I deal with large numbers of people all day and I don’t come off as a carney…I speak directly to every single voter, and with eye contact.

The eminent domain initiative was not an attempt to secure individual property rights, but was portrayed as such.

Certainly, there are problems like that with initiatives – the devil is often in the details. IMO, it’s even worse with the legislative process. Much worse, even. Legislation with great-sounding names is whisked past legislators who don’t have time to read it and who are mostly looking out for which lobbyists have more clout and raising money for their re-elections.

Legislation tends to be much longer and more complicated than initiatives, with all sorts of extraneous riders attached (initiatives are limited by single subject limitations). Then if your elected representative votes for some heinous piece of legislation, you have to weigh that against all the other legislation he or she has voted for on a cumulative basis, and against an opponent who is likely to be making vague and/or misleading campaign promises. That’s if there even is an opponent; many state legislative races don’t have one.

And when it comes to the US Congress, something like 99% of incumbents seeking reelection get reelected in most years recently. The idea that you can vote them out is largely an illusion due to the many advantages of incumbency.

This is supposed to be better than the initiative process?

Medicinal marijuana is less of a concern for me. I’ve not smoked weed in a very long time. I felt it impaired my ability to fulfill some goals, and left it behind. It is still not the government’s damn business.

I feel the same way. The initiative wasn’t medical, but I have worked on several of those. There’s an added compelling dimension that putting sick and dying people in jail for their medicine is absolutely unconscionable, and forcing them to sneak around like criminals is reprehensible.

Did you work the Vegas metro area? I am piss-poor at names, but very good at faces, and if the pictures I’ve seen tagged as being you are representative, I do not believe you petitioned me.

I was there. UNLV much of the time. DMVs. Election day at the polls. Stores a few time, not much. Some festivals. Kerry’s speech (I think – maybe it was Clinton or somebody on his behalf – maybe both). ETC. Andy was there with me – we got about 3,000 signatures.

Inequality of money is a different thing, because it often is the result of an accident of birth, not any Natural inequality. Inheritable property is not an inherent Natural Right. It is instead a gift of the state.

I would say it is a natural right of people to give their property to whoever they wish, including their children as is often the case. If you can’t decide who to give it to, is it really yours?

Athletic ability and other talent are often in large part an accident of birth. Eloquence and the ability to relate to people are partially a function of genetics and upbringing. Having the time to engage in free speech is partly a function of how much free time one can afford – which in turn is a function of all the above. So, money is hardly unique in sometimes (but not at other times) hinging on an accident of birth.

That comes from a very good authority, BTW:

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac Mcpherson, August 13, 1813, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Definitive Edition”, Albert Ellery Bergh; Editor, 1907; Volume XIII; pp 326-338

Well, Jefferson wasn’t always right.

I’ve got some things that need attending, and have been spending far too much time here anyway. I’ll look around for a more secluded contact point though. I’d like to hear what your reflections were about my full-contact with the aforementioned persons. I’m not trying to be mysterious, just protecting other pseudos. I enjoy anonymity, and traverse varied places, both in real life, and on the net. In some cases, they could work against each other.

I have the same problem myself.

I’ll touch base somewhere in a week or two.

OK – talk to you then….

Paulie, there was sinister undercurrents in the eminent domain initiative. As I mentioned before, the legislated remedies that were written into it, were heavily slanted towards the gigantic landholder, and those tend to be collectivist business entities. The remedies also made a mockery of “just compensation” as mentioned in the 5th amendment. It allowed for fantasies used for land use potential to assess land valuations.

There is also a concern in my mind regarding vertical space ownership in some instances. If land is purchased next to an established airport, there should be no expectation of owning the approach space. If the previous owner owned the land before the airport’s planning, then that owner possibly has a valid complaint, but this is not something that should be vested in deed transfer. that’s a nightmare.

If you purchase a plot of land in an area that is entirely single story family dwelling, it does not come vested with skyscraper sized vertical land rights.

The eminent domain initiative was not an attempt to secure individual property rights, but was portrayed as such.

Medicinal marijuana is less of a concern for me. I’ve not smoked weed in a very long time. I felt it impaired my ability to fulfill some goals, and left it behind. It is still not the government’s damn business. Did you work the Vegas metro area? I am piss-poor at names, but very good at faces, and if the pictures I’ve seen tagged as being you are representative, I do not believe you petitioned me.

Inequality of money is a different thing, because it often is the result of an accident of birth, not any Natural inequality. Inheritable property is not an inherent Natural Right. It is instead a gift of the state.

That comes from a very good authority, BTW:

It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac Mcpherson, August 13, 1813, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Definitive Edition”, Albert Ellery Bergh; Editor, 1907; Volume XIII; pp 326-338

I’ve got some things that need attending, and have been spending far too much time here anyway. I’ll look around for a more secluded contact point though. I’d like to hear what your reflections were about my full-contact with the aforementioned persons. I’m not trying to be mysterious, just protecting other pseudos. I enjoy anonymity, and traverse varied places, both in real life, and on the net. In some cases, they could work against each other.

I’ll touch base somewhere in a week or two.

“No. When I worked on causes with which I disagreed, it was easier to keep myself from getting into arguments with non-signers (or sympathetic conversations with interested signers, which can be just as bad or worse). Such arguments detract from getting signatures, and do far more to keep issues and parties off the ballot than quick and decisive refusals to sign.”

Not me, I definitely have a better success rate when I’m working for a cause in which I believe. Of course, I haven’t done that much work on causes in which I didn’t believe, but the few times that I have I found it more difficult.

One of the reasons that I have only rarely worked on something that I didn’t believe in is because I find it more difficult to stand there and ask people to sign something that I would not sign myself. I just don’t feel any passion for it and it makes me feel like an asshole for working on something like that. It is harder for me to get motivated and especially deal with taking crap from people (espeically cops, security gaurds, government bureacrats, and store managers) if I don’t believe in or care much about the cause.

I’ve worked on a hell of a lot of stuff. Almost everything that I’ve worked on has been stuff in which I’ve been a believer.

There are some things that I worked on where I was nuetral, as in initiatives that I didn’t really care about but were just barely acceptable for me to work, and I would also put working on other parties outside of Libertarian Party in this category.

I’d generally prefer to work on ballot access for another minor political party or independent candidate than I would want to work on a ballot initiative or referendum where I did not agree with what it did. Why? Because with most of the minor party and independent candidates I have quite a few areas where I agree with them (even though I may have several disagreements with them), and they are usually better than the average Democrat and Republican, plus I know that they don’t stand much chance of winning. So I’d feel much better about working for the Constitution Party or the Green Party than I would working for some crappy ballot initiative, because the ballot initiative is just one issue and that’s all it is so if I disagree with it I can’t find anything good about it, but with the Constitution Party and the Green Party I can find areas where I agree with them and focus on that stuff. I place putting another minor party or independent candidate on the ballot in a similiar category as putting an initiative or referendum on the ballot where I’m nuetral.

Only if it is of great importance to you. I confess to not being a fan.

This has no relevance when discussing equality as a natural right though. That pertains to how a legitimate state acts towards huumans. Another swirling difference.

Yes, but why would inequality of money be different, in this respect, than inequality in any other factors mentioned?

Maybe another time, in a more private setting, you’d be amused to hear some stories about my aggressive forays into web-spaces where some fairly powerful Russian-Americans frequent.

Sure. Name the place.

I’ve found them to be more amenable to logical arguments that the native born, btw.

Yes. Cultural difference.

Except at certain times.

It’s difficult to explain.

Why? When dealing with a large number of people all day, it’s hard not to come off as carney.

The medicinal marijuana petitioners weren’t as greasy, but they did not seem to be believers.

Not sure how believers “seem.” I’m a big believer in MJ legalization/decrim (the NV initiative is not medical, that already passed there years ago), although I may not come off that way when I am working (you may have seen me there, even). Basically when I am working I try to keep interactions with individual people short, because otherwise I am losing signatures. It may make me seem callous and flip. You get to see a different side of me here.

It flies in the face the idea, that these are grass-roots initiatives. They are not, and are funded often by unseen hands with ulterior motives.

That makes it sound very sinister. Yet what ulterior motives? People with interest in reducing harm caused by drug policy donate to an organization such as MPP and/or its NV partner, CSMP; they hire me; I get signatures from voters who are willing to let the issue be considered by the public rather than the legislature. MPP/CSMP then have to convince the voters, going up against opposing interests.

The same process takes place with legislators and lobbyists – but is far more removed from having anything to do with grassroots.

It is right that you take care in choosing to aid only initiatives that you believe in. I’d be willing to wager that you have a higher success rate in signings, when it’s for a cause you embrace too.

No. When I worked on causes with which I disagreed, it was easier to keep myself from getting into arguments with non-signers (or sympathetic conversations with interested signers, which can be just as bad or worse). Such arguments detract from getting signatures, and do far more to keep issues and parties off the ballot than quick and decisive refusals to sign.

You don’t strike me as the Carney type, although communication through web methods alone can be greatly deceiving.

True. I can definitely come off that way when petitioning. That’s not the whole me, though.

Thanks for the historical links. I love that kind of stuff.

-p

Re: Haugh’s actions on June 27-28, 2008

Sean Haugh has chosen the “smear the messenger” route out of trouble rather than mount a defense of his actions or deny them. This has entailed much false mudslinging I’ve had to defend myself against. The truth is, I’ve openly admitted all my genuine faults & mistakes, while categorically denying the false rumors. Richard Winger has agreed that the mudslinging is not deserved, nor is germane to the case.

Whatever Sean Haugh’s disdain for me (which baffles me), Sean Haugh DID IN FACT a) write an email threatening to call up LPMA officials and instruct them to “quite literally burn” my signatures worth $3,000, and b) follow through with this threat with a call to LPMA political facilitator Carolyn McMahon, asking her to destroy my work.

Sean Haugh carbon-copied acting director Robert Kraus and ballot access operative Scott Kohlhaas, likely because he felt comfortable including them in on a conspiracy, whether that comfort was warranted or not.

Sean Haugh has also used his position to try to illegally interfere with my contractual relations with non-LP clients, such as Ralph Nader for president, potentially a dischargeable offense itself.

Sean Haugh’s current actions that are, in my view, dischargeable:

1. Using his official office as political director to direct state party officials under his purview to commit a crime, namely MA election law that provides for a one thousand dollar fine and one year imprisonment; A reading of Massachusetts statutes also suggests that failed directive to others to commit a crime may be a crime as well.

2. Possibly placing acting executive director Robert Kraus and ballot access functionary Scott Kohlhaas in co-conspirator territory, if it is deemed that they received the email and did nothing. (When did they know and what action did they take?)

3. Attempted to defraud me out of $3,000 and, when that failed, attempted to defraud LP donors out of same amount. (the email stated “whether they have been paid for or not”)

4. Attempted to destroy viable Libertarian Party ballot access instruments, with full knowledge of such.

If these are not dischargeable offenses, then I don’t know what are.

Gary L. Fincher

Rachel, the very first thing I did was write a letter to the Judicial Committee, a hard-copy letter, and sent it out via USPS to each member. This was done pursuant to advice by Richard Winger, even before this issue reached the magnitude it has by Haugh’s actions.

The story broke over the message boards independent of me, since I was not the one who was the recipient of the initial email. It had already been leaked to others.

As you know, the postal service takes time to get letters to their destination, so no doubt the story got widespread distribution prior to reception by Judicial Committee members.

As a result of some of the postings, I realized that the LNC may be the more appropriate body for my complaint, so it was redirected (but by email, not as of yet by USPS).

This is why it seemed like you, and the LNC, was the “last” to get it.

It should also be noted that even before I redirected my letter to the LNC, I had been emailing Bill Redpath, to inform him of Sean Haugh’s actions. Redpath is, of course, chair of the LNC.

In all fairness, Richard Winger informed me over the telephone that Bill has been out of town on vacation and might not have had access to his email.

Please note that I am NOT faulting the LNC for responding or not responding, despite the fact that others are drazwing their own conclusions.

The only people I have been faulting are Haugh and those who have been spreading false reports about me and my character. Even though I am not the one who should stand scrutiny in this case, I nevertheless have freely and openly talked about any faults of mine that may be associated with my activist career, character, or life in general.

Check your email inbox. But just in case you are here first instead of checking email:

I’m very sorry. It seems that I am only responding to this because I just read your post on Independent Political Report saying that you sent me an inquiry, an inquiry which I did not receive in my email inbox. That prompted me to scramble to check my Spam folder (I do not check this very often, sometimes never) and found that it resided there, for some strange reason.

My first order of business is to conscientiously send this apology out to you, and, when I get finished catching up on that thread, I will send you what you’ve asked me.

I honestly didn’t know a message from you sat in my spam box (and have no idea why).

Thanks for your concern.

Gary

1) once I turn over evidence to the prosecutorial authorities, it is up to *them* to determine if this falls into criminal territory, not to me. If they determine Haugh has committed a crime, it does not fall to me to “drop” it;

and

2) I will be consulting with an attorney to discuss all my options. If the attorney feels that, legally speaking, I have recourse via civil processes, then I will have two options, pursue or not. Either option will then be legally and morally at my disposal.

You make it sound like I am a legal engineer or something.

You have to answer for yourself, what your underlying intents are. I just did a quick scan of an about page listed under your name linked from elsewhere. This TV ref might be too far before you time: there is a vast difference between a gunslinger and Palladin. There are many differences swirling about all of this. In ’72 I attended a few anti-war demonstrations, as a vet, not so much as what usually fits the general picture as a protester though. I tended to be up at the barricades well before the event began, attempting to talk to the National Guard and Police, to let them know that I understood about duty, and that my duty meant that I must at least try to portray the absolute futility and preponderate needless death that was the War in Vietnam before I could go home again. As the demonstrations began, I’d request a pass through their barricades, and was always granted one. It was during this time that I learned to have an affection for the real left, but this is not to be confused with the New Left. The only thing the New Left was good for was that their events tended to have many females in attendance with a fine stash in their purse, and a desire to help a returning son chill. For a bit of understanding, read the first section of this article, and then read the relevant bastard’s unapologetic self-confessed act of treason. Liberals are self-deluded arses, the right-side is self-willed evil. More of the swirling differences.

I am in agreement with you about securing ballot access. it is a valid goal. this does not change what I said about a movement’s vitality though. I am old-school, I guess, about some of this. When I encountered some of the for pay petitioners for Nevada’s eminent domain initiative in ’06, I was actually offended by the carney feel they exuded. The medicinal marijuana petitioners weren’t as greasy, but they did not seem to be believers. It flies in the face the idea, that these are grass-roots initiatives. They are not, and are funded often by unseen hands with ulterior motives. It is right that you take care in choosing to aid only initiatives that you believe in. I’d be willing to wager that you have a higher success rate in signings, when it’s for a cause you embrace too. You don’t strike me as the Carney type, although communication through web methods alone can be greatly deceiving.

As to you mentioning the self-evident: that inequality is a reality; I can be a most arrogant SOB, if you’ve not figured that out yet. Care to discuss Nietzsche? This has no relevance when discussing equality as a natural right though. That pertains to how a legitimate state acts towards huumans. Another swirling difference.

Maybe another time, in a more private setting, you’d be amused to hear some stories about my aggressive forays into web-spaces where some fairly powerful Russian-Americans frequent. I’ve found them to be more amenable to logical arguments that the native born, btw.

First, you list valid criteria as possible reasons for not hiring petitioners. But the truth is, I am probably one of the easiest petitioners to deal with, as my m.o. is generally to pick up a stack of petitions and then autonomously go into the field to collect them with minimal contact with coordinators until time to turn in my work, which generally is of high-production and always of high-validity.

Ergo, when such criteria is applied to me, my aggregate ratings as a good petitioner would place me at or near the top of every list.

One factor I cannot control is false trash being said about me, and while I do spend time trying to do damage control which ends up getting me in the limelight of infamy more than I wish to, I don’t believe your criteria included being fraudulently accused of things, including things that have nothing to do with petitioning.

Sean Haugh is using off-topic criteria (including not liking me for reasons I have no idea) to exclude me from a contractor list I have enjoyed being on for many years (except, that I sent in a resignation letter on 9/29/07 for working petitions through national, a fact Haugh seems to forget).

Try to discredit the messenger all he wants but that doesn’t excuse directing state party officials to commit a crime.

Also,

Haugh’s actions are more than just a “mistake”; he used his official position to direct state party officials under his purview to commit an actual elections law crime (which would have resulted in defrauding LP donors out of money). How could Haugh *not* be discharged for such a thing? (note that his initial motivation was to defraud ME out of $3,000).

Haugh has made himself a target of a civil case, and, if not discharged, is risking that civil suit including the whole party.

And finally,

Haugh cc’d Robert Kraus and Scott Kohlhaas on his email announcement to direct state party officials to violate election law and defraud donors. Inaction would place Kraus and Kohlhaas into “accomplices” realm, and subject them to legal action too. (although, in all fairness, I am not privy to whether or not Kraus and Kohlhaas took any action)

Of course not. I said you convinced me – not that you forced me. As you know, I reserve the right to change my mind on a case by case basis.

Making money is bad only if it involves the initiation of force and fraud.

If you want to work on issues in which you disagree, go for it.

I prefer to NOT do this myself, but if somebody wants to do this I’m not preventing anybody from doing it.

“Created equal” does not mean equal. Some people are more eloquent than others. Some people are more attention-grabbing than others. Some people have better connections than others – perhaps they know reporters personally.
Some people have more time than others. Some people have more money than others. Some people emote and relate to people better than others do.

These are all factors in making the dissemination of viewpoints possible.

Money is no different from any of the other factors in this respect.

Created equal just means that we have the same right to disseminate our viewpoints as anyone else. It does not mean we have the same opportunity.

We also have the same right to make a living as everyone else; but of course some people are born with inheritances and family connections, some are natural athletes or have some other talent, etc.

That being said; when I first posted my feelings about mercenaries being used to secure ballot access, I was unaware that many of those who the LP paid were also libertarian activists. Clearly, in those instances, it is not mercenaries who are being used, but instead members being compensated for duties performed beyond the norm. I would have made the distinction, had I been aware of it, and apologise for any unintended slur you might have felt from the post.

That was actually what I thought you meant.

It was only later, when I encountered the other interpretation being commented on, that it even occurred to me.

But given this distinction, where do we draw the line? I’m not a member of the Constitution or Green parties. They also hire me to get on the ballot. I believe that as long as we have partisan elections, they should be on the ballot.
In fact, I find the ballot access restrictions which make this line of work possible to be outrageous and entirely contrary to what this country is supposed to be about.

I also have gathered signatures to put issues on the ballot. At this time, Andy has convinced me to shun issues I disagree with. Does getting paid to put good issues on the ballot make me an evil mercenary?

At one time I worked on a broad range of issues. I believed at the time, and to some extent still believe, that the initiative process – imperfect as it is – is superior to the legislative process, and that taking issues out of the hands of the legislature is a good thing in itself, even when the particular issue is bad.

Did that make me an evil mercenary?

My ideology is that making money is not a bad or dirty thing.

All sorts of people get paid to do what they do; legislators, lobbyists, journalists, ministers, teachers – does that make them people who don’t care about what they are doing, are they “only in it for the money”?

Yes it is, so why has Sean Haugh yet to be fired?

Because it is antithetical to The Nation’s very foundation, which posited the revolutionary idea that All Humans were created equal.

It should be viewed for what it is. Money is not speech, but when it is used to effectuate protected speech, it assuredly is deserving of protection. It still should be identified for what it is; an opportunity purchased, and not obtained as a free and equal being.

That being said; when I first posted my feelings about mercenaries being used to secure ballot access, I was unaware that many of those who the LP paid were also libertarian activists. Clearly, in those instances, it is not mercenaries who are being used, but instead members being compensated for duties performed beyond the norm. I would have made the distinction, had I been aware of it, and apologise for any unintended slur you might have felt from the post.