co-operate with the LP in sharing inquiries.

    The LP would I think benefit by nominating earlier and having a longer season of campaign. Other third parties might as well.

  7. Thane Eichenauer Says:

    Re: Hallmonster

    I think the factor that matters most is not whether [cool potential candidate X] chooses to run as much as what portion of the population is willing and able to use non-lamestream media to educate themselves.

    I am pretty well aware of the full slate of options for the vote for President in 2008, but I wouldn’t presume that more than 6% of the population is.

    Jon Stewart interviewed Bob Barr, he had sufficient coverage that anybody who was open to options could know all they needed to know.

    I keep trying to divert people from the square channels of ABC/CBS/NBC to the multiverse of Youtube/iTunes/MacTV and internet video through educating people about their choices.

    I look forward to two years from now when the internet will be a stronger player than ever.

  8. George Whitfield Says:

    Steve, very well put. Ilya Somin, use your resources as you see fit. I am a major donor to Libertarian Party campaigns and I am glad to do it. I want my grandchildren to recall that I always made sure there would be candidates who promoted individual freedom, peace and real prosperity on the ballot.

  9. AIP Vice Chairman J.R.Myers Says:

    Now that the elections are behind us, I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Alaska Libertarians to join the Alaskan Independence Party. The AIP has helped topple the criminal Senator Steven, while expanding registered members, maintaining ballot status and earning 4 -5% in Statewide races. The Alaska Libertarian Party continues to lose members, barely reached 1% statewide and has now lost its party status and ballot line in Alaska. The AIP is reorganizing and needs the experience, talent and resources of the members of the former AKLP. Instead of remaining divided and conquered, let’s join forces and grow stronger! Contact information is at our website: akip.org

    Alaska First! Alaska Always!
    J.R. Myers
    AIP Vice Chairman South

  10. Clark Says:

    ...does anyone know of any political parties where the leadership/candidates know what a fucking dollar is?

    ..lol!..

  11. Maynard Says:

    One thing that always puzzled me about the Libertarian Party was why they have the Statue of Liberty on their party logo. The Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the power to erect or maintain giant green statues. Therefore, the Statue of Liberty is a particularly galling symbol of Federal usurpation of power.

    The Dixiecrats wouldn’t put Abe Lincoln’s smiling tyrant face on their logo.

  12. Steve Says:

    Maynard,

    The statue of Liberty was donated by the French tax payers. The constitution also doesn’t prevent the USA from allowing other countries to erect giant Green statues. When it comes to maintaining that thing there is a private foundation that helps… From their web site

    About The Foundation
    In 1982, President Ronald Reagan asked Lee Iacocca, then Chairman of Chrysler Corporation, to head a private sector effort to raise funds for the restoration and preservation of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation (SOLEIF) was founded.

    The Foundation’s fundraising drive sparked a dramatic response. The American people contributed more than $500 million (and counting!) to the repair, restoration, and maintenance of these two great monuments to freedom. All funds for the Foundation’s projects have come from the American people — no government funds have been used.

    This seems very Libertarian to me

  13. Jeff Says:

    Carl

    I put together some silly Libertarian commercials some years ago.

    Do you have any working files available? The ones on the page you linked don’t run.

  14. George Dance Says:

    “Discipline of Angela Keaton” sounds rather kinky. Maybe the LNC could make a video of it and sell that to raise funds. They could put the notorious picture of Ms Keaton’s cleavage in a Boston Tea Party tank-top on the cover:

    http://ladyliberty.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/why-oh-why-will-keaton-be-disciplined/

  15. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Somin is of course entitled to his opinion. If an organization folding leads to making others stronger, then we could make the case that the largest, best endowed libertarian think tank should close and the resources could be redeployed to the rest.

    Of course, that’s silly. Support is not fungible in that way.

    There might be a case that the RLC or DFC should be the retail political arms of the L movement. But, so far, their efforts don’t seem to be changing the Rs and Ds. The Barr campaign was highly effective in bringing L ideas to the mainstream, even if he sometimes articulated views that I personally don’t share. More than all the think tanks combined, I’d suggest.

    Politics is not neat and tidy. Challenging the status quo is even less neat and tidy. There is, however, a case for a more disciplined approach to making L political change.

  16. Clark Says:

    ....sadly, for whatever reason$, it appears the most grasping, stooooooooopid, fucking, control freaks among us tend to end up at ‘the top’ of political parties…

    ...as one wag put it, ‘they are so cock-sure for cunt-heads’..

    ...have a good day, third party’ers!..and don’t bitch about the detroit lions!...even they’ve done more winning than you 3rd-party fuck-heads!...

    (..and ps..shut the fuck up at the dinner-table today as to ‘politics’...your relatives think/know you’re nuts!) ;o)

  17. rachel h Says:

    george whitfield @ 8 – would you call me, pls?
    206.76 9.2492
    happy tday! :o )

  18. stevec Says:

    The fact that BARR received far more MSM coverage than any Libertarian in the past…..and there was no signifigant vote increase means that MORE PEOPLE were exposed to Libertarianism (or some varian thereof).....and REJECTED IT….

  19. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Steve C,

    OK, maybe we just call it a day and go home? Or maybe people felt it was too important to vote AGAINST McCain or Obama?

    My sense is the latter. Ever the optimist, I believe Barr planted a lot of seeds in 08, and it will take years to see them grow.

  20. G.E. Says:

    I believe Barr planted a lot of seeds in 08

    Will he pay to have them aborted, as is his M.O.?

  21. Daniel Grow Says:

    The sad thing about the current state of the LP is that it seems to be in the process of rejecting the very ideas that could actually facilitate a more libertarian society. Specifically, unless we can be brave about concepts like secession, ending the fed, repudiating the debt, and the idea that there is NOTHING that the government can do better or cheaper than free enterprise, and that ANY departure from the price system is another move towards totalitarianism, we might as well just accept that ALL of our efforts are a mere distraction from actions that could really change anything.

    (That is unless you are seeking a career post with the LP… Hey, who doesn’t want to live at other peoples’ expense.)

  22. George Whitfield Says:

    Rachel h at 17: look at the website for my company www.halcyonsearch.com and you can find my email address under my photo. Send me an email as it is more convenient. I look forward to hearing from you.

  23. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    ken Says: November 25th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
    “While I’m sure Mr. Verney tried his best…”

    Reform Party of California: I’m concerned that that is the biggest condemnation of all. Big ass failure in every thing he has touched in the last two decades. Merely another Verney screw up and SNAFU….....

  24. George Phillies Says:

    The LNC does have money. You can even read about their proposed budget, though not from them. People can go to

    http://www.thedailyliberty.com/story/2008/11/27/213816/59

    to find the numbers. After years of discussing project-based budgeting, the signs of projects are ‘unclear’.

    On the bright side, they are not planning on mailing their money to Ilya Somin.

    George

  25. Anonymous Says:

    The Libertarian Party needs to re-group & start focusing on elections that they can win. I will never understand why third-parties go through the futility of running presidential campaigns. The LP needs to establish that they can win elections at some level (state, local) before they should spend the resources on larger elections.

    Personally, I don’t see eye-to-eye with the LP on many issues but if I were them, I’d emphasize the following points: Smaller government means a government that spends less, both in terms of money & on superfluous issues that the “Religious Right” Republicans have devoted far too much time on. With an apparent shift towards “Ideological Conservatism” for the Republican Party, this may be the best time for Libertarians to slip in & sell themselves (rightly or otherwise) as what the Republican Party used to be before the Evangelicals took over.

  26. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Dan,

    There’s NOTHING stopping an L candidate who believes those are the optimal approach from running a campaign on the issues you believe are important.

    And, last I checked, everyone lives at the “expense” of others. That’s how free markets work! Through trade!

  27. Daniel Grow Says:

    Hey Everybody-

    Robert Capozzi thinks that the meaning of a free market is everyone living at the “expense” of others. Maybe someone could help me explain the distinction to him of the difference between living off a government salary and actually earning a living, i.e., off the plunder of taxation v. voluntary free trade.

    Dan.

  28. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Daniel Grow—
    A job with the LP is neither “living off a government salary” or living off “the plunder of taxation.” A job with the LP in a private industry job with a private salary raised through voluntary transaction.

  29. ETJB Says:

    I would argue that Independent and minor party citizens should do more in the form of interest groups to advance electoral reforms. Too often I know many a Green or Libertarian or Naderite who complain during the election, but refuse to do anything about it in between elections.

  30. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    ETJB: Amen brother, amen. And those patriots whom do yell and scream and point out the obvious flaws in our ‘non system’ are often berated by their fellow ‘activists’ [especially (so called) reformer]!
    —-Just back from yet another false arrest! Violation Notice and Docket Number O7784609, and yet another date [San Diego Federal] in court. Damn sons and daughters of Hitler and Stalin!

  31. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Dan,

    What Wartman said. Does that clear things up for you?

  32. Brian Holtz Says:

    Dan Grow wrote: “Specifically, unless we can be brave about concepts like secession, ending the fed, repudiating the debt, and the idea that there is NOTHING that the government can do better or cheaper than free enterprise, and that ANY departure from the price system is another move towards totalitarianism, we might as well just accept that ALL of our efforts are a mere distraction from actions that could really change anything.”

    Dan, before the election I saved a copy of all the policy text from your 2008 congressional web site. It said nothing about secession. It said nothing about ending the Fed. It said nothing about repudiating the debt. It said nothing about Michigan voters having to choose between anarchism and totalitarianism. The only hint that you might want to abolish all government was buried in a critique of energy subsidies: “entrepreneurs and businesses, on the basis of profit-and-loss calculations, best meet consumer demands for all products and services, including energy.”

    Anarchists living in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks. The back of my campaign business card had more radical policy specifics than the entire campaign sites of you, Susan Hogarth, Tom Knapp, and Morey Straus combined:

    Hunt terrorists instead of policing civil wars
    End subsidies for all corporations and farms
    End limits on speech in politics and media
    Abolish trade barriers and wage+hiring rules
    Protect the right of privacy and self-defense
    End all government banking and lending
    Control your own retirement savings
    Let all healers & insurers compete freely
    Let adults use any substance or medicine
    Legalize all consensual adult relationships
    Make schools compete for students & tuition
    Defend choice in procreation and risk-taking
    Oppose all mandates for worship or service
    End taxes on income, production, sales, gifts
    Tax only land, resource use/pollution, traffic

  33. Daniel Grow Says:

    No Brian, you are right that my campaign website didn’t use the word “secession.” But it did recognize the principles that would lead to that conclusion, and my League of Women Voters questionnaire said I’d enable a state wide “enterprise zone” would allow Michigan’s economy to operate unfettered by noisome federal regulations and absent the burden of federal taxation, free to trade with the world without limitations of any kind.” And I bet a lot more people read that answer than came to my website, and it doesn’t have the negative connotations of a confederate flag and a noose like the word “secession” has…

    There is no great mystery about the game you and Holtz want to play, i.e., water down what it means to be libertarian to the point where you might get elected. You do it with you Green-Tax-Empower the State Plan, and Capozzi by “hide any scary words that might freak out soccer dads.” In my humble view, both approaches are ill advised. If the LP is not on the cutting edge of advancing thinking that could make significant changes in the architecture of America, we might as well just endeavor to make incremental changes in the R and D parties. As a party of little changes or even eco-plunder, the LP will just exhaust and distract the few open minded thinkers that are around, leaving them to fight among themselves. And Brian, your little “back of the business card” list still misses the point. It takes no imagination at all to think of how to change your “radical” list into a list of names for new governmental agencies that pledge to do those things.

    I much prefer the way I said it on my site:

    “The United States of America has reached a critical junction at which we must now choose between two clear choices. The first option is follow our present course of believing the false promises of our politicians and submit to ever increasing governmental control over every detail of our lives and business. The other option is to have the courage to elect individuals with the bravery and integrity to fully commit to ending the misguided and ineffectual governmental entanglements that will ultimately destroy our ability to take pride in our country or ourselves. I pledge to the First District of Michigan to remain committed to the ethic of liberty that allowed our forefathers to forge the First District, the State of Michigan, and the United States of America. When our ancestors were settling in Northern Michigan, it was only their hard work that allowed them to succeed, not hand-outs or government programs. I further pledge to take every action possible to block new intervention in our homes and businesses, end failed policies and programs, and seek peace abroad. Private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association, and trade unencumbered by governmental fiat are the philosophical foundations of a free society. I pledge to adhere to these principles, and to fight for their full realization. Only by doing so can we hope to rebuild a free and prosperous society.”

    And what Jeff W. said was far more astute than Capozzi’s mindless quip that in a free market system, “everyone lives at the “expense” of others” (at least to the extent Jeff addressed my “career job with the LP” comment and NOT my “living off a government salary” comment). One lives at the expense of someone else when you use coercion or fraud. That is the opposite of voluntary exchange. But because I wouldn’t be typing this message if I was confident Holtz had a firm grasp on the notion of private property, and Capozzi on the issue of voluntary exchange, I’m glad Jeff gave me the opportunity to touch on that issue more directly.

  34. Mik Robertson Says:

    There is no doubt that things could have been done differently in the Barr campaign and the election outcome may have been slightly different as a result. I think the most telling thing from this election is that other “third party” or independent presidential candidate results were way down from 2004 while the LP results were up. This despite the fact that the LP was on fewer ballots than 2004.

    There was a major party ticket in the race this year that generated excitement not seen for a long time. Obama also contributed to the atmosphere by offering voters a chance to make history by electing someone who claims to be a black man as President of the United States. This allowed the D’s to really go after new voters and caused the R’s to become even more shrill than usual in their “wasted vote” spiel.

    The idea that we have a “two-party” system is still firmly entrenched in the minds of most voters, and changing that mindset will take a great commitment of those who wish to see real change in the political landscape of America. In some cases the only exposure voters have to political alternatives is seeing another presidential candidate on the ballot. If that can get some voters thinking, then it is worth it.

  35. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Dan,

    I searched for the word “salary” in this thread, and it doesn’t come up until these later posts. Go back and check yourself.

    Perhaps you meant something different originally. Hey, this is an informal comment blog, dude, you’re entitled to make a mistake now and then.

    The word “expense” doesn’t denote coercion. Trade is a voluntary thing. You live at the “expense” of your clients, for instance. Nothing wrong with that. You provide them a service.

  36. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Dan: If the LP is not on the cutting edge of advancing thinking that could make significant changes in the architecture of America, we might as well just endeavor to make incremental changes in the R and D parties. As a party of little changes or even eco-plunder, the LP will just exhaust and distract the few open minded thinkers that are around, leaving them to fight among themselves.

    Me: Yes, I’ve gathered that’s your opinion. Political change is made with large numbers of people, not by the “few open-minded thinkers.” Theorists influence the second-hand opinion makers who influence the voters. And “little changes” is how change starts. Even revolutions need a rank and file. I’m not liking the odds of gathering a significant rank and file with extreme and theoretical anarcholibertarianism. As you know, some aspects of anarcholibertarianism I don’t think are “advanced” at all. I think some aspects of the theory is flawed, which I chalk up to some early L theorists extrapolating flawed tangents.

    Now, that’s just MY opinion. If you can cite an historical movement that was successful that didn’t have popular appeal, let’s review it together and figure out if it works in the context of 21st century America.

  37. Clark Says:

    HOLTZ BLOVIATES: “...Anarchists living in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks. The back of my campaign business card had more radical policy specifics than the entire campaign sites of you, Susan Hogarth, Tom Knapp,..” (END)

    ...holtz, you appear unconsciously unaware of the origin, nature, etc. of even one stinking ‘dollar’...hush up, dummy!..

    ...as to ‘tom knapp’...here is some of his fucking ‘wisdom:’

    ...”I have read enough of your (CLARK’S) stuff to determine that you don’t have the slightest idea what it is, so I’ll teach you: Money is a medium for facilitating the exchange of dissimilar goods. That’s what it is, and that’s ALL it is. (END)

    ...sorry knapp, you may ‘know’ WHAT MONEY IS USED FOR..but you appear worse than an ignoramus as to WHAT IT IS… (it’s origin, nature, etc..)

    ...as to ‘susan hogarth’...she appears a prissy cheerleading republicrat fool for the likes of mike monger…an apparent republicratarian who apparently favors some aspects of the stinking ‘war on drugs,’ stinking government schools, etceterot…monetary ignoramusses both..

    ...granted, these folks may be somewhat ‘better’ than the likes of george fucking bush and barack fucking obama, but again, none of them appear to understand even what a fucking ‘dollar’ is!..

    ...ooga booga, republicratarians!

    ...but have a nice day anyway!.. ;o)

  38. Clark Says:

    “...There is no such thing as an independent press in America, if we except that of little country towns. You know this and I know it. Not a man among you dares to utter his honest opinion. Were you to utter it, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

    I am paid one hundred and fifty dollars a week so that I may keep my honest opinion out of the newspaper for which I write. You too are paid similar salaries for similar services. Were I to permit that a single edition of my newspaper contained an honest opinion, my occupation –like Othello’s – would be gone in less than twenty-four hours.

    The man who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinion would soon be on the streets in search of another job. It is the duty of a New York journalist to lie, to distort, to revile, to toady at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or what amounts to the same thing, his salary.

    We are the tools and the vassals of the rich behind the scenes. We are marionettes. These men pull the strings and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our capacities are all the property of these men – we are intellectual prostitutes.” (As quoted by T. St. John Gaffney in Breaking The Silence, page 4.)

  39. Kenny Says:

    2008 could, even should, have been a breakthrough year for the LP. We have heard too many excuses from Gordon, Verney, Cory and Holtz. I am fed up with their lies and excuses. The measure of success in an election is votes, not interviews.

    The first problem is that the LP nominee was a Republican reject. The VP candidate was a neo-con spiv. In interviews they spun a confused and incoherent platform of conservatism – with the odd libertarian sound-bite to keep the donations coming in from gullible LP activists. The second problem is that, yet gain, too much money is spent on expensive campaign staff like the afore-named parasites. How much was spent on election advertising? Not much if FEC returns are correct.

    It is time to throw the conservative hijackers out of the LP. Barr, Root, Verney, Cory, Gordon, Holtz and Bandow should go back to their war-mongering pals in the GOP! Real libertarians must reclaim the party from these infiltrating parasites. They did not even put the party’s name on election literature. They lined their pockets at our expense, ran an independent campaign and delivered total failure.

  40. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Kenny,

    Throwing them out seems harsh. Can’t you send them to a Re-education Camp, where they can learn the righteousness of personal secession and that fetuses are in fact parasites? ;-)

  41. Kenny Says:

    Robert tries the old straw man tactics rather than address the issues. Where did I say that foetuses are parasites? Utterly pathetic!!

    Throwing the Republican and Reform hijackers and fraudsters out is no more than they deserve. They promised everything, filled their bank accounts with activists’ money and delivered total failure.

  42. Daniel Grow Says:

    Kenny-

    What Capozzi said to you is a typical quip from the Capozzi/Holtz play-book. I can only figure they just have a personal vendetta against anyone who seems to have read anything from Mises/Rothbard/etc. Their primary attacks are on private property / homesteading principles, but they like to throw an emotional barb in there from time to time, including the parasite thing. In the later case, they seem to fail to distinguish between government policy and an individuals ability to make moral decisions.

    The other thing you will note in his comments (see his last comment to me) is an overwhelmingly defeatist attitude. He seems to ignore the plain fact that the good old USA is about to leave the largest economic crater this planet has ever seen, and that if there was ever a time to fault the State for robbing us blind, now is the time. And he excludes the possibility that multiple secessionist efforts around the country would not need broad “popular appeal.” Fat chance we will get 51% of the country to do anything other than worship at the the false alter of “hope” and “change,” especially with an apologetic statist leading the charge.

  43. Kenny Says:

    Daniel, you summarize the Barr camp’s smears perfectly. Not only are they ignorant of libertarianism, they have no idea of how to run a third party’s election campaign on a limited budget.

    The main post is typical – using activities to justify outcomes. It’s like an ad agency saying to the client “hey, yeah the sales sucked but at least we ran thousands of ads with a message that fucked your brand”.

  44. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Kenny and Dan,

    Let me get this straight: Kenny wants to “throw out” of the LP people Kenny disagrees with on some issues, and I have the vendetta?

    Mises Institute’s Rockwell quit the LP in part over the children’s rights issue, played out recently as the controversy over child porn production.

    Kenny seems to have in mind a unified L philosophy to which all who call themselves L must ascribe to, or be banished. Yet, I’ve yet to: a) see this document, and b) see how this document was codified as the “pure” L position on all things.

    Can’t we just stop all this madness and recognize that Ls will sometimes disagree on issues?

  45. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    Beware the reform malise,

    beware the reform malise,

    splinters upon splinters!

    Be afraid, be very afraid!

  46. Kenny Says:

    Yet more “straw man” nonsense from Robert.

    What the does Lew Rockwell have to do with this? The children’s rights issue is irrelevant to the performance of the Barr campaign. It is being used to distract attention from the fact that Barr and Root bombed!

    Not everyone who opposes the conservative takeover supported Mary Ruwart. Many supported Steve Kubby and other candidates. Yet they continue to be smeared as child porn supporters by the Barr team and their quisling allies.

    Why do I need to produce any document? For a start, I would suggest the old platform before it was butchered by “Reform” cabal. Even Ed Clark’s campaign book would be better than the conservative nonsense Barr and Root put out.

    Why should I, or anyone, stop criticizing the takeover of the LP by Barr and his cronies and their failed campaign? This let’s get along nonsense is pathetic. What we have is another attempt to silence critics of the Barr-Root campaign.

    The conservatives and reform caucus allies promised much and delivered a result worse than Harry Browne’s. The libertarians must kick the conservatives out before they can do more damage to our party and movement.

    BTW, I would get rid of that statist opportunist Mike Gravel too!

  47. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Kenny,

    Yes, I try to keep posts short, hence the shorthand. I brought up Rockwell and his reason for quitting the LP because Dan mentioned the Mises Institute. The Platform used to have some extreme Children’s Rights language that Lew apparently found unacceptable.

    The old platform had other extreme language in it as well, language that most Ls don’t agree with. You may well have agreed with every word of it, but I didn’t. Are you saying that you are somehow correct with metaphysical certitude, and I am wrong? If so, who appointed you Pope of the LP? You certainly seem to have a long list of people you wish to excommunicate!

    I’m not trying to “silence” anyone, I assure you. I too was disappointed by the vote totals for Barr/Root. Trying to find significance over tenths of percentage points seems mathematically challenged, however.

    But, OK, if you don’t want to “get along,” then I guess we’re not having a conversation.

  48. Clark Says:

    republicratarians, and other monetary theorists who don’t even know what a fucking ‘dollar’ is, correct me if i’m wrong but don’t the mises institute geniuses merely want to hand the moneychanging activities from some fed. reserve controllers over to some controllers of fucking gold/silver mines?

    ...the ancient shitheadedness continues: ..the goddamned fools organize their lives around ‘$ome thing’ about which they are worse than merely ignorant..

    ...(think of it as great medicine, republicratarians).... ;o)

  49. Art Mattson Says:

    Bob, did you fuck my wife? Stephen, did you fuck my wife?

Leave a Reply