Kubby would have been the way to go.

A noted LNC member called to my attention a memo. He sent me the memorandum that Shane Cory sent the LNC noting Cory’s discontent with then-recent discussions of one of Mary Ruwart’s books. (Actually, I am
being sent huge amounts of information these days, because the usually secretive National Committee has sprung more leaks than the Titanic after the bow broke off.) Cory’s memo, as seen on Independent Political Report, opened

It’s your call. Which message do you want in front of the voters?

On the Barr campaign, I think somebody made a good point Ruwart or Kubby would have rallied the base. I have held for a long time Barr should have made a deal with Ruwart in the case it came down to them and WAR. Which was an easily predictable scenario, as every source I saw could safely bet who the 3 frontrunners were. And, it was obvious Barr didn’t like Root.

In the end, I think the whole situation accidentally imploded. Barr was desperate and made a deal with the devil after no response from Ruwart. Ruwart had been busy.

He probably should have rejected any deal, but the vote came pretty close to the wire. I can understand his fear. I’d be willing to say Root played off that fear. I know being in that situation I might try to play kingpin too.

I can only dream today if we had gotten a Barr/Ruwart or Barr/Kubby ticket. The ticket would have gotten so many Ron Paul write-in or minor third party candidates.

“the first paragraph of each short answer is DESIGNED TO STAND ALONE and can be used as a ’sound bite’ for candidates. If you have more time, you can continue on to the next paragraph, then the next. “ (emphasis added)

For this issue the first paragraph states, “Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as rape victims. We can, and should, prosecute their oppressors.”

THIS, is the main, stand alone argument. The others are designed to work for various “audiences”. Again, using the word “children” and applying a one size fits all standard for 0 to 18 year olds was not, IMO, Mary’s intention.

After re-reading Ruwart piece, all I can say is…thank christ that woman was not our nominee.

Shane was absolutely correct; who knows what kind of permanent damage Ruwart could have done to the LP with her lunatic opinions on consensual sex between children and child porn.

AnthonyD is an idiot. He has no idea what he is saying. He has completely lost, and has not a clue what Mary Ruwart’s position is. Or, maybe he is just another troll, like “Ruwarchy”.

Regarding where it is documented – First, Schreiber said so at the Libertarian Heartland Conference in late April. You’ll have to dig out the videos of this conference, and also speak with the folks who heard Schreiber say this, several of whom were part of Mary’s campaign staff.

Secondly, I have an email from a source close to the book purchase who confirms this. Sorry, though, I am not going to divulge the name of this person. However, I am not the only one who received this email.

Where please?

You may not agree with her argument (which she states is not THE MAIN argument), but she IS trying to make an argument AGAINST child pornography!

BTW, for those who doubt my premise of Ruwart’s ” main argument” of this issue, in the “Author’s Preface” on page 4, Ruwart says :

“the first paragaph of each short answer is DESIGNED TO STAND ALONE and can be used as a ‘sound bite’ for candidates. If you have more time, you can continue on to the next paragraph, then the next. “ (emphasis added)

Secondly, I have it on good information that Cory NEVER had this conversation, with Mary Ruwart, as he alleges.

Thridly, Cory is NOT a libertarian . . . he is a conservative.

Fourth, how is her passage about arguing against “child pornography” turned into an alleged 50 year old pedophile having relations with an 8 year old? At minimum, this a Cory fabrication.

It is certainly a Cory slander of Ruwart at the least, and many of you bought into it.

Lastly, it is well documented that it was Aaron Starr, in alliance with Mark Schreiber (W.A.R.’s campaign manager) who purchased this book “post haste” with an $80+ shipping rush delivery to see in black and white, what Mary says in her book. Nearly immediately after, a troll named “Ruwarchy” started posting on TPW, which began the smearing of Mary Ruwart. If George Phillies had anything to do with this, it was only in a capacity of “piling on”. Please note that I say “If”, regarding Phillies.

If any of you are concerned about “bad” publicity, then why not just take “mainstream” positions. Oh, right, on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Barr makes that point, and takes milquetoast positions. Since when do libertarians shy away from taking principled, and yes, tough positions?

so … “why can’t we all just get along?”

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/41/us-justice-has-no-business-in-georgias-genarlow-wilson-case/

“The purist posits that there are only two alternatives: the state or no state. Social security or its elimination. Total drug prohibition or complete drug legalization. Laws regulating sex acts and the sex trade or no laws with regard to sex and sex products with people of any age depicting any act.

“The moderate argues otherwise: There are better ALTERNATIVES. Not just the singular alternative of no state. Any movement towards a smaller state is good.”

OK, so now that you’ve endorsed the Boston Tea Party, what next?

As you may or may not know, there are engineers at GM, Ford, and the other automobile companies whose job it is to develop prototype cars, in an effort to push the envelope in design, propulsion, interior layour, etc. They do this even though almost all their designs will never see the light of day. At best, the production lines will take the best ideas from the cars these theoretical engineers create, and put them in pedestrian vehicles like a Taurus, an Accord, or an F150. On an extremely rare occasion, one of those cars will make it to production. Even those are modified for consumer use.

I am sure you guys know where I am going with this at this point. Its safe to say that as valuable as those engineers are, no car company would be foolish enough to put one of those engineers in charge of what cars a company mass produces. Their minds are too theoretical, they look at problems in the automobile industry from a skewed perspective. That is a good perspecitve for their job; it is a disasterous perspective for the mass production lines.

It is good there are theoretical politicians like Mary Ruwart who are there pushing the envelope, even on ultrasensitve topics like age of consent laws. It is good that there are folks like yourself who do the same in the blogosphere.

But we cannot select a “theoretical politician” like Ms. Ruwart for a job like practical politics. For that, we need a practical politician who understands what the public is ready to accept. We need Mary Ruwart to argue that all drugs should be legalized, who could care less what the voters think and argues her position well. We need someone like Bob Barr to take those ideas, and MODIFY, yes, I said MODIFY them according to his skills: knowing what the American people are ready to accept.

Mary has one skill (the theoretical), Bob has a different skill (the practical). They are both necessary in the fight for liberty.

If one believes that a person defined as a “child” by his/her community laws (which change across state-borders in this nation-state), has attained a level of personal competence, responsibility and awareness, such that CHOICE is potentially possible … the rules should also change, insofar as prosecuting others for becoming involved with such a “child” — whether it is sexuality, business-dealings or whatever. We “protect” children (as we should); we don’t excuse them for committing real crimes, and we should not persecute them for acting “willingly” … if that is indeed possible.

I would submit that a 4-year-old likely lacks the perspective to “choose” much of anything beyond whether or not to obey a parent (with the resultant consequences) … A 16 year old? much more likely … a 12 year old? Still possible (recall that a little over 100 years ago, such “kids” were raising families and running farms )

Great point!

if our society were only capable of comprehending variant terms — infant, preteen, adolescent, younfr adult — to describe the emerging stages of human development … this whole issue would dry up and blow away.

Mary was talking about the principle of opposing government interference in what should be an individual decision.

In many cases, a parent takes on the responsibility for decisionmaking for his/her “child” — up to some point where that “child” has developed (and or been raised to have) the capacity for “willingly” participating in … [fill in the blank]!

The fact that this discussion involves “child pornography” is of less concern to me than that it addresses the issue of when a “child” may become capable of personal/rational choice … this is NOT a matter of chronology, but one of maturity …

I would also note that when speaking of adolescent “children” our society brands them as “incompetent” to decide to have consensual sex … but will try them as adults for murder and other crimes allegedly requiring malice aforethought …

“Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well…”

Poor choice of words by Dr. Ruwart. Children, by definition, cannot consent to sex. She should have said “young people.”

There’s no need for “age of consent” laws to dole out this justice.

“Age of consent” is about as irrational as the Supreme Court’s “trimester” rules on infanticide. You cannot obtain the “right” to consent on X birthday. These are fictitious, manmade, evil laws, and to hell with anyone who cowers in the face of evil and calls that “incrementalism.”

The state is beyond redemption.