Angela Keaton resigning from LNC
By G.E. on December 8, 2008 6:35 PM
Characterizing the LNC's charges against Angela Keaton as a "witch trial," Antiwar.com's Eric Garris says the leaders of the Libertarian Party are "fixated on alienating those in their own party who still take libertarian principles seriously. Those who dissent from the LP's new strategy of a watered-down platform and soft-Republican national politics will be unwelcome, even purged."
Garris says the charges against Keaton are "laughable" and that Keaton's ongoing involvement with the LNC is detrimental to her "real work for liberty" at Antiwar.com. Ms. Keaton apparently agrees, as she has decided to resign from the LNC. She has also requested that the letter below from Eric Garris be made public.
I have always been in favor of Antiwar.com's associates and employees maintaining relationships with other institutions in the libertarian movement, but your involvement with the Libertarian Party National Committee (LNC) has become too big a burden on you and too big an embarrassment for me to accept anymore. Working with the LP on the local level, supporting various candidates and other such activities is be fine. But it is now clear that the LNC has become an embarrassment to the movement, the principles the LP is supposed to represent, and to Antiwar.com by virtue of our association.
As you know, I am not a sectarian. I have always strived to bridge gaps on organizational and ideological lines within the freedom and antiwar movements. In my libertarian activism, I have worked with a range of people from different organizations and factions. I despise the petty sectarianism, personal grudges and ego-driven squabbles that divide those of us who should be working together.
At Antiwar.com, we encourage dialogue and collaboration among people from across the spectrum so long as they share an interest in the goal of non-interventionism. We pride ourselves on featuring paleocons, progressives, left-radicals, minarchists, anarchists, constitutionalists, and others who join us in our struggle for a more peaceful foreign policy. We do not all agree on everything, even on the war issue, but it is important to have as big a tent as possible while still sharing our basic political values. And I have the same attitude toward the libertarian movement.
But the LNC, in its attempts to water down the message, has ironically become the most isolated group in the libertarian movement. Whereas once the LP was the epicenter of the movement, its leadership has tragically turned this once great and proud political party into a laughing stock. The party of principle has become the embarrassing sideshow.
The "controversy" regarding your involvement with the LNC is an indication of the general problem with the national organization. They have become obsessed with policing private behavior, maintaining control over personality, and purging all radical thought from the center of the party. Private organizations have a right to behave in this way, but it is peculiar that the LP leadership would have such difficulty understanding the types of values one would hope would be commonly embraced by a libertarian organization – individualism, personal privacy, a reasonable level of organizational transparency, and of course libertarian ideals. In particular, the abusive use of executive sessions and bizarre practices of ensuring lockstep conformity elicit images of Communist organizing back in the 1960s. Always afraid of the LP becoming a debating society, the moderates in charge have instead turned it into a cult altogether isolated from the broader movement and mainstream society.
I regret this, but for all these reasons I must insist that you to resign from the LNC. Otherwise, we would have no choice but to reconsider your employment with Antiwar.com. As I said, your involvement, through no fault of your own, has brought some embarrassment to Antiwar.com and is a distraction from the movement at large. We have a new administration to grapple with soon. The politicians are planning more wars, more invasions of our rights, and more nationalizations of the economy. We all have bigger fish to fry and we need you with us, fighting for peace, not with the LNC, defending your integrity against those who don't deserve your time.
http://www.amateureconomists.com/author.php?aid=92
Krzysztof Lesiak March 26, 2013
I read this whole fucking thing. Right now, I want to go to luscious green forest, find a lake, and fish for days. I need a nice long break from IPR and its seemingless never ending threads. lol
Gary June 17, 2009
"730 rayehawk // Jan 4, 2009 at 2:07 am
Rachel, is there something you are not telling us?
Yep. I'd druther have been shooting stuff than wanting to shoot something."
Un-friggin'-REAL
paulie cannoli January 29, 2009
living dead….
http://armyofrage.com/
Prospective Advertiser January 29, 2009
This thread is dead.
Coming on the back of the LP January 8, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_torture
Prospective Advertiser January 8, 2009
Too much is never enough.
rayehawk January 4, 2009
p) That would be a neat trick given the LNC meeting was in San Diego at the same time.
paulie cannoli January 3, 2009
They are saying "enough already"
Billy Goat Eater January 1, 2009
It is now seven to eight.
paulie cannoli December 30, 2008
Ze plane, Boss, ze plane!
It will never die.
Gene Trosper December 30, 2008
It's alive! IT'S ALIVE!
Maybe you can call it a "Frankenthread" for rising it back from the dead.
JimDavidson December 30, 2008
Is this thread still alive?
Did you say something Holtz?
Brian Holtz December 23, 2008
Jim, wake me when you can muster any substantive disagreement with something I've actually written.
@717 I don't regard substitution of straw men for my arguments, or your tendency to arbitrarily set new "rules" for what constitutes an acceptable discussion to be debate. If you think I've lost any argument with you, your powers of flowing a debate are minuscule. When you've been spread as far out of the room as you are, you might think you're still in the debate. But going in by the opposite door because your arguments were spread completely around the planet doesn't count for victory.
I really do regard you as someone likely to equivocate about anything. Go read the Porter's speech for some hints as to where that will take you.
Libertarian Joseph December 22, 2008
Perhaps the US gov would authorize acceptance of Japanese into US society, that would also be an option… Not forcefully, however. Through negotiations with individuals and land owners.
I would have also negotiated peace with Japan. The deal: we leave you alone, you leave us alone. If they reject, I would have tried to destroy their state and replace it with nothing. I'd have troops stationed there and let the people come up with their own governments
If I was Truman I would have just ended the war. No unconditional surrenders. I would have just taken my forces and brought them back to wherever they came from.
It would seem inconsistent to say we don't know whether Truman's decision led to a net prevention of deaths in the 1940s, but that there may be future deaths that we will learn can be laid at Truman's feet. Instead of imagining that the books on Truman will still be open nearly a century after Hiroshima, maybe we should ask whether FDR should have listened to Jewish pleas to bomb Hitler's death camps. Or whether Claus von Stauffenberg should have planted his bomb against Hitler even if the only opportunity for it would have taken out some innocents. I don't see how all this talk of "time horizons" can result in a metaphysical guarantee that forswearing all possibility of collateral force-initiation will always lead to the least number of innocent deaths — or whatever metric of force initiation you might want to use.(*) We just have no reason to think the universe is constructed such that, by taking such a tool out of your toolbox, you guarantee yourself better results. (* It's interesting how anarcholibertarian quibbling about how to quantify aggression seems to disappear when we start counting deaths of innocents.)
Jim, I didn't bring up the subject — Susan did. Like I said, it's in her mental box labeled "In case of Holtz winning argument, break glass". 🙂 I don't care much about whether Truman himself was moral; I just found it interesting a few years back to ponder what decision I would make if I were teleported into his shoes. I have zero interest in nuking any cities in Pakistan or Iran, but feel free to fantasize that I do if it helps you rationalize our various disagreements. Demonizing a debate opponent is as close as most libertarians ever come to conceding they are wrong, so I sort of welcome demonization from you.
You're certainly correct that Truman cared more about American lives. If the world had magically turned anarcholibertarian when the bomb went off over Hiroshima, then Truman would have been tried by a jury of his peers. There's no mystery about what verdict they would have reached.
I think IPR needs to setup pages for comments because sometimes the comments get too long lol.
like 100 comments per page
As the longest thread on IPR, I feel there are many unanswered questions here. But, as it is the longest thread, I'd rather have the keepers of those questions ask them again, rather than hunt them up, if any of them need answers from me.
Also 713 is the original Houston area code.
713: Good luck and bad rolled into one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_707
I used to live there…
I guess an obvious one would be 711, the month and day that Aaron Burr shot down that filthy scumwad Alexander Hamilton. Or the chain of stores. Or the comic superhero.
It's an airplane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707
a rock band
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/707_(band)
an event in the war on state terror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
an area code
and a Korean military unit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/707th_Special_Mission_Unit
And if you'd have been paying attention you'd have posted comment 707.
Now you'll have to work your way up to 727 or find significance in another number. Ha!
Five minutes earlier, and you would have also posted it AT 7:07 (my time). Now *that* would have been tres kewl.
…by posting early in the morning? It seems so. 707!
…comment number…
…a particular…
…that I can snag…
…right in thinking…
…am I…
The question I have is…
Hmmm. 'Tis a mystery. Let us pray…
G.E. Post author | December 20, 2008
I just looked through the admin section (Trent hasn't de-adminned me yet) and I don't see anything that would prohibit people from posting videos… Or in other words, I don't see any way of turning off whatever's prohibiting them from doing so.
Actually there is, but I don't know how to fix it. I set up a dummy account to test it and tried to post a video, but couldn't.
My access level is not high enough to be able to change the setting which limits it to IPR writers only, or I would.
I'll do my part. RE: #679, 682, and 683 — I don't think there is a setting prohibiting non-editors from posting videos.
Easily. We're almost there. I can see the pearly gates, klieg lights and Pat Robertson's makeup team.
You really think we can drag this out to 700?
Three Doors Down again…
Hogarth is right on this matter. Holtz is not thinking clearly.
hogarth December 17, 2008
I'm just saying that we have to evaluate the morality of the choice according to the alternatives that were available without recourse to time travel.
And I'm just saying that your time-horizon (and Truman's) is too short. His idea that he was saving millions of lives in the short term – which I do not grant – has to be balanced against the continued rise of the US empire and the destruction it caused, *and* events which even yet have not unfolded but which may one day be laid at the feet of Truman's action by future historians.
Not knowing the future, we should try to make the present a less aggressive place by changing the only behavior we really can change – our own. Truman chose aggression against innocents (not simply force against attackers) to meet aggression, and thus increased the level of aggression in the world in his present and probably in our present/future.
@689 I don't find compelling the theory that Truman had much concern about the foreigners involved in his decision taking to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nor, indeed, his determination to invade Korea. Truman was concerned about American lives, possibly, and about American power, certainly. The notion that he made the decision based on how many Chinese civilians were being massacred by the Japanese, or even expected those massacres to stop as soon as the surrender was signed, is not based on any information about Truman.
And to describe a choice taken by someone for one set of reasons as potentially ethical because of another set of information that has subsequently come to light says nothing about the ethics of the guy taking the choice in the first place. I don't care to make Truman look good by justifying his behavior. For some reason, it is important to Holtz that it be okay to nuke a couple of cities in Japan.
Maybe it's okay with Holtz to nuke a few cities in Iran or Pakistan or elsewhere. I've no idea why he wants to justify mass murder. But, he does, and that's rather sad commentary on the application he chooses for his debating techniques.
It is not okay to massacre civilians. It is not okay to massacre Japanese civilians who are not massacring Chinese civilians. Is there some mystery here? There is no collective guilt on any race, nor on any people.
Truman burns in hell for his choices.
BrianHoltz December 17, 2008
The question of the real-world consequences of a choice constrained by particular circumstances is inevitably an empirical one. The history of warfare is filled with hard choices. I'm not claiming that it's inexorable that any given leader or polity will face a choice as tragic as that which faced Truman in early August 1945. I'm just saying that we have to evaluate the morality of the choice according to the alternatives that were available without recourse to time travel.
@687 As long as you persist in not believing just exactly as Holtz believes, his beliefs requires him to "school" you on what to properly believe.
What I've claimed is that in all circumstances, the number of innocent people that get killed should be minimized.
I certainly can agree with this.
Readers can decide how civil it is to say that I "advocate mass murder" simply because I'd choose saving innocent lives over keeping my hands spotless if forced into such a choice.
You routinely accuse me of caring more about keeping my own hands clean than saving the greatest number of people possible. That's a similar accusation. The (likely) truth is that neither one of desires the death of innocents – we simply disagree on how that is to be minimized. You think that killing innocents can, under some circumstances, accomplish that minimization, while I disagree.
I think where we disagree is that I don't see the universe constructed in a way that allows one to be forced into such choices – and that in fact making such a choice on the side of aggression will inevitably make things worse in the long (if not the short) term. Therefore you seem to see that such a choice could be a moral action and the refusal to make it a moral weakness, where I would see the acceptance of such a choice an inability or unwillingness to consider the long-term implications of your actions.
I think that if we consider the implications of aggression through time, then abstaining from it – even when you seem to realize a short-term gain in the number of lives saved – will, in the long run, produce fewer innocent deaths. I don't think this is question that is likely to be solved empirically (and maybe an empirical solution is impossible). I suspect there's some logical proof; perhaps it has been made already or perhaps it has still to be demonstrated. But I haven't seen either any proof (or even what I would consider good evidence) that sacrificing innocents can ever cause a net reduction in the death of innocents.
Susan Hogarth wrote: SH) You have claimed that the deliberate killing of a lot of people is the best possible path under some circumstances, haven't you? (SH
What I've claimed is that in all circumstances, the number of innocent people that get killed should be minimized. Readers can decide how civil it is to say that I "advocate mass murder" simply because I'd choose saving innocent lives over keeping my hands spotless if forced into such a choice.
It's fascinating to me that you and other radicals have complained far more about the alleged incivility of a decades-old dispassionate impersonal essay than about the vicious and boorish personal insults that an LNC at-large rep has seen fit to publish this year. I'm quivering with anticipation as I wait for this newfound intolerance for incivility is unleashed on LP leaders writing in 2009 rather than in the 1970s. 🙂
Starchild, the Hospers essay predates his switch to the GOP by years, if not decades. I don't see anything wrong with using the terms "nanny state", "childish" or "whining" to describe things that satisfy the relevant senses of those terms.
@680 There is a process described in detail in "The Law of the Somalis" by Michael van Notten for dealing with criminals. You should probably get a copy of this book, as it has much food for thought.
I advocate allowing everyone here to post videos. I don't have the level of access to change that, though.
Weird…my post didn't come through as intended. probably because i am not allowed to post videos?
Here's the link for 670:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz5T1EEo8ws
perhaps they would be conscripted
Jim: Yup, a voluntary army. The rank system would be something that would come later. People would be free to join/leave. HOWEVER, what about criminals within anarchic societies? I see an opening for a criminal element in such an army.
@ 670:
American Airlines Flight 77, a 100 ton Boeing 757
http://killtown.911review.org/flight77.html
Other side:
http://www.flight77.info/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle497-20081214-02.html
"Let's start with the good news, because it has been a long time in coming. George Donnelly, Michael Seebeck, Paulie Cannoli, Matt Harris (currently chair of LP West Virginia), Susan Hogarth, and others have now organised a Libertarian Party Sunshine Caucus, also known as the Transparency Caucus. They plan, among other short term goals, to have the process for selecting a replacement for Libertarian National Committee member Angela Keaton as public as possible."
We seem to have stalled in the low 670s.
Oh, my, that's droll. Or maybe one of the airplanes. 707 727 747 like that…
You know where this thread is going, dontcha?
The 700 Club, I reckon…
Beastly.
Next door. And…will you grab it or will I?
That's Three Doors Down, which is from Mississippi, but not the part in area code 662.
@639 If you aren't libertarian, are you authoritarian?
I note, with glee, that the polling on "more troops to Afghanistan" is running over ten to one against.
@654 "It's rather embarrassing when the public meeting policies of government bodies here in San Francisco are more responsive to the public than those of the Libertarian National Committee."
Indeed. Again, one would wonder how a political party that calls for open and transparent government, providing adequate information to ensure that the consent of the governed is fully informed, is going to be believed when its own internal dialog is: "shut up and let us run things for you."
@656 Just five doors down.
Here's an idea.
How about allowing for "revising and extending remarks," as members of Congress do?
TheOriginalAndy December 13, 2008
"starchild // Dec 13, 2008 at 3:16 am
Regarding the public comments at the December 6-7 LNC meeting in San Diego, I am sorry Andy did not get a chance to speak. If I'd realized the situation, I would have asked during my comments for time to be extended."
Thanks, Starchild. 10 minutes is really not long enough and it is pretty pathetic that that little time is allotted, especially when one considers that the meeting room was rented for 2 days. Oh well, at least I got to make a comment during day one of the meeting.
starchild December 13, 2008
Regarding the public comments at the December 6-7 LNC meeting in San Diego, I am sorry Andy did not get a chance to speak. If I'd realized the situation, I would have asked during my comments for time to be extended.
But really, the fault here is with the way the LNC handles public comments. Only providing 10 minutes total for comments when there's a room full of people is pretty pathetic. It's rather embarrassing when the public meeting policies of government bodies here in San Francisco are more responsive to the public than those of the Libertarian National Committee.
At hearings of the SF Board of Supervisors and other agencies, each member of the public who wishes to speak is typically given two or three minutes, so that all who want to comment are afforded the opportunity to do so — even when it extends the duration of meetings for hours. There is also typically a separate public comment period for each significant agenda item, rather than just a single period at the beginning or end of a long meeting.
This accountability gap sounds like a job for… Transparency Caucus! http://www.lptc.org
Brian Holtz writes (@626):
"My experiences tend to confirm the Hospers assertion that there is 'a recurring personality pattern among those who label themselves anarchists' that manifests as 'a childish insistence on the obviousness of all points of anarchist doctrine, and of the evil and malevolence of anyone who makes an honest point against it.'"
It's been my own observation that there is a recurring personality pattern among *conservatives* which manifests as a tendency to try to infantilize their political opponents. I invite readers to notice the prevalence of terms like the following in right-wing rhetoric: "Childish," "whining," "bedwetters," "nanny state," "temper tantrum," "spoiled," "crybabies," etc.
I haven't read the Hospers essay in question, but if Brian's quote is any indication, it sounds like the professor has been picking up bad habits from his newfound Republican colleagues.
@646 Ten doors down from the beast.
@650 Like fucking, it never gets old, if you are doing it right.
LibertarianGirl December 13, 2008
let the thread die , its old as fuck 🙂
@645 I don't call myself an anarchist. Others have called me that, and I have accepted "anarcho-capitalist" but I prefer a form of government. It is called self-government. I am sincere in my view that a smaller government is better, and that the smallest workable form of government is self-government. I do think many people who ought to govern their own behavior do not, to their detriment.
Leading an anarchist army might be amusing. I mean, how would it be organised? Could we have generals and colonels amongst anarchists? Wouldn't the officers all get fragged the first week? It is a zany idea, and I would like to pursue it, but it would probably get both of us locked up in a camp somewhere. I guess we could make a cartoon about it, though.
"In the Anarchist Army," by Libertarian Joseph and Jim Davidson, with art by Scott Bieser. Maybe BigHeadPress.com would run it?
It seems like governments choose not to leave the Somalis to choose their own form of government because Somalis won't consent to a government that taxes them. And they won't consent to a government that would use those taxes to pay the debts of the former dictator who oppressed them. My working theory is that the central reason for interventions in Somalia is the desire of the banking gangsters to get their $2.9 billion back, or at least turn interest back on and increase the debt.
Of course, another working theory for the 1992-95 occupation is that the USA military went to the thorium and uranium rich parts of Southern Somalia and took as much ore as they could get off the surface. My Somali friends report trucks and trucks of "dirt" being brought into Mogadishu and shipped out during those years. They were baffled by it until I showed them the old Russian prospecting maps. The hills where the dirt came from were right in the middle of the uranium fields the Russians found in 1974.
Don't worry about being a dick to me. Thanks for apologising, though. I'm quite sure we'll each encounter lots of people being dicks to each other and us and them, etc. Getting past it is just part of being in this movement. I think it is a part of being an oppressed minority. People who want more freedom are always oppressed.
As to the mainstream, lamestream media, they are mostly owned by the military industrial complex. So, you can't expect them to be against war.
There is a lot of money in running guns. You should watch the film "Lord of War" all the way through. It has preachy passages, but the reality is, its final conclusion is that the world would be safer if 12 out of 12 people were well armed, rather than just 1 in 12.
Also, if you have some time for travel, see if you can get to Sana'a in Yemen. They have a lovely arms bazaar there. The gates as you go in say, "Muhammed told us to teach our sons to ride, to swim, and to shoot."
If you are sincere about funding anti-Ethiopians in Somalia, I can put you in touch with the organisers of the Amoud University in Borama. Good people.
@642 I agree, Holtz has advocated for mass murder. Conditionally, but so what? He likes the idea of obliterating tens of thousands of people by nuking their cities, when it suits his view of who needs to be nuked.
@640 "How is this any different than judging someone by the past actions of other members of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.?"
It isn't. It is just bigotry, plain and simple.
Barr does not look like Rothbard. He looks like Hitler. Rothbard looked like Santa Claus.
The only things I respect Hospers for are: getting thrown out of the Rand inner circle, and winning an electoral vote for the libertarian cause. And my respect for Hospers in the latter case is really just high regard for the actions of Roger MacBride.
@638 Marc, glad to meet you. I guess if Holtz weren't such a weasel, I wouldn't have encountered you yet. So, there's that.
sorry, Jim. I got you wrong. I didn't even know you're an anarchist. apologize for being a dick to you. I don't think white anarchists can accomplish alot when you have the Ethiopian army over there and NATO bombing ports. Unless we want to lead an anarchist army to battle Ethiopian, statist forces, we can't do alot because all progress over there is under the constant threat of violence.
Why can't governments just leave Somalia alone? sheesh. States always need to make sure a state exists on every morcel of land. All they bring is centralized violence, yet the media just totally distorts everything. To them, it's simple; no government exists there, so it's a warzone, chaotic, imploded economy, etc. but when you dig in deeper, you start to find that what the media says in those high profile articles are just not true…yet they keep on saying it.
It's hard to get anything going because investors don't want to invest in a warzone. If NATO and Ethiopia just would get the hell out of there, then I believe progress could be made…
Really, ok. I was wrong about that. But I bet in poor countries, the state supports slave labor. This isn't the case in Somalia, where people are free to work or not work. Up to them. In ome poor countries, the state partners up with the corps and they both work to fuck over the people. I don't think that is the free market.
If I were wealthy I would love to fund anarchic projects in Somalia. I'd love to send anti-Ethiopian forces money and arm.
I simply disagree with your notion that it hurts LP civility to tell the uncivil that their incivility reflects poorly on their faction.
I have no such notion.
I expressed no such notion.
The assumption you've loaded into this sentence is that the Hospers essay was a simple way of delivering the message to anarchists that "incivility reflects poorly on their faction".
I don't agree with that assumption – which I've made perfectly clear, I think – so when you continue to say that I have a 'notion' that a reminder about incivility is harmful, you are either being deliberately obtuse or you seem to think that your case is so obvious that it's not possible I could disagree with your assumption (which, ironically, was one of Hospers' charges against the 'anarkist temperament').
Evidently the essay seems to have such a salutary function to you. To me, it seems not to. I have tried to explain why, but we seem to be talking past one another on that point. I only ask that you not continue to assert that I have a "notion that it hurts LP civility to tell the uncivil that their incivility reflects poorly on their faction," because I have no such 'notion'.
http://blog.mshiltonj.com/2006/08/08/wake-me-when-the-anarchists-leave/
Ouch. I almost wish you hadn't pointed that out. Not sure if I had seen it before.
Hilton was my county's chair before I was – I was VC at the same time. I guess that sentiment explains in part why he no longer bothers to come to more than a few meetings per year (we meet weekly, or oftener).
I thought Steve and I worked well together, and we certainly *did* lots of things as a Party.
Sometimes I think that activists feel they need some ideological reason to explain the personal life-swings (work, family) that take them away from activism at any given time. I don't know if that was the case here, but in either case it's disappointing.
I note that you did not address Hospers's assertion that there is "a recurring personality pattern among those who label themselves anarchists" that manifests as "a childish insistence on the obviousness of all points of anarchist doctrine, and of the evil and malevolence of anyone who makes an honest point against it."
Of course I didn't address it. First, I wasn't analyzing Hospers' essay point-by-point, but only tying to explain why it was a negative contribution to the discussion rather than a positive one – form my perspective. Second, it's a factless unsupported assertion by someone who, by my reading of his essay (and the approbation of it he chooses to reprint), seems to have issues with communicating with anarchists.
If Hopsers offered something other than his personal *feeling* about the people he obviously disagrees with, I might be inclined to address it. But such contentless assertions as he offered really deserve no careful refutation.
I've never once questioned your sincerity as an advocate of freedom,
Nor I yours, as far as I can recall offhand. If I have, I'm sure you will be able to dig it out of your archives and beat me over the head with it.
but in this very thread you accuse me of "advocacy of mass murder".
You have claimed that the deliberate killing of a lot of people is the best possible path under some circumstances, haven't you? That's what I would call advocating mass murder. I agree you do it in the name of freedom, which I find bizarre, but it seems inescapable to me that you do advocate such. If I'm wrong, I am ready to be corrected.
Right now, [John Hospers] makes Bob Barr look like Murray Rothbard.
My vote for quote-of-the-day!
langa December 12, 2008
"Langa, the Hospers essay obviously wasn't being used as evidence that Angela actually was the author of uncivil words in question. She proudly proclaimed that she was, and she didn't disown a single word of them. No, the relevance of the Hospers essay was in helping establish that the LP's culture has been plagued by this sort of incivility for decades."
By WHAT sort of incivility? "Typical anarchist" incivility? Again, I'll ask why this is relevant to the matter at hand. Your attempts to twist my argument notwithstanding, I never questioned whether or not Angela spoke uncivil words. What I questioned was the relevance of trying to establish some sort of connection between the uncivil words that she spoke and other uncivil words spoken by other anarchists in the distant past.
Why is one particular anarchist being judged by the past behavior of other anarchists? How is this any different than judging someone by the past actions of other members of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.?
Finally, I disagree with your implication that Hospers is deserving of some high level of esteem in libertarian circles. On the contrary, I find his endorsements of neocons like Bush to be plenty of evidence that he is not deserving of any more respect than any other "pseudolibertarian" right winger. While he may have been a libertarian in the past, his recent actions prove that he no longer is. Right now, he makes Bob Barr look like Murray Rothbard.
MarcMontoni December 12, 2008
@626 Did you say something, Holtz?
It is kinda like that, isn't it?
Rarely have I encountered anyone who was so rhetorically reliant on suggestion by repeated affirmation and plurium interrogationum. Just fun & games, I guess.
@618-622 Joseph, yes, I've been to Somalia.
My travel plans to Europe in September 2001 were interrupted. Our investors became very nervous. The cash we were supposed to collect to get things started in a fairly big way did not materialise. Then in October 2001, NATO General Tommy Franks said that the policy of NATO should be to bomb all the port facilities in Somalia. After that, the group of investors we had been working with pulled out of the project.
We tried again in May 2002, approaching Doug Casey at FEEFest (Laissez Faire Books birthday party) in Vegas. Doug was very receptive. We began making plans to fly Doug in for a visit to our friends in Awdal. Then in June 2002, our connection to the clans, Michael van Notten, passed away. That was effectively the end of the project.
> they're flourishing DESPITE having no government.
Very clearly their telecommunications industry flourishes BECA– USE of having no government regulations on it, and essentially no taxes.
> What the hell is Ethiopia doing there?
Serving the whims of their masters in the banking cartel.
> I hope Somalis kick their ass back to Ethiopia.
It has happened before. There are reasons to suppose that the Somali majority regions in Ethiopia, such as Ogaden and Western Awdal, are going to become ungovernable by Ethiopia.
> They have coke bottling plans in Somalia,
I am aware of one in Djibouti (French Somali coast) and one in Marka near Mogadishu. I think both rely on desalinated sea water. The Djiboutienne Coca Cola is much sweeter than ours. I think it is sweetened with sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup.
> not even poor, statist countries have coke bottling plants.
False. Djibouti is a poor and statist country.
> They must be doing something right… I bet you coke has private
> security there, perhaps Somalis themselves are providing it.
Yes, of course. There was a BBC article on it some years back. In order to exist in Somalia, some clan or sub-clan must be engaged in the project or factory. That clan provides defense.
> Somalia is just so fascinating
http://libertariannation.org/a/n030d1.html
> if they haven't a government in years, how come their infrastructure
> is still better than even richer african countries?
Some is maintained locally, and some is not maintained at all. It varies widely.
> People will defend their own lands, by any means.
The Somali concept is to avoid standing courts because the judges would want lots of cases to handle, in order to justify their full time work. So they have an ad hoc court, and no police. To defend their lands, they have an ad hoc army, also known as a militia.
> That's why there's a blackmarket in criminal activity;
> murder, theft, rape, etc.
There is also a black market in mala prohibitum activity, such as prostitution.
> I believe microwaving a cat is wrong… but a crime?
Lafayette would be glad to know it. Rumor has it he served "chat roti" or roasted cat to Washington at Valley Forge.
> I think some people should organize a free society in Somalia.
The Somalis have done so. However, it is very clearly their land. They are not inhospitable to visitors, but don't try to live there and breed a lot of children. There is an ethnocentrism bordering on racism among Somalis. One of their mottos is "we destroy the weak!"
> *protection on a stretch of land where the organization has influence
> over (its' hard to protect a member that lives 10,000 miles away)
Michael's approach was an insurance contract for each member, to stand in surety as the clan does for each Somali.
> there's loads of way to create private stability in Somalia 😀
True. The question is what role there is for white anarchists in Somalia. And that is seriously only a question that may be answered by the Somalis.
Holtz— mini-me
noone called you mini-me your 6′ something and very un-dorky looking for a Libertarian.
It must be a reference to M and it's only funny when you include Dr Evil ( Aaron Starr)
BTW you forgot gruesome 3some and now im offended:)
Marc, Thomas Sipos said "Big Tent people who whine about being victims of potential purges are in fact engaging in projection". However, none of the people you name actually call for a one-sided "purge" of radicals/anarchists by moderates in the LP.
Jon Roland politely echoes the call of many (most?) anarchists (e.g. Rockwell, Konkin, etc.) that their fellow anarchists should boycott party politics. I disagree with Jon, but that doesn't mean he's calling for the "purge" that Sipos fantasizes about.
Your Carl Milsted quote is from Dec 2007, several months after he'd given up on the LP and resigned from the Reform Caucus leadership. Milsted doesn't call for radicals to be purged; he instead just says that one side should purge the other, and he doesn't care which. His comment is on a blog posting that quotes an extremely vicious and cruel attack on Carl by L. Neil Smith. You cannot cite anything remotely this mean-spirited being published by a reform leader against the ideology/strategy of a radical leader. Feel free to try.
I've never heard of Rick Sincere, Steve Hilton, or Bruce West. None of them are even members of the Reform Caucus, let alone prominent LP reformers. None of them call for a purge in your quotes. Two of them even say that the LP's anarchists have made it intolerable for them to be active in the LP. The third merely says that "purists" leaving the LP for the BTP are indeed welcome to leave, but also said the pre-Denver LP offered "representation of only the most extreme of our purist members. A large portion of moderate libertarians has been ignored or under represented by the party. By making the party more inclusive, the Libertarian party is now capable of represent larger numbers of moderates and attracting their votes."
Your two other quotes are anonymous. If reformers were "on a daily basis demanding that consistent libertarians (purists, etc) leave the party", you'd think you could quote even one such demander by name. But you don't. However, I still have your unrepudiated quote calling for disaffiliation of any state LP that endorses a moderate candidate like Munger or Barr. And I have a quote of Susan Hogarth apparently saying that you're not a libertarian if you embrace the existence of a minimal state because you desire to minimize force initiation by protecting life, liberty, and property. And I have radical who say that the LP membership Pledge does not allow LP members to advocate keeping any part of the State intact. Do you agree with this interpretation of the Pledge?
If you want to compare lists of insults, mine is longer:
deformer
retard caucus
corrupt vermin
Republican lite
wishy-washy
watered down
mini-me
not libertarian
emotional cripple
But thanks for trying. It's refreshing to see people held accountable for their words. We need more of that in the LP.
Susan, I've never claimed that incivility in the LP has been one-sided. I simply disagree with your notion that it hurts LP civility to tell the uncivil that their incivility reflects poorly on their faction. I note that you did not address Hospers's assertion that there is "a recurring personality pattern among those who label themselves anarchists" that manifests as "a childish insistence on the obviousness of all points of anarchist doctrine, and of the evil and malevolence of anyone who makes an honest point against it." I've never once questioned your sincerity as an advocate of freedom, but in this very thread you accuse me of "advocacy of mass murder". If all radicals would limit themselves to the level of alleged incivility of the Hospers essay, I'd consider that a big improvement.
[Civility Self-Certification: Readers should discount the remarks above to the extent that they 1) ascribe less than the best possible motives consistent with all the available evidence, 2) say things one wouldn't say in front of each involved person's mother, 3) use straw men and fallacies of the excluded middle, or 4) fail to quote what they disagree with.]
@627 Please eat sh!t and die.
Speaking of Big Lies, it's funny how the only evidence you have of Reform Caucus representatives advocating you leave the LP is your interpretation of your unverifiable recollection of a conversation with unnamed people that took place over two years ago. In your mind, this is enough to justify saying "Big Tent has long been a Big Lie." … And of course, you don't bother to defend your claim that "Big Tent people who whine about being victims of potential purges are in fact engaging in projection".
He doesn't need to defend it.
Every radical has seen — or been the direct target of — such demands. Anyone who read the LP blog in 2005 (a blog which has since been eliminated) saw dozens of instances of individuals demanding that consistent libertarians (purists, etc) leave the party. Often on a daily basis. Forgive us for not being able to supply direct quotes; but some have been pretty diligent about erasing their trail.
I respectfully suggest that all anarchists leave the Libertarian Party, and not form another, but just join the ranks of those who don't vote or participate in the political process.
– LP Reform Caucus member (and webmaster) Jon Roland
The LP is not worth fighting over IMO. To be coherent it needs a massive purge. Either the pragmatists or the purists must go.
– LP Reform Caucus (founder) Carl Milsted
Check out the links right away; as they may disappear now that they've been pointed out.
I'm sure there are more; but why do we have to prove what reformers have said about us in order for reformers to admit they said them? Why should anyone have to bother Googling names to find their posted-in-various-places-around-the-internet invitations for us to leave? Everyone with a clear head already knows it. Anyone who isn't clear on the subject and believes reformers haven't been doing this on a regular basis, for years, is simply living in a fantasy land.
Here's a few more gems, but I haven't checked them against the LRC member list and don't plan to do so. Reformers can do their own homework.
The "purity test" being imposed on Bill Redpath is a clear reminder to me that, while I remain a libertarian, I can no longer be an active member of the Libertarian Party. … People who do not believe in winning elections do not belong in a political party.
–Rick Sincere (former LPVA chair), 07/30/2001.
For the reason-impaired, he infers that those who favored offering the voters a consistent message do not believe in winning elections — and that they should leave.
"Wake me when the anarchists leave".
… you poor people can't accept that you are NOT libertarian. You are the anarchist and you don't belong here anymore.
– Someone who was afraid to self-identify.
"Based on the simplest principle of the libertarians, these people are more than welcome to leave. They have already shown that they cannot live by rules or be open minded to other ideas. So, they are also welcome to stay gone also."
– Bruce West .
On several occasions, I tried to have a history within the party. However, the stench of the purists (they tend to not shower), and their idiotic, off-putting behavior was too much for me to bear. So, for many years I have simply been a monthly donor. … Hopefully, the nomination of Barr will chase those wingnuts out of the party, and I can more fully participate in a party of daily shower-takers.
– Another someone who was afraid to self-identify.
Hmmm… The list just keeps getting longer.
Purist.
Truiumvir.
Censor.
Poor.
Closed-minded.
Not libertarian.
Smelly.
Non-showering.
Idiots.
Wingnuts.
Get the drift?
Nice – I like that. Are you starting the Civility Caucus?
Brian Holtz, Steve Gordon and I are, at a minimum, discussing it. I think Brian may have thrown out the first reference in an offhand way in the comments here, but I don't know if he meant to really formally work on it or not. I'll do whatever I can to help if there is interest in starting it.
I would rather focus on trying to do something about a problem we have all identified and agreed on.
You're doing the largest part of it already – being civil yourself (in the face of pretty serious provocation at times, I'd say).
In the end, we can each only control our own behavior. We can persuade others toward civility – by words partly, but probably most significantly by example.
Of course, we should keep in mind that an increase in civility isn't -sufficient- for the Party's flourishing. But it is certainly *necessary*.
"a concerted effort should be made to challenge the culture of internal demonization"
Nice – I like that. Are you starting the Civility Caucus? 😉
Susan @ 628
I could not have said it nearly so well, so I'm not going to try.
But I'd like to change my focus now.
Let us start with where we already agree.
BRIAN: …the relevance of the Hospers essay was in helping establish that the LP's culture has been plagued by this sort of incivility for decades.
SUSAN: Right. I'm sure there was a lot of doubt about *that* point 😉
p] Although, I can accept the criticism that I'm hardly one to talk, I think we need to make a concerted effort to change this.
Rather than playing a game of oneupmanship by searching for an essay where a radical or anarchist accuses moderate libertarians of being – for example – sellouts, infiltrators, cowards, or any other negative attribute, as a class — I would rather focus on trying to do something about a problem we have all identified and agreed on.
I hope we can agree that the problem is not just on one side or another of any of our numerous intra-party debates. It exists, and a concerted effort should be made to challenge the culture of internal demonization. We can certainly disagree, but let's at least try to do so agreeably, and to get as many people as we can on board with this.
The hysterical over-reaction it has provoked is fascinating, though.
I hardly consider the response to have been 'hysterical' or, really, an over-reaction. But that is because I do consider the inclusion of the essay to have been either ham-handed-ness or an attempt at deliberate provocation.
The essay was not a suggestion for more civility; it was an accusation that an entire group of people incline to incivility. An accusation of 'temperament' defects in an entire class of people – a class to which an LNC member whose 'discipline' was on the agenda belonged.
It was throwing fat on a fire.
Objecting – even strongly – to such an action by other members of the group who have been accused of tending toward a defective temperament is certainly to be expected – don't you think?
Where is the corresponding essay by an LP figure of such eminence and gravitas about a recurring personality pattern among minarchists? Oh wait, there isn't one.
I should hope not. Such an idea as "a recurring personality pattern among those who label themselves [a particular political philosophy]" is collectivist thinking at its most deplorable, because it is aimed at those people who are Hospers' *allies* within the movement. If an anarchist referred to "a recurring personality pattern among those who label themselves minarchists," I would object to such stereotyping and confusion of personality with political philosophy.
…the relevance of the Hospers essay was in helping establish that the LP's culture has been plagued by this sort of incivility for decades.
Right. I'm sure there was a lot of doubt about *that* point 😉
I have enough respect for you to think that you can't possibly believe the incivility that has 'plagued' us has been one-sided. I hope that you can be brought to see that the inclusion of an essay that strongly implies that such behavior is linked to political philosophy is pretty much guaranteed to make the situation worse, *especially* under the particular circumstances of this meeting.
As evidence of how this sort of essay can provoke incivility among NON-anarchists, I present the praise for his essay that Hospers himself *chose to display* at his website:
Right on the money. I would go slightly further in the critique and levy the charge of nihilism at the self-proclaimed anarchists. At the very least, they are fundamentally anti-social, in the sense of failing to understand that human society is the foundational environment for everything we call "human." Along with that, I would add narcissism. And megalomania.
They seem to be motivated more than any other group of fringites by the pseudoromantic obsessions of political power tripping. Bad manners aside, they are not only rebelling against their parents, but against reality itself — anything that might possibly hint that their whims are not supremely valid.
Is *that* the sort of 'civility' that Mr. Hospers is aiming to engender within the libertarian movement and the LP by his essay? If not, why does he choose to feature those particular comments at his website?
Hospers writes:
Now, all this is very unfortunate from the standpoint of the Libertarian Party. It simply
cannot grow as long as it is fractured into warring splinter groups, with the anarchists
shouting from the housetops for all the world to hear what stupid idiots or fiendish devils all the other libertarians are.
without seemingly to recognize the corollary; that it is difficult for the LP to grow with folks like Hospers and those he quotes approvingly calling anarchists "fundamentally antisocial megalomaniacs" and saying about a significant proportion of the Party's activist base that "the unconscious formula that the typical anarchist projects is: "Go screw yourself!"" or that "they can't really get along with anybody for a sustained period of time," and displaying an ignorance of what anarchy means to the anarchist libertarian by saying that "anarchism is the ultimate extreme in decentralization in one's relations with other human beings".
If you consider the reaction to the inclusion of the essay to have been hysterical or over-reacting, you might use that as a guide to examine why such a reaction was provoked by it. What I find astonishing is that someone of your intelligence can fail to see how essentially insulting and divisive such an essay is.
VTV December 11, 2008
"@600 I call shotgun. Especially if Neil's nosing around my garbage cans."
Please stop flattering yourself into thinking you are important enough for me to even go through any effort over you.
Paulie, "anarchism = incivility" is not in the Hospers article. He explicitly clarifies: "I am concerned here only with psychological aspects of anarchism or, I should say, anarchists." His thesis is that there is "a recurring personality pattern among those who label themselves anarchists". His use of "anarchist psychology" and "anarchist temperament" is obviously shorthand for this "recurring personality pattern". You've successfully argued against a caricature of his views; can you now argue against what he actually writes?
I don't know which LNC member(s) supported placing the Hospers essay in the binder. The hysterical over-reaction it has provoked is fascinating, though. Where is the corresponding essay by an LP figure of such eminence and gravitas about a recurring personality pattern among minarchists? Oh wait, there isn't one.
Yes, I was in San Diego. The binder was two inches thick. There were over 20 people in the gallery. I saw no stack of extra binders, and I've never seen them passed out at any LNC meeting. It's just bizarre to suggest that the Hospers essay was "disseminated" to the LP membership. The one who did that "disseminating" was whoever posted the link here. "LNC or HQ" did nothing here: LNC took no vote on the binder, and it was obviously one or more LNC members who placed the essay in the binder.
Yes, the silly charge about BTP was a charge of selling out. Your analogy still fails, because Angela was charged with a lot of different things. That the Hospers essay was not relevant to some of them does not mean it was not relevant to any of them.
Langa, the Hospers essay obviously wasn't being used as evidence that Angela actually was the author of uncivil words in question. She proudly proclaimed that she was, and she didn't disown a single word of them. No, the relevance of the Hospers essay was in helping establish that the LP's culture has been plagued by this sort of incivility for decades.
Jim, I challenge you to identify me committing a fallacy of the excluded middle.
Susan, it's hilarious how you can disagree with the Hospers essay for 10 paragraphs without ever once bothering to quote it. Here's a wild idea: how about quoting some assertion from the Hospers essay, and then actually arguing for its grammatical negation? My experiences tend to confirm the Hospers assertion that there is "a recurring personality pattern among those who label themselves anarchists" that manifests as "a childish insistence on the obviousness of all points of anarchist doctrine, and of the evil and malevolence of anyone who makes an honest point against it."
[Civility Self-Certification: In the above remarks to or about my fellow libertarian(s) I try to 1) ascribe the best possible motives consistent with all the available evidence, 2) say nothing I wouldn't say in front of our mothers, 3) avoid straw men and fallacies of the excluded middle, and 4) quote what I disagree with.]
Angela's charges were about being uncivil. The Hospers essay was about incivility.
The Hospers essay was NOT about incivility. It was an attempt to link a trait of 'temperament' (incivility) to a political philosophy (anarchism).
An essay about civility might have been appropriate, given the behavior of folks on all sides of that debacle. A ham-handed attempt to link the political philosophy of one of the parties to that debacle to a 'temperament' of incivility was obviously an attempt to … hell, I don't know *what* it was an attempt to do. How anyone could think that such an essay would cause even the most gentle and calm anarchist to say to himself "Hmmm, maybe he has a point. Maybe I am temperamentally inclined to be an ass – I should watch out for that, I guess," rather than steaming from the ears and swearing (politely, under his breath) is utterly beyond me. As an anarchist – not gentle, but for the most part polite – I can tell you that the essay made me think more about Hospers' temperamental deficiencies than those of myself and my comrades.
What absolutely floors me is the complete unsubtly of such a move. Either the person who wanted it included was completely without tact, or it was meant to provoke incivility merely by being such an obnoxious jab. Then the perpetrator could dance in glee and say "Look! Hospers is right! Those anarchists are uncivil asses!"
The essay's *title*, for heaven's sake, was more of a shot than an attempt to encourage civility. In light of the essay, it implies that anarchists are constitutionally made to be uncivil and are therefore a danger to movement, PLUS it implies that anarchists are 'temperamentally' *opposed* to libertarianism.
The mind-boggling ham-handedness of this move is stunning.
Reading his essay, and reading the approving (and hostile) remarks of approbation for it that *he chose to reprint publicly), I have to incline toward the latter possibility.
Whoops. FORMER.
Damn. Need a proofreader!
I've seen this moral relativism over and over during my involvement in the LP: to accuse somebody of incivility is itself dismissed as uncivil.
This seems to be in reference to the Hospers essay, but I don't recall Hospers accusing anyone of incivility. What he did was to suggest that it was in the nature of anarchists (not any particular anarchist, but 'anarchists') to be uncivil. He gave no evidence, except an anecdotal reference to some unpleasant exchanges he had on the campaign trail.
Considering the general hostile tone of the essay, I have to wonder if the interactions were always negative because of some fault in the 'anarchist temperament', or simply because Mr. Hospers started with a feeling of hostility *himself* toward anarchism and anarchists.
What do you think more likely – that one man can be so vexing as to provoke the worst in people with whom he disagrees, or that everyone he happens to disagree with just happens to have the same 'temperament' as some sort of side-effect of their political philosophy?
Hospers' essay says far more about *his* temperament than the collective temperament of anarchists.
or it should just be a private firm that sells private security packages. 3-man security, $xxx month.
there's loads of way to create private stability in Somalia 😀
I even think some non-libertarian things are bad. I believe microwaving a cat is wrong… but a crime? No. BUT it could be considered a crime in a FREE SOCIETY. Yeah, sure.
I think some people should organize a free society in Somalia. Create a small government that looks after security of member individuals and allow people to freely join/leave. Like when you join the ACLU, you are free to let your membership relapse… same thing with this organization. You pay, let's say, $10 per month to be a member, when you choose not to pay, you become a non-member.
Membership could include:
*protection on a stretch of land where the organization has influence over (its' hard to protect a member that lives 10,000 miles away)
*acceptance of "bylaws"
*perhaps able to use some infrastructure created by the organization
loads of possibilities. This could be beneficial to private companies (like the coke bottling plant) or individuals that do not want to be in charge of their own security.
I bet the wiki editor that put down "free market economy" was trying to use it in a deragatory sense. I do not believe Somalia has a free market, especially after the Ethiopian invasion, that put alot of progress in check in my opinion. BUT, however, I do believe that Somalia has the freest market of anywhere in the world. One uestion to ask: if they haven't a government in years, how come their infrastructure is still better than even richer african countries?
anywho, I never was a fan of that style of libertarianism where you have to come up with the correct libertarian methodology like it's some kind of Luhn formula or something. "Well, if three people are on a sinking boat and two jump off, does the third person now own the boat?" What a waste of time. I think of that as some sort of central theoretical planning by intellectuals that have way too much time on their hands. Focus on the bigger picture!!!
You don't need to have a police to have property rights. People will defend their own lands, by any means. If you take it from them, you're wrong. You might get away with it, but it doesn't make you right. Just because there's an instance where you get away with it, doesn't mean the free market failed, it just means that you're a criminal that succeeded. That's why there's a blackmarket in criminal activity; murder, theft, rape, etc. because it is possible to get away with it. It can also be profitable, but it doesn't mean it's something we should embrace.
I was talking about confiscating land btw.
They have coke bottling plans in Somalia, not even poor, statist countries have coke bottling plants. They must be doing something right… I bet you coke has private security there,perhaps Somalis themselves are providing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Somalia
Somalia is just so fascinating
so you've been to Somalia? To establsh a free port? Whatever happened with that? I don't know. It seems when you get past the media's propaganda regarding Somalia, you find many areas where they're flourishing DESPITE having no government. Of course the media implies you can't have stabiliy without government. It's fascinating what you can dig up after digging through the bs.
I used to buy the bs and believe Somalia was just a warzone. Chaotic. But now I think the opposite. What the hell is Ethiopia doing there? I hope Somalis kick their ass back to Ethiopia.
Thomas L. Knapp December 11, 2008
LJ,
To summarize and agree with Jim Davidson, Paulie and Andy had NOTHING to do with the BTP not being on the ballot in all 50 states.
They were hired by the presidential campaign to get our ticket on the ballot by petition in Tennessee, and they got the job done. I think they were also hired to do some voter registration/elector recruitment in Florida, and that got done too.
Brian, you write:
"Angela wasn't charged with being a mole, spy, sellout, or infiltrator."
Were the charges changed that much between the release of the initial complaint and Flood's actual motion?
In the initial complaint she was charged with both materially supporting a competing political party and defaming the LP to its contributors. It's no great leap to supposed that the former would have constituted motive for the latter.
For the record, I'm unaware of any "material support" by Angela for the BTP, except for the material in the t-shirt she allegedly wore — and for all I know, she could have been wearing that t-shirt in support of the BTP faction which favors re-merging the BTP back into the LP as an internal caucus.
I call 616. Twenty-five doors down from the beast.
@614 Evidently it wasn't clear what position langa was taking. So I asked. I see that asking questions makes you hate me. Why is that?
Steven Druckenmiller December 11, 2008
@611 – I was mocking you. langa's argument was the total opposite of what you said, and that was so crystal-clear I do not know how you flubbed that kind of comprehension, Senor Troll.
With regard to the significant popularity of this site, I'm curious about the advertising situation. I don't see any ads on the site at present, including Google ads.
What are the ad rates for this site? Is there a current "media kit" for advertisers?
@610 Great, thanks for clarifying. I think you have made a very sound argument.
Though, I would not look to Holtz to attend to your actual argument. He'll most likely find some false dichotomy to throw back. lol
@609 My inability to comprehend what you've written is not evidence of illiteracy. It does comment on your ability to write.
"Are you seriously proposing that individuals be convicted based on "evidence" about the group they are in?"
No, I'm not proposing that at all. Just the opposite. I'm saying that such a (ridiculous) standard would be the logical extension of Brian Holtz's suggestion that Hospers' essay about the supposed tendency of anarchists to behave inappropriately was germane to a discussion of whether a particular anarchist (Angela Keaton) had behaved inappropriately.
Holtz argues that since Keaton is an anarchist who has been accused of behaving in a childish and uncivil manner, then it is appropriate to examine Hospers' essay, which claims that anarchists, as a group, have a tendency to behave in a childish and uncivil manner.
The point about the murder trial was just an analogy to demonstrate the flaw in Holtz's logic, by showing what would happen if that logic were to be employed in other, similar situations.
Someone caaaaan't reeeaaaad.
@598 Bigotry is wrong. No, it is not relevant to establish whether a particular black man committed a crime that there are some number of black men who commit crimes.
Are you seriously proposing that individuals be convicted based on "evidence" about the group they are in?
@595 Somalis are happy to govern themselves. They have expressed persistent unhappiness being governed by colonial France, colonial Britain, or colonial Italy. They have expressed persistent unhappiness with a "Western style democracy" such as the corrupt one fashioned by the British and Italians for part of Somali territory in 1960.
Somalis have also been unhappy with a communist dictatorship (1969 to 1978) and with a pro-Western dictator (1978 to 1991, ironically the same guy as 69 to 78).
Somalis have been unhappy with the UN occupation 1992-1995. They have been unhappy with other invasions and occupations.
If you don't want the Somalis to be stopped, you might want to reflect on how you can change NATO policy (October 2001, "bomb all the port facilities in Somalia) or USA policy (December 2006, sponsor Ethiopia's invasion and support it with special forces, military advisors, and air strikes).
When Michael van Notten and I arrived in Awdal in December 2000, we were greeted warmly. Our plans to establish a Singapore or Hong Kong like free port on the coast and a toll road to Ethiopia were supported enthusiastically by many Somalis. These plans were in full swing in August 2001 when I returned to Texas on business. I was to return to Europe in September to collect funds from our investors and send our port equipment from Rotterdam.
I continue to believe that Somalis are an earnest, hard working, education-seeking, and freedom-oriented people. I believe they would like to have free ports, peace, prosperity, and liberty.
They do not have any intention of ever paying back the International Monetary Fund the $333 million lent to the dictator who used those funds to massacre Somalis. They do not have any intention of accepting a Western-imposed government to tax them to pay on the $2.9 billion in "external debt" the internationalist socialist banking gangsters hold against them.
As a result, your government, NATO, and the UN, which are basically muscle and mouth pieces for the banking gangsters, won't let the Somalis continue on the path they have been on.
In a contest of wills between Somali pastoralists and banking nebbishes, guess who I'm going to pick in the long run?
@593 We didn't have a nominee until June. The BTP got on every ballot we tried to get on. We met the deadline in Colorado within three or four days from choosing our nominee.
There was no Boston Tea Party to speak of in April. I was the thirtieth person to join the party at its replacement web site.
If I had not agreed to work on the party, given that there was no one else that Tom was eager to trust as chair, it is likely that BTP would have ceased to exist. You can ask Tom about his views on that point.
The necessity for the BTP became increasingly clear after Barr announced his plans to run for office and the LP HQ staff announced their plans to secure the nomination for him. As this year has progressed, hundreds of people have joined the BTP. Why? Snubgate, Angela bashing, budget problems, lackluster performance by Barr, absence of a $30M Barr campaign budget, missing about 1.4 million of the two million votes we were promised variously by Root and others.
Libertarian Joseph, take a few minutes to go through the ballot access requirements for the 50 states. I think you'll find that many of them were out of reach by the end of June. In several, even write-in registrations were impossible by that date.
And, of course, if the LP had nominated a libertarian, the BTP would have been happy to endorse such a candidate. We would then have worked on ballot access in various states to support that candidate. Instead, we needed to nominate our own candidate, because a libertarian wasn't on the LP ticket.
I subsequently asked the BTP committee to illustrate this fact by endorsing an LP candidate for president who was libertarian in ways that Barr never will be. I admit that the motion didn't carry until George named Chris Bennett as his running mate. But, it is now a proven fact that the BTP is willing to endorse a Libertarian Party candidate for president. It is also a proven fact that we're willing to nominate our own if the LP does something idiotic, like nominate Barr.
Given that we now have to be prepared to nominate and run our own candidate for president, and candidates for other offices, we are preparing for fifty state ballot access. I doubt we'll get there in 2009. We might get two or three dozen in 2010, though.
@578 In the search for Sunshine, your caucus might wish to inquire about the hiring of staff members by the Barr campaign. Evidently, Shane Cory and Andrew Davis have both been working for the Barr campaign, based on my understanding of the FEC filings that George Phillies has analysed.
If that's so, it very much matters when they began to be interviewed for that work. Cory in particular had a fiduciary obligation while serving on LP headquarters staff not to sabotage the campaign of any of the candidates. I think very clearly that this matter came up in 1996 and again in 2000, and it is obviously a problem.
The insider clique picks a candidate before the nominating convention. The clique then provides that candidate with material support, including the direct support of the national LP headquarters staff. The clique then attacks the leading candidates who oppose their chosen favorite. This system is not open, it is not transparent, and it stinks to high Heaven.
@574 "Why would HQ be trying to prejudice the proceedings before they took place by the dissemination of this essay?"
Um, because Krause was part of the insider clique determined to oust Angela? I mean, why does Krause ramble on and on, naming names he is supposed to, per policy on sexual harassment, not name without their consent? In my analysis of the pseudo evidence presented by Stewie baby, I noted that Krause should be fired and black listed.
@602 lol
@600 I call shotgun. Especially if Neil's nosing around my garbage cans.
@572 I think you ought to travel to Costa Rica and visit with some of my friends there before convincing yourself that you know all about their immigration laws. Panama and Belize, as well.
You might also investigate citizenship in Bolivia, which is comparatively inexpensive, and review how a Bolivian passport changes your status in Latin American countries. USA law allows you to have more than one citizenship.
I call 600
@571 It is the way of the Holtz to offer alternatives, as if he has the authority to set the only terms of debate. Of course, his alternatives are usually both nonsense, though sometimes he has a clear agenda for one of them. The universe doesn't limit itself to his either/or choices, and neither should you.
"Somebody on LNC apparently thinks it was relevant to point out that Angela's pattern of behavior is not exactly novel or isolated."
Was Angela the specific subject of Hospers' essay? If not, I fail to see the relevance of the essay to her "trial", other than to paint her as one of those "uncivil anarchists" who doesn't know how to behave. In other words, to treat her as a stereotype.
Would it be justified for the prosecuting attorney at a murder trial to introduce evidence showing that members of a particular group are statistically more likely to commit murder, on the grounds that it's relevant because the accused happens to be a member of that group?
@556 Partying with the radicals makes sense.
@541 Most of them are not anarchists, and some of the Somalis I know are deeply offended by the idea that they would be regarded as anarchists. On the other hand, they don't like a standing government, they have been known to kill census takers and tax collectors, and they have other merits.
They are a majority Islamic country. They are a clan based culture. The treatment of women is bad in the best cases and monstrous in the worst – female "circumcision" or excision of the clitoris, for example. There are many things about their laws and culture to think well of, and Michael van Notten captured all of these in his book "The Law of the Somalis" available from Red Sea Press.
There are also many things about Somali culture that are not good. And Michael covered quite a few of those in his book, as well.
Somalia needs to keep going in the current direction. They're heading towards a true free market. Why stop now?
@534 Their language isn't hard to learn, especially if you know a bit of Japanese. And I have been embraced by Somalis. So, wrong.
Somalia has had a lot of governments since 1991 when they kicked out their dictator. The only ones that looked to be successful, widely admired by the people giving consent to them, were Islamic Courts and the Islamic thing now gaining power (can't remember the name). These were, of course, destroyed by the USA government in the case of Islamic Courts through Ethiopian proxies, and likely to come under attack "real soon now" in the case of the new thing.
I would be very surprised if a white anarchist who doesn't speak Somali would do well under an Islamic fundamentalist regime. But people would generally obey the traffic laws under such a regime. If that matters to ya.
If he's such a great petitioner, then why wasn't the BTP on every state ballot?
hmm??
@590 Not being repetitive to the point of pleonastic redundancy is a feature, not a bug.
@528 Some people do have trouble leaving the country. Not all other nation states are willing to welcome, e.g., people convicted of felonies.
Paulie does a much better job of making the case for the petitioners.
I get tired of repeating myself endlessly. Not everyone does, it seems.
@507 I've made quite a study of it. I can think of reasons why different people might be happier living, at least for a few years, in other countries. I've yet to find one that satisfied me on enough levels to get me to emigrate.
Amsterdam is a nice place if you are interested in pot smoking, prostitution, or gambling. It is lousy for starting a small business if you aren't a Dutch citizen, and not a tax haven. I could go on and on in this vein.
MacArthur was a statist. Nothing to admire
@502 The "so what" thing is not my inclination. I have joined Tom Knapp in telling Andy to go eff himself.
I think there are several things that are important here, from a moral perspective. Andy may behave like an ass, but he had a deal. There is something in the constitution about the sanctity of contract, which suggests that even the Federalist counter-revolutionaries appreciated it. The LP cannot bring off its claim of being the party of principle if it doesn't uphold its agreements. I note that Angela O'Dell is still waiting pay for the petition work she did in West Virginia for the Barr campaign – and it looks like they haven't even acknowledged the debt on their FEC filings, the jerks.
Redpath and company are being extolled as virtuous on the Sean Haugh thread because Redpath acts like a gentleman even when he is screwing over employees, paid petitioners, a member of the LNC, and proposing gun control measures in his campaign. I'm not really sure why he gets a free pass.
From a strategic point of view, the LP and other third parties need effective petitioning. Paulie and Andy were very effective in their work for the Boston Tea Party. I think the existing crop of ballot access managers (Redpath, Haugh, Kohlhaas) are demonstrably ineffective.
In my view, Paulie does a much better job of making the case for the petitioners. I think Andy and Gary would be wise to let Paulie do that work. Or, maybe get Jake Witmer to speak out if they wish. I dunno. There is a point at which ineffective behavior becomes pathological.
@498 I believe Holtz's support for mass murder significantly encumbers his effectiveness in working on the platform committee.
@495 I am reminded to say, "Good work, IPR team. You guys rock."
I know, crazy, huh?
Michael H. Wilson December 10, 2008
WOW! 580 ! What a deal!
@492 MacArthur was always confident. He was somewhat better than the frontal assault admirals who kept sending marines to be chewed up. But, his advance from Australia to Okinawa was divided up into a long series of engagements on different islands. Eisenhower in the Bulge fought on land contiguous with Germany, and only at the very end was MacArthur proposing to fight on the actual home islands of Japan. From strategic, tactical, and operational considerations there are many reasons why Eisenhower lost more men in the Bulge. And I'm no fan of Eisenhower, though he was rather candid at the very end of his presidency. "Legacy of ashes" and all that.
One of the side effects of not conquering the home islands of Japan was to leave intact a hierarchical society which the CIA helped to corrupt, leading to the current authoritarian government of Japan. Since MacArthur oversaw much of the occupation in its formative years, I'm not sure him leading the army to conquer Japan on the ground would have helped.
@493 Imagine Manson with nukes.
@490 "A very strange game. The only winning strategy is not to play. Would you like a nice game of chess?" – the film "Wargames"
@577 Actually, Angela was basically, in so many words, charged with being a sell-out.
In regards to the BTP, yes.
mdh December 10, 2008
Paulie, I believe that any LNC member or alternate can ask for stuff to be added to the binder.
Thank you. I am looking for more decisive knowledge, though.
Paulie, "anarchism = incivility" is just not in the Hospers article.
The article explains the "anarchist temperament" as being an uncivil one. I just quoted the article in a separate post. That is in fact the thesis of the entire article, not just some selective quote.
If you think it's there, please quote it.
Provide your own summary of the article, then, if you disagree. What does Dr. Hospers say is the anarchist sentiment?
I don't know what you mean by "disseminate".
Put in the official LNC/gallery binder and gave out to people.
Inclusion of something in the binder obviously doesn't require an LNC vote,
OK, so what is the policy? Do staff get to add things to the binder? Can every single LNC member add things? Is there any guidelines on what can and can't be added, and by whom? Are they posted anywhere? Is there any way of learning who placed what in the binder? If so, how can I learn who placed this article in the binder?
and I've never heard of such a binder being distributed beyond LNC members.
It is distributed to the gallery at LNC meetings by request and based on availability, as well to LNC members. I learned of its being included from Andy, who was in the gallery, which Debra, who was also in the gallery, likewise confirmed. I think you were there too. You didn't get one? Or am I wrong in recalling that you were there?
I know I have seen you at one or more past LNC meetings, so I'm surprised you wouldn't know they are distributed to the gallery.
I only heard about it because of complaints about it. I'll bet you that the Hospers essay was not included purely at the whim of staff, without any suggestion by an LNC member.
I'm not going to bet, because I do not know. But I would like to find out.
"suppose he was put up on a variety of charges like Angela did. Now suppose there was an essay in the binder about the danger of moderates as party sellouts in the LP which implied that they are moles, spies, and infiltrators."
Angela's charges were about being uncivil. The Hospers essay was about incivility. Angela wasn't charged with being a mole, spy, sellout, or infiltrator. Your analogy is apples and oranges.
I don't believe it is. Some radicals view moderates as sellouts or infiltrators. Some moderates views incivility as being characteristic of anarchists. I think there is plenty of incivility among all factions of the party, which is a shame (not that I am perfect by any means, but I'm trying). There are certainly plenty of anarchists who are courteous. It is not the "anarchist temperament."
I have no reason to believe Dr. Hospers was not telling the truth in relating that he received negative reactions from certain anarchists. Likewise, Dr. Ruwart was savagely attacked by some moderates when she ran for the LP nomination this year. Incivility is an entirely separate matter from ideological factionalism in the party, and it is wrong of the HQ or LNC to imply otherwise.
Look, if you are unhappy with the image of radicals, then maybe you should try (even more) to police incivility among radicals, just as I try to police incivility among reformers/moderates. (I say "even more" because you already do. Almost no other radical does, and that's part of the reason why they've been losing.)
I think you may well have a good point there.
A civility caucus is certainly needed in the LP as well.
Tom, we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether my response to the Trolley Problem constitutes assertion of ownership rights on the lives of some of the victims.
Paulie, "anarchism = incivility" is just not in the Hospers article. If you think it's there, please quote it. I don't know what you mean by "disseminate". Inclusion of something in the binder obviously doesn't require an LNC vote, and I've never heard of such a binder being distributed beyond LNC members. I only heard about it because of complaints about it. I'll bet you that the Hospers essay was not included purely at the whim of staff, without any suggestion by an LNC member.
"suppose he was put up on a variety of charges like Angela did. Now suppose there was an essay in the binder about the danger of moderates as party sellouts in the LP which implied that they are moles, spies, and infiltrators."
Angela's charges were about being uncivil. The Hospers essay was about incivility. Angela wasn't charged with being a mole, spy, sellout, or infiltrator. Your analogy is apples and oranges. Look, if you are unhappy with the image of radicals, then maybe you should try (even more) to police incivility among radicals, just as I try to police incivility among reformers/moderates. (I say "even more" because you already do. Almost no other radical does, and that's part of the reason why they've been losing.) Quote me any member — let alone leader — of the Reform Caucus calling for purges the way I quoted Montoni and Raimondo doing, and I'll stomp all over them. I don't have the membership list of the Reform Caucus memorized, but I don't think that any Reform Caucus leader has ever called for a purge on my watch. I watch out for that stuff exactly so that I can bust radicals when they call for purges.
Michael Seebeck December 10, 2008
Paulie, I believe that any LNC member or alternate can ask for stuff to be added to the binder. Any LNC member can also ask the Chair to add items to the agenda. Unfortunately, the Chair doesn't always respond.
Also, as to the question of whether it was LNC or staff that was trying to chain the behavior together, I would be willing to bet the answer was "both".
The State could crash, but the question is are they going to destroy us in the process?
That's why I'm investigating ways to prevent that from happening to me.
Paulie, I'll just repeat: identifiying a pattern of juvenile incivility is not the same thing as 1) juvenile incivility or 2) trying to purge anybody.
No, but characterizing it as the anarchist temperament most certainly is.
The abuse that Angela offered to her fellow LNC members was orders of magnitude more juvenile and uncivil than the Hospers essay,
Entirely besides my point if true, since the question I have is why the HQ or LNC is identifying such behavior as the anarchist temperament. The message being sent is anarchism = incivility. Even if you agree with that message, I would hope that you would agree that it is improper for the HQ or LNC to disseminate it on behalf of the party.
Furthermore, the case against Angela was being presented at the meeting. Why would HQ be trying to prejudice the proceedings before they took place by the dissemination of this essay?
Why would it be appropriate for them to imply that Angela's incivility was due to her anarchism, and characteristic of anarchists, even if she had been found guilty?
and yet Angela is excused from accusations of trying to "purge" anybody.
By whom? I neither said nor implied that (nor its opposite). In case you are not aware, Angela and I are no longer friends, and you can read the post where she thanks people and notice that my name is not on the list. We haven't been on speaking terms in months, and I expect that to be permanent. In any case it does not matter whom Angela would have wanted to purge, since she had no such power. The only one she could purge was herself, which she did, at least from the LNC and maybe from the party (but I certainly can't speak for her, and wouldn't want to).
My assumption is that any LNC member or alternate can submit anything reasonably relevant for the meeting binder.
I don't want to go by assumptions. I'd like to know for sure, and I would like to know what the policy on that was and who did it.
Are you sure it was somebody on LNC and not somebody on staff? And is it in fact true that any and every LNC member can place any essay they want in the binder? Again, these are real questions, and I would like to know the answer.
I would hope that you would want to know the answers as well; but even if you don't, I do.
That just doesn't equate to a call for purging the LP of all anarchist members, no matter how many times you repeat the charge.
OK, try a role reversal mental excercise. Suppose say, …Tim West? Eric Dondero?… was on the LNC stacked with a radical majority and was not getting along with them, and suppose he was put up on a variety of charges like Angela did. Now suppose there was an essay in the binder about the danger of moderates as party sellouts in the LP which implied that they are moles, spies, and infiltrators. I would say that
this would be uncivil and inappropriate. I would say that even if Tim, Eric, or fictional LNC member on fictional radical-led LNC was in fact guilty of all charges.
I will stomp on any reformer/moderate you can quote inviting anarchists out of the LP, and I also criticize anybody (like Wayne Root) who tries to say that anarchists aren't libertarians.
rdupuy, in this thread, and many other people in other places.
No. Equating incivility with anarchism, however, is uncivil.
Everyone involved in a dispute is assumed equally guilty, truth is not a valid defense, and insistence on truth is a character defect.
On the contrary. I am insisting on truth. I want to know who put this essay in the binder. I want to know what the rules for the assembly of the binder are. I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
I would expect better from Libertarians, but maybe I shouldn't.
I would expect better of Libertarians than to equate anarchism and incivility, but I'll settle for not having it be the official word of the party, and/or knowing who was responsible for making it such and whether they followed proper procedure in doing so.
I'm glad that in your subsequent comments you clarified that reasonable Libertarians can disagree about the meaning and implications of the Pledge.
I think I did so in my first reference to the pledge here, or shortly thereafter.
"G.E. // Dec 10, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Since you are no longer utilizing the Libertarian Party as a tool to fight for liberty, what is/are your alternative(s)?
Are you stocking up on guns & ammo and engaging in militia training in prepartion for armed rebellion?
Sort of. Stocking up in order to deter looters from raiding my property when the monopolist police force breaks down.
Are you taking part in the underground economy and dropping out of the tax system?
Sort of. I'm developing legal strategies for doing the above.
Are working within the Republican and/or Democrat Party to swing them in the direction of liberty?
Sort of. I'd support libertarian-minded politicians in these parties.
Are you simply spreading the word, trying to educate people and influence them to move in the direction of liberty?
Yes. I'm developing a Web site.
Are you just planning to leave the country with the hopes of finding some place where you can have more liberty (but since there's a movement towards global government it may not be possible to find such a place)?
Costa Rica is on my radar. Unfortunately, they take the Constitution Party/George Phillies approach to immigration.
Or have you completely given up and plan to let THE STATE win without resistance?"
GE, I'm glad to see that you are doing some things that are productive in the "animating contest for liberty" as I was beginning to wonder if you were one of those people who complains about the LP and then drops out of it and does nothing. Kudos to you for being a doer!
"The State is doomed. Why throw myself into the fire when the flame is about to burn out? If you think that statism is sustainable, then you're of a different school of thought than I am."
I'm glad to see that you are so optomistic about the future.
Yes, The State could crash, but the question is are they going to destroy us in the process?
Sort of. I'm developing legal strategies for doing the above.
Sort of. I'd support libertarian-minded politicians in these parties.
Yes. I'm developing a Web site.
The State is doomed. Why throw myself into the fire when the flame is about to burn out? If you think that statism is sustainable, then you're of a different school of thought than I am.
"To call 'bullshit' any identification of trade-offs in the consequences of alternative choices is nothing more than saying that you've managed to keep yourself innocent of any knowledge about how such trade-offs arise in the grownup world."
The "bullshit" involved is the implicit claim that the lives of any set of innocent non-combatants are the rightful property of the combatant party or parties proposing to "trade them off."
During my grandfather's tour of duty aboard ship in the Pacific, there was always a possibility that his ship would be attacked and that he'd be killed (it wasn't and he wasn't — he lived another 50 years). If I was able to go back in time and force Harry Truman to channel me, I hope that I would not have him base his decision on whether or not to murder the civilian population of Hiroshima on whether that attack might hypothetically make an eventual attack on my grandfather's ship more or less likely.
All the refighting of WWII aside, which serves no purpose except to further another waste of thread space over pin-dancing and Holtzian-hair-splitting…
I agree completely with Matt said @561. I will bring up an analogy I've used before, perhaps to death, but it's accurate in terms of the whole minarchist/anarchist argument:
"It's silly to argue whether the train stops in San Francisco or Oakland when it's still in New York stuck in the station."
Then why are you still here?
The LP? I'm not.
IPR? I like watching the ongoing LP train wreck. It's morbid, I know."
Are you just planning to leave the country with the hopes of finding some place where you can have more liberty (but since there's a movement towards global government it may not be possible to find such a place)?
I personally think it's rather delightful watching people stab each other in the back. As long as I'm not involved, it's all good.
That's despicable.
Paulie, I'll just repeat: identifiying a pattern of juvenile incivility is not the same thing as 1) juvenile incivility or 2) trying to purge anybody. The abuse that Angela offered to her fellow LNC members was orders of magnitude more juvenile and uncivil than the Hospers essay, and yet Angela is excused from accusations of trying to "purge" anybody. My assumption is that any LNC member or alternate can submit anything reasonably relevant for the meeting binder. Somebody on LNC apparently thinks it was relevant to point out that Angela's pattern of behavior is not exactly novel or isolated. That just doesn't equate to a call for purging the LP of all anarchist members, no matter how many times you repeat the charge. I will stomp on any reformer/moderate you can quote inviting anarchists out of the LP, and I also criticize anybody (like Wayne Root) who tries to say that anarchists aren't libertarians.
I've seen this moral relativism over and over during my involvement in the LP: to accuse somebody of incivility is itself dismissed as uncivil. Everyone involved in a dispute is assumed equally guilty, truth is not a valid defense, and insistence on truth is a character defect. I would expect better from Libertarians, but maybe I shouldn't.
I'm glad that in your subsequent comments you clarified that reasonable Libertarians can disagree about the meaning and implications of the Pledge.
Tom, you're simply arguing by assertion. Until you address the facts I cited about 1) the evidence in the hands of military leaders in early Aug 1945 and 2) what those leaders were saying about it contemporaneously, then I see no need to address your unsourced reports of self-serving after-the-fact evaluations by such leaders. To call "bullshit" any identification of trade-offs in the consequences of alternative choices is nothing more than saying that you've managed to keep yourself innocent of any knowledge about how such trade-offs arise in the grownup world. If over a hundred thousand living breathing Asian people dying every month is "hypothetical bullshit" to you, then maybe as a Marine you can muster a little sympathy for all the Americans among the many thousands of allied POWs who were under orders to be executed upon any invasion. I suspect that your moral calculus is driven by Hiroshima newsreel footage, rather than by a sober analysis of all the consequences beyond the camera's lens.
Jeff, not only are Susan and I closer than most realize or than we admit, we're even closer than you suggest. I NEVER "place the emphasis on electability". I say: present mainstream ecumenical libertarianism to the voting public, and let the chips fall where they may. I'm not really interested in farm-team "victories" (like my walk-on to the water board seat to which I'm being sworn in tonight) that don't measure public desire for more freedom, but I'm also not interested in using elections to build "cadre" of state abolitionists. Rather, I'm interested in using elections to increase, harness, measure, and publicize the public demand for moving public policy in a libertarian direction. I bet you cannot find a single radical or reformer who would say: "No, I'm not interested in using elections to increase, harness, measure, and publicize the public demand for moving public policy in a libertarian direction." All the sturm und drang over "education" vs. "winning" is just a clash between two titanic men of straw. I don't know anybody who actually holds the positions that each side is arguing against.
RE: The Pledge … It turns out that it was and is a disingenuous anti-anarchist pledge. The party was founded on lies and deceit. Nothing has changed.
Jeff – It was a joke. Lighten up. But the only "evidence" I needed was Barr's order that I give "thanks to God" for the "life and work" of Jesse Helms.
Enjoying the show yet G.E?
"Enjoying" is the wrong word. I desperately wish I had to willpower to extricate myself from this spectacle. It's like fast food.
Jeff Wartman December 10, 2008
G.E. "I don't want to share the stage with 'people like' Cynthia McKinney" — Bob Barr
Is that the only evidence you have for the "Barr is racist" meme? That's weak.
I think mdh has hit upon a problem of the anarchist vs. minarchist debate. For me, an anarchist, it's not about "less government." I have no problem with "government." "Government" is a necessary thing; a good. What I have a problem with is THE STATE.
People who are against "government" are just sort of immature; in an arrested stage of rebellious youth. People who don't see the difference between "government" and THE STATE need to do more studying.
@555 I'd say the LP should move public policy in a 'less government' direction. For some, that means some government. for others, very very little government. For others still, none at all. If we rally under the 'less' flag, we can all agree on it at least for probably most of our lifetimes. 🙂
cbennett December 10, 2008
I personally think it's rather delightful watching people stab each other in the back. As long as I'm not involved, it's all good.
The LP? I'm not.
IPR? I like watching the ongoing LP train wreck. It's morbid, I know.
I was often lumped into the "reformer" crowd by people like G.E.
What? Fat people?
"I don't want to share the stage with 'people like' Cynthia McKinney" — Bob Barr
Quoth Brian Holtz:
"Tom, it's just silly of you to say I asked you to abstract the facts from history. What I asked you to do was to take a stand on a general principle."
Yes, but you tied that principle to a false factual assertion (that Action A would obviously, or even hypothetically save more innocent lives than it cost). There's no reason to believe that the bombing of Hiroshima in any way resembles the scenario you tie the principle to.
If you want me to take a stand on a general moral principle, I'll be happy to:
"It is always wrong to knowingly, intentionally, volitionally or negligently kill innocents. The claim that not doing so might hypothetically result in MORE innocents dying than one proposes to kill is a bullshit excuse."
Insofar as history is concerned, I stand by my claim — both MacArthur and Nimitz publicly stated after the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were militarily unnecessary.
As far as the conflict between MacArthur and Nimitz over Operation Olympic is concerned, there's absolutely no doubt that MacArthur's word should have carried ten times the weight. MacArthur's total KIA from New Guinea to the Philippines was 13,900 — as I mention, fewer KIA than Eisenhower's 19k in the Battle of the Bulge alone, and only a few more than Nimitz sent to their deaths on Okinawa alone.
MacArthur's record substantiated the validity of his battle plans. Nimitz's record established his incompetence to criticize those plans.
Also, I was often lumped into the "reformer" crowd by people like G.E. However, I am often quick to note that I spent most of my time in Denver hanging out with Matt Harris, Paulie and Tom Knapp.
I guess I vote with the minarchists and I party with the radicals 🙂
Matt Harris: "Actually I did not see Susan advocate one or the other, to the detriment of the other. What I saw was her advocating education as a means to the end of winning elections. In that, I wholeheartedly agree.
Let me make one clear point:
No one is going to vote for LP candidates for any reason other than A> we are not one of the parties they HATE, or B> we are the party they like.
Only by being ideologically sound and putting our ideology at the forefront of our message in public can we attract voters for B. The A voters will come anyway."
I'm not an anarchist nor a radical. I do however agree with your post.
I think Brian and Susan are closer on strategy than people realize, or even than they'd like to admit.
My own beliefs on the situation is that the Libertarian Party exists as a means to move public policty in a 'limited government' direction through both elected Libertarians to office and through education/activism. While Brian would like to place the emphasis on electability and Susan on education/activism, I would say it's really irrelevant because on the whole the LP has been unsuccessful at both. From the PATRIOT Act to the Bailout bills, government has been creeping in a direction toward further statism. We haven't elected any candidates to Congress. Either way, things aren't going the way we'd like. Both Brian and Susan are looking inward for the answer. The problem is that the LP isn't ineffective because of inner problems. The LP is ineffective because of structural problems within the United States of maintaining the two party system and the power of the elites who currently profit off of government.
Quoth Steve Druckenmiller:
"you have a funny notion of morality. Not surprising, because, yet again, your version of the 'facts' just happens to comport with your ideology."
Actually, it's the other way around. I've held the opinion of Hiroshima that I hold now since long before I was a libertarian or a non-interventionist — and, for that matter, since before I gave the Marine Corps ten years of infantry service. My ideology eventually worked its way around to accommodating the facts rather than vice versa.
B) YOU are the one doing the "disinviting". Asking people to be civil is NOT "disinviting".
P) I agree, and I am in favor of asking people to be civil.
The above was not meant to express agreement with Brian's conclusion that I am disinviting folks, only with the second sentence.
Paulie, you here repeat the mistaken claim that the LP membership Pledge excludes non-anarchists,
No. I explicitly said that is not the only way to read the pledge, and I argued against excluding non-anarchists – not just because we are the minority faction in this party and would not have the power to do any such thing, but also because I would not do so even if I had some dictatorial power to do so. This is because I believe we need your help in reducing government as much as possible. We need every ally we can get in this fight. So I am against kicking you out even if I could. I hope that was clear this time.
and yet in the same breath complain about an essay by Hospers being used to ask anarchists not to feed a long-standing perception about their behavior?
I'm complaining about this essay being included in the binder, especially at this time.
Why am I complaining about it?
It is apparent to me that this essay is specifically meant to be included in the binder as an attack on anarchists, inaccurately equating anarchism with juvenile behavior. Given that there are some people in the party who have declared their intent to purge the anarchists, I would like to know who is responsible for making this essay an "official" statement of the LNC
and/or HQ. It strikes me as most highly inappropriate.
And very pertinent to the issue, since a prominent item on the agenda of that meeting was the discipline of Ms. Keaton – a prominent
anarchist being accused of juvenile behavior. Also on the agenda was Mr. Nolan's proposal for a mission statement for the LP (or was it
LNC?). While Mr. Nolan is not an anarchist, he has been called one by some in the party who use the term pejoratively, in part because he
believes that electing candidates is not and should not be the sole purpose of the party, to the exclusion of all other purposes.
There may be other ways in which the inclusion of this essay in the binder was germane to this particular meeting which have not occurred
to me. It's certainly germane to the ideological struggle within the party. Why is one side in that struggle having its propaganda distributed by the LNC or HQ? This should be a question in your mind even if you are in agreement with the essay in question but committed to an open and fair process.
Finally, and I am not so sure on this point, but I've attended several such meetings and gotten such binders. I do not recall ever once
getting essays included of this nature. Why this essay, why now? These are questions in my mind; I do not believe I am alone, and I do not
believe they are unimportant questions. I also have a theory as to some of these questions as I said above, but I'm open to the possibility that my theory is incorrect.
YOU are the one doing the "disinviting". Asking people to be civil is NOT "disinviting".
I agree, and I am in favor of asking people to be civil. Equating, or implying, that incivility equals anarchism in a party with a significant minority of anarchists strikes me as singularly uncivil. It strikes me as especially uncivil when it is coming from HQ or LNC.
To do so at a meeting whose agenda prominently features an item or two (at least) directly related to the subject of the essay strikes me as prejudicial of the proceedings.
I see no sign that "the ruling faction of the LP right now does in fact wish to kick anarchists out". I'm a cop on the beat looking for those signs, and they're not there.
The inclusion of this essay in the binder strikes me as a galling example. Officer, please put down the donut immediately and answer the call.
However, I note that you just said "we are certainly in no position to disinvite minarchist LP members".
And I followed up by saying that I would not do so even if I could. You saw that, didn't you?
"mdh // Dec 10, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Come on, Andy. If everyone kept bringing up their gripes over and over, this place would be equally useless to you as to everyone else."
This is a political blog. One of the main things that people do here is bring up their gripes. Isn't that what politics is (bringing up one's gripes)?
Trent Hill December 10, 2008
We'll make sure they get the news.
"Nicholas Sarwark // Dec 10, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I also outlined the case in two letters to the LP Judicial Committee (later sent to the LNC), which went largely unanswered (Allen Hacker was the only one who addressed the issue.)
Those letters went unanswered because the allegations within them are not something the Judicial Committee is empowered to deal with by the Bylaws."
Gary was told by a longtime party vetran that he should take his concerns to the Judicial Committee. At the time he did not know that the Judicial Committee was not empowered to do much.
"The LNC is the proper body to consider those allegations."
The LNC has been derilict in their duties since they've allowed the criminals to go unpunished.
It's important that we learn from our mistakes. Everyone knows mistakes were made, and very credible sources have pointed to the same mistakes that Andy has. That said, it probably doesn't need to be brought up in every single thread, Andy. Most of us here agree that what happened stinks and that it was a mistake, and that we need to learn from them. We're doing so, and moving on."
This stuff is not being brought up in every thread. It is only brought up in threads where something connected to it is being discussed. There are plenty of threads on this blog where the subject has not been discussed.
"We do thank you for helping to point them out, though, but I'd say it's safe to say your job is done in that regard."
It has been pointed out that this is a fast growing blog, as in one with thousands of new visitors. Just because regular readers already know about this stuff it does not mean that the newbies know about it.
well, ban him then.
I am against banning trolls. I'm also against answering them in discussion.
Nicholas Sarwark December 10, 2008
Those letters went unanswered because the allegations within them are not something the Judicial Committee is empowered to deal with by the Bylaws. The LNC is the proper body to consider those allegations.
Jim, I've personally schooled Stinnett on his errors: http://humanknowledge.net/Correspondence/Robert_Stinnett/. I agree with you that millions of lives were arguably saved by dropping the bomb, which of course absolutely nobody claims about the Tate-LaBianca murders.
Does the SOP imply anarchism? Answer is at http://libertarianmajority.net/does-the-sop-mandate-zero-agression-absolutism
Gary, Marc was saying — correctly — that I dragged him into this conversation. I did so to annihilate Tom Sipos's claim that reformer purge fears are "projection".
Tom, it's just silly of you to say I asked you to abstract the facts from history. What I asked you to do was to take a stand on a general principle. You then fled the scene, and retreated to arguments by assertion about a particular historical event.
The historical facts I cite at http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=187 remain unrebutted. Since you apparently won't read it, here's an excerpt: "Meanwhile, two months of horrendous fighting ashore on Okinawa under skies filled with kamikazes convinced the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral Chester Nimitz, that he should withdraw his prior support for at least the invasion of Kyushu. Nimitz informed King of this change in his views in strict confidence. In August, the Ultra revelations propelled the Army and Navy towards a showdown over the invasion. On August 7 (the day after Hiroshima, which no one expected to prompt a quick surrender), General Marshall reacted to weeks of gathering gloom in the Ultra evidence by asking General Douglas MacArthur, who was to command what promised to be the greatest invasion in history, whether invading Kyushu in November as planned still looked sensible. MacArthur replied, amazingly, that he did not believe the radio intelligence! He vehemently urged the invasion should go forward as planned. (This, incidentally, demolishes later claims that MacArthur thought the Japanese were about to surrender at the time of Hiroshima.) On August 9 (the day the second bomb was dropped, on Nagasaki), King gathered the two messages in the exchange between Marshall and MacArthur and sent them to Nimitz. King told Nimitz to provide his views on the viability of invading Kyushu, with a copy to MacArthur. Clearly, nothing that had transpired since May would have altered Nimitz's view that Olympic was unwise. Ultra now made the invasion appear foolhardy to everyone but MacArthur."
Even after Nagasaki, there was a military coup to stop Hirohito's surrender address from being broadcast. The Prime Minister's residence was burned, the radio station was taken over, and the commander of the imperial guard was killed, but the plotters could not find the secreted surrender recording in the darkness of a fortuitous air-raid blackout. The coup leader Maj. Kenji Hatanaka committed suicide after the plot failed. The History Channel turned this into a documentary built around the idea that this fortuitous B-29 raid was the one that actually ended the war. See http://pweb.netcom.com/~jb29miss/b29.htm.
Paulie, you here repeat the mistaken claim that the LP membership Pledge excludes non-anarchists, and yet in the same breath complain about an essay by Hospers being used to ask anarchists not to feed a long-standing perception about their behavior? YOU are the one doing the "disinviting". Asking people to be civil is NOT "disinviting". I see no sign that "the ruling faction of the LP right now does in fact wish to kick anarchists out". I'm a cop on the beat looking for those signs, and they're not there. However, I note that you just said "we are certainly in no position to disinvite minarchist LP members". That make me worry what would happen if the LP were 90% anarchists instead of 90% non-anarchists.
Susan, it's ironic that you can criticize the moral courage of Truman's decision given the choices actually facing him in early August 1945, but when I ask you to merely hypothetically put yourself in his shoes, you flee to your time machine and go back five years to cancel the war. And it's downright hilarious that you can whine about "subtle sabotage" after introducing this Hiroshima "advocacy of mass murder" canard out of the blue in response to a compliment for the leadership of the Reform Caucus. I call it a "fixation" because you have on several occasions invoked my analysis of Truman's options as some kind of character defect of mine — pretty much whenever you can't answer my arguments for LP reform (e.g. at http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/15/libertarian-radicals-and-reformers-debate/). I guarantee you'll again invoke it during our PlatCom debates — it's in a little mental box of yours labeled "In case of Holtz winning argument, break glass".
Your "pinch of freedom" remains a straw man, and I'll just repeat my unrebutted diagnosis: the only "more freedom" language here is about what is wanted by the voters we seek to unite. What WE want is to "move public policy in a libertarian direction". What constitutes "a libertarian direction" for public policy is described in the Platform. Calling that a "modicum/dash/pinch" is just inane. I stand by my claim that you have repeatedly resorted to such content-free straw men in our past discussions, and that continuing this pattern in our PlatCom discussions will be less than productive.
Trent, don't worry, the odds of your one vote putting me in the White House are almost as low as the chance that my administration would ever find itself 1) in an war of industrial attrition against an empire slaughtering 300,000 innocents a month while 2) having a tiny nuclear inventory constituting a nuclear monopoly whose terrible power that empire does not yet understand. If you think such counterfactuals have any relevance whatsoever on the question of whether the LP should officially advocate abolition of all government, well then, I congratulate Susan on the effectiveness of her Big Smear tactics.
It's important that we learn from our mistakes. Everyone knows mistakes were made, and very credible sources have pointed to the same mistakes that Andy has. That said, it probably doesn't need to be brought up in every single thread, Andy. Most of us here agree that what happened stinks and that it was a mistake, and that we need to learn from them. We're doing so, and moving on. 🙂
We do thank you for helping to point them out, though, but I'd say it's safe to say your job is done in that regard.
"G.E. // Dec 10, 2008 at 11:50 am
'WAKE UP PEOPLE, the future of the Libertarian Party depends on this.'
You're the one who needs to wake up, Andy. IT'S OVER."
So you think that the Libertarian Party is broken beyond repair. Then why are you still here? What is your alternative?
I would say that the Libertarian is just one tool for fighting for liberty. It is not the only tool, but it can be an important tool.
There are a few people in the party who ought to be kicked out their positions. If they were gone the Libertarian Party would be a more effective tool than it is.
because I have nothing in common with them. I bet you they're not anarchists. I might if I were somalian.
The states of the world are doing everything they can to kill the free market in Somalia. They're using Ethiopia as a proxy for their imperialist ways
WAKE UP PEOPLE, the future of the Libertarian Party depends on this.
You're the one who needs to wake up, Andy. IT'S OVER.
"Despite the war, the economic sanctions, etc. Somalia is still hell of alot freer than the USA. The STATES are trying to do everything they can to break a free people! It's sad, really."
I needn't say anything to that. The disconnect from reality says plenty.Why dont you move there Joseph?
Trent Hill: "I didnt say Id judged the issue based on Andy. I said I was ignoring it alltogether because of Andy. Im quite sure that the Redbath-clique screwed you guys—but Im inclined to say "so what?" after Andy's terrible behavior."
Since Trent Hill is NOT a Libertarian Party member, and has NEVER been a Libertarian Party member, I am inclined to say, "Who cares what Trent Hill thinks about this issue?"
Anyone here who thinks that this issue is just about Andy & Gary getting screwed (and there were others who were directly screwed such as Paul and Jake) DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. This issue is NOT just about Gary and I getting screwed, it is about THE ENTIRE LIBERTARIAN PARTY GETTING SCREWED. 45 state ballot access (the WORST ballot access for the Libertarian Party in a Presidential year since David Bergland in 1984), .4 percent of the vote in the Presidential race, less candidates for lower level offices than in previous Presidential years, less candidates elected, and THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of dollars – that is YOUR dollars, as in the people who donated money to the Libertarian Party – SQUANDERED WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT, can all be traced back to the same people who screwed us over. This is NOT just about Gary and I and it NEVER was. WAKE UP PEOPLE, the future of the Libertarian Party depends on this.
"In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually."
"Somalia has a free market economy."
"Somalia boasts lower rates of extreme poverty and, in some cases, better infrastructure than richer countries in Africa"
Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow… Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security. -CIA Factbook
Despite the war, the economic sanctions, etc. Somalia is still hell of alot freer than the USA. The STATES are trying to do everything they can to break a free people! It's sad, really.
Web domains are only sort of private property. Referring to the actual domain itself, ICANN actually has some regulations which make them less than fully private property.
As far as hosting goes, it depends – at the end of the day, most people host on shared systems, or even dedicated systems which are leased and not owned by the party.
"Trent, just because things are better in Somnalia, doesn't mean the people would embrace a white anarchist that doesn't know their language.
But I did read that, despite media propaganda to the contrary, all industries in Somalia are booming with innovation. There's also private security"
AHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ohk, arguement finished. You just claimed Somolia was a freer place than the US. Wow, just wow.
Trent, just because things are better in Somnalia, doesn't mean the people would embrace a white anarchist that doesn't know their language.
But I did read that, despite media propaganda to the contrary, all industries in Somalia are booming with innovation. There's also private security
Not in the same sense, fruit cake. Millions would loveto opt out of the USA. The federal gov would be nothing more than a UN-esque type of organization to the VOLUNTARY states. That's only if all of the landowners agree to be apart of these states, otherwise the states wouldn't even exist…
No one is forcing you to live here. Go live in Somolia or Costa Rica or Antartica.
"Yeah, Trent, so why defend countries if they wouldn't exist in a true free market?"
They WOULD exist in a free market you dolt.
"the internet isn't private"
Web-domains are private property, are you disputing this?
"so, you see, we're all trapped"
Is someone forcing you to live here?
"Gary Fincher // Dec 10, 2008 at 5:09 am
Trent Hill // Dec 9, 2008 at 1:16 am
"Andy,
You long ago rendered any rational arguement useless because of your obnoxious attitude. People who once cared no longer do because you've pelted them with it."
You know, it's REALLY DUMB to judge the merits of an issue just because the messenger looked at you the wrong way and ruffled your oh-so-sensitive, wussy feathers. Gfow up, be a man."
Yeah, Trent is obviously about style over substance.
He reminds me of a teacher at a school, who upon walking out on a playground and witnessing a fight, punishes both of the kids who are in the fight rather than finding out who started the fight and limiting the punishment to them. If anything, Trent would probably be the type to just punish the kid who was defending himself.
Yeah, Trent, so why defend countries if they wouldn't exist in a true free market?
the internet isn't private
in the ideal anarchist world, countries would be organizations, unless their membership consists of mllions of landowners that voluntary join the "country" then ok. but that just isn't the case! "
In YOUR ideal world, perhaps. Countries would not cease to exist even in an anarchic utopia—they would still exist informally, as groups of people who shared similar values, ethnicity, etc
so, you see, we're all trapped
"Yeah, I know, know, don't bother giving me the private property bs. Ever hear of net neutrality? Completely nullifies your argument"
No it doesnt. This is Chris' private property which I administrate, and if I choose to silence you–that would be my decision. Even in this police-state age, no Internet Police would come haul me off.
in the ideal anarchist world, countries would be organizations, unless their membership consists of mllions of landowners that voluntary join the "country" then ok. but that just isn't the case! 😀
Nope. Expressly against GE's policy for free-speech,which we still adhere to.
Besides, if I were going to ban I wouldnt start with him.
I know neocons like you love to silence oppostion, Steven.
Yeah, I know, know, don't bother giving me the private property bs. Ever hear of net neutrality? Completely nullifies your argument
You're a troll because you're obnoxious and non-intellectual.
As for countries being imaginary—perhaps you WISH they were…but they aren't. Countries are well-defined in most cases (Georgia and Armenia being obvious exceptions). However, wishing the STATE not to exist and wishing for a COUNTRY not to exist aren't the same thing. Rothbard had no problem with the country,he had a problem with the State.
As for calling us Statist bastards, Paulie is an anarchist and I'm an anti-statist minarchist in the mold of Mencken and Nock.
I'm a troll for being a true libertarian? wow, fascinating. Countries are imaginary, you statist bastards
He's a hardcore troll.
oh, he's a troll? Thank goodness. I can safely ignore him (as I have done with the One True Troll).
but who the hell wants to fight for this piece of shit country?
There's the door; don't let it hit you on your ass on the way out.
You MUST be a juvenile.
And a troll.
"I would fight for my country – NOT for my regime. There is a difference. "
"hmm oh yea? http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/34519 these countries are better."
So freedom is based on where you can smoke marijuana? You MUST be a juvenile.
And actually, NONE of those countries are more economically free than the US, although Japan and Australia are pretty close I understand.
Folks, I don't care if I was living in Iraq, or if my parents had never gotten me out of the USSR and it had never fallen. If my country was being physically invaded and occupied by a foreign military invasion, I would fight for my country – NOT for my regime. There is a difference.
Foreign occupiers are more contemptible than domestic ones. For the same reason, I oppose centralization of power in the DC regime over the states, even though I am a fan of neither, and even though the DC regime does at least at some times override local tyranny.
And before Andy or someone pops up with the argument that Mexican and Guatemalan migrants are an invading army, No. They. Are. Not.
Anyway lol.
I don't think you'll be saying that in a 5-10 years…
It might not suit your needs, and im sure GE would agree with you, but as far as countries go—this is one of the best ones to live in (though perhaps not THE best).
You can die for this country, but you can't smoke marijuana. No thanks
Even if the US were attacked we shouldn't go to war UNTIL the USA is voluntary. Doing so would say that we support defending our STATE with the lives of the innocent. That doesn't flow well with me! Individuals, however, are free to go to wa, but who the hell wants to fight for this piece of shit country?
"But I did want to point out that you have strong negatives from my libertarian perspective that would (in my opinion, and, I hope, in others') preclude you from taking a leadership role within the LP – the most obvious one being, of course, your open defense of Truman's mass murder as an act of great moral courage."
I could not, in good conscience, elect Brian Holtz as President of the United States for those very reasons. State legislator, Governor, or Chairman of the LP? Definetly.
"For anyone who cares, we have now beat TPW's all time thread comment record (492), and last month we (barely) beat their-all time page views per month (TPW peaked at 241,703 in May; we got 242,040 in November). We have one record left to beat; TPW got 99,020 visits back in January, and we got 94,793 in November. Since our visit count is somewhat down in December (although not as badly as I feared post-election, at least yet), we might not beat that for some time.
Also, the comment count on this thread has long eclipsed all-time highs at LFV and the former Hammer of Truth.
OK, I'm done with my shameful display of unsportsmanlike gloating. Carry on."
Oh please, carry on man!
I didnt say Id judged the issue based on Andy. I said I was ignoring it alltogether because of Andy. Im quite sure that the Redbath-clique screwed you guys—but Im inclined to say "so what?" after Andy's terrible behavior.
Snagged 500 – IPR needs a little more 4chan influence.
I call 500. 🙂
I will be speaking to some folks this weekend in person about the binder issue and will hopefully get some answers. It's unfortunate that so many libertarians have such weak will and have allowed themselves to be pushed out of the LP by these insidians, to quote MM.
Susan, our productivity will likely be in inverse proportion to the incidence of Hiroshima red herrings and "pinch of freedom" strawmen. On the other hand, the Robert Capozzi Memorial Private-Nukes Chair on PlatCom is currently vacant, and so your Hiroshima fixation might fill that void.
Discussion of your (at best) defense of or (at worst) advocacy of mass murder might well be a red herring in a platform committee meeting, but perhaps it hasn't escaped your notice that this is not, in fact, such a meeting.
Notice, Trent, that I do not describe Brian as having a 'fixation' with issues he often discusses, yet he uses that word in a clearly pejorative sense here to describe my mention of his position re: Hiroshima.
Such mention was not intended as a 'red herring' – it was in response to Trent's observation that you seemed to be a good fellow and a reasonable choice for a leadership role within the LP.
I agree with him that you most often observe the forms of courtesy and that that is indeed important.
But I did want to point out that you have strong negatives from my libertarian perspective that would (in my opinion, and, I hope, in others') preclude you from taking a leadership role within the LP – the most obvious one being, of course, your open defense of Truman's mass murder as an act of great moral courage.
The 'pinch of freedom' comment was a direct response to your (again, non-platform-related) rhetoric proposed for a Mission Statement, which I judged to be too wishy-washy and bad initial bargaining position.
I find it vexing that you offer up a piece of your own rhetoric asking for my opinion, and when that opinion is offered with some matching rhetoric you use it to suggest (obliquely) that my usefulness to the platform committee will be limited because of such rhetoric. You are, in effect, planting a negative seed about my platform work in the minds of others even before I have been engaged in such work. You might note that I've never suggested that your position on the utility of mass murder would be a negative in your platform work.
Others may be deceived by the courteous *form* of such negative seed-planting. But to me it is an offensive, though subtle, act of sabotage, and I hope others can see it as such.
The work we will be trying to accomplish together is important, and I do wish you would not continue to take public jabs at me about it even before it's begun. I think that sets a very negative tone for the platform committee even before it's fully formed.
I, too, see that anarchy is an inescapable and logical conclusion to following the non-aggression axiom.
As do I. However, we are certainly in no position to disinvite minarchist LP members – and we need all the help we can get to get most of the way to anarchy with their help. On the other hand, some of them are positioning themselves to disinvite us, and some are already doing so. Including, apparently, someone on the LNC or at HQ. Who put Hospers' essay in the binder? Inquiring minds want to know.
I, too, see that anarchy is an inescapable and logical conclusion to following the non-aggression axiom. At such time as a government can be implemented that need not use force or coercion on its citizen, then it can be competed with freely by them, and is no longer really guilty of the title 'government' at all. Of course, having a few dozen "governments" competing for my business, with none of them holding any more rights than I personally have, is just fine by me.
For anyone who cares, we have now beat TPW's all time thread comment record (492), and last month we (barely) beat their-all time page views per month (TPW peaked at 241,703 in May; we got 242,040 in November). We have one record left to beat; TPW got 99,020 visits back in January, and we got 94,793 in November. Since our visit count is somewhat down in December (although not as badly as I feared post-election, at least yet), we might not beat that for some time.
OK, I'm done with my shameful display of unsportsmanlike gloating. Carry on.
They were as morally justifiable as the showers at Auschwitz and less morally justifiable than the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Then you have a funny notion of morality. Not surprising, because, yet again, your version of the "facts" just happens to comport with your ideology.
It's funny how that works out.
P.S. The difference between Manson and Co. and Truman and Co., between Hiroshima and Tate-LaBianca was neither in motive nor intent, but only in opportunity. Manson had his people kill fewer because that's all they had the tools for. Truman had his people kill more because they could.
I'm not going to honor your absurd request that the facts of history be excluded from the ethical import of said history.
The two preeminent commanders on the scene — General Douglas MacArthur and Admiral Chester Nimitz — both publicly stated that the Hiroshima bombing fulfilled no military need.
It was never a question of "balancing" the killing of X civilians here and now versus the killing of Y civilians elsewhere and later.
The Japanese military trolley was not accelerating toward more victims. In point of fact, it had come to a near stop, and there was nearly zero likelihood that the militarist regime could have held power even had surrender conditions allowed it to try to do so.
The US military trolley, on the other hand, was in a state of acceleration, with fewer than half of its available new B-29 bombers in deployment as of August 1945. The US military possessed de facto sea and air supremacy, was free to hit military targets with minimal risk, and had more than adequate tools to hit those targets either in action or on their way to action.
On the ground, MacArthur — whose KIA numbers for the entire advance from Australia to Japan's doorstep had resulted in fewer American casualties than Eisenhower took in the Battle of the Bulge — was confident in his ability to, if necessary, land a US ground force and fight and win a decisive engagement with the Japanese army on the plains of Honshu with a similarly exemplary performance in terms of Americans killed in action.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of simple murder, not (even assuming the validity of the concept) legitimate acts of war. They were as morally justifiable as the showers at Auschwitz and less morally justifiable than the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Libertarian Girl: I actually have the email saved on my computer, which Sean sent.
As do I. It has also been posted here and at other sites.
In a literal reading of the Statement of Principles, anarchism is inescapable.
Not everyone reads it literally, then. And if you meant the membership pledge, not everyone reads it literally either, including David Nolan, who claims it means that we are pledging never to take up arms against government tyranny, which I do not pledge.
Regardless of what a literal reading says, from 1973 to 2008 the operational truce was that both anarchists and minarchists would tolerate each other in the party, not attempt to monopolize it (or kick each other out), and work together. It appears that the ruling faction of the LP right now does in fact wish to kick anarchists out, as rdupuy and many others have plainly said, and the essay which is being distributed at the LNC hints at without saying.
I do not think a lot of the people who want to kick all the anarchists out have any idea who all the anarchists are, since many LP anarchists do not trumpet their anarchism constantly. I imagine many of them would be a bit more circumspect about trying to purge all the anarchists if they knew who every anarchist in the party was.
Can you think of someone else who was a non-participant and yet whose named was dragged into the discussion? Dragged in by who?
Which discussion? Ctrtl+F for this thread shows that Andy was the first to bring up "Gary" in this thread, and your posts were the first mention of "Fincher."
Morning guys.
One thing worth pointing out is that from economic sanctions to bombing a military facility is an escalation of war. From bombing a military facility to bombing civilian cities is an escalation of war. From bombing civilian cities to raping and pillaging civilian cities is an escalation of war. From raping and pillaging civilian cities to using an atomic bomb is an escalation of war.
See how that goes? Governments just can't "keep it in their pants." Every act has to be answered with an increasingly more violent and deadly act. Eventually the cycle stops because one side realizes that its losses are so severe that it may never recover if it does not surrender. That's the only way most wars end, though.
The only way to win is not to play. Or something. 😉
"Only if you equate religiously conservative with fundamentalist, which I did not. The Klan always opposed the struggle for equal rights for minority religions and the non-religious, and favored mixing church and state to some extent."
Religiously conservative DOES mean fundamentalist, when speaking of Christianity. As for your generalizations regarding the Klan, there were actually Deists, Agnostics, and Athiests in the organization–especially in the Midwest and Far West.
So would you dispute that The Klan always opposed the struggle for equal rights for minority religions and the non-religious, and favored mixing church and state to some extent? I never claimed they had no non-Christian members.
Socially conservative Democrats all over the South are called conservative, here and in Tuscaloosa im sure. What they are called,and whether they supported mostly liberal policies arent really related.
OK, let's recap: you said Klansmen were liberals because they backed big government economic projects during the Second Klan era, and I pointed out that they were also social conservatives, thus making them not liberal. You said that in the South, someone who is for big government economic projects and social conservatism is a "liberal," and I said they aren't.
In 1912, both Conservatives and "Liberals"were, generally speaking, opposed to gay marriage, opposed to interracial marriage, opposed to equality for blacks, and held sexist attitudes—so this wasnt an issue that differentiated them.
They differentiated them, but the battle lines were not where they are today. Liberals, then, were for, for example, for more rights for women than they had at the time, such as giving women the right to vote.
The issues that did were ones like Prohibition, state healthcare systems, and compulsory public education—all of which were identified as liberal, at the time and now.
I don't think prohibition is a liberal issue. State health care and "public" education are considered "liberal" issues now, but I don't think they were then. But, regardless of when the term liberal came to be abused on economic issues, it has all along stood for liberalization on social issues, and still does. That social liberalization stood for different issues in 1908 than it does in 2008 is not in dispute.
My point is that someone who was a social conservative and a supporter of big government economic projects was never a liberal, and still isn't. The Klan fought against socially liberal issues, which did exist then – but the battle lines were not where they are today. Thus, despite their support for big government economic projects which you point out, they were never liberals by any era's definition of the term.
darolew December 10, 2008
I think I have too much free time… I just read this thread of comments.
Ah, the joys of reading through hundreds of comments about LP internal politics, Steve M's strange conception of libertarianism, drugs, the Hiroshima mass-murders, KKK history, etc.
Theses are the types of discussions you don't see on mainstream blogs. =P
Gary Fincher December 10, 2008
Marc Montoni: "I see, however, that even though I've been a non-participant in the above traffic, my name was nevertheless dragged into the discussion."
That's funny, Marc, Very funny. Can you think of someone else who was a non-participant and yet whose named was dragged into the discussion? Dragged in by who? You only get one guess (and I'll even provide the mirror).
188 G.E. // Dec 9, 2008 at 2:23 am
Libertarian hall of shame:
'Gary and Andy: "Libel" is an actual crime."'
It's a darn good thing that simply making misleading and deceptive statements isn't an actual crime, though. LOL.
paulie: "Not true at all. From 1973 to 2008 the LP had an agreement that anarchists and limited government advocates would coexist, work together in the party, and not try to monopolize it for one side or the other."
oops, "grow"
"Andy,
You long ago rendered any rational arguement useless because of your obnoxious attitude. People who once cared no longer do because you've pelted them with it."
You know, it's REALLY DUMB to judge the merits of an issue just because the messenger looked at you the wrong way and ruffled your oh-so-sensitive, wussy feathers. Gfow up, be a man.
"LibertarianGirl // Dec 9, 2008 at 12:33 am
I am interested in getting to the bottom of the petition burning allegation.
While Andy was vocal he did say that George Phillies could back up the allegation but George didnt say anything."
Libertarian Girl: I actually have the email saved on my computer, which Sean sent. I was the one whose signatures Sean Haugh threatened to burn, for no reason. I will be happy to provide it to you in its original form (forwarded from Mark Pickens, of course, who was the recipient of the email).
If you email me at garyfincher@yahoo.com, I'll send those along.
Little known fact: The hotbed of activity sourrounding the Second incarnation of the KKK?
The South? No.
The West? No.
Detroit, Michigan—which is still home to the most white supremacists per capita, according to various watchdog groups.
"I'm in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Socially conservative Democrats here are not called liberals.
Where did the KKK stand on the issue of women's suffrage before it passed?"
Socially conservative Democrats all over the South are called conservative, here and in Tuscaloosa im sure. What they are called,and whether they supported mostly liberal policies arent really related. In 1912, both Conservatives and "Liberals"were, generally speaking, opposed to gay marriage, opposed to interracial marriage, opposed to equality for blacks, and held sexist attitudes—so this wasnt an issue that differentiated them. The issues that did were ones like Prohibition, state healthcare systems, and compulsory public education—all of which were identified as liberal, at the time and now.
"Only if you equate religiously conservative with fundamentalist, which I did not. The Klan always opposed the struggle for equal rights for minority religions and the non-religious, and favored mixing church and state to some extent."
Religiously conservative DOES mean fundamentalist, when speaking of Christianity. As for your generalizations regarding the Klan, there were actually Deists, Agnostics, and Athiests in the organization–especially in the Midwest and Far West.
@392 Rather a large number of Jewish prisoners were worked to death at Peenemunde building rocket parts for Hitler's war machine. Some were killed in counter-bombing by Allied forces. Are you saying that killing Jewish civilians who were conscripted to work for Hitler was acceptable?
Here's my answer to your citizenship question: at the point of consent. Where consent is not willing, knowing, and competently entered, with exchange of value by both parties, it isn't valid.
@390 Of the three thousand plus casualties at Pearl Harbor quite a few were civilians. Many of these died from friendly fire because anti aircraft rounds didn't all detonate, and some landed on nearby civilians. I think a reasoned argument can be made that the Empire of Japan was responsible for those civilian deaths, among others, at Pearl Harbor, because none of those "government killers" sitting on boats in Pearl would have been shooting anti-aircraft guns if the Nipponese had not been flying about with thousand stitch bandannas on their flight helmets.
Similarly, the naval yard at Hiroshima was arguably a legit target, whereas Tokyo was much more scarcely provided with legit military targets. There were civilians in both places.
Arguably, FDR knew exactly what the Japanese were planning, and there is a considerable body of signals intelligence that the Japanese fleet did not maintain radio silence as it approached. The fact that FDR knew what was to be attacked, and when, not only in Hawai'i but also in Dutch Indochina, French Indochina, Malaysia, Singapore, etc., and chose not to prepare American military personnel at Pearl Harbor, nor American military personnel elsewhere in the Pacific, nor give fair warning to allies such as the Dutch and French, speaks volumes to how much he wanted a war.
Yes, at the time, an embargo was regarded as an act of war. Yes, sailing a small fleet of brand new cruisers into Japanese territorial waters was regarded as an act of war. (Curiously, the aircraft carriers and these brand new cruisers were missing from Pearl at the time of the attack. It is almost as if FDR knew exactly what was coming.)
Ummm, maybe not in the north. But in the South if you support MASSIVE expansion of road systems, statewide healthcare, prohibition, and compulsory attendance at PUBLIC schools—that makes you a liberal, or at least a moderate when we consider the social conservative views.
I'm in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Socially conservative Democrats here are not called liberals.
Where did the KKK stand on the issue of women's suffrage before it passed?
@364 In 1970 a foreign bank could redeem $35,000 for a thousand ounces of gold, less some fees. At that date, they could sell the gold for about $38,000 on the world market. They could then redeem $38,000 for about 1,085 ounces of gold. You can see where this activity could be quite profitable, if one were to keep it up.
And, indeed, many foreign banks kept it up from roughly 1964 when France perceived the removal of silver from USA coins by LBJ as a sign of pending inflation, right up until August of 1971 when Nixon repudiated the Bretton Woods accord. Does gold have intrinsic value?
Gold has intrinsic properties which are different from paper and ink. It is conductive, ductile, malleable, shiny, doesn't tarnish readily, and has been widely used as money for thousands of years. Value is almost certainly a subjective characteristic, so it would likely be regarded as odd to say that something has intrinsic "value." It is the case that gold will get you through times of hyperinflationary fiat money better than hyperinflating fiat money will get you through times of no gold.
It is absolutely untrue that any American in the general public who lacked a foreign bank account could, in 1970, redeem $35,000 for anything. On the other hand, you could generally put a pair of fowling pieces in your leather shotgun case, tuck a few tens of thousands of dollars in with them, and haul the on a jet airliner as carry on luggage. (Indeed, I was told by a friend at Boeing that the 737 overhead luggage compartment was designed to accommodate standard shotguns of the time, on the theory that jet setters would like to go shooting.)
Were Americans more free because their currency was more likely to be a store of value for months rather than days? I guess. Not much to be said for such comparisons, though.
You'll notice that I ommitted "religion" in the above statement. I did so because it is incorrect.
"ONLY by today's standards (well, except prohibition isn't), but not sufficient to define one as a liberal."
Ummm, maybe not in the north. But in the South if you support MASSIVE expansion of road systems, statewide healthcare, prohibition, and compulsory attendance at PUBLIC schools—that makes you a liberal, or at least a moderate when we consider the social conservative views.
And yes, Wilson was a liberal. Modern liberal = progressive in most senses.
As an aside, I've always been surprised that there aren't more black libertarians
This is due to lack of intelligent outreach by libertarians.
Not true. Prohibition, statewide healthcare systems, mandatory public schooling, and expansion of public road systems—these are liberal notions, even by todays standards.
ONLY by today's standards (well, except prohibition isn't), but not sufficient to define one as a liberal. Someone who favors the above, and also fights *against* liberalization in the social sphere, is no liberal, even by today's standards – although I grant that by today's standards, one is a liberal if one favors the above *and* social liberalization.
Not really fair—the Klan was socially conservative in terms of race, gender roles, and homosexuality—but so was the rest of society.
True. However, there were even then people who were fighting battles to make it less so, and the Klan was fighting against them – thus marking the Klan as illiberal, and authoritarian.
Even moderates and liberals in 1915 (like Woodrow Wilson) were racist scum, hated homosexuals, and were quite sexist.
Wilson was a progressive, but he was neither moderate nor liberal.
@339 The information on that "just defensive war" is rather more damaging than Holtz admits. Or perhaps he is not aware that the same radio signals intelligence that clarifies the extent to which USA and British intelligence broke the codes of most of their allies (e.g., French, Dutch) and also of the Japanese and Germans was not just available in 1945, but as early as October 1940.
Robert Stinnett does an excellent job of establishing the particulars in his book _Day of Deceit_ which reviews the extent to which FDR deliberately manipulated Japan into attacking, including several acts of war – embargo, invading Japanese territorial waters with USA military vessels, etc.
There's no question that the Japanese, Germans, Italians, British, Russians, and Americans were governed by various dictatorships, either fascist or socialist in economic policy, determined to engage in total war. I quite agree with Susan that the conscription and militarisation of American society was unjustifiable.
I agree with the fact that signals intelligence was available in 1945 to give a very complete picture of Japanese activities and intentions. I do not agree that the USA government has made anything like a full disclosure, going right back to 1861, about all its military operations in any war.
The argument can be made that hundreds of thousands of USA military personnel were spared by the dropping of the atomic bombs. My own father might well have been sent to the Pacific theater had the war continued. The argument can be made that hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of Asian civilians, including those under Japanese occupation in China, Korea, and elsewhere, as well as Japanese civilians, were spared by the dropping of the atomic bombs.
I am not, however, convinced that two wrongs make a right. I am not convinced that any numerical algorithm justifies bloody mass murder in one case against the asserted intelligence information suggesting it spared others from bloody mass murder.
Given the source of this information, I am prepared to say that I don't trust the USA government. I most especially do not trust its intelligence services. We were lied to about Iraq. We were lied to about Vietnam. We were lied to about Indonesia. We were lied to about Congo and Katanga. We were lied to about Guatemala. I could go on.
To say that we certainly know the truth since a bunch of materials were declassified in 1995 is like saying that we certainly know the truth about the Kennedy assassination since Oliver Stone made a movie about it. Filmmakers, in case you haven't noticed, are artists who use lies to tell a story. The CIA and the Defense intelligence agency and the other intelligence disservices, in case you haven't noticed, are buffoons who use lies to justify wars.
Damn straight.
I think Blacks would be alot better off right now if they followed Walter E. Williams instead of Jesse Jackson.
As an aside, I've always been surprised that there aren't more black libertarians. Blacks have been screwed over by the state more than any group in American history, with the possible exception of American Indians.
You'll notice that I ommitted "religion" in the above statement. I did so because it is incorrect. While it is traditionally believed that the Klan was made up of ardent fundamentalists–this isnt factual. The KKK was dominantly protestant and overwhelmingly Christian, but had a roughly equal amount (by percentage) of fundamentalists as society at large.
"The Klan was always socially conservative in terms of not just race, but gender roles, religion, and related issues. Support for big government economic programs combined with social conservatism is not "liberalism." "
Not really fair—the Klan was socially conservative in terms of race, gender roles, and homosexuality—but so was the rest of society. Even moderates and liberals in 1915 (like Woodrow Wilson) were racist scum, hated homosexuals, and were quite sexist.
"Klansmen were hateful liberals.
Only if you equate liberal with statist."
Not true. Prohibition, statewide healthcare systems, mandatory public schooling, and expansion of public road systems—these are liberal notions, even by todays standards.
"But, unlike the examples of police violence you cited, if you kill someone over drug turf, you are quite likely to be caught and imprisoned or killed yourself."
And yet, it still doesn't serve as an effective deterrent. The incentives (created by the state) are just too strong.
What I'm trying to say is that more blacks are murdered in 2008 because of the drug war than were murdered in 1912 because of racist lynchings.
The Klan was always socially conservative in terms of not just race, but gender roles, religion, and related issues. Support for big government economic programs combined with social conservatism is not "liberalism."
BTW – Check your email or IPR google group.
Langa,
I was quite surprised. Having lived in Louisiana all my life and having discussed such things with people like GE and Thomas L. Knapp–I came to think of KKK as a misguided conservative group—it wasnt. It was a misguided Progressive group in reality. Public schooling, public healthcare, expansion of roads, prohibition—all were supported by the Klan.
Are you agreeing with Steve's contention that there's no distinction between freedom and tolerance?
I don't recall saying anything like that.
If not, what does it matter whether police murders or lynchings are worse, especially considering all the other evils that the state has inflicted on minorities since 1912?
It matters when one can be hunted like an animal, with de facto legal protection, what the chances of such a hunt taking place are.
For example, do you think more blacks have been killed in Klan lynchings, or in gang wars over drug turf?
I only have personal experience with the latter. More have been killed over drug turf, certainly. But, unlike the examples of police violence you cited, if you kill someone over drug turf, you are quite likely to be caught and imprisoned or killed yourself. On the other hand, the chances of being punished for engaging in lynching back then were slim to none.
Actually, the Klan didn't really exist in any way in 1912.
True. I was using it as shorthand.
I didn't know that, but it really doesn't surprise me to learn that the rise of the Klan was tied into the rise of "progressivism" and the growth of the state. After all, Klansmen and advocates of big government share the same collectivist outlook.
Additionally, most of the Second Klan's four million residents were from the Midwest, not the South.
That isnt to say the South wasnt racist. It was, and it had other institutions besides the Klan.
Are you suggesting the private legal system would've been less racist in that environment?
I think fundamentally changing the legal system would have altered the environment.
New thread comment record 🙂
Also, the Klan, supposedly a "conservative" organization—supported an Oregon mandate that all children had to attend public school. They did the same thing in California and Washington. In all three states blacks made up a TINY percentage of the population and couldn't arouse the hatred or fear of white men—but anti-catholic attitudes could. Public School attendance was made mandatory to shut down all Catholic schools.
"What part of "lynchings were illegal in 1912″ do you not understand? Yes, the legal system back then was racist, but it still is today. The main difference is that now the bad guys wear blue uniforms instead of white robes."
Actually, the Klan didn't really exist in any way in 1912. The first Klan had ceased to exist around the 1870's and the second Klan wasn't founded until 1915. During its second appearance, it existed most heavily in Large Urban areas like Detroit, Houston, Memphis, and Dayton—mostly because of largescale immigration of blacks to Urban areas. The Knights of Mary Phagin were a similar organization that were founded around 1913.
Ironically, the Klan's massive growth was spurred on by two things–1,a film called "The Birth of a Nation" which glorified the first Klan. 2, the prohibition movement.
For the record, I am NOT claiming that 1912 (or any other year) was some sort of libertarian utopia. On the contrary, many terrible things took place then, and some of those things no longer take place today, or take place to a much smaller degree.
However, my point is simply that thousands (if not millions) of government programs, agencies, and laws have been created since then, and the vast majority of them have had a negative impact on freedom. It's hard to imagine that the relatively few evil laws that have been repealed during that time have had such a positive impact on freedom that they outweigh all the bad stuff.
Paulie,
Are you agreeing with Steve's contention that there's no distinction between freedom and tolerance?
If not, what does it matter whether police murders or lynchings are worse, especially considering all the other evils that the state has inflicted on minorities since 1912? For example, do you think more blacks have been killed in Klan lynchings, or in gang wars over drug turf?
"You mean the state's monopolistic legal system."
Are you suggesting the private legal system would've been less racist in that environment?
If you're under the impression that the modern day criminal justice system is even close to colorblind, do a Google search on Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, Patrick Dorismond, Johnny Gammage, Rodney King, etc.
I'm familiar with almost all those cases, and some others as well, and have plenty of personal stories too (although I'm not in the mood to share them). To claim that they amount to anything on the scale of lynchings which took place with impunity is false.
Yes, the legal system back then was racist, but it still is today.
You mean the state's monopolistic legal system.
Clearly, Steve Marxist has the solution: MORE GOVERNMENT!
"Not to the the guy who has his hands tied behind his back a rope around his neck. Torches being tossed into his house his barn and his family being in danger."
What part of "lynchings were illegal in 1912" do you not understand? Yes, the legal system back then was racist, but it still is today. The main difference is that now the bad guys wear blue uniforms instead of white robes.
If you're under the impression that the modern day criminal justice system is even close to colorblind, do a Google search on Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, Patrick Dorismond, Johnny Gammage, Rodney King, etc. You seem to be a big fan of emotionally charged narratives, so those should hold your interest for a while.
Steve M December 10, 2008
"I agree with LibertarianGirl. The distinction between tolerance and freedom may be subtle, but it's very, very important."
At times like this I like to remember two little girls discussing the words fragile and breakable…. finally one said…"they are the same word they are just spelled different"
@321 I'm not convinced Holtz could plan his way out of a paper sack with a paring knife and road map.
Paulie gets the prize, for recognizing that this comes down to a question of lifeboat ethics, and how/whether such ethics generalize to other situations.
Equating Hiroshima with fetishistic Manson-style murder for murder's sake is just ethically illiterate. However, it has the double merit of both demonizing those one disagrees with, and saving oneself from a lot of inconvenient grownup-style thinking about hard choices.
Doesn't necessarily follow. Would you concede that it could in theory be true that lifeboat ethics might at some point justify such a choice, and yet in a particular case someone may have unnecessarily thrown someone else out of a lifeboat that would have, by mutual knowledge, gotten both of them to safety – just because they could get away with it and wanted to see what it would feel like to kill someone and watch them die?
For the moment, I am not claiming this is what happened in Hiroshima. My only point is that *perhaps* it is possible that lifeboat ethics justifies throwing someone overboard sometime, but this does not immediately mean that any particular real case of someone being thrown overboard in a lifeboat was justified.
I agree with that . Hiroshima was far more evil.
B : Equating Hiroshima with fetishistic Manson-style murder for murder's sake is just ethically illiterate.
So how many of the people who killed blacks in 1912 in the south where arrested tried and spent years in prison for their crimes?
Your cherished socialist monopoly on law and order can be thanked for that.
Steve D – Really, you are too good for this guy.
Equating Hiroshima with fetishistic Manson-style murder for murder's sake is just ethically illiterate. However, it has the double merit of both demonizing those one disagrees with, and saving oneself from a lot of inconvenient grownup-style thinking about hard choices.
"If you were gay in America in 1912 or 1970, you had much less freedom in many other ways than today."
Yes, but you also had much more freedom in still other ways. People are not solely defined by their sexuality
Granted. Which is why I said that it is a very complicated question, rather than asserting that we are more free now.
P.S. Tom, how many hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths per month did Manson claim the Tate-LaBianca murders prevented? Sorry, but that analogy doesn't pass the laugh test.
Paulie, the same is true today. Law enforcement in most ghettos ( and some other places) is extremely racist in its application.
Having spent a good chunk of my life living in them, I have to agree. But saying it's the same as the south in 1912 is stretching things rather far.
Rather than rathole on contingent historical questions here, I'd rather ask you: by trying to make an empirical case against the atomic bombing of Japan, aren't you in effect conceding that atomic warfare against industrial centers could under some circumstances be the least bad available option?
No, I'm not necessarily conceding it. But I am not even remotely prepared to argue lifeboat ethics.
So, Tom, how many Asian civilian deaths per month would outweigh the value of keeping your hands clean? Are you telling us that no price is too high, or that you magically know that atomic coercion can never work in any possible universe?
I claim that the fundamental ethical question here reduces to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem. Are you going to ride the principled clean-hands defense all the way to absurdity, or are you going to abandon it and seek refuge in Susan's ostrich defense?
Yes we both know who the robber barrens were
My understanding of the concept has been much changed by reading the aforementioned book on the subject.
"If you were gay in America in 1912 or 1970, you had much less freedom in many other ways than today."
Yes, but you also had much more freedom in still other ways. People are not solely defined by their sexuality. Most ways that people are less free now are ways that apply equally to everyone, not just to a specific group (though they may harm some groups more than others).
Paulie, neither LRC piece addresses the decrypted diplomatic traffic, and all the post-hoc claims about Japaneses helplessness are sharply at odds with the contemporaneous military estimates given in the source I cited.
Rather than rathole on contingent historical questions here, I'd rather ask you: by trying to make an empirical case against the atomic bombing of Japan, aren't you in effect conceding that atomic warfare against industrial centers could under some circumstances be the least bad available option?
Micheal, there's no bright line regarding education, but I'd say we're clearly over it when we're doing work that Cato or Reason or LvMI etc. could do or has already done.
I agree with LibertarianGirl. The distinction between tolerance and freedom may be subtle, but it's very, very important.
Never mind marriage. If you were gay in America in 1912 or 1970, you had much less freedom in many other ways than today.
"defending the nuking of a defenseless people?"
Precisely the opposite. Hiroshima was an act of terrorism for which no moral justification was, or is, possible.
Holtz gives the game away when he tries to produce such a justification by naming a larger civilian population that could have been bombed "instead." Using Holtz's logic, the Tate-LaBianca murders were justifiable because Manson ordered those killings instead of e.g. a machine gun assault at a Dodgers game.
I can understand why some would defend the unintentional or inadvertent killing of non-combatants in war ("collateral damage"). Defending the intentional killing of civilians is nothing more or less than an endorsement of murder and terrorism as policy.
Im gonna go with more tolerant less free.
But on the whole, everyone is much less free now.
No. Not true at all. It's way more complicated than that.
Lynchings are not a measure of freedom, since they were illegal.
Functionally legal in many cases, since law enforcement was thoroughly penetrated by the Klan, as were judges and juries.
Steve M,
You are correct that a great deal of driveby shootings are a product of the drug war, and that just proves my point. The Drug War is just one of the many thousands of government programs that have been enacted since 1912 that have made blacks less free now than they were then.
I didn't say that there wasn't any specific way in which people are freer now than in 1912. But on the whole, everyone is much less free now.
And I could provide five links to historians vitiating any truth-value to those statements, paulie.
Great. Take just the first link I posted, from Denson, (out of hundreds which I could have), and disassemble it, please. I think he makes a most convincing case.
Steve D,
I am NOT a paleolibertarian, and I don't believe in any restriction whatsoever on immigration. I don't know what that has to do with gay marriage.
As for your main point, EVERYONE should be denied (state-issued) marriage licenses, since such licenses are nothing but instruments of coercion. People should be free to choose whether or not to recognize any marriage, whether between a man and a woman, two men, two women, a man and a bullfrog, or whatever.
This is not hard. Can you come up with a libertarian reason as to why two men or two women should be denied marriage licenses?
I can certainly come up with libertarian arguments that there should be no government marriage licenses.
Where I part company with "paleolibertarians" (a contrived term if ever there was one), is on the notion that while state marriage licenses still exist, it is OK to have them be discriminatory by gender preference, "race", or any other arbitrary and unjust criteria. They use the same argument in regard to any government "service" ; since (I agree with them) such services are not financed legitimately, nor legitimately monopolized by government, they argue that ANY reduction in such services – in any discriminatory fashion – is a step in the right direction.
I disagree; since the government steals money from gay people, for example, it ought not use that money to discriminate against them.
And as for the "paleo" stance on migration, I am miles apart from them. Tear down the walls!
are the drive by shooting of today being used by one race to subjugate another race? Or are they an off shoot (pun intended) of the drug war primarily sponsored and often used to subjugate one race by another?
Were those doing the lynchings unknown to those in charge or were they being protected by those in charge?
Are the drive by shooters unknown to those in charge or were they being protected by those in charge?
I'm with paulie. Other examples:
1. There used to exist a "spousal privilege" as an immunity to a rape charge. Put more bluntly, husbands could rape their wives with impunity.
2. How easily were divorces obtained in 1912?
3. Ask yourself if the active draft still existed in 1912. I grant we still have Selective Service, but the culture has changed so much that I doubt it will ever be used again.
Yes we both know who the robber barrens were and my use of that term was to use our collective understanding of whom those individuals were not to pass judgment on if they were right or wrong or what ever.
Out here in California, we just passed an initiative for the purpose of the state government selling bounds to help finance high speed rail between sacramento, san francsco, san jose and la and maybe even san diego.
Now one might ask if the us needed that level of government intervention to make the trans continental railroad? But then another could ask if the us government at the time granting large swaths of land across the plains to the builders of the trans continental rail road wasn't the equivalent?
Another might ask if those running the large investment banks also aren't the equivalent?
My only point in this being that history isn't clean and easy to understand.
How many of the people who commit drivebys today are arrested and spend many years in prison? The state is a very inefficient provider of justice, I'll grant you that.
As for the definition of freedom, it's somewhat complicated. You should really read that book by Hayek. Or, if you don't want to do that, search Wikipedia or something for "positive vs. negative liberty". What is commonly referred to as "positive liberty" is not liberty at all, at least not in the traditional sense of the term, and the one in which I am using it.
In an ABSOLUTE sense, everyone is much less free now than in 1912,
Rubbish. To take one example, women in abusive relationships were not free to just leave in most cases.
What's being protected, other than the right to force people to afford you special treatment?
Huh? The government forces businesses to recognize marriage. That's an injustice.
The government also discriminates against two men who want to get married. That, too, is an injustice.
I sense the paleolib "immigration argument" coming on.
Would you care to define liberties and freedom?
"Do you really think that southern blacks were more free in 1912 then today do you think they had more liberties then they have today?"
I clearly answered yes, and gave you a reason (thousands of them, actually) for my belief. I don't know what more you want.
From amazon URL
I read this book in one sitting. In spite of the easy reading of the text, the book has profound meaning for the nature of business in America, with implications for political philosophy and economic theory. There isn't a businessman in the country who would not profit from the reading of this important book. –Angus MacDonald, BOOK REVIEWS
Revises in important ways many misperceptions that historians have imposed upon the record. Though Folsom's work is balanced, judicious history, addressed to the past…it has powerful relevance to current political discourse. –Forest McDonald, Professor of History, University of Alabama
The MYTH OF THE ROBBER BARONS is… excellent. . . . In short, this book is the perfect supplement to most standard economic and business history textbooks. this reviewer has adopted it already. –Larry Schweikart, THE HISTORIAN
The Myth of the Robber Barons describes the role of key entrepreneurs in the economic growth of the United States from 1850 to 1910. The entrepreneurs studied are Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, James J. Hill, Andrew Mellon, Charles Schwab, and the Scranton family. Most historians argue that these men, and others like them, were Robber Barons. The story, however, is more complicated. The author, Burton Folsom, divides the entrepreneurs into two groups market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies, or in some way use government to stop competitors. The market entrepreneurs helped lead to the rise of the U. S. as a major economic power. By 1910, the U. S. dominated the world in oil, steel, and railroads led by Rockefeller, Schwab (and Carnegie), and Hill. The political entrepreneurs, by contrast, were a drain on the taxpayers and a thorn in the side of the market entrepreneurs. Interestingly, the political entrepreneurs often failed without help from government they could not produce competitive products. The author describes this clash of the market entrepreneurs and the political entrepreneurs. In the Mellon chapter, the author describes how Andrew Mellon an entrepreneur in oil and aluminum became Secretary of Treasury under Coolidge. In office, Mellon was the first American to practice supply-side economics. He supported cuts on income tax rates for all groups. The rate cut on the wealthiest Americans, from 73 percent to 25 percent, freed up investment capital and led to American economic growth during the 1920s. Also, the amount of revenue into the federal treasury increased sharply after tax rates were cut. The Myth of the Robber Barons has separate chapters on Vanderbilt, Hill, Schwab, Mellon, and the Scrantons. The author also has a conclusion, in which he looks at the textbook bias on the subject of Robber Barons and the rise of the U. S. in the late 1800s. This chapter explores three leading college texts in U. S. history and shows how they misread American history and disparage market entrepreneurs instead of the political entrepreneurs. This book is in its fifth edition, and is widely adopted in college and high school classrooms across the U. S.
Equal protection? What's being protected, other than the right to force people to afford you special treatment?
Tolerance cannot be attained at gunpoint.
To a robber baron industrialist
I recommend The Myth of the Robber Barons
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Robber-Barons-Burton-Folsom/dp/0963020315
You are ducking the questions I asked? Do you really think that southern blacks were more free in 1912 then today do you think they had more liberties then they have today?
Lynchings are not a measure of freedom, since they were illegal. I could just as easily ask you how many driveby shootings there were in the South in 1912, compared to today, as an example of why there's less freedom today.
As for the right to vote, I personally find it almost worthless, but even if I grant that it's terribly important, and that the laws that granted blacks the franchise made them much freer, that effect is still overwhelmed by the literally thousands of laws that have been passed since then that have made us all (including, and sometimes especially, blacks) less free.
And I could provide five links to historians vitiating any truth-value to those statements, paulie. The fact is, is that LRC has, over time, proven itself (to me) to engage in cherry-picking to satisfy its ideological agenda.
Give a link from an historian without an axe to grind and I would be glad to consider it, but the fact is, is that LRC historians do not fit the bill. And they probably never will.
Now (in some places) people are forced to recognize gay marriages.
No. They are forced to recognize "marriage", in whatever form or fashion the State defines it. It is equally unjust that businesses are forced to give benefits to marriage as we conventionally think of it, but that is not a reason to toss "equal protection" out of the window.
For those of you who are not categorically opposed to reading anything at LewRockwell.com, there are a mass of articles there when you do a search for the term Hiroshima. Many of these articles are very good, and would do you a great deal of good to read.
I would also advise doing same at antiwar.com
I would recommend that both Steves should read the section in "The Road to Serfdom" where Hayek talks about the distortion of the words "freedom" and "liberty". I think it would clear up much of the misunderstandings happening on this thread.
How many lynchings of blacks were there in the south in 1912, how many blacks could register and exercise the right to vote in 1912 in the south?
Compare that to today? How can you make that claim?
Steve D.,
The links from LRC provide direct quotes from various people at the time, some contain links to sources for further research. The idea that nothing in the articles is worth your consideration is ludicrous. They are being provided for the purpose of refuting assertions made here about the US being unaware that the Japanese were ready to conditionally surrender and that Hiroshima was the functional equivalent of a military base.
Mr Druckenmiller,
You are getting to the crux of the matter.
To a robber baron industrialist there is probably less freedom now then in 1912.
To an industrialist there is probably less taxis/ more freedom now then in 1970.
On social issues such as sexual freedom, less discrimination against minorities, there is more freedom now.
From an ability to communicate ideas for wide spread distribution (in the us) there is more freedom now (Internet and all). But from the ability and the authority under us laws given the patriot act and other laws there is less freedom.
Some people are freer today than they would have been in 1912, but only in a RELATIVE sense. In an ABSOLUTE sense, everyone is much less free now than in 1912, including Southern blacks.
As for 1970, I can't think of any way in which anyone was less free then compared to now, either in a relative or absolute sense. Someone mentioned drugs, but the Drug War is much larger and more ruthless now than it ever was then. Many more people are in jail because of drugs now than then.
As for the gay marriage thing, this is incredibly simple. Anyone can say they're married to anyone else. The question is whether people are forced to recognize the marriage. Back in 1970 (and in some places now), people were not allowed to recognize gay marriage. Now (in some places) people are forced to recognize gay marriages. Both situations are equally incompatible with freedom, as they make the state the sole arbiter of which marriages are "legitimate".
Finally, did someone really argue that dropping an atomic bomb on one city (as opposed to a more populous city) was an attempt to save innocent civilians? Really?
So, based on that logic, I guess if Bush decided tomorrow to nuke Lisbon, that would be a heroic act, since it would stop him from nuking Paris?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html
I would almost be willing to read that LRC link if they had not already proven they are in the regular habit of distorting the positions of their so-called "enemies" and engaging in historical distortion for the sake of being contrarian.
I think what we need to consider is that we are equivocating definitions of freedom.
G.E.'s point is that there was less government oppression in 1912 (or 1970), because of the currency situation.
OTOH, there is a different kind of "freedom" Steve M. is talking about, which is cultural freedom.
I am more "free" to talk about my sexual habits and preferences in public than I would have been 100 years ago. That does not mean that there is less government (which, to some libertarians, is the only definition of freedom) now as opposed to 100 years ago. There is almost certainly a stronger state now than 100 years ago.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html
you and I already talked about about my typing and spelling.
I do take your word for g.E. being over 18 😉
Did I miss anything?
Am I t understand that G.E. is a black coal minor from Appalachia
Well, no, despite first impressions, GE is well over 18 😛
I see that killers from Japan who were equipped by people from Hiroshima can go and kill people on boats in Hawaii for they belong to a group of people that refuse to sell scrap metal to those that run the factories in Hiroshima and that those people who were sitting on those boats in Hawaii were in the wrong.
Define "citizen" – I know you have been asked this, but at what point do the "civilians" of a state become active participants? Because the citizenry of Hiroshima were actively involved in supplying the Japanese armed forces.
Preventing OTHERS from doing business with someone…IS an "act of war" against the Japanese and against us.
That's a convenient definition that you invented to fit your ideological preferences. I do think that trade wars lead to real wars, but that does not make Japan justified.
Steve Marxist makes Steve Druckenmiller look like a legit libertarian.
Again, you do not get to define who is and who is not a libertarian. I am one, despite your chidlish ad hominems.
Ah Russian. Well I am as good at that as I am at Croatian. At least both are Slavic languages.
She is is she?
this was a question that asked if the individual who I presumed was a female thus the she was a black coal miner from Appalachia… that would be the "is is she" and the attachment of the question mark would cause ones voice to rise on the last syllable.
I once answered a jury summons form that asked if I understood the English language?
I answered no. And having checked no I found I needed to explain so I replied. The English language is very complex and that I doubt that any one who hasn't a phd in the English language understands it.
The next time I received a jury summons form the question had changed to do I consider myself fluent in the English language?
I would like to believe that after the court clerk read my first response and though "smart ass" that they fixed the question.
Am I t understand that G.E. is a black coal minor from Appalachia and still "it" thinks that "its" peers were freer in 1912 then a similar group would be today? (this was retorical you already said no they wouldn't be)
People from Japan can attack people who happen to be sitting on boats in Hawaii.
The people in Hawaii were government killers. The people in Hiroshima were citizens.
I take it you are not a black person living in the south?
or a white person who is a coal miner in Appalachia?
Here's what socialists don't understand about freedom: the black person in the South was free to move, and the coal miner was free to find another job. Your "economic slavery" socialism is embarrassing. Please stop it. But even given the state oppression against blacks in 1912, a black person was still FAR FREER in 1912 than now. Just because the oppression is "equal" now doesn't make it cumulatively less.
As for gold: I don't agree with government money, period. But gold was chosen as money pre-government, and was only recognized BY the government as money. If you can't understand how a commodity is a better basis for money than debt, then you need to think about it a little harder.
Susan, our productivity will likely be in inverse proportion to the incidence of Hiroshima red herrings and "pinch of freedom" strawmen. On the other hand, the Robert Capozzi Memorial Private-Nukes Chair on PlatCom is currently vacant, and so your Hiroshima fixation might fill that void. 🙂
There is no way you can reasonably claim America was a freer place in 1970 or 1912.
In many ways yes, in many ways no.
It's very complicated, not easy at all to answer.
yea i have heard that thing about the federal reserve…
but the idea of declaring something has more or less universal value and thus enables trade …. well to me it is all a confidence game…
Some societies have used sea shells, other various metals and the most iteration is debt. But the value of each one of these things is only in the minds of the population.
Is gold really more useful than debt as a basis? sure if you think gold has some universal value. Me I find small quantities of gold useful for electronics but otherwise its just soft mailable material that we can make decorations out of that reflect yellow light.
I just read a book on Andrew Jackson. And old Hickory had a huge issue with the central banks. Seems that they weren't minting enough coins and sending these coins out to the frontier. The lack of coins was making it hard to do business.
I know no Croatian. Russian is my only reasonably fluent foreign language, as I was born in the USSR (we left in 1979, when I was seven).
I just thought since you appeared to be speaking to me in a foreign language I did not understand in comment # 380 (whew!) that I would answer you in Russian, taking a chance that you are more likely than not, not to know it.
I asked; Sorry, what does this mean:
my best guess is something about
excuse me….. night?
I understand GE's arguement, Federal Reserve and all.
Steve M December 9, 2008
Sorry Paulie,
My Croatian is limited to beyond useless.
paulie cannoli December 9, 2008
S+M,
Izviniti, sho eto znachet?
L.J so
People from Japan can attack people who happen to be sitting on boats in Hawaii. But, people who are from America who make a more or less collective decision through a democratic process can't refuse to sell scrap metal?
If Japan had invaded California would the action of people from New York going out to California also been an act of aggression against Japan?
hogarth December 9, 2008
Susan, fair warning about our upcoming PlatCom term: I'm going to try to see if you prefer the "ignorance of causality" defense or the "clean hands" defense.
I think that they are an integrated whole – that just as individuals thrive best in conditions of freedom from coercion, communities thrive best in conditions of freedom from organized coercion.
But I am sure the discussions will be lively. I only hope the first priority continues to be productivity.
GE is a black miner living in Appalachia. Yes, yes he is.
G.E. said…
"We're certainly less free than in 1912."
That would be a neat trick given the LNC meeting was in San Diego at the same time.
Tom, not dropping an atomic bomb on the more-populous Tokyo is an example of an effort to avoid killing civilians…
Wow.Now I know what people mean when they speak of 'jaw dropping'.
Please excuse me while I pick mine up.
You didn't invite me! I'd have rather been with y'all. And so would my gun.
Whoops, sorry! 🙂
BrianHoltz December 9, 2008
Susan, fair warning about our upcoming PlatCom term: I'm going to try to see if you prefer the "ignorance of causality" defense or the "clean hands" defense. For now I'll just note that such ethical ostrich-ism is a luxury that only a tiny fraction of people in human history have had any chance of enjoying, and is a curious stance for someone asking voters to give her legislative power.
Why don't we just compare… IQs … and get it over with?
Please give me adequate warning to get far away before y'all unzip 😛
You have to be kidding me.
Not everyone has read what all you and I have. And yes, there are some people who have read and dispute it, but most simply haven't been exposed to it at all.
Libertarian Joseph December 9, 2008
refusing do do business with some one is an act of war? Was this before or after Japan invaded china and korea?
Did we blockade Japan?"
Who is the STATE to decide weather Americans can trade with Japan or not?
35% tax rate? ha yea. but youre not taking into account the sales taxes and everything else, we're paying way over 50% to the state
G.E. Post author | December 9, 2008
refusing do do business with some one is an act of war?
No. Preventing OTHERS from doing business with someone (i.e., preventing American citizens from trading with the Japanese) IS an "act of war" against the Japanese and against us.
Susan… I used "intrinsic value" to mean something that's valued for its own sake. People, throughout the history of the world, have valued gold. In 1970, $35 could still (theoretically) buy an ounce of gold.
Steve… Considering that 1/2 of every transaction is denominated in money, yes, I think it's a pretty good corollary for freedom. Taxation is a joke. It's nothing compared to the wealth redistribution achieved by monetary manipulation.
What does it matter if we're more or less free than in 1970? We're certainly less free than in 1912.
Tom, not dropping an atomic bomb on the more-populous Tokyo is an example of an effort to avoid killing civilians — ~300,000 of whom were being killed each month by the Japanese empire, as it ran its body count well into 7 figures.
The real questions here are: is it protected speech for Susan to shout "Hiroshima!" in a crowd of Libertarians? Is the inevitable pursuit of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring ironic evidence that Libertarians lack free will? She might as well have shouted "War of Southern Independence!"
I was asking for an opinion. I take it that you don't have one.
In 1970, the dollar had intrinsic value.
Eh? 'intrinsic value'? I thought you knew better than that, GE.
So the value of the dollar is your definition of how free we are?
You can run, but I can run faster.
Why don't we just compare… IQs … and get it over with?
I challenge you to assert: "never in a just defensive war can the net savings of innocent lives be so great that it can justify efforts that themselves kill innocents despite all reasonable efforts to avoid it."
I'm not an ambivalent sort of person. You don't NEED to make up things for me to say. But if you feel better pinning me down on something, chew on this:
Deliberately choosing to sacrifice others is wrong. Their lives and the disposition of them rightly belong to them always, and never to you.
You may be comfortable with asserting the possibility of some sort of reliable 'casualty calculus', but I am not. Even granting the ability to predict the consequences of murdering innocents in the short term (doubtful), you remain completely incapable of knowing with any certainty what the long-term repercussions of such an action are.
How did the US provoke the attack on pearl harbor?
Now it does not.
Easily; less free.
So if someone acts violently towards their neighbor and we say hey… that was nasty and I am not going to do business with you.
That is an act of war on the nasty neighbor?
Not just gay marriage but inter-racial marriage was illegal in places until
opps I thought i had cut that out as inter-racial marriage becae legal in 1967
Michael H. Wilson December 9, 2008
Brian I keep running into some phrase regarding education and the Libertarian Party. Can you explain what education means when it is used in the context of a politcal campaign , or perhaps by the party?
If I hand a trifold out with say 750 words on it about an issue, is that educational? What about the candidate who produces a 30 page white paper, or position paper? At what point to do go from informing a potential voter to education?
I have had a number of people, most who claim to be reformist, point out to me in one forum or another that the LP doesn't, or should do education, but I have yet to see education defined. Maybe we need a box to put this stuff in, or is that into?
in 1970 the top end income tax was 70% I think 35% is less then 70%
One accountant I spoke with claims we live in the lowest tax era that he can remember.
By placing sanctions on Japan. Sanctions are an act of war
Why was it the business of the US what the Japanese state was doing? None of "our" business.
less free:
we pay more taxes now
"war on terror" bs
just a few examples
more free:
you can now leglly smoke marijuana in some places. the punishments in various states have been decreased. there was a big drug scare in the us during the 70s/80s
uhh gay marriage. could gays marry in the 1970s? Nah
and Japan didn't invade China, Korea etc?
L.J.
Do you have a list of ways that we are less free? Do you have a list of ways that we are more free?
The people were defenseless. Both the US/Japanese states were wrong, but the US did provoke Pearl Harbor…
More free as far as social freedoms go, less free as far as privacy/taxation goes
L J,
Are you saying that Japan was defenseless. Or just that some of the people who were sitting in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were defenseless.
Less free
So ladies, gentleman and G.E.
I am wondering what is the overall perspective… has the united states become more free or less free since 1970?
Thomas L. Knapp ,
defending the nuking of a defenseless people? How shameful!
rayehawk December 9, 2008
Susan Hogarth said . . .
"Last Sunday a bunch of folks from around the state got together at Mike Munger's rural property and shot guns for fun."
You didn't invite me! I'd have rather been with y'all. And so would my gun.
Thomas L. Knapp December 9, 2008
Your statement doesn't scan, because no, let alone all, reasonable efforts were made to avoid killing innocents in the bombing of Hiroshima.
Individuals have the biological imperative to fight for their own survival. The decision to trade innocents for other innocents is a side effect of statism. The morality of it doesn't need to be considered if you consider central planning and statism to be immoral on their own. But regardless, the case of Hiroshima is not relevant, since Truman's mass murder was entirely about showing off his new toy to the Russians. Of course, Hardcore Regimist George Phillies will never acknowledge that ANYTHING his socialist educators programmed him with might not be 100% true.
Susan, you were the one who highlighted how my statement was in the context of the decision facing Truman in early August 1945. If you want to change the context, at least admit that's what you're doing.
You can run, but I can run faster. I challenge you to assert: "never in a just defensive war can the net savings of innocent lives be so great that it can justify efforts that themselves kill innocents despite all reasonable efforts to avoid it."
"The mission of the Libertarian Party is to unite voters who want more personal liberty and more economic liberty behind the electoral choices that will most effectively move public policy in a libertarian direction."
Susan, the only "more freedom" language here is about what is wanted by the voters we seek to unite. What WE want is to "move public policy in a libertarian direction".
Your "modicum/dash/pinch of freedom" is just a feeble straw man. What constitutes "a libertarian direction" for public policy is described in the Platform. Calling that a "modicum/dash/pinch" is just inane.
Oh, what a fun PlatCom cycle this is going to be. 🙂
Regarding Hiroshima, to disagree with my statement requires asserting its grammatical negation: "never in a war can the net savings of innocent lives be so great that it can justify efforts that themselves kill innocents despite all reasonable efforts to avoid it."
No, actually it doesn't. I regard the forced conscription of the American taxpayers and many of their sons to have been a criminal act. It's somewhat ridiculous to talk about how the criminals should work to reduce the carnage when shooting their way out of a blind alley.
So, yes, the American government should have refused the opportunity for further slaughter. It could have obviated the need entirely by staying the hell out of Asia in the first place.
I still wonder if you disagree with anything at http://libertarianmajority.net/lp-mission.
The writing is unwieldy, the language is uninspiring, and the statement – which is too long – spends more time discussing what the LP *shouldn't* do than what it *should* do.
But worst of all, the first sentence (the most important one) adopts the 'more freedom' language that I particularly dislike. We may disagree on what constitutes true freedom, but I do hope that we can agree that freedom is our goal.
Will I accept 'more freedom' over 'status quo'? Sure – I'd be crazy not to. But 'more freedom' is not my mission/purpose/desire/goal in working with the LP. It's something I'll *accept*, but my *goal* is freedom.
If your goal is freedom, 'more freedom' is a decent compromise position. If your goal is 'more freedom', where the space for compromise?
A "modicum of freedom"?
A "dash of freedom"?
A "pinch of freedom"?
or (more likely) "A different sort of shackles"?
This "smaller government – lower taxes – more freedom" slogan which was somehow plastered all over the LP's website (and which your mission statement fatally echoes in the first sentence) is one of the most pernicious and energy-sapping influences infecting the LP presently, I think. It is MY personal mission to see it replaced with resounding and inspiring calls for simple FREEDOM: freedom FROM taxes and freedom FROM government oppression.
On the way to -freedom-, I will applaud as loudly as anyone the milestones of -more- freedom, but I will not pretend that my goal is simply to be -more- free when it is in fact to be -free-.
Trent Hill December 9, 2008
Paulie is correct,
That moral question hasnt much to do with Hiroshima as the Japanese were quite ready to surrendur.
Paulie, unless you assert the negation of the principle I stated, we're debating history, not ethics.
For the relevant history, see http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=187. You may not be aware of how the release of the full "Magic" decrypts in 1995 essentially settled what had indeed been an open question.
Brian, difficult moral question, but I don't know how that applies to Hiroshima in any case. The Japanese were ready to surrender if only the US would stipulate to leaving the emperor on his throne, even as a figurehead. In the religion of most Japanese, the emperor is a living god.
The US unleashed its atomic mass murder, forced an unconditional surrender, then left the emperor on his throne anyway.
Thomas, you're confusing me and mdh (Matt). Matt apparently didn't read where Susan wrote: "education, electoral work, lobbying, and other activities are not easily severed. To focus on one of these activities to the exclusion of the others might seem like a good way to use scarce resources, but it's not. […] this exclusionary focus on 'winning elections' (how's that working out?) is what the current and recently past LNCs have been doing […]".
And Susan, with her talk of "exclusion" and "exclusionary", didn't read my word "primarily": "As Aaron Starr pointed out this weekend, it's tax-inefficient to use a political party primarily as an educational vehicle."
Susan, to the extent you were talking about the 1992 mission statement instead of my paraphrasing of Starr, I tend to agree. I still wonder if you disagree with anything at http://libertarianmajority.net/lp-mission.
Regarding Hiroshima, to disagree with my statement requires asserting its grammatical negation: "never in a war can the net savings of innocent lives be so great that it can justify efforts that themselves kill innocents despite all reasonable efforts to avoid it." If you assert that without argument or qualification, then I'm happy for that to be the last word here on that.
JimDavidson December 9, 2008
@313 One of my favorite books.
Remember that the Loonies were overthrowing the Authority. Many of the methods Heinlein discusses make good sense.
Sipos, Matt: I think what Brian was saying was that I was arguing against something (an exclusive focus on winning elections) that doesn't exist, not that I advocated a polar (educational) approach myself.
Of course, my example was the 1992 LNC 'mission statement', which I beleive reads "The mission of the Libertarian Party is to move public policy in a Libertarian direction by electing candidates of the Libertarian Party to public office", and is in contradiction to the member-voted Purpose Statement in the Bylaws, which lists several purposes of the LP.
My point was that the (wrongful) insistence that this 1992 statement by the LNC, which exists NOWHERE in current LP Party documents is the Party's extant ' mission statement' is an indication that the LP leadership is more focused on the idea of winning elections than the membership has indicated that they ought to be, and (sadly) to the exclusion of the other purposes the membership HAS requested them to pursue.
TheOriginalAndy December 9, 2008
"hogarth // Dec 9, 2008 at 12:09 pm
As Aaron Starr pointed out this weekend, it's tax-inefficient to use a political party primarily as an educational vehicle.
Starr is wrong."
Most of the people who are in the Libertarian Party/Movement got into because of a political campaign, mostly Libertarian Party Presidential campaigns.
leaders of the radicals and leaders of the Reformers
Missed the "leaders" bit.
"Steve M // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:34 am
The problem is you have reached saturation and are now being ignored by a lot of people. But when you stop complaining and start talking details about what needs to be done then you have a chance of people starting to listen."
Considering that most of the people in the party have no idea what I'm talking about (in regard to these issues), I have not even come close to reaching saturation point.
Saturation may have been reached with regular readers of this site, however, this seems to be a fast growing site (in terms of the number of readers) so there are new people who come here who are not aware of any of this stuff.
By the by, TPW is owned by the reformers, though.
Untrue. TPW is owned by a New Right Republican. Before that it was owned a Reform Libertarian who also happens to be a self described anarchist last time I checked.
IPR is also edited by Republican (albeit a paleoconservative/moderate libertarian one). Although he is not the first or current editor, Austin Cassidy's name is in our banner, and he is a McCain supporter. I don't know Chris Martin's political leanings; he's a "silent owner" here.
As a person with no dog in the fight, and a person who gets along just fine with radicals OR reformers, I have to say that if my vote were going to be cast based upon the presentation of leaders of the radicals and leaders of the Reformers, I'd cast a vote for the Reformers in a heartbeat.
I'm curious; who do you count as 'leaders of the reformers' and 'leaders of the radicals'?
And who do you think seems to hate Brian?
if my vote were going to be cast based upon the presentation
I agree that presentation – and, more importantly, respect – is important, but it's not everything. I should hope you (and I trust that you do) look past presentation to the words and thoughts of a man who said, in defense of the bombing of Hiroshima, "I'm saying that sometimes in a war the net savings of innocent lives can be so great that it can justify efforts that themselves kill innocents despite all reasonable efforts to avoid it."
Too often true, regrettably. Ideologically, I line up with Hogarth and Keaton much more closely. But as a human being, Alicia Mattson went out of her way to be helpful to a raggedy radical campaign that was too broke to get its candidate anywhere except California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Colorado. I went to more states on the candidate's behalf than he did himself, and of all the states I went, only in Tennessee were we able to get live video of Kubby – thanks to Mattson and Flood. I haven't had any other personal dealings with Alicia other than the occasional hello. But the one time I did, she impressed me a great deal.
Brian has behaved very honorably towards me in our online debates. I only regret not being able to delve into the many interesting subjects he raises nearly as deeply as I would like.
A lot of libertarians act deplorably on a regular basis, and I regret to say that many radicals fit this description – including, all too often, myself.
So long as Brian soon seperates himself from our main competitor TPW he'll earn my full respect (I jest, mostly).
Oh come on. There is no more competition. We have cleaned their clock. It's running what, 8-1 now?
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s48indpolrep
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s29thirdpartywatch&r=0
We're not even in the same weight class anymore 🙂
Calling them competition at this point is just unsportsmanlike.
Thomas M. Sipos December 9, 2008
Brian: "Susan, this discussion of the LP's mission is an instantiation of Holtz's Law of Libertarian Polemics: "Every statement purporting to express a dispute among libertarians embeds a strawman or a fallacy of the excluded middle — and this statement is no exception." 🙂
It's easy to argue against the idea that the LP should be focused exclusively on winning elections, just as it's easy to argue against the idea that the LP should be focused exclusively on ideological outreach. Both ideas are obviously wrong."
mdh: "Actually I did not see Susan advocate one or the other, to the detriment of the other. What I saw was her advocating education as a means to the end of winning elections. In that, I wholeheartedly agree."
Is I said at @ 229, Brian suffers from reading comprehension problems.
Brian's misread posts (at least) twice in one thread. This is looking serious.
Besides, it isnt about who TPW is owned by.
TPW posts an article about once every 2 days and gets a grand total of 400 hits a day right now. We get 1700 and update 9-10 times a day.
Trent, my actual Diabolical Plan depends on radicals accusing me of having a diabolical plan. Please stop screwing up my plans.
TPW is owned by the Viguerie Cadre, which I dont view as synonymous with the Reformers. The LA LP was mostly Reformers in 2008, but they hated Viguerie and Barr.
As much as the Radicals seem to hate Brian Holtz….
I'm a fan of Brian Holtz, and I'm a radical.
mdh December 9, 2008
Who hates Brian Holtz? We may make snarky remarks at one another, or take jabs in sarcastic fashion, or whatnot, but I doubt any radical hates Holtz.
By the by, TPW is owned by the reformers, though. 😉
Thats not to say I dont respect some radicals. Dr. Ruwart and Lee Wrights seem to conduct themselves with respect. And when GE isnt commenting on blog boards, he is a first-rate gentleman.
As much as the Radicals seem to hate Brian Holtz….he doesnt seem to have any diabolical plan to oust anarchists…he just doesnt want them to be the face of the party–the same way the anarchists dont want the reformers to be the face of the partyy. In everything I'v seen Holtz do or say, he has conducted himself as a respectful gentleman and has argued rationally, using quotes from his opponent (very similar to Walter Block's debating style actually). As a person with no dog in the fight, and a person who gets along just fine with radicals OR reformers, I have to say that if my vote were going to be cast based upon the presentation of leaders of the radicals and leaders of the Reformers, I'd cast a vote for the Reformers in a heartbeat. So long as Brian soon seperates himself from our main competitor TPW he'll earn my full respect (I jest, mostly).
No, Marc, I'll give you the last word:
Marc Montoni in 2007: MM) I do not agree that any affiliate has the right to call for a new national sales tax, or even a state one. I do not agree that any affiliate has any right to advocate for school vouchers. And I do not agree that affiliates who endorse candidates who support any of these things should be allowed to remain as affiliates of the Libertarian Party (MM
Marc Montoni in 2008: MM) A LiberCop oozes up out of the slime (I'd say "woodwork" but that's too clean to describe their origin) to beat up on other LP members until all forward progress is "arrested" and the enemies of the Libercop are all "locked away" — gone from the Party. The average LiberCop (and they are really, really average) spends most awake hours being righteously indignant about other Libertarians who look, think, or act differently than they. (MM
Marc Montoni today: MM) I'm a plumbliner; I think the government is inept at just about everything it does, except gross violence. There are a few issues that I personally do not believe are core issues, and about which I am content for there to be some divergence of opinion on them. (MM
sounds like 'moon is a harsh mistriss LOL
To the moon, Alice!
LibertarianGirl December 9, 2008
If she gets felt up by him in the process, she should assume that he intends to rape her and simply kill him, right then and there.
sounds like 'moon is a harsh mistriss LOL
@275 If we had $10 from every member, that would be on the order of $7500. Combined with volunteers and graduate students (but I repeat myself) it could be done. And, of course many members have rather a lot more money to contribute.
@268 How about this, Steve. If a woman gets propositioned at work, by her boss, and is told that she would lose her job if she doesn't have sex with him, she should quit right then and there. If she gets felt up by him in the process, she should assume that he intends to rape her and simply kill him, right then and there.
As long as there are other jobs, there is no economic slavery. Don't be silly.
MarcMontoni December 9, 2008
Use of "triumvir" is not name-calling.
Except when intended to be interpreted as a pejorative, as in this instance — hinting at the three despots of Rome.
See y'all; I'm going offline. Got better things to do than bandy semantics with one who isn't worth the effort. Besides I have a five dollar bet on with a local reformer friend on whether the individual in question can resist having the last word.
Hmmm… Need to find more suckers; I sense a career opportunity.
Michael Seebeck December 9, 2008
To be clear on two things:
1. It is likely that Jingozian missed Brian's request for comment. I was looking the other direction, trying to do the same thing. I don't think it was intentional.
2. My comment about the LNC shunning Andy was based on the fact that Andy asked Dixon if they could get more time and Dixon said no without even breaking stride as he walked past to head into the final ES. Dixon's body language to Andy was clearly "I don't want to talk to you, get lost, I'm busy." he had also asked a couple of others IIRC and received similar rebuffs.
Actually I did not see Susan advocate one or the other, to the detriment of the other. What I saw was her advocating education as a means to the end of winning elections. In that, I wholeheartedly agree.
On Sunday Mark Hinkle moved this as a substitute for David Nolan's proposed mission…
The body of delegates in Denver confirmed the LP's Purpose statement as part of the bylaws. Any LNC 'Mission Statement' can only be a mission statement _for the LNC_, as the LP has *already* chosen a mission statement.
Susan, this discussion of the LP's mission is an instantiation of Holtz's Law of Libertarian Polemics: "Every statement purporting to express a dispute among libertarians embeds a strawman or a fallacy of the excluded middle — and this statement is no exception." 🙂
It's easy to argue against the idea that the LP should be focused exclusively on winning elections, just as it's easy to argue against the idea that the LP should be focused exclusively on ideological outreach. Both ideas are obviously wrong. A proper analysis of the multiple overlapping/concentric purposes of a pro-freedom party doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. My analysis is at http://libertarianmajority.net/lp-mission. I've never been able to coax any cogent disagreement with it from either focus-on-winning types or from focus-on-ideological-outreach types. My attempt to boil this analysis down to a mission statement is this: "to unite voters who want more personal liberty and more economic liberty behind the electoral choices that will most effectively move public policy in a libertarian direction." On Sunday Mark Hinkle moved this as a substitute for David Nolan's proposed mission "to build a network of pro-freedom activists …". The only cogent criticism of it came when Stewart Flood pointed out that my mission statement could conceivably having us endorse a candidate from another party if no Libertarian is running. Nobody thought to ask Stewart: when the choice in an election that would most effectively move public policy in a libertarian direction happens not to be labeled "Libertarian", why is that a good reason not to unite pro-freedom voters behind it?
Marc, thank you for not repudiating your apparent implication that all states that endorsed Munger or Barr should be disaffiliated.
Use of "triumvir" is not name-calling.
n. one of three officers or magistrates mutually exercising the same public function
n. one of three persons associated in any office or position of authority
n. one of a commission or ruling body of three
n. one of three men sharing public administration or civil authority in ancient Rome
n. one of three people sharing public administration or civil authority
Thank you Debra.
Hey Paulie , thanks for all that you do to keep us all informed .
I really appreciate it .
Psilocybin cubensis, anyone?
Yes please!!!
Well the soil conditions are correct here, anyway.
I really need a break from everything.
Thanks, Paul, but for now I'd prefer not to. I'd also prefer if you didn't cut and paste comments from LFV here, but I have no say in that – just expressing my preference.
I won't paste yours anymore. I'm getting real tired of everything anyway. And that certainly includes being booted off LFV by someone I invited to the site and then made a co-admin along with me. Had I thought there was any chance she would do that to me, after the thousands of hours I put into building and promoting that site, I would have never given her that level of access.
300 comments, mostly by the same set of individuals…
I don't have the seemingly endless time that some appear to have. I see, however, that even though I've been a non-participant in the above traffic, my name was nevertheless dragged into the discussion.
For whatever it's worth, here is the entire email, in context, that was quoted out of context, as above:
>> I want LNC members who will provide services to the
>> state LPs without trying to bend them to a national
>> agenda, and will allow each state to determine for
>> itself what its mission is.
I think that's a recipe for disaster and fraud.
>> Apart from asserting the maxim that LPs oppose the
>> initiation of force, and apart from coordinating
>> Presidential elections, I don't see a need for
>> centralized control of the LP.
And as I've stated before, I don't want any more Arizonas. The national LP was formed and affiliated with subchapters that voluntarily affiliated. That voluntary choice came with at least a few strings.
If you want continued strife and more Arizonas, make the LP *less* able to freely associate — and **disassociate** — child organizations.
We already have plenty of affiliates that are decidedly unfriendly, organizationally, to a consisent application of Libertarian principle, and they suffer no repercussions. I think there should be repercussions. Individual members should have authority to challenge their state party's affiliation with national for deviations from a consistent message.
I do not agree that any affiliate has the right to call for a new national sales tax, or even a state one. I do not agree that any affiliate has any right to advocate for school vouchers. I do not agree that any affiliate should call for one-gun-a-month regulations, or registration, or any other gun restrictions. And I do not agree that affiliates who endorse candidates who support any of these things should be allowed to remain as affiliates of the Libertarian Party; because by endorsing those candidates, they are essentially telling voters that we also endorse those positions — and they are not what libertarianism is all about.
My point was that we supposedly have a national LP that has a Statement of Principles and purports to support a national platform that supposedly flows from that Statement. The LP is an ideological party (or at least it was). Therefore, Article 6 of the LP bylaws should have some teeth, otherwise they mean nothing. Otherwise "being affiliated" means absolutely nothing. If being affiliated means nothing ideologically, then there's no point in being affilaited with the LP at all.
For the same reasons I think LP officers should be easy to replace, LP organizations should also be easy to replace. If they are not serving the Party's mission and are advocating ideas the parent group doesn't support, they should be replaced with another that does.
If I was in Fresno, and wanted a McChicken that looked, tasted, smelled, felt like, had the same ingredients, and was prepared the same way as the McChicken I ordered a few days earlier in Duluth, I wouldn't try to order it at a Hardee's. Likewise, your local Pepsi bottler has to adhere to the standards of Pepsico in terms of advertising messages, product appearance and composition, and so on. Local chapters of the national LP should be just as duty-bound to adhere to the stated goals of the national LP.
It is fine to digress. However, it should be done in an honest and transparent manner; rather than via bait-and-switch. If a chapter's members wish to digress — especially on signature or core issues that would entail major expansions of the state — then the members of that chapter should not cling to the LP "brand". Instead, they should go the honest route, sever their relationship with the LP, and move their loyalties to another parent organization that more closely complies with their views.
No matter how it's spun, all new taxes, gun registration schemes, and government buyouts of the home- and private-schooling sectors all involve major new enforcement/management agencies. If that sort of expansion is what I wanted, I wouldn't have left the majors.
I'm a plumbliner; I think the government is inept at just about everything it does, except gross violence. There are a few issues that I personally do not believe are core issues, and about which I am content for there to be some divergence of opinion on them. For instance, I could be persuaded that some libel rises to the point of actionable fraud; but those would be rare cases. I could also stipulate that leaving some government in some small area would minimize the amount of agression overall; although I admit I can't really think of any applications where that would be true. I'm sure some of you could come up with some examples of things that even a radical could stomach, but which I haven't listed here.
I said this in 2000:
… at some point, when my aims have been implemented to the point that the US government still has a few thousand armed employees protecting the borders, and another few thousand running a justice system of last resort, I will probably go home and watch HBO like everyone else. I'd much rather play frisbee with my dog than bother with stamping out that last little bit of government — I'll leave that for my kid to stamp out.
I still maintain that stance.
Now, it seems to me that someone waxed poetic not long ago, about name-calling; yet here we are with "triumvir". I can now add that to the long list of names I have been directly called by various reformers.
Have fun, guys. I leave this thread now to those who have limitless time to continue re-arguing the case.
Thanks, Paul, but for now I'd prefer not to. I'd also prefer if you didn't cut and paste comments from LFV here, but I ahve no say in that – just expressing my preference.
Susan, can I get you to cross post LFV articles to NFV? I'll get you a login if you agree.
LNC (for once) moves quickly to replace Keaton. With Mattson.
I am a bit confused about the procedure here but will be tossing my hat into the ring if it is possible. My statement is here:
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/12/09/lnc-moves-quickly-for-once/
and telling someone to put out or be fired is still NOT an initiation of force.
Unless it is in violation of contract. So if Steve M.'s daughter isn't a dumb ho, hopefully she'll get a job somewhere that sexual harassment will be dealt with in the contractually binding (private) employee handbook.
George Donnelly December 9, 2008
@293 the initiation of force is never warranted but retaliatory/defensive force always is.
of course you can't use retaliatory force unless someone has initiated.
Oh wait, you mean psilocybin cubensis is not what we were talking about before?? Heh! And I thought this was a discussion amongst libertarians.
I prefer amanita muscaria, but yeah I figured LG might have meant psilocybin. What we were talking about was me fat fingering morel instead of moral support (for antiwar.com).
"G.E. and Trent.
Would it be initiation of force if you told my wife or daughter to put out or get fired and I were to kick you head up your ass?"
It would be initiation of force by you, but probably a warranted one (morally). Legally speaking, you'd probably still goto jail or pay a fine—but I bet the judge would take it easy on you.
Look, just because you dont LIKE IT, doesnt mean it should be illegal or that its an initiation of force…
Oh wait, you mean psilocybin cubensis is not what we were talking about before?? Heh! And I thought this was a discussion amongst libertarians. 😉
Psilocybin cubensis, anyone? 🙂
Yes I have. But I didn't know she was into morels.
Not a big deal at all.
I'm making myself "look silly" by deciding that the M stands for Marxist? I think you're the silly one for making it into a big deal.
paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I don't think we are talking about the same kind of shrooms any more, LOL
oh nevermind then , bummer:(
I do. You haven't met Debra. 😉
I don't think we are talking about the same kind of shrooms any more, LOL
Could someone send me some shrooms please? I love them.
Judging by a couple of emails I received you should talk to Rachel Hawkridge ASAP if you haven't already
Just talked to her; thanks.
Yeah.. seconded what Paulie just said.
Judging by a couple of emails I received you should talk to Rachel Hawkridge ASAP if you haven't already.
And jeez, Paulie, you need to not take things quite so seriously.
I am notorious for not taking things seriously and finding humor in fucked up situations, actually. It's a big part of how I survived some truly horrible things.
I don't think Steve M is ready to commit suicide over our meaningless spat, and neither am I.
Well I certainly hope not. But y'all are making yourselves look foolish with that level of insult. I'm just saying from the outside what it looks like, not claiming any superiority, because I've done plenty of same.
Eric S –
http://johnhospers.com/Articles/AnarkistTemperament.pdf
Fat Fingered me — they certainly have my morel support
Susan — Paul's going to send 'shrooms to Eric Garris.
me — LOL
If you could make a donation to two organizations that are doing the same task. Would you rather give to the organization that you can write off against your income and thus not have to pay taxes on the donation or give it to the organization that you can't write off against?
Well, assuming I bothered to itemize deductions, the latter of course. But I've never encountered two organizations that are 'doing the same task'.
Thanks Tom!
We're doing something similar to that. Because petitioning goes on for each race, I know what races we can achieve. We can achieve pretty much any race that is up for election in 2010.
For 2012, we'll probably be getting money from the national party, as well as going for help from other groups such as FREE, Freedom Ballot Access, etc. I also expect we'll have more internal income at that time, as our party is – slowly but surely – growing.
The state and local parties are where the action has always been in the LP. The LNC is just a big funds-collector. One of the best things it can do is send us money to help get ballot access. Bill Redpath is committed to doing just that, so I am fairly happy. Of course there are problems at the national level. Of course things go on with which I disagree.
Don't like it? Get active locally. If enough people stop liking it, the national LP will fade into irrelevance while state and local parties continue to chug along as we always have.
Steven Druckenmiller December 9, 2008
To have an expectation that the world will be perfect and that bad bosses can always just be boycotted is naive.
What, if any, state action are advocating and on what grounds?
Don't constrain your vision so.
The assumption that the only fundraising vehicles for ballot access in West Virginia will be a) the state BTP or b) the national BTP is a faulty assumption.
The BTP structure is precisely the opposite of "prohibitive of intelligent folks doing the right thing." It is based entirely on as many intelligent folks as possible being free and empowered to do the right thing, rather than handing one central planning body the job and hoping that that body disposes of both the requisite intelligence and the correct intent.
For ballot access in Virginia in 2010 and/or 2012, I'd recommend that the state party get itself organized, evaluate the prospects of having an impact if ballot access can be achieved, and then start promoting those prospects to out-of-state donors. And count me in for ten bucks.
If you could make a donation to two organizations that are doing the same task. Would you rather give to the organization that you can write off against your income and thus not have to pay taxes on the donation or give it to the organization that you can't write off against?
Sipos to Holtz: How much of what you say is verifiable? Do you have tape recordings of every conversation you pass on?
Oh, for heaven's sake, Tomas – don't give the man any ideas!
Rather, Starr is focused too narrowly on the idea of 'tax efficiency' and is missing the bigger picture – that the LP is (or was) an ideological 'third party' in a two-party system, and that as such, education, electoral work, lobbying, and other activities are not easily severed. To focus on one of these activities to the exclusion of the others might seem like a good way to use scarce resources, but it's not. People will not, for the present, vote Libertarian in large numbers to be on the 'winning side'. They will vote Libertarian only if convinced that it is the 'right side'.
But thank you for pointing out why the LP continues to ignore both outreach and inreach to the point where we have only a few embarrassing national party materials available.
And make no mistake, this exclusionary focus on 'winning elections' (how's that working out?) is what the current and recently past LNCs have been doing (as much as they can focus on anything with all the dram-a-rama going on), as you can see from their insistence on their 'win elections' 'mission statement' being reprinted in every issue of the (tragically horrid) newsletter.
Not only is this 'mission statement' NOT the choice of the Party in convention, it run CONTRARY (by selecting one purpose) to the delegate's choice of a multi-activity purpose statement in the bylaws.
I maintain that we will WIN more elections by focusing more on education, lobying, electoral activities, and others together. We will grow our party, give diverse activists valued work to suit their interests, grow activists into excellent speakers and thinkers and campaigners, and present ourselves in a generally more inspiring way. This obsessive focus on 'winning elections' (especially when it is obvious that we do NOT win many elections) is not exactly inspiring to people who are looking for something they can get behind because it's *right* not because it's likely-to-be-successful (in the traditional sense).
Many reformers indeed say that efforts for education should best be invested in organizations that have less restrictive tax and contribution rules than a party does.
A 'third' or ideological political party in a two-party system does itself a grave disservice by trying to emulate the two major parties too closely. They are certainly lessons we can gain from the DP and RP, but trying to act like them strategically is just plain stupid.
A small group group of freedom fighters facing a large army has a better chance acting as a guerrilla force (and doing outreach to the local population) than it does pretending it is a large army and getting slaughtered on the battlefield.
You know, with the fundraising model of the BTP, it will never ever get ballot access in West Virginia. WV is a poor state with a relatively high petition threshold. A state party won't be able to raise the funds to do it, and since the national party does no fundraising… well, just sayin'.
There's a lot about the BTP model that I find silly, inefficient, and sometimes even downright ineffective. I just don't see it as a viable competitor in the marketplace of political parties and candidacies.
The LP is not perfectly structured – far from it, in certain places – but it's structured well enough that basic things can get done when needed if the individuals involved do them right. The structure is not prohibitive of intelligent folks doing the right thing. I believe the structure of the BTP to be so prohibitive.
Feel free to prove me wrong, though.
I would love to see all anarchists leave the LP.
I've been a party member for 20 years. It was never about anarchy. It's an organized political group that works within the structure of government. Limited government to be sure, but it was always about defining the proper role of government as a protector of liberties.
Never did we discuss in those days, and I was a county chairman, and regular at state conventions…never was it about anarchy.
Your home county LP is very different from my county, evidently 🙂
We have a healthy mix of small-statists/minarchists and anarchists – as well as people who refuse both labels and call themselves things like 'panarchists' and 'non-archists' and 'autarkists'.
Our *weekly* meetings are regularly attended by 15-20 people – often more. We have lively discussions and work-sessions about both practical matters (how to lower ballot access threshold? how to grow our Party? how to fight forced annexation?) and about highly theoretical matters. We almost all *like* one another, and very seldom do even the strongest arguments have an unpleasant edge.
Last Sunday a bunch of folks from around the state got together at Mike Munger's rural property and shot guns for fun. The only casulty I noticed was my broken fingernail (damn it).
There is also a concept of economic slavery.
The difference seems to be living in the real world with real experiences. Libertarians are opposed to the concept of slavery and yet slavery still exists. There is also a concept of economic slavery.
To be unaware of what happens to some one when put in that situation of pressure is again naive.
To think you can achieve any thing by insults, putting absolute labels on the people you are talking to such as marxist (which by the was implies a desire to for the government to seize control of capital) or statist (which sees to be anyone that disagrees with you) is again naive.
Tom Sipos apparently misinterprets a standard reformer point about tax efficiency and the education purpose of the LP, and suddenly he gets to say that the Big Tent idea is a "Big Lie".
I point out that the ONLY evidence for Sipos's interpretation is his unverifiable memory about an unnamed reformer, and suddenly I'm calling him a "liar" and questioning his "integrity".
Sipos, you just broke my irony meter. Thanks for walking into that one chin-first.
How much of what I say is verifiable? Well, in contrast with your misinterpreted memory of an unnamed reformer's spoken words, I've offered direct quotes of the transcribed/written words of two past and present leaders of the Radical Caucus: Marc Montoni and Justin Raimondo.
Tom, if you ever want to actually engage the merits of the reformer position, then feel free to try to contradict any of the statements at http://libertarianmajority.net/lp-mission. Until you do that, you're just arguing with the voices in your head.
Nope a libertarian.
I am just pointing out that grown folks calling each other "Steve Marxist" and "goofball endonitis" just looks awful embarrassing and gives credence to Hospers' bad argument.
No, the embarrassing thing is post #199 coming from a "libertarian." Even Druckenmiller is shaming this bum. And jeez, Paulie, you need to not take things quite so seriously. I don't think Steve M is ready to commit suicide over our meaningless spat, and neither am I.
Putting your simplistic insults aside. It is good to know that your position on rape.
My position on rape is that rapists should be castrated and/or executed. My position on pervy bosses is that they should be boycotted. Your "libertarianism" limits the government to what? Police, military, courts, and defending women against the nonviolent advances of pervert? What a statist.
Pro-war means a "libertarian" who shamefully believes in bombing and occupying other countries, massacring their children, torturing their parents, and raping their liberty. Screw all pro-war people
Like BTP-endorsed Hiroshima apologist George Phillies?
they certainly have my morel support
Paul's going to send 'shrooms to Eric Garris. 😉
Eric Sundwall December 9, 2008
Is there a copy of this Hospers essay available ?
Best wishes to Angela . . .
Brian Holtz: "it's funny how the only evidence you have of Reform Caucus representatives advocating you leave the LP is your interpretation of your unverifiable recollection of a conversation…"
You're implying I'm a liar.
How much of what you say is verifiable? Do you have tape recordings of every conversation you pass on?
If you consider me a liar, there's no point talking to me.
I spoke with two Reform Caucus reps at the 2006 convention. They were handing out those biased stickers (which every radical I talked to also considered biased), and they did suggest that I, as an educationist, should leave the LP and join a think tank.
If you think I'm lying, well, I don't think very highly of your integrity either.
@222 Pro-war means pro-state, pro-torture, and pro-massacre. Pro-war means a "libertarian" who shamefully believes in bombing and occupying other countries, massacring their children, torturing their parents, and raping their liberty. Screw all pro-war people, and let them take their war mongering to hell.
I think Barr as a national sales tax promoter was not libertarian. I have a long list of anti-platform Barr positions.
I think school vouchers are a poor alternative. I would certainly not kick someone out of the Boston Tea Party for proposing school vouchers as a path toward smaller government on the issue of education, but I would argue vehemently that it was adding to the size of government instead.
The witch hunt against Angela at the September and December LNC meetings was clearly an effort by the LP "leaders" to purge anarchists. The Hospers essay included in the binders distributed at the LNC meeting in December was clearly part of an effort to purge anarchists.
Holtz is obviously unwilling to look at evidence where it disagrees with his pre-formed opinion, as in this case.
@201 It is what reporters do.
@179 Comments which would delight me on the "lessons learned" thread on Last Free Voice. Paulie, can you copy them over? Or ask Andy to post them there, as well?
There's a bunch of good stuff on ballot access lessons learned in this thread.
@171 "Does an employer have the right to tell a woman put out out or loose your job?"
An employer of prostitutes does.
@246 How about "Libertarian Immortalists for an end to death and taxes."
@170. "But, hey, we built the LP and we can build another one, it will just waste some of our time replicating effort already spent."
That's not a waste of time. It is time spent doing new work, using a new and perhaps better design. It would be nice to think that this time we are building on a solid foundation of principle, rather than upon the shifting sands of expedience.
Think of it this way. You wash dishes when they are dirty. Then you eat off them, and they are dirty again. So you wash the same dishes. Is that replicating effort?
No. They may be the same dishes, but the dirt is all new. You are cleaning new dirt off the dishes, so it is new work.
In the same way, creating a valid, strong, and meaningful alternative to the LP is not replicating the effort that went into the LP. If it were just replicating effort, then you would expect about the same results from both projects. Since the LP has proven itself unworthy (see September and December LNC meetings, Barr nomination, etc.) and since active members of the LP such as Hultz and this rdupuy character, are calling for pogrom against anarchists and anarcho capitalists (now, and presumably Wiccans and GLBT tomorrow, the polyamorous to follow, gun enthusiasts followed by drug users, etc.) the LP is unworkable.
Give it up, move on.
I would like to believe that your Sunshine Caucus can do some good. I aver it may be too little, too late. And I would like to help you build a strong ballot access program for The Boston Tea Party, because I think the success of the LP's ballot access work is now in the past.
@166 "Quite frankly people who brings guns and drugs and treat it like a game, are an embarassment,"
Please send drug users and gun owners to The Boston Tea Party care of http://www.bostontea.us/
Same for online gamers, especially those who object to having online gambling outlawed.
@166 "I would love to see all anarchists leave the LP."
Please send your anarchists, especially your anarcho-capitalists, to bostontea.us. I would love to have them all join the Boston Tea Party. Kent McManigal did.
@106 "Rather than just complain about the problems, help us FIX them."
Why? The problems have been intractable, as far as I can see, since 1998. And some complain of the Bergland and Cloud problems from further back.
Why put more good time into a bad time? Why throw good money after bad? Why not recognise sunk costs? Cut your losses and move on.
There are other political parties. There are other freedom movement groups doing effective work.
Why fix something that is broken when you can replace it for less?
But, suppose you want to fix the LP, take that as given. Why reform the LNC and the LP headquarters? They are more trouble than they are worth, and there are people ensconced on them such as gun grabber Bill Redpath who are dug in like an Alabama tick.
Why not simply remove your state affiliate and form a new national group? Or remove your state affiliate and have no national party for a time?
The neo-cons have been very busy ruining the name and reputation of the LP, from within. But if you are going to restore order, you are going to have to use methods different from theirs. By pushing Angela's situation into a committee for effectively endless duress, the neo-cons won.
They won, and the LNC members who voted for that committee helped them win.
Instead of forming a committee to evaluate Angela, the LNC should have issued a stern rebuke of Flood. And they did not. Flood got away with his crap.
Angela resigns, McManigal won't renew:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thomaslknapp/976309115821471891/
Yep, that's the post this one is derived from.
Have you guys seen this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024323.html
@106 Michael writes, "And that doesn't even mention the implied insulting of the membership that have busted our butts to try to make the LP successful in spite of those who screw it up."
Dude, the fact that you haven't fixed the LP is widely known. It isn't an insult to report on the current state of affairs. It isn't wrong to act on things as they are, rather than as one might wish them to be.
Yes, it is fair to level a criticism at the vast majority of current dues paying members of the LP that they seem oblivious to its difficulties. Yes, it is valid to wonder who these people are who are sending money to support the party, given who it nominated for president, given how it has been treating Angela, given the many other difficulties and machinations at the national level.
It would be wrong to reward for A while seeking B. And it is not wrong to point out that this approach won't work.
I like it… So how about the Libertarian Multi-life Caucus to advocate for an additional level of membership.
Maybe a former LP life member died and was reincarnated, but has not paid dues in this lifetime? LOL
I think that a former life member is one who has died. What I am wondering is how they have gotten an Internet connection from the other side?
I suspect that using non-profit organizations dedicated for education are more efficient from a donor stand point then having a political organization that donations to are taxable. The issue is probably that since the two organization would share common supporters that they would be competing for the donations.
This is where having a line item method of donations might be more effective. What I mean is that by allowing the contributer to say I want this cash to go to that project that if the project could be used in a non-profit and thus non-taxed way that the money should be directed to the think-tank and if only if it couldn't it would be directed to the political organization.
I've no idea what it means to write "Former LP Life Member"
Technically, I believe that can only mean someone who has formally renounced the membership pledge or someone who has been deemed to have been stripped of membership for cause.
However, I suppose that it can also mean someone who is still a life member in the eyes of the party, but not their own.
I happen to agree with them. The LP is not the best educational tool for the libertarian movement – contribution limits, FEC reporting, etc. At the same time, its political mission can not be divorced from its educational mission. If the SOLE purpose of the party is to win elections, any libertarian ideology – radical, moderate, ANY – will eventually fall by the sideline.
I'm not interested in repeating the Reform Party experiment, nor the Democratic and Republican Party experiments.
@103 "Twenty-thousand today, forty-thousand in two years."
But do you have the respect of those people? Paulie suggests, presumably on some evidence, that the "area under the curve" of all the people who have ever joined the LP is as many as 100,000 people since 1972. About 16% of those people are currently dues paying members. About 84% of them are not. I've no idea what it means to write "Former LP Life Member" but I suspect it represents a major contributor rejecting the LP.
If the LP were open, transparent, effective, decent, nominated actual libertarian candidates, and did some things that were widely acclaimed within the freedom movement – at least one thing a year, say – I think you could get many of those 100,000 people excited about the LP again.
And if getting Angela to resign, which was the demand in September, is all the LNC is good for, then you have a lot of work to do to make the LP effective again.
The respect and enthusiasm of the 100,000 people who have previously supported the LP is not a given. It has to be earned. And lately, the LP has not earned my respect.
Not necessarily true. For example, I don't want any criminally insane sociopaths going around raping, robbing and murdering people in my big tent.
Not even if "they are from the government and they are here to help me." 😛
P.S. Tom, you probably misinterpreted the "think tank" comment. As Aaron Starr pointed out this weekend, it's tax-inefficient to use a political party primarily as an educational vehicle. Many reformers indeed say that efforts for education should best be invested in organizations that have less restrictive tax and contribution rules than a party does. I've never heard one of these reformers suggest someone quit the LP just because that someone advocates (as I do) education as one purpose for the LP.
If someone hopes, or suggests, or encourages some libertarians to leave, they obviously don't believe in a Big Tent.
Not necessarily true. For example, I don't want any criminally insane sociopaths going around raping, robbing and murdering people in my big tent.
I have noticed that too. And it isn't just the reformers. It is one of my pet peeves where one self declared libertarian tells another they aren't a libertarian and they should go join this or that party.
@103 "Somewhere, sometime on this thread someone called the LP ineffective. That may be so, but there are a number of us working to make it effective."
If it were on another thread, please allow me to call the LP ineffective. I wouldn't want that thought to go missing. I could give you a list of reasons I think it is ineffective, and have thought so since 1998.
No doubt many people are pissing up the particular rope of "let me do something to make the LP effective," but, sadly, there are also a coterie of individuals doing the opposite. (Flood seems to have taken station with them. Krause, Davis, Redpath, Starr, Carling, Karlan, Haugh, Barr, and others would be on my list of the more prominent problem persons in this regard.)
Speaking of Big Lies, it's funny how the only evidence you have of Reform Caucus representatives advocating you leave the LP is your interpretation of your unverifiable recollection of a conversation with unnamed people that took place over two years ago. In your mind, this is enough to justify saying "Big Tent has long been a Big Lie."
And of course, you don't bother to defend your claim that "Big Tent people who whine about being victims of potential purges are in fact engaging in projection". Just throw your mud, ignore how the Montoni and Raimondo quotes utterly refute your telepathic claim about "projection", and retreat to the next trench.
P.S. What "biased" stickers? "Biased" just means "making a point Tom Sipos doesn't agree with", right? But it's not "biased" to say that "Big Tent equals Big Lie", even though you can't quote a single Reform Caucus leader saying what you claim we say. LOL.
Brian: "Tom, do you agree with Raimondo that there should be no room in the LP for liberventionists?"
I wouldn't go so far as to say there should be "no room." A liberventionist may still hold other libertarian views.
But their support for war and empire (cloaked as "pro-defense" or "pro-security") is not one of them.
by the way… I found this list very supportable
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
@88 "if someone were to write and include in such a binder an essay on how reform caucus members tend to be neoconservatives"
If such an essay is needed, I am eager to volunteer a few minutes to its composition. lol
I love what the guy who owns this near by pizza place says when I ask him how he is doing.
"I could complain, but who would listen?"
Brian Holtz: "before you go spouting that Big Tent is a "Big Lie", consider that LP Radicals triumvir Marc Montoni wrote in 2007: 'I do not agree that any affiliate has the right to call for a new national sales tax… ' "
(1) You need to work on reading comprehension, Brian.
I said Big Tent equals Big Lie, meaning that many Reformers who advocate a Big Tent don't mean it.
Did Montono advocate a Big Tent? If not, then his desire for some people to leave the LP is irrelevant to my point.
(2) As I've posted before, I got into a conversation with Reformers at the 2006 convention, at a table where they were distributing those biased stickers.
They suggested I should leave the party and join a think tank.
They were polite. But they were clear that the LP wasn't about education, but about winning elections, and that if I felt otherwise, I was in the wrong place.
And one needn't call for purges for Big Tent to be a Big Lie. If someone hopes, or suggests, or encourages some libertarians to leave, they obviously don't believe in a Big Tent.
Supporting purges is only one way to oppose a Big Tent. Encouraging people to quit the LP is another way to oppose a Big Tent, and I have been encouraged by Reformers to leave.
I will take a shot at your question. Yes there is room for liberventionists/occupationists within the libertarian party.
Primarily because on a lot of other issues there is common ground. Smaller government, elimination of laws against victim-less crimes etc.
As far as that issue on libervention we just have got to keep your influence limited.
Paulie, note the e wasn't dropped the last couple of times and note my earlier statement about my typing.
Duly noted. Good post #224.
"As it has been pointed out to Andy was that continued complaining doesn't do anybody any good. So do something constructive."
I'm trying to expose certain people and run them out of office. This is something that would be good for the party since they are dead weight.
This is why during the public comments time on Saturday I got up and gave Paul credit for gathering the candidate information that was posted on the LP National website.
Thank you. I do give George credit, as he does me, Sean only acknowledges George because Sean is a spiteful prick. I'm trying not to be but he's making it damn impossible.
We did not start anything with them. They started with us. The only thing that we have done is retaliate.
The funny thing here is that since we are both party members, and since the party employees work for the party members, they actually work for us.
Yeah, but they are the ones laughing on the way to the bank and I'm on my way to sleeping outdoors in the cold.
Paulie, note the e wasn't dropped the last couple of times and note my earlier statement about my typing.
As it has been pointed out to Andy was that continued complaining doesn't do anybody any good. So do something constructive.
Planning a method for getting a presidential candidate onto the ballot and having a solid outline and a deep knowledge of the subject is marketable.
The counter, to anyone who says don't use those guys is the documented plan. As much as it is to point out the issues with the last attempt.
But the plan has to be reasonably complete down to including a budget and a cash flow projection. It takes people and people need to be hired and payed.
People living like this need to be housed and fed.
One thing that is apparent is that libertarian presidential campaigns don't put much effort into planning and so someone who puts together a well articulated plan and starts talking to announced candidates and their campaign teams six to nine months before the convention will have an opportunity to make the sale.
I suspect that a lot of the issues are transportable from one party to another. The differences being if a particular party is already ballot qualified and how well organized and supportive (to a particular candidate) the state party is.
If you want to make a sale of this nature you have to stop fighting with people and start demonstrating pure cold competency and diplomacy.
As to my political bend, it tends to be far to complicated to stick a simple label on. My definition of a libertarian is some one who thinks that in a judgment call, that we should risk an error to a smaller government that lets people sort out the issues as much as possible for them selves.
Having grown up near the Appalachian coal mines, I do understand the historical reasons that the miners used violence against the thugs employed by the mine owners. The world isn't perfect and the marketplace can be distorted. People can not always just walk away from a situation they find themselves in.
I applaud that choice, as Morey's 30-second campaign video is the best I've ever seen from any LP candidate. Ever.
Yes. Excellent video. I like yours a lot too. We need more libertarians making videos – unfortunately I can't, I don't have access to any computers where I am allowed to download software. But I sure hope folks get into that more. We need music, art, humor – and more of it.
Also see, above, Justin Raimondo's 2003 call — from the podium of the LPIL convention — for a purge of what he calls "pro-war elements" in the LP. Tom, do you agree with Raimondo that there should be no room in the LP for liberventionists?
"However Haugh and Kohlhaas have declared their intent not to hire us and to keep other people from hiring us."
Thomas Sipos, before you go spouting that Big Tent is a "Big Lie", consider that LP Radicals triumvir Marc Montoni wrote in 2007: "I do not agree that any affiliate has the right to call for a new national sales tax, or even a state one. I do not agree that any affiliate has any right to advocate for school vouchers. […] And I do not agree that affiliates who endorse candidates who support any of these things should be allowed to remain as affiliates of the Libertarian Party". Thus Montoni apparently believes the LP should disaffiliate the LPNC for endorsing the voucher-advocating Michael Munger, as well as every affiliate that endorsed the sales-tax-advocating Bob Barr.
Can you quote any moderate LP leader advocating that the LP "purge anarchists", or is your "Big Lie" claim itself just a fabrication? rdupuy (Robert Dupuy of Tennessee) says he "would love to see all anarchists leave the LP", but he didn't say he would purge anybody, and he's not even among the ~1000 members of the LP Reform Caucus — let alone any kind of moderate LP leader.
Your talk of "projection" suggests that you cannot answer the Big Tent case on its merits, and so you have to resort to demonization based on your telepathic powers.
P.S. M Carling and Alicia Mattson are Reform Caucus leaders who are also on the board of the LNCC. And who did we learn this weekend was one of four candidates who received LNCC donations this cycle? Why, Morey Straus, one of the three Radical Caucus triumvirs. I applaud that choice, as Morey's 30-second campaign video is the best I've ever seen from any LP candidate. Ever.
"We have had it with these people. They have had it with us. It is over."
"Even after this, I already did Sean a big favor and did a big chunk of his job that was not getting done (the candidate list) and George Donnelly helped moved that forward after me. Sean got the ball at the one yard line, spiked it, did a dance, and gave all the credit to George and none to me despite being made aware repeatedly that I had a big role in it and got the ball rolling to start with."
Steve, we already have a lot of that done.
Am I going to do another big chunk of his job again and make the info available to him so he can use it to cut me out of work, and line the pockets of his buddies? Hell no.
When I got into this, I thought I was joining a party that was dedicated to the non-initiation of force maxim, but more recently I've learned that they really mean something entirely different by it – the promise never to take up arms against government tyranny.
So, the temptation to withdraw my participation in the LP is quite strong. There is only so much rolling the rock uphill thinking I will make the party into something much more worthwhile that I can do. True I am stubborn and thick headed but even the most thick headed fool tends to eventually realize the brick wall ain't coming down if they keep headbutting it.
The LP is giving me a big headache. It hasn't gotten better, it has gotten worse.
I do want to do the whole sunshine thing. But I'm hedging my bets, so the LP will not be my only party. I will be a multi-party activist.
And damn right, I'm an anarchist.
Rather then just complaining about the past why don't you map out a strategy for what it would take to get on the ballot taking into account that we won't know who the candidate will be until late may.
Include, deadlines, starting dates and number of petitioners needed, quantities of signatures needed special issues such New Hampshire where a voter can only sign for one candidate.
"3) Sean Haugh knew that West Virginia was happening for the Barr campaign and that they had an impending deadline of August 1st, but he still sent petitioners to Alabama even though there was plenty of time left to finish Alabama (the deadline there was September 5th and the Barr petition there wrapped up a few weeks before the deadline) and those petitioners work was needed more in Alabama (and note that there were other petitioners in Alabama besides Paul and I)."
Should read, "and those petitioners work was needed more in West Virginia."
I don't mind you asking.
My activities are subject to public review and comment.
Jill Stone December 9, 2008
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I guess it wasn't my business, either.
As long as you don't go by the abbreviation.
The abbreviation is PF.
Many Big Tent people are among the most eager to purge anarchists and other embarrassing radicals.
Some, not all.
Ms. Stone,
Dear Paullie,
I wanted to give you heads up that, after my "ultimatum," Angela has resigned from the LNC. See details here:
Please call me if you have any questions.
415-xxx-xxxx
Pauli,
No, it's paulie. There's an e on the end. Not a big deal but I prefer it that way.
I have probably done far more in my life to make Hospers look rational then responding to an insult with a joke name.
Yeah, so have I. I am just pointing out that grown folks calling each other "Steve Marxist" and "goofball endonitis" just looks awful embarrassing and gives credence to Hospers' bad argument.
Not trying to claim I don't act like a jackass sometimes, as a matter of fact it happens frequently so if you catch me doing it, please let me know.
"Also, I think at times they were paid more promptly."
It took a month for Mark and I to get the money after the signatures in PA got turned in. We were told that we'd be paid in full in 2-3 days.
There were also some delays in getting paid in Alabama.
Paulie Cannoli,
As long as you don't go by the abbreviation.
"So, too, could the State LP."
The state LP in Louisiana is also at fault in the ballot access screw up there. My point was that LP National and the Barr campaign should have been on top of the situation to make sure that the paper work had been filed and they were not. There was plenty of time to do this.
Effective Factionalism Demonstrated
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE&feature=related
What I'm curious about about is this: Mr. Cannoli, what the hell business did you have to call Mr.Garris about this matter?
Quite simple Ms. Stone, because I received an email from him asking me to call him if I had any questions. I had a question, so I called him.
By the way, cannoli is a nickname, chosen because it rhymes with paulie. I ain't no Mr. Cannoli.
"Gary and Andy: "Libel" is an actual crime."
I never said that libel was an actual crime.
I've always had the feeling that Big Tent people who whine about being victims of potential purges are in fact engaging in projection.
Big Tent has long been a Big Lie.
I've been reading this post with great interest. I know Angela Keaton and I'm sorry that she'll be leaving, although I certainly understand the Party isn't worth as much turmoil as she's been through. I do NOT know Paulie Cannoli nor Mr. Garris, but I am an employer. What I'm curious about about is this: Mr. Cannoli, what the hell business did you have to call Mr.Garris about this matter? And Mr. Garris, aren't you aware of the privacy laws regarding Ms. Keaton's employment? How unlibertarian of both of you. Angela posted the letter from her employer but that was her decision. I doubt that she wanted Mr Garris to be further annoyed by the party and its sometimes overbearing members.
Good luck to you Angela, and continue your work at Antiwar.com!
Steven Druckenmiller,
From a historical perspective when the times are tough, the powerful have used their control of resources to take advantage of other members of the population.
How many examples do you want.
As an employer, I am asking for someone to do a task and I am willing to pay for that work. It is one thing if I am hiring a woman and we negotiate money for sex.
It is another thing if I have some how hired some one to do another task and then decide to change the terms of employment to include additional tasks that aren't germane to the work/prosperity of the organization. Now assuming that the individual has made economic decisions such as bought a house on credit and that just dropping the job would create economic damage to their life. Then yes the employer who changes the terms of the employment contract to include work and sex should have to pay for the damages just as much as an individual who dumps garbage onto your land should have to pay for the damages.
In short, the world isn't the simple place that idealists smoking their pipes filled with herb dream it to be.
Goofball Endonitis,
In your drug induced delusions it seems every one who disagrees with you is a marxist.
The anarchist debate is never going to go away, because it generally colors any discussion about incremental rollbacks.
Social Security Reform? The Anarchist is mad it exists at all.
School choice? The Anarchist tells me that the only "true" choice is to eliminate state involvement.
Regardless of the truth-value of those statements, they do not provide much chance for constructive dialogue. (G.E., you should take note).
"Steve Marxist"
"Goofball Endonitis"
Y'all are making Hospers look correct. Shameful.
Trent, thanks for the survey link. It seems the LP has lost many of its best over the last 20 years.
then i believe you , i wonder why George didnt say anything at the meeting
Perhaps he had other priorities. I'm sure he will confirm the relevant facts if you ask him, as he is already on the record about it in numerous comments in past threads here and at other sites.
Oh, I want to add something to my point about how Sean Haugh tried to rip Mark and I off in Pennsylvania. I later found out that the mercenary petitioners that Sean Haugh had hired in Philadelphia were getting paid at a higher rate than Mark and I (as in higher than the rate that we had agreed to work for). According to a source in the LP of PA, the Haugh hired mercenaries in Philadelphia had low validity yet Haugh paid them at a higher rate in full and on time while at the same time he was trying to chisel Mark and I on our pay.
This happened all over the country. Also the mercs had better expense deals, were allowed to work major cities while we were told to stay away, and were allowed to subcontract whereas we were not. Also, I think at times they were paid more promptly.
Goofball Endonitis == deliberate distortion of others positions
Steve M – rape is the forcible commission of sexual intercourse.
How is "Sex or your job" forcible? I find it to be completely reprehensible and warrants public shaming and boycotts, but why should it be illegal?
And frankly, the law shouldn't be governed by emotion, so stop throwing around "my wife and daughter".
"Libel" is an actual crime.
I do not think it should be a crime, but I can be convinced that it's tortious.
Sean put it in an email to Mark Pickens and CCed his immediate superior and subordinate at work. He then repeated it in a separate phone conversation with Carol McMahon and me. It is a fact, not an allegation.
http://lptc.org/2008/12/lobbying-the-lnc-on-the-subject-of-making-public-angelas-replacement-deliberations/
Putting your simplistic insults aside. It is good to know that your position on rape. And if you came into that position with respect to a friend of mine or my wife or my daughter. It wouldn't be government goon that would deal with the problem.
Mike Seebeck: "Interfering" in a private organization = "initiation of force."
Steve Marxist: "Sexual harassment" is initiation of force.
Gary and Andy: "Libel" is an actual crime.
Steve Marxist (I assume that's what the M stands for): If a woman is told to "put out" or she's fired, she is free to quit — and spread the word about what a pig her boss is. She can lead a boycott and a walk-out, etc.
What the COMMUNIST solution to this problem (i.e. what you're advocating) is much different… That she should somehow be able to call in the state's goons and extract money from her pig boss at the expense of not only him, but the taxpayer.
Of course, your socialist view is the dominant one among the "libertarian" party nowadays. Good for you!
kiddleddee December 9, 2008
Paulie @#181, I'm not sure of the source, but that's the way I remember it – at least the 30% from 1980something.
"What is the source exactly? Is it online?"
http://www.rationalreview.com/rationalreviewold/archive/tlknapp/tlknapp010303.html
""Louisiana was the fault of an act of God (Gustave)."
They had several WEEKS to file the paper work, so hurricane Gustave would not have been a factor if they had not waited until the last minute. A competent LP staff and Barr campaign staff SHOULD HAVE BEEN on top of that sitaution."
It was 31%. 13% was in 1998. Im quite sure, as I cite the statistic pretty often to the local YAL club.
The LP could have been on the ballot in Connecticut and Maine also if they had not screwed over Gary Fincher and Jake Witmer.
"I dont see it as entirely their fault that they missed five states."
That's because you were not involved in the details of LP ballot access.
"Louisiana was the fault of an act of God (Gustave)."
"Oklahoma wasnt ever really within grasp."
I am giving them a "pass" for failing in Oklahoma, however, even here it actually was within the LP's grasp if they had started the petition drive in the fall of 2007. The reason that they did not do this is because they decided to sink money into a ballot iniative to reduce the signature requirement for minor party and independent candidate ballot access in Oklahoma. This iniative was a nice idea, but they failed to gather enough signatures on it to qualify it for the ballot.
"West Virginia wasn't within grasp.
I understand that your arguement is that by spending time in WV,they missed Conneticut and Maine (right,maine?)—but that still means WV was unreachable."
You are WRONG about this. West Virginia was most definitely within grasp, even when you take into consideration that they started it late (which was not necessary as it could have been started earlier). Here are just a few things that made the West Virginia drive go wrong.
1) Jake Witmer was prohibited by Shane Cory from bringing any additional petitioners into the state. Jake said something to Shane to the effect of, "Jake, you are just a petitioner, I'm the coordinator and I'm in charge of the petitioners." Jake knew several people who are expierenced petitioners that COULD HAVE been working in West Virginia had Shane not blocked Jake from bringing them there.
2) Jake had suggested to Shane that they immediately strike a deal with the people who were gathering signatures to put the Constitution Party and Ralph Nader on the ballot. Shane actually RESISTED this idea at first because he wanted people working on LP only. Shane did end up giving in on this and deals were struck with the Constitution Party and Nader petitioners, but valuable time was lost before this.
4) Mark and I were working LP ballot access in Pennsylvania (note that we worked on the Ron Paul campaign in Pennsylvania just prior to this). We ended up leaving Pennsylvania earlier than we would have because Sean Haugh was trying to rip us off on our pay. We had agreed to work at a certain rate, and then Sean Haugh tried to lower it after we had already been working. I complained to Bill Redpath about it and he agreed that I was right and told Sean that we should be paid the original rate, but Sean still insisted that he was going to lower our pay. We got sick of dealing with Sean Haugh's bullshit so we ended up quitting the drive and went to work on ballot initiatives in Colorado (where the LP National Convention was held). We staid in Colorado for several weeks when we COULD HAVE been working on LP ballot access. I had to get Bill Redpath to intervene again to keep from getting ripped off by Sean Haugh.
If Sean Haugh had NOT tried to lower our pay after the fact, we would have remained in Pennsylvania longer and thus the Pennsylvania petition drive would have ended sooner, which would have freed up petitioners to go into West Virginia sooner.
My brother does a little bit of petitioning every once in a while and he was available to work on LP ballot access in West Virginia, but I advised him to not work on any LP ballot access because they were jerking us around on the pay, so he worked for an independent candidate, the Constitution Party, and the Green Party instead.
If Haugh hadn't dicked us around, Mark, my brother, and I could have all worked in West Virginia. Gary could have been there as well had Haugh not screwed him over.
5) Instead of bringing more expierenced petitioners into West Virginia, Shane Cory decided to go the route of trying to hire people by placing ads in the help wanted section of the newspaper and by advertising to hire people to petition on the radio. This was a complete WASTE of money as these ads bore little fruit. Jake said that the few local people that they were able to hire were pathetic and did very little. Hiring people to petition is not easy. I know because I've tried it before and the expression "Good help is hard to find." is especially true when it comes to hiring people to gather petition signatures. It is particularly STUPID to try to hire newbies to petition off of the street when you've got little time to finish a petition drive.
6) At least some of the mercenary petitioners that they brought into West Virginia got bad validity on their signatures. Somebody from the Barr campaign should have been running validity checks.
7) Jake made the suggestion that somebody from the Barr campaign or LP National do some telemarketing to try to get access to locations where they could petition. Jake said that Austin Peterson of LP National was able to get permission at a K-Mart, but the K-Mart sat there without any petitioners for several days after the permission was obtained because nobody had bothered to relay the message! Lots of potential signatures were lost because of this blunder.
These are just a few of the things that screwed up the West Virginia petition drive for the LP.
Jake tried to get me to come to West Virginia with him but I knew from expierence what a jerk Shane Cory is to work with so I declined.
"And even if WV and LA were reachable, Oklahoma wouldn't have been. I think saying they missed the ballot in 2 states is reasonable, 3 states is a fair compromise, 4 states is a serious stretch, and 5 states is a lie."
Oklahoma is the ONLY state that I'm giving them a pass for faling to achive the ballot. The only chance they had to make it there – barring a Ron Paul or mega-rich candidate – was to have started in September of 2007. When they decided to put money into that ballot initiative (which failed to make the ballot) instead of going for ballot status that pretty much sealed their fate for this election in Wsst Virginia.
I am NOT willing to give them a pass for FAILING to achive ballot status in West Virginia, Connecticut, Maine, Washington DC, and Louisiana. These were all doable this year. The resources and manpower were available, they were just grossly mismanaged.
The Constitution Party and Nader both made it on the ballot in West Virginia, and if the petition drive had been managed properly, the Libertarian Party could have made it there as well, even with the late start (which was also unnecessary).
I think it was only 13%, but we have always been among the most active, committed and hard working members."
It was 31%. 13% was in 1998. Im quite sure, as I cite the statistic pretty often to the local YAL club. We have anarchists and minarchists who always want to get at each other, and we have a mantra–"First we shrink the government, then we argue what's left."
"Does an employer have the right to tell a woman put out out or loose your job?"
Uh, YEAH. Unless you're a socialist.
Of course. And that isnt an initiation of force…
"Combine the Barr campaign's lack of communication with the state party, the ignorance of the Secretary of State's office of their own laws, and the hurricane closing the offices on the last day of filing (not to mention scattering some electors) and you see why we missed the Sept 2nd deadline."
Adriene, who was a fierce critic of the Barr campaign and almost resigned over this incident, even says it was mostly the SoS's fault combined with a force of nature. He does shoot some criticism at Barr, but I know many in his own party were blaming him—so this could easily be identified as blame-shifting. I like Adriene, but everybody makes mistakes.
My point stands and is in no way proved wrong—LA wasnt the National LP's fault.
Are you suggesting anarchy wasn't a core part of the LP 20 years ago? 20 years ago was 1988. In 1988, Liberty Magazine conducted a survey at LP conventions (state and national) that came to the conclusion that 31% of libertarians self-identified as anarchists.
Adrien Monteleone's explanation of why the Libertarian Party was not among those that filed well ahead of the deadline:
"We wanted to file these papers on the first day. However, the Barr campaign took it upon itself, without contacting the state party or the La SoS, to file and pay themselves. They did so incorrectly. The process of receiving the incorrect paperwork back from the SoS, forwarding to the Barr campaign for proper form of payment, and then getting it back in return took till the Wednesday before the Storm hit. It was on Thursday we were informed by the SoS that we in fact, as a recognized party, DID NOT need the payment. Had the SoS office been knowledgeable about the fact that we are to file in the same manner as the Dems and Reps from day one, we would have filed our paperwork on the first day.
Had we had even just the correct info from the SoS, the rest would have been irrelevant. The case required us to prove there was an action by the SoS which prevented us from filing – the combination of improper information of the requirements, as well as closing the offices on the last day (and lack of communication from them on re-opening) is what prevented the LPL from filing timely. Hence why we were granted the injunction."
If you are going to be that way.
Force equals Mass times Acceleration
Pressure equals Force dived by the surface Area over which it is applied.
So yes an employer can use pressure which is a use of force to make an at well employee make a decision.
Is that what a reasonable person would consider initial of force. Not if they are saying hey what you are doing is hurting our organization so make a decision. But suppose they were to say, we really need candidate X to win this election so don't work for candidate Y. Is this still at will employment or does the right to associate have greater precedence over the right of an employer to hire and fire at well?
Not true at all. From 1973 to 2008 the LP had an agreement that anarchists and limited government advocates would coexist, work together in the party, and not try to monopolize it for one side or the other.
It was always the case that many leading LP activists were anarchists. That does not mean the party was officially anarchist or officially minarchist, we were always for cutting government as much as we could because in the real world we are not close to cutting it so far that the minarchy vs. anarchy question is a practical concern.
But apparently some people's idea of doing "real politics" is a pogrom to rid the party of its disproportionately activist anarchist minority.
Well, if you succeed, lots of luck without us, because you will need it. I don't think your sterilized party will excite many people or entice them to leave establishment parties with a lackluster message.
But, hey, we built the LP and we can build another one, it will just waste some of our time replicating effort already spent.
"Incorrect. It was the fault of the Barr campaign. The state party had it handled, then the campaign intervened and screwed it up. "
Wrong. The State party was TOLD by the Barr Campaign that they were going to handle it. The Barr Campaign had scheduled to do it in the last couple of days. When Gustave came in, this screwed up the Barr Campaign's plans and they asked Adrien (the state party chair) if he could get it done, and he almost did. They found all 9 electors in just a couple of days, but after Gustave came in, they lost contact with one of them and werent able to get the paperwork in until re-establishing contact…which was just a matter of DAYS after we (the Ron Paul people) turned ours in. They rejected the LPs because it was past the deadline—but so was ours. They only accepted ours because the Republican Paperwork was turned in 1 hour after us.
Well, like I said, be careful of what you wish for. Many of the hardest working activists and biggest donors in the LP are anarchists.
Some reform caucus leaders are anarchists.
We are the heart and soul of the LP and if you get rid of us, I'm not so sure you can replace our efforts, but good luck trying.
It's funny how we have some people on the one hand telling us that multiple freedom parties are dumb and on the other hand you got folks like you showing us the door.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
rdupuy December 9, 2008
@mdh,
I met Bill Redpath a long time ago…I don't know him well. But like you, I was genuinely impressed by his skill and talent.
"If they want all anarchists out of the LP they should be careful, because they may get what they wish for."
I've been a party member for 20 years. It was never about anarchy. It's an organized political group that works within the structure of government. Limited government to be sure, but it was always about defining the proper role of government as a protector of liberties.
Never did we discuss in those days, and I was a county chairman, and regular at state conventions…never was it about anarchy.
Building a political party means bringing in people, but, in truth, its not as simple as that. It's bringing in party building people, people that understand organization, fund raising, and libertarian principles.
Quite frankly people who brings guns and drugs and treat it like a game, are an embarassment, and worse, ineffective, and counterproductive to party growth.
I tend to set an agenda and act as a leader in WV just because no one else tends to step up and do so. I've always been more than willing to have any of the excomm folks empowered to take the lead and set agenda points, though.
In my opinion, being a fair arbiter of meetings is the most important role of the chair, and is also the only one that is really mandatory. To be honest, I didn't know Bill Redpath well when I first met him in Denver. Since that time, I've paid a lot of attention to his decisions, his behavior overall in an official capacity, and how he runs meetings. I've personally found him to be genuinely fair, which is, in my opinion, better in an LNC chair than someone who takes partisan stances (even if they take those partisan stances in favor of the side I support.)
I dont see it as entirely their fault that they missed five states. Louisiana was the fault of an act of God (Gustave).
Incorrect. It was the fault of the Barr campaign. The state party had it handled, then the campaign intervened and screwed it up.
Not necessarily true. We has Oklahoma in 1980, 1992, 1996 and 2000 (maybe other times too) so it could be done, but yes, the strongest case can be made there. That leaves five.
Not true either. If Nader and CP can do it why not LP?
But, this was run by the Barr campaign, not Sean and Scott.
CT would have been done if they let Jake go up there. or Gary, who was right next door. Maine could have then been finished on time.
Connecticut and Maine were absolute Sean and Scott's fault.
DC was the Barr campaign, like WV and LA. Details are up today at BAN:
1. Bradley in DC Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Dick Heller decided against a run for office before the filing date. Because of the dispersed grassroots effort collecting signatures for his race, no one knows how many signatures were collected but not returned to me after we got word out we couldn't use them.
The ballot petitioning for Barr failed mostly because we listened to their campaign staffers instead of following our own plans (which got Damien on the ballot).
Damien Ober was a great candidate who polled amazingly well in a crowded race.
But the states they missed are only part of the issue. There was also much money misspent and several near-misses. PA and NY may have been in trouble had their signatures been challenged, for example. PA did get challenged, but on substitution, not signatures.
I think, given the amount of money invested in WV, it was very doable.
Let me put it this way. If the same amount as was invested by others (including the lawsuit) was instead handed to the LPWV, we would have gotten ballot access in WV.
Unfortunately, those of us who actually know the state had nothing to do with Barr's ballot access drive. If I were running it, I would've had all of these guys crashing on my member's couches. 😉
That's how we do stuff in WV.
Anyways, we'll get ballot access in WV for a few candidates in 2010, and any effort in 2012 will go through the state party. Once we get our gubernatorial candidate a pile of votes in 2012, I plan on never petitioning again.
I've certainly seen the allegations against national office staff, but I don't feel that Redpath can be blamed for that.
I was not talking about that. I've seen any number of people going back to 2006 say Redpath is a thief, or criminal, or whatever. and yet I never hear any specific accusations or evidence – it is always left completely vague.
Redpath has in fact still been active in helping out with ballot access stuff, just in a more managerial way, and without micro-managing the staff he delegated a lot of responsibilities to.
Yes, I know. The trouble is that he still defends them even now.
The issue of the staff and their conduct is seperate, and I don't believe it should reflect on Redpath as chair.
No, not if he puts a stop to it.
I only partially get what you're saying about the weak chair model, but in the same way, I tend towards thinking that a weak chair model is probably the right one. If Starr abuses it, then that's on Starr. Not that I'm saying he is abusing it, of course.
A weak chair model is one where the chair's function is to be a fair arbiter of meetings, not a leader setting an agenda.
You long ago rendered any rational arguement useless because of your obnoxious attitude. People who once cared no longer do because you've pelted them with it.
For anyone who is attacking me, do you think that wasting donors money on ballot access failures (which were caused by gross mismanagement) with nothing to show for it is a good thing?
I think that everyone who has donated any money to the party – even if it is just $25 – SHOULD be pissed off about this.
I consider squandering donor money with nothing to show for it to be a serious offense.
"I ended up being right as the LP FAILED to make the ballot in 5 places where the party would have been on the ballot if Bill had taken my advice."
I dont see it as entirely their fault that they missed five states. Louisiana was the fault of an act of God (Gustave). Oklahoma wasnt ever really within grasp. West Virginia wasn't within grasp.
I understand that your arguement is that by spending time in WV,they missed Conneticut and Maine (right,maine?)—but that still means WV was unreachable.
And even if WV and LA were reachable, Oklahoma wouldn't have been. I think saying they missed the ballot in 2 states is reasonable, 3 states is a fair compromise, 4 states is a serious stretch, and 5 states is a lie.
If your employer points a gun at you…
That is force, period. Not "pressure."
It was Mike who said the LNC "shunned" Andy by not giving him extra time to speak and that this was appropriate. Andy told me he was not sure if it was intentional or not. I wasn't there, so I can only go by what others say, and it seems like even if I had been there I may not have known.
BTW, it was Starchild's idea for me to ask LNC members for more time to speak.
Paulie, I've certainly seen the allegations against national office staff, but I don't feel that Redpath can be blamed for that. Redpath has in fact still been active in helping out with ballot access stuff, just in a more managerial way, and without micro-managing the staff he delegated a lot of responsibilities to. The issue of the staff and their conduct is seperate, and I don't believe it should reflect on Redpath as chair.
I only partially get what you're saying about the weak chair model, but in the same way, I tend towards thinking that a weak chair model is probably the right one. If Starr abuses it, then that's on Starr. Not that I'm saying he is abusing it, of course.
"And the shunning of you by the other LNC members when you tried to get extra time to speak should have sent you a clear message that they don't care what you think, either."
Well, every member SHOULD care because what I am talking about would have saved them THOUSANDS of dollars and gotten them on the ballot in more states.
I called up Bill Redpath in the Spring and early Summer and I warned him that if the games that were being played with the ballot access drives did not stop that the LP would fail to achieve ballot status in several states where they would otherwise make it. Bill Redpath chose to ignore my warnings and I ended up being right as the LP FAILED to make the ballot in 5 places where the party would have been on the ballot if Bill had taken my advice.
Paulie, the time for the closing public comment period ran out just as it would have been Andy's turn. He used more time than anybody else in the initial comment period. It was Starchild's long speech during the closing comment period that ran out the clock on him. Your comment @139 is misleading. The only irregularity I noticed was that Michael Seebeck raised his hand to talk just as Jingozian looked in Andy's direction, and so Jingo didn't realize that Andy had had his hand up the whole time. I'm surprised that Mike didn't defer to Andy, but maybe he hadn't noticed his hand up the whole time.
"BrianHoltz // Dec 9, 2008 at 12:19 am
Andy spoke for several minutes during the public comments on Saturday morning."
I had a lot more to say and I intended to say more on Sunday, but Rachel Hawkridge was standing in front of me when they were going around the room for comments and I don't think that Mike Jingozian saw me with my hand raised, so I got skipped and he went to Rob Power. He started to work his was back to where I was and I started waving my hand and I thought that I was going to get a chance to speak but then they said that they were out of time.
I'm assuming that passing by me was an accident. I wish that I would have been more aggressive about speaking during that comment session but I didn't realize that it was about to be cut off.
To be honest, I've never seen any allegations of wrong-doing against Bill Redpath, much less evidence thereof.
Bill has been the best ballot access coordinator I have had to work with in the LP national and I think he was a competent treasurer. Unfortunately, when he became chair, he delegated ballot access to the team of an incompetent yet vindictive Sean and a corrupt Scott and has stood by them with complete loyalty.
Also, he believes in a weak chair model, which makes for a poor combination with Starr as Treasurer (and at many times seemingly de facto chair).
As for charges of wrong doing against Bill, I have seen plenty, but never any evidence or specifics.
Angela leveled some accusations against Redpath, Sullentrup, and Starr. Unfortunately she didn't provide any details. That seems more unhelpful than helpful, to me at least. Are details forthcoming? To be honest, I've never seen any allegations of wrong-doing against bill Redpath, much less evidence thereof.
George was the one paying for the signatures. He resisted their inappropriate destruction. What George had to say, he said with deeds.
Most true. And yet Sean is still political director at national and still abusing his office to steer employment to mercenary petitioners with low validity rates because he does not want libertarian petitioners to talk about the details of their operation and the mismanagement thereof on internet boards.
And yes that was his stated reason for firing and blackballing us, and now he is also working to make sure that state parties don't hire us with their own money either, and being successful too at least in Arizona. He also has stated his intent to get Alabama to cancel an existing contract with us.
Yes I am confused. That should have been addressed to Mike. (and not for the last time) I stand corrected.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/fincher-demands-real-action-by-taken-against-lp-political-director-sean-haugh-for-openly-advocating-a-criminal-act/
LG feel free to give me a call about it. If you don't have my number, I can call you and tell you about what happened.
Yes, George can back it up, and so can I.
It was discussed extensively here and at LFV.
You may be confused
A) It is Paulie
B) Seebeck said that, not me. The comments appear below, not above, the name of the person who makes them.
Since you can't articulate your position as a threat I will articulate mine as a threat.
"Joke them if they can't take a Fuck"
Or was that a promise?
Yes he did. But he asked to speak again during closing comments and was not allowed.
Nope, that was the crony gang protecting their pal and henchman Sean Haugh's malfeasance, which ended up leaving the LP with the fewest ballot lines since 1984 (most of those screwup being easily avoidable) and having blown most likely six figures on waste and abuse.
But for those of you who don't care about that, or "Massachusetts burning," consider that Sean has openly bragged about co-writing the "kiddie porn" press release, and said he would vote for a Republican if Susan Hogarth ran for Congress to public laughter and applause at the LSLA in Vegas, and those are just two incidents of many.
Andy should have been given time to speak.
And no, that's not a threat, either. It is a suggestion. I do not take kindly to people like that.
@111 – Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday, dear Angela,
Happy birthday to you.
May you get some tonite,
May you get some ……….. cake and ice cream!
May you get some tonite.
Thanks, Angela for everything! There is still much work to do, of course, and I have no doubt that you will be working every day doing your share – and more.
TheOriginal Andy @105,
If you think it accpetable to denigrate a person in declining health because she made a choice to get away from that which caused the health problem, then I have only one thing to say to you, which is a quote of Knapp:
"Go fuck yourself."
To which I add, "in the ass, with a shotgun, and pull the trigger while inserting."
And the shunning of you by the other LNC members when you tried to get extra time to speak should have sent you a clear message that they don't care what you think, either.
Thanks. I was hoping to just pull out my credit card and type in the data. I hate checks and letters and stamps. But it looks like for Florida I will have to do this in the old method.
Last two lines in 131 should be in reverse order.
As for Florida
Libertarian Party of Florida
Winter Park, FL 32790-3012
Treasurer Related Mailing
c/o Jack Tanner
5901 Pendragon Lane
Source, LP of Florida website
Angela and Eric,
I hope you understand that a lot of political capital was spent in an attempt to keep Angela on the LNC. A better move rather then having her resign would have been to have her sit back and do nothing. That would have been good for two meetings of the LNC. It would have left time for negotiating a transition.
If Angela is resigning for heath reasons so be it. We of course wish her the best. But don't be so cavalier in your disregard for the more difficult battle ahead for those staying to fight for the heart of the libertarian movement.
Now if the antiwar.com hadn't put pressure on Angela to leave the LNC.
Then she would be suffering needlessly.
But, if you feel that strongly about not donating to them, there are many other worthy causes as well.
I suggest
http://freedomballotaccess.org
antiwar December 8, 2008
I accept your apology, and no harm. I can see I should have elaborated and perhaps presented a different emphasis in my letter. But I just couldn't take what the LNC was doing to her (not to mention what they are doing to the party!)
Antiwar might do excellent work but in this case I can't agree. So to recap. I planned on giving 250 usd to the lnc for 2009. So far I have now given from out of that pot 25 each to the Georgia LP, Tennessee LP and Massachusetts LP. I am trying to figure out how to give $25 to the Florida LP but their web site isn't cooperating. I have just joined the Outright Libertarians of $30. The rest will likely go half to the California LP and half to the Alameda County LP. $60 each.
Now if the antiwar.com hadn't put pressure on Angela to leave the LNC.
Mr. Garris, I owe you a public apology and I offer it here. I have received the information I was waiting for, and I was wrong. You were looking out for her in a way we weren't seeing. I publicly apologize to you here and now. I am sorry.
Go back and re-read what I wrote… read it slowly. read the whole thing… then you will see I wasn't disagreeing with you in this case. I was disagreeing with your generalized statement.
I live and work in a tough business environment. Shall I lift the back of my shirt and show you the scars? I am smart enough to know how to win battles, hopefully without looking weird… I have enough challenges just trying to keep my grammar correct, my typing on track and my spelling understandable.
I know you can read. So I will give you an example.
If your employer points a gun at you and says resign that constitutes unreasonable force.
If your employer says this is hurting our organization you need to decide if that is more important then us that doesn't constitute force.
Please try to understand before you reply.
How about the Abolition Caucus, or the Lynch Redpath Caucus?
That ain't us. It could be you, though, I guess.
You may have "survived" but that doesn't erase the fact that it was a very shitty thing that she did to you.
It's in the past. I prefer to focus on what I can do to make things better in the future, if anything.
"Definitely not in the back in my case. In the heart, yes. But I survived, and that spot has scarred over."
You may have "survived" but that doesn't erase the fact that it was a very shitty thing that she did to you.
You'd come off the same way if Angela Keaton had stabbed you in the back in a nasty, unprovoked personal attack, like she did to me (and Paul and Gary).
So, um, we have work to do. Transparency Caucus, Sunshine caucus, Whatchacallit caucus, FTW.
You have expressed why I won't join antiwar.com now.
I'm not in any position to donate money, since I have been without a job since September. (thanks a lot, Sean!)
But, they certainly have my morel support and thanks for the excellent work they do.
SteveM said: "This other Andy just comes across as a weird and obnoxious."
You'd come off the same way if Angela Keaton had stabbed you in the back in a nasty, unprovoked personal attack, like she did to me (and Paul and Gary).
I saw Angela this weekend and she did not apologize which is not suprising. I was going to say something to her but I didn't bother because I wasn't in the mood for an arguement. She's probably a lost cause anyway.
Steve M. – No, it doesn't.
Antiwar.com is private property. Angela Keaton is an at-will employee (presumably). She clearly does not have a contractual right to be an LNC member. Contract is supreme.
You and Seebeck need to study up.
Gene Trosper December 8, 2008
Angela, You make me proud.
Stay strong and stay well.
G.E. depends on how the pressure is applied.
I think that libertarians too often just pull out that initiation of force line.
I think that Eric Garris was within his rights to do what he thinks is best for his organization. I wonder if he was pressured into it. I do think he and his team haven't thought through the consequences.
Remember how much we complained about the LNC not being to make a decision. The opposite of not making a decision is rushing to a decision and it can be every bit as dumb.
Believe me Mike, I feel your pain. I'm just going to push through it and try and do my damnedest to bring the LP back to it's roots.
Email from Angela:
This is to confirm that I have resigned my position on the Libertarian National Committee.
I did not do this as a result of pressure from either Mr. Garris or the LNC. In fact, a few LNC members apologized for any part they may
have played in this. However, as long as Redpath, Sullentrup and Starr remain in office, donors will continue to have serious
questions about administrative competence, staff neutrality and most importantly ideological coherence.
While I won Saturday's battle, I had no intention of sitting through yet another round of investigative nonsense only to be told that I was "unprofessional" because I dared say publically what so many of you say in private. While I have nothing but the greatest respect for so many of you, I was the one
who delivered the complaints to Redpath and his cohort directly. I was the one who took the brunt of purge. And a brunt it was.
This is not an HR issue. Actually, Eric Garris not only defended me as my employer but he was willing to do what only a dear friend would do: Save my life.
Eric was aware, as were some of you, that my physical health had begun to deteriorate rapidly after the last three months of harassment by the proxies of the Barr and Root factions. Vomiting blood should not be the reward for pointing out the inept, incompetent and insidious. I went to San Diego to demand that these saboteurs look me in eye. I stood up to the bullies and won but it came at a price. I refuse to give up another moment of my life to these bastards.
For those of among you that I count as my friends, today is my birthday. The greatest gift you can give me is to accept that I have done all I can do to save what remains of the Libertarian Party, and that you will continue our struggle.
Angela Keaton
You have expressed why I won't join antiwar.com now. I wonder how many others feel the same way as I do. On the other hand maybe they will get an influx of the republican libertarians? Nah!
I have dealt with Eric Garris on a number of occasions throught the years and have found him to be a principled man who believes strongly in liberty. As has already been pointed out, AntiWar.Com (of which I very, very briefly helped him out with about 10 years ago — they frankly needed someone with more advanced webmaster skills than I could provide at the time) is indeed a business and Mr. Garris has every right to hire and fire at will.
Although I am extremely sad to see Angela Keaton resign, it ultimately was her decision (as was the public release of the letter). Honestly, I would have made the same decision as Angela. After all, it's hard to live life without a source of income, especially in today's toilet of an economy.
Am I happy with what happened today? Absolutely not. I am a big fan of Angela Keaton. However, my feelings aren't going to change the facts. I'm not going to complain about it, but I will reluctantly accept it and move on. What's done is done.
Now, we must focus on the present and future. Not all is lost!
"Pressuring someone to do something is initiation of force."
Wow, not true.
To me the original Andy will always be Dr Andrew Embick of Valdez Alaska. An adventurer, an uncontrollable free spirit.
This other Andy just comes across as a weird and obnoxious.
Yes, folks, I'm not happy about this, if that wasn't obvious already.
A bunch of us busted our asses this past weekend to begin the efforts to turn things around. Those efforts have been dealt a serious, maybe even fatal setback. Only time will tell on that. Those same people that Mr. Garris complains about making the LP a laughingstock were just handed back the victory denied them by our efforts, potentially furthering the exact same thing Mr. Garris was complaining about.
And that doesn't even mention the implied insulting of the membership that have busted our butts to try to make the LP successful in spite of those who screw it up. There are far many more of those than there are the screwups. Mr. Garris, like many in the freedom and peace movements, neglects the simple fact that an organization is a sum of its parts, and in the LP's case, the huge majority of the parts are good in their intentions and actions while being perpetually disorganized. What has happened is that a few conniving individuals have taken advantage of that and risen to the leadership posts to play their games, and in doing so have tarnished the LP reputation undeservedly. The only way to reverse that damage, and for now it is not as deep as it could be, and it is not irreversible, either, is to take back the LP leadership by the membership. Some members of the LNC, Angela included, were and still are working to do exactly that, and to trash the entire LP based on the actions of a few screwups is to trash those members who were working to make things right as well–Angela included. That's wrong.
Mr. Garris, if the issue was with the screwups on the LNC, then address that issue to those screwups. Angela is not and never has been one of the screwups, and to take it out on her was grossly unfair to her and to the many LP members who agree with her and have supported and joined her in our fight to fix the LP.
So yes, I am not happy. I don't like being called something I'm not, be it directly or indirectly. Rather than get engaged with further arguments, I intend to continue to do what a lot of us are already doing anyway: continue to work to fix it. I encourage all of the LP critics to pay some attention to the trenchwork rather than the command post, because it is in those trenches where the real battle for freedom is won and lost. Then judge the LP by its activism and not its leadership. The LP, warts and all, makes its progress not because of its leadership, but in spite of it, and that should be kept in mind.
Rather than just complain about the problems, help us FIX them.
Bing bong the witch is dead! Bing bong the witch is dead! Bing bong the witch is dead!
I think antiwar.com has made a mistake. I had never heard of antiwar.com until this and now I think that there are foolish in that this would have blown over and they would have again full use of Angela and that this addition exposure would bring in new support.
By forcing Angela to decide, that new support won't be from me. Frankly, antiwar.com has left a bad taste in my mouth.
Somewhere, sometime on this thread someone called the LP ineffective. That may be so, but there are a number of us working to make it effective.
There are a lot of things that need to be done internally to promote the LP, but in the bigger picture we should be an organization that has working, effective affliate groups in all 50 states and many of their counties. We should be able to count on 20,000 or more volunteers across the country to man booths, run for office, donate money, write LTEs and preform a host of other functions that groups like CATO, Reason and Antiwar don't or can't preform. Then we should be looking to double those numbers every few years. Twenty-thousand today, forty-thousand in two years.
Some people may be right in their assessment.
I certainly hope so. It's a depressing thought to imagine that everyone is wrong about everything 🙂
FYI, I have been a life member of the LP since 1980.
I should have guessed. That's 20 years longer than me.
As a life member of the LP, clearly Eric Garris is not interfering in the affairs of an organization of which he is not a member.
VirtualGalt December 8, 2008
They can vote by mail:
,blockquote>The National Committee may, without meeting together, transact business by mail. The Secretary shall send out mail ballots on any question submitted by the Chair or by at
least 1/5 of the members of the Committee. Fifteen days shall be allowed for the return of
the votes cast, by mail, to the Secretary. The Secretary shall establish procedures for
identifying voters in a mail ballot, and may accept votes through any mail system,
including facsimile and electronic mail, for which such procedures have been established.
Paulie, my intent in my previous statement was to ask for them to volunteer… 😉
This decision is going to happen some time relatively soon. The time for us to lobby for it to be in the open is now.
Wow, that makes you old.
Some people may be right in their assessment. I will consider it.
However, Mr. Garris taking out his frustrations with the LNC out on her in an HR letter is improper. An open letter to the LNC as a body is an appropriate means to do that, NOT an HR letter like this is supposed to be.
As I said, I will wait and see to hear from Angela herself.
~ Eric Garris
Incorrectly italicized last paragraph in 95.
Sounds like something we should lobby for more openness about.
Bylaws committee? Hawkridge? Anyone on the Bylaws or LNC want to spearhead this on behalf of the LPTC?
Chuck is on Bylaws, Rachel is on LNC. I am not in charge of volunteering other people; we'll have to ask them. Since they read here, I am asking them (and anyone else who has any say with either group): Please let us do whatever we can to make sure this decision, and any decision like it in the future, happens in full public view, including the committee deliberations.
Whatever pattern Hospers thought he saw, it can't be as bad as the habit among Libertarians of all ideologies to demonize their LP-internal opponents without doing them the courtesy of actually quoting their words.
You know, that's funny. It was the lack of actual quotes in particular that turned me off of Hospers' piece. Well, that *too*.
Sounds like something we should lobby for more openness about. Bylaws committee? Hawkridge? Anyone on the Bylaws or LNC want to spearhead this on behalf of the LPTC?
mdh @ 88
*thing not think
Paulie, when? Next LNC meeting?
Not sure. I believe there is also a provision for email votes. However, the current opinion in effect is that the LNC email list is a closed list and the only think they have to – or will – disclose to the membership is the result of such a vote, not any of the deliberations that led to it.
Brian, you're right to an extent in your comments here, however I doubt you'd much like it (and would probably find it as inappropriate) if someone were to write and include in such a binder an essay on how reform caucus members tend to be neoconservatives or somesuch. Even if they included the sort of disclaimer that you quote from Hospers, it's still offensive and obnoxious to have such trash included in an LNC meeting binder.
For the record, I would be just as upset if such an essay were included. To generalize that anarchists are somehow obnoxious is no better nor worse than to generalize that reformers are neocons. Jest though we may amongst ourselves, we all know better than to actually believe such tripe. When all is said and done, we understand that it's just that – in jest. Including it in a formal binder as such only lends credence to the notion that we are truly *ALL* the sort of people who actually behave poorly towards one another.
At least, I hope I'm right. Maybe some of you really do mean it when you take pot shots at your counterparts across the aisle.
Holtz and Hogarth, as the chairs of the respective caucuses, have always struck me as realizing that at the end of the day we are all on the same team, and the slings and arrows are just to let off steam from a hard day's fighting for liberty. If anyone out there doesn't, please re-evaluate yourself. Seriously.
And if anyone out there wants to go around spreading the notion that this is a real internecine dispute and not just in jest, then I think it's time for the LPTC to shed some light on their actions for all to see. Fomenting hatred amongst our own is inexcusable.
Eric Garris did not threaten to put a chloroformed sponge over Angela's mouth, duct tape her to a chair and imprison her in his basement if she didn't resign from the LNC.
Rather, he offered her a (strongly implied) choice — continue to invest considerable time and anguish in the LNC/LP, or continue to work with AntiWar.Com … but probably not both.
I don't have to agree that he should have offered her this particular choice in order to understand that no initiation of force was involved.
Angela is not magically entitled to a job at AntiWar.Com; whether or not she has one is a matter of whether or not those in charge at AntiWar.Com are happy with her work. Eric could have simply fired her without saying why, and it still wouldn't have been an initiation of force (unless there's a contract between them under which she has protection against that). Instead, he laid out the details of what he considered a problem and gave her the option of solving that problem to his satisfaction.
I don't have to agree with Eric; I don't have to like what he did. Neither do you. Not liking something doesn't make it an initiation of force.
Do you know offhand how the replacement selection process will go
By a vote of the LNC.
Hospers' essay makes a good point about how name calling and melodrama is an ineffective way to draw people to your side.
It certainly does! Talk about leading by (negative) example!
It sort of reads like this to me: "You shouldn't walk around being a jerk and being rude to people, like those asshole anarchists. But I suppose they can't help it; they're just temperamentally assholes and jerks, unlike me."
So who made the decision to put the lame Hospers essay in the binder?
I demand transparency!
Point on the Bylaws. I neglected the section on the Bylaws violation.
I wonder if Mr. Garris is, like me, someone who signed the pledge and joined the LP at one time, and has subsequently stopped paying dues.
It is a matter of public record that Eric Garris was one of the leaders of an earlier version of the Radical caucus and an active participant in the LP. I have no database access to check whether he sends dues to the LP at present, nor do I consider it my business. It certainly does not sound so from the tone of his remarks about the LP, but that is pure speculation and not very productive in any case.
Hogarth: "Hospers rails against an entire group of people"
Hospers: "I certainly do not want to be
guilty of over-generalization, or to tar everyone with the same brush; but I have certainly noticed, as doubtless many of you have, a recurring personality pattern among those who label themselves anarchists."
I guess there's really no such thing as patterns of personality among the ideological factions within the LP, and that no identification of such patterns among "reformer" libertarians has ever been posited by Susan.
Whatever pattern Hospers thought he saw, it can't be as bad as the habit among Libertarians of all ideologies to demonize their LP-internal opponents without doing them the courtesy of actually quoting their words.
that replaces her that is
of the 3 others that ran for Angela' seat , dear god please let it be Susan and not Alicia or M.
Chuck, you raise a disturbing point. Do you know offhand how the replacement selection process will go, now, or do I have to stop being lazy long enough to ask someone else to look it up in the bylaws for us? 😉
HumbleTravis December 8, 2008
Hospers' essay makes a good point about how name calling and melodrama is an ineffective way to draw people to your side. However he is wrong to say that it is only anarchists who do this.
Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider the question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee
contravenes specified sections of the Bylaws. If the decision is vetoed by the Judicial
Committee, it shall be declared null and void.
Which section of the bylaws would we claim they violated?
In the Libertarian Party we encourage dialogue and collaboration among people from across the spectrum so long as they share an interest in the goal of minimizing aggression.
And how does distributing Hosper's essay linked above further that goal?
If I say to my girlfriend: "stop sleeping around or I will break up with you," that is the same sort of pressure. But now it is initiation of force?!
What kind of craziness is this?
Partyocracymania.
I, too, would like to hear directly from Angela on this matter.
The LP is not entirely a private organisation. It purports to seek control over the government. Therefore, its affairs ought to be observed, at least by its members and prospective (or erstwhile) members. I wonder if Mr. Garris is, like me, someone who signed the pledge and joined the LP at one time, and has subsequently stopped paying dues.
For a private citizen or the representative of a private organisation to find the behavior of the LNC in this matter worthy of comment, reprehensible, and disgusting should not surprise anyone. All you kittens were just tearing the LNC a new one for failing to make an actual decision, for entertaining this nonsense in the first place, and now you have the gall to jump all over Eric for reaching materially the same conclusions.
I believe that all work should be at will. I believe that where laws make the pretense that work is not at will, but constrained by some closed shop union rules or some other set of government-mandated rules, it is still actually at will, but there is an asinine side play about what is and is not reason for termination.
At will means that the worker can walk out at any time, for any reason, or for no reason. At will means the employer can terminate any worker at any time for any reason, or for no reason.
Which means that there is nothing un-libertarian, nor unethical, about AntiWar.com determining that it is not willing to employ any members of the LNC. It is, however, a judgement call.
I see from Michael's comments that there is already the potential for blow back against this move from a significant contributor to Antiwar. I'm not really sure that the LNC has that many fans right now, but I'm quite sure that Angela does.
And, before taking any position on the matter of Eric's judgement, I am going to wait until I hear from Angela.
I do think the LNC behaved abysmally. First, they allowed a thought crimes prosecution to be heard. Second, they failed to make a determination about this matter. Third, they did not rebuke Kraus for his slimy role in this persecution.
I also think it is insane to have the LP staff passing around essays from Hospers on the temperament of anarcho-capitalists. I think it is bizarre to have the governing body of the LP be asked to individually sign confidentiality statements as if they were volunteers working for the LP, rather than members of its governing body setting policy for the LP.
The LNC is not behaving sensibly. While it misbehaves, tortures one of its own, and delays making any final determination on actions brought before it, the LNC members and the LP and its followers should not be surprised if this misbehavior has consequences. People should be expected to react very negatively to the LP.
there is a provision in the Bylaws for 10% of the delegates to challenge a LNC decision, though, which can be done after they stack the deck with a new appointee.
I think this is the relevant language
"No, GE, it was highly libertarian. Pressuring someone to do something is initiation of force. Public or private doesn't matter."
False. Initiation of force does not occur when asking someone to resign from a private organization—perhaps under threat of force, but this wasn't under threat of force. It was under threate of….job termination. Nothing unlibertarian about that, it is Garris's business and he can fire anyone for any reason–including that person's other private organization involvements.
@59 Mike, "pressure" is not the same thing as violence.
Eric Garris writes: "At Antiwar.com, we encourage dialogue and collaboration among people from across the spectrum so long as they share an interest in the goal of non-interventionism."
But here's Antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo addressing the 2003 LPIL convention: "I make no apology for the harshness of this prescription. Our movement was born in the fight against the War Party, against the cold warriors who thought they could run rampant over people at home and abroad, and we will fight for our legacy today – no matter what. […] The only sort of debate on the war question that ought to take place within the LP ought to consist of the following words addressed to the few pro-war elements in our midst: Hasta la vista, baby!"
As for the idea that it's force-initiation for a private employer to decline to continue a voluntary employment relationship with an employee, that's as mistaken as the idea we heard this weekend that it's "aggression" to publish information to the LP membership about LNC members' fund-raising. Remember, people, not everything that upsets you counts as aggression, and the nanny state is in fact built on the contrary proposition.
Former LP Life Member December 8, 2008
Pressuring is initiation of force?
If I say to my girlfriend: "stop sleeping around or I will break up with you," that is the same sort of pressure. But now it is initiation of force?!
In fact, as a large in-kind donor to AWC who wrote fundraising letters for them the past two quarters to appeal directly to the LP crowd, it's the opposite.
Then you certainly have a say with antiwar.com
How much of a say is both up to you and up to them.
Susan, there is a provision in the Bylaws for 10% of the delegates to challenge a LNC decision, though, which can be done after they stack the deck with a new appointee.
This is in no way unethical. The Boss gave an ultimatum to a private citizen to choose between two private organizations. No force initiated.
Correct, despite my snark above.
I don't see anyone here interfering in AWC's affairs. In fact, as a large in-kind donor to AWC who wrote fundraising letters for them the past two quarters to appeal directly to the LP crowd, it's the opposite.
As I said, I will wait to hear Angela's side. But Mr. Garris's side on its own is considered suspect until then. There is more to this story than what is being talked about here.
How about we attempt to get a hold of as many Denver delegates as possible and have a revote?
It's the LNC's job, not the convention's, to replace an at-large member. I'd be appalled if they chose to spend a ton of money and time finding delegates, re-credentialing them, verifying their votes, etc.
This does seem like a good argument for some better voting system, though. Bylaws committee folks, take note…
It's unfortunately that Eric didn't make his ultimatum before or during the meeting, which would have enabled the debate and vote on Angela's replacement to be conducted in the open with a gallery of LP luminaries watching.
That said, best of luck to Angela on her continuing work at antiwar.com. I can certainly understand why she would prioritize her work (which I gather is rewarding on several levels) over the LNC (which clearly frustrates and drains her).
Chuck is once again correct.
How did I know you'd be the one to pick up on that?
I wasn't going to mention it. And I say this as someone who has both worked and stayed at homeless shelters.
No, GE, it was highly libertarian. Pressuring someone to do something is initiation of force. Public or private doesn't matter.
Or, heck, why not take all the candidates who rec'd any votes and who still express a willingness to serve, and have some sort of instant-runoff balloting scheme in Charleston?
It is unethical and unprofessional for one private organization to interfere in the internal affairs of another private organization. In fact, it can easily be construed as an initiation of force.
Good point. I suggest we stop interfering in the internal affairs of antiwar.com and move on with trying to get someone who ideologically most closely represents Ms. Keaton's constituency on the LNC. It will be an uphill battle at best.
chuckmoulton December 8, 2008
I'm disappointed to hear this on several levels.
Angela did a great job representing numerous constituencies on the LNC. She will be missed.
I agree with Susan that Eric Garris could have simply said it was affecting her work rather than slamming the LP if that's what it was about.
It's unfortunately that Eric didn't make his ultimatum before or during the meeting, which would have enabled the debate and vote on Angela's replacement to be conducted in the open with a gallery of LP luminaries watching.
Yeah. The fact that "my side" is represented by Seebeck, who just dropped about the most unlibertarian statement I could imagine, is why the LP is completely worthless.
Collectivist! 😉
Seriously, boy; you sound like Hospers!
As I snarked quite righteously at Eric, I think it's only fair of me to say I completely disagree with Mike's statement here.
Yeah. The fact that "my side" is represented by Seebeck, who just dropped about the most unlibertarian statement I could imagine, is why the LP is completely worthless…
The LNC = a homeless shelter?
How did I know you'd be the one to pick up on that? 😉
No, the LNC is a pretentious clique of neocon wannabes and "radicals" who lack the moral courage to even stand up against them.
You've got to stop this outrageous flirting, young man! It's most unbecoming!
No, George. The substitute motion caused the "charges" to be dropped completely. She had won. The committee was comprised in her favor and was basically a mop-up job.
If Angela resigned of her own choice, that's one thing. But being pressured into it is completely another. I respect her decision, whatever it actually is, but how it was arrived at is highly questionable. I want to hear her side of it.
It is unethical and unprofessional for one private organization to interfere in the internal affairs of another private organization.
As I snarked quite righteously at Eric, I think it's only fair of me to say I completely disagree with Mike's statement here.
If my boss said "Your association with that homeless shelter is embarrassing us, plus they're all a bunch of asshats, oh, and it makes you late for work sometimes too," *that* is another thing.
The LNC = a homeless shelter? Come on. Way to try to drum up sympathy. No, the LNC is a pretentious clique of neocon wannabes and "radicals" who lack the moral courage to even stand up against them. Eric Garris in no way acted "unprofessionally." It IS an embarrassment for Angela to be involved with the LNC; she's way too good for it and so is Antiwar.
We need Susan on the LNC
Why, thank you!
but that's like nominating Trent Lott for something that a Democratic Senate has to confirm him for.
Oh, possibly. Probably, even. But there are other considerations here than pure factionalism, and I am sure the LNC members well understand them.
Brian, thanks for the numbers. Maybe they should put all three up, and Carling and Mattson can split their vote, letting me walk away a la Badnarik…
Or, heck, why not take all the candidates who rec'd any votes and who still express a willingness to serve, and have some sort of instant-runoff balloting scheme in Charleston?
Absolute and total bullshit.
Mike he is not interfering in the affairs of the LP, more the opposite.
We need Susan on the LNC but that's like nominating Trent Lott for something that a Democratic Senate has to confirm him for.
Keaton 188
Mattson 131
Hogarth 127
Carling 122
Mr. Garris: It is unethical and unprofessional for one private organization to interfere in the internal affairs of another private organization. In fact, it can easily be construed as an initiation of force. In the political world, it's the very thing you stand against.
I will prefer to hear Angela's side of the story, and only then will I reconsider my donor status to antiwar.com.
I will comment further at that point.
Whether you are complicit in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, resulting in a forthcoming series of events that causes the LP to splinter and die, remains to be seen. But if that does come to pass, it started today.
As I understand it, the most likely choice to replace Angela is Alicia Mattson, as she was the next runner up for At Large in Denver.
That is an imperfect solution, because if Angela had not been in the race, it is by no means clear that Alicia would have had a higher vote total than me. Angela and I are much closer in 'constituencies' than Alicia and I.
Susan Hogarth sounds like she is running, although I have not seen a direct quote. Susan, are you running?
I've not seen Angela's resignation. I think such a declaration would be premature.
Time to move on.
Yep. As I understand it, the most likely choice to replace Angela is Alicia Mattson, as she was the next runner up for At Large in Denver.
And if so, how can we get the LNC to choose Susan? Is there any realistic chance they will?
Mr Garris' business is antiwar.com. Ours is the LP.
Thanks for the reminder. You're right, of course.
This was made public at Angela's request.
And I can certainly see why.
Should Garris be castigated for following Angela's wishes?
I beleive Eric acted unprofessionally. If my boss said "You seem very distracted at work – perhaps because of personal involvements elsewhere; and are not accomplishing what we need you to accomplish," that's one thing. If my boss said "Your association with that homeless shelter is embarrassing us, plus they're all a bunch of asshats, oh, and it makes you late for work sometimes too," *that* is another thing.
Mr Garris' business is antiwar.com. Ours is the LP. We just lost a valued collaborator to the competition bc our leadership created the conditions under which she was ultimately forced to choose between the two. Time to get to work.
Paulie misquoted me, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
My apologies. Inadvertent. I meant *felt* pressured, as in, was this a hard choice for her between antiwar and LNC.
To the very polite Michael Seebeck:
I never said: "I did not know for sure whether she was pressured." Paulie misquoted me, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I said I didn't know whether she felt pressured or relieved. Clearly I was applying pressure.
Susan – This was made public at Angela's request. Should Garris be castigated for following Angela's wishes?
GIVE UP.
Yes, the LNC craziness was having an effect on her work.
Well, thanks for making a personnel issue a public matter – and then using it as a grandstand to proclaim your disdain for the LP (justified or not; that's not the issue here).
I am VERY fortunate my boss would never treat me in such a manner.
Fred Church Ortiz December 8, 2008
Doesn't Garris realize that he is giving the Repugnicans on the committee exactly what they want with this request, er demand?
Not too relevant if one assumes the LP is already beyond repair.
Just because "they" want something doesn't mean you should automatically fight to keep them from having it.
I do not think Mr. Garris is primarily concerned with what is best for the LP. His job is to do what is best for antiwar.com.
Susan:
The answer I gave Paulie on the phone was after he asked a specific question that I responded to. I did not cover every detail in the letter, but I am happy to answer more detailed questions. Yes, the LNC craziness was having an effect on her work. I do believe that the LNC actions would effect the ability of anyone to function normally.
I will make this prediction right now: they'll appoint a Starr Chamber graduate and they'll go after Ruwart, Wrights, and Hawkridge next. And the LP will die from a massive faction split.
Hooray for Eric Garris!
Right. So he says one thing in print, and another on the 'phone. Which are we to beleive?
Both. Angela said all the same things to me many times back when we were still on speaking terms.
Do all the LNC members have to stand for re-election in 2010?
Well, God willing, there I will be in St Louis, with an 8.5×11 transparency stapled to my shirt, and a broom in my hand.
Doesn't Garris realize that he is giving the Repugnicans on the committee exactly what they want with this request, er demand?