1) An e-mail where Shane Cory told Angela that she’s well-liked “despite being the representative of the Outrights and the radicals,” not because of that… Keep in mind that as an LNC member, she was Shane’s boss, and such comments are borderline insubordinate. Too bad LNC rule books only get dragged out as pillories when Angela’s involved, huh?
2) A coffee date that I enjoyed with both Stewie and Angela during the CLC (Conservative Leadership Conference) in Las Vegas where, at the mere sight of Alan Hacker, Stew turned purple-faced and started ranting that “Hacker has defrauded the LNC and the LP!!!”
3) Overhearing Shane Cory curse a little too loudly under his breath when Outright showed up at the CLC event with a booth of our own
4) Watching Shane shit his pants when Angela and I grilled Bob Barr on DOMA in front of an assemblage of Libertarians and Republicans alike right in front of the Outright booth
5) Enjoying engagement from youth at various LP events, who are attracted to Angela like moths to a flame and who are attracted to Aaron, Stewie and M like gourmets to a Waffle House
And here’s a host of other entertaining (and not so entertaining) memories of the last 18 months:
1) Recalling when the LP violated its fiduciary duty by voting to make LP campaign resources available to a Republican incumbent congressman campaigning for a Republican nomination in an election contested by the Libertarian Party
2) Watching in stunned amazement this past election cycle as the Libertarian Party National Committee and web site refused to comment on California’s Prop 8 (or any similar amendments), and doubling that amazement when a vote for the LP of California to post the no-on-8 logo to its web site failed… not to mention the “fun” I had in explaining that “oversight” to all and sundry
3) Answering with a confused “The national committee is against it, I think” whenever I was asked about the LP’s position on the TARP, Citigroup bailouts, etc…. followed closely by me having to cite Bob Friggin’ Barr as the only Libertarian in national officialdom on this issue due to his proposed bill to ban bailouts
4) Showing up twice on the Signorile Show on SIRIUS Radio to comment on and defend the Barr candidacy from the righteous indignation of the LGBT community (by talking about his “evolution” on the issues and stating he’s no worse than Hillary Clinton… a world class defense of a Libertarian if I’ve ever heard one). Not to mention watching Angela struggle heroically to defend the indefensible candidacy herself without compromising her world-class integrity
5) Popping up on CBS News to talk about alternative candidacies… closely followed up by having the CBS News people inform me that the LNC members I referred them to (including Stewie) didn’t return their requests for comment… followed by complaints from some of the same people about a “media blackout” of Libertarian candidates
6) 42 newspaper and news magazine interviews in one week (mostly gay press) the week after the Barr nomination, grabbing the Libertarian Party’s Worst Ever Presidential Ticket the Best Ever Media Coverage it’s received in the LGBT community’s media
7) Watching Rob Power get profiled in the Advocate twice in a year — beating out the heads of the Stonewall Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans for coverage in 2008
Noting that the only significant Washington press coverage (with photograph) that the LPHQ received was an article about the Communications Director’s efforts to sell his SUV
9) Watching the Munger campaign run just about a perfect campaign with the resources they had — and watching LP national do nothing to leverage it
10) Explaining to media contacts that I had no clue why their requests for interviews with top LP officials I referred them to were ignored, and also that the full-time LP national HQ PR resource was not at HQ but working for the Barr campaign and thus was probably not returning their emails for that reason
11) Watching LPHQ celebrate an interview of Redpath in a bunny suit on YouTube as a media breakthrough less than 48 hours after a chat with a media person complaining that LNC members never return requests for interviews… and explaining to them that they’re “very busy” and “usually ignore me too.”
12) Watching the idiotarians (try to) beat up on George Phillies and his team, even as they grabbed media attention and ballot access cash for the LP…
13) Reading leaked e-mails from the LNC (which is leakier than the Speedwell) defaming every candidate running for the Libertarian nomination with the exception of Barr himself… and publicly slamming the effort to defame Dr. Ruwart… and reading LNC e-mails written by the culprit trying to pin the whole Ruwart thing on George Phillies
14) Watching the LNC claim it didn’t have enough money to complete a ballot drive in WV on time
15) Watching the LNC claim it had enough money to bash Phillies in NH despite not having enough to actually get access in WV
16) Watching the LNC’s lawsuit call its effort to remove George from the ballot while Barr was already on the ballot a “substitution lawsuit” (and seeing that Orwellian phrasing repeated by Stewie in his List of Supreme Soviet challenges to Ms. Keaton)
17) Watching Mike Gravel get pissed off every time someone referred to him as a Democrat during the National Convention
18) Watching some LNC members bask with pride every time someone referred to them as Republicans during the National Convention
19) Watching Christine Smith get drunker and drunker at the Capitol Barr in Denver before losing it over only getting 6 votes
Brian Miller dishes Libertarian Party dirt
December 2nd, 2008 · 101 Comments
Filed Under: Libertarian Party
101 responses so far ↓
1 richardwinger // Dec 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Much of this post has merit, but points #15 and #16 do not have merit. The purpose of the NH Libertarian Party’s lawsuit is to force the state to recognize presidential substitution. We are on track. New Hampshire is one of only 4 states that has ever denied presidential substitution, and which has not yet lost in court. It will be a huge improvement in the future if we win this.
2 Michael Seebeck // Dec 2, 2008 at 3:54 pm
You’ve said it before, richard, and you’ll say it again, but you’re still wrong. The NH suit was not about substitution and never was. We’re not going to go into debunking that again.
3 richardwinger // Dec 2, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Please try to debunk it.
4 Michael Seebeck // Dec 2, 2008 at 4:12 pm
See previous posts here and LFV and BAN. There are plenty. Simple inidsputable fact that you can’t substitute A for B on the ballot when both A and B are on the ballot. Old news.
Besides, if the 1st Court of Appeals upholds the MA case, NH becomes a moot point anyway. Focus on that instead, it’s a better and more winnable fight
5 richardwinger // Dec 2, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Lawsuits are not so mechanical as that. If you really want to understand the lawsuit, e-mail me privately and I’ll give you our attorney’s contact info, and you can discuss it with him.
6 Michael Seebeck // Dec 2, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I’ve read the suit. Its premise is flawed at step 1 and it has no merit. And that’s the opinion of MY lawyer.
7 George Phillies // Dec 2, 2008 at 10:46 pm
The core alleged facts in the New Hampshire suit are obviously false.
Furthermore, the suit was not served in a timely way.
In addition, the suit is about an effort of one group of Libertarians to try to steal the right of another group of Libertarians, the Libertarian Party State Convention, to choose the candidates that it and its volunteers want to put on the ballot.
Furthermore, the Libertarian State Convention met in October 2008 and had a key vote conclusively demonstrating its opposition to this suit.
The Massachusetts litigation has carefully substantially stayed, if you read the filings and decision, on the question of whether the usual lack of estoppal against a government applies in this case, and whether we Massachusetts libertarians are entitled to know what the laws of our state are. We are. We won.
8 richardwinger // Dec 2, 2008 at 10:47 pm
The lawsuit’s main thrust is that New Hampshire violates equal protection by letting the qualified parties substitute new pres or v-p candidates, and not letting the unqualified parties do the same.
The lawsuit is not specifically about 2008. The New Hampshire discriminatory policy also harmed the party in 2004, when NH was one of only two states in which Badnarik didn’t get on the ballot. The brief hasn’t even been filed yet; you are only judging the case by the complaint.
9 G.E. // Dec 2, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Not libertarian.
10 George Phillies // Dec 2, 2008 at 10:58 pm
The core alleged facts in the New Hampshire suit are obviously false.
Furthermore, the suit was not served in a timely way.
In addition, the suit is about an effort of one group of Libertarians to try to steal the right of another group of Libertarians, the Libertarian Party State Convention, to choose the candidates that it and its volunteers want to put on the ballot.
The Massachusetts litigation has carefully substantially stayed, if you read the filings and decision, on the question of whether the usual lack of estoppal against a government applies in this case, and whether we Massachusetts libertarians are entitled to know what the laws of our state are. We are. We won.
11 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 12:12 am
George Phillies plays the role of the anti-free speech Nazi fighting a free-speech case here. He’s a victim of the centralism he preaches. I don’t feel sorry for him. But the principle remains: the suit is unlibertarian for numerous reasons.
12 Jeremy Young // Dec 3, 2008 at 12:16 am
Regarding #1 on the first list: didn’t Cory resign from LPHQ before Angela was elected — thus making it impossible for her to have ever been his boss?
13 richardwinger // Dec 3, 2008 at 12:19 am
This year we won a ruling in federal court that if the government gives a list of the voters who voted in the presidential primaries to the Dem & Rep Parties, the government must also give it to us.
Last year we won a similar lawsuit in New Hampshire state court.
In 1994 our nominee for Governor of New York, Robert Schulz, won a pro se lawsuit that if the government gives a list of the registered voters to the qualified parties, it must give it to the unqualified parties.
In 1980 we won a federal court decision that if the federal government gives cheap postal rates to the parties that polled over 5% of the last presidential vote, it must give cheap postal rates to all political parties.
Fighting for equality under the law is a long libertarian tradition.
14 Steven Druckenmiller // Dec 3, 2008 at 12:26 am
the suit is unlibertarian for numerous reasons.
Name those reasons.
15 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:07 am
1. The 14th amendment is an unlibertarian, centralist amendment, which wasn’t even ratified. This is the double source of this suit, (1) the bogus “equal protection” clause, and (2) the notion that the federal government is supreme and the states are just administrative provinces.
2. Regardless of this, the suit was centralist. It sought to use the power of the federal government over a state, and the national LP over the state’s electors who (I don’t know why) are deluded enough to think George Phillies is a libertarian.
3. It’s also hypocritical for “states’ rights” Bob Barr to use the federal government to force a rival candidate (one who abhors states’ rights, ironically) off the ballot. Is hypocrisy libertarian? I don’t know.
Don’t for a second think that my opinions are motivated by dislike for Bob Barr (whom I voted for). Politically, I am much more in line with Barr than with Phillies.
16 rdupuy // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:02 am
Thanks for the lawsuit discussion, its interesting.
But back to the original story with lines like “Watching Shane shit his pants when Angela and I grilled Bob Barr on DOMA in front of an assemblage of Libertarians and Republicans alike right in front of the Outright booth”
I don’t know what the purpose of this writing style is, whether it appeals to some segment or not, but to me it sounds like some kind of immature rant. I don’t know Shane Cory, I don’t know the author of this article.
Given that as my starting point, you would think the author of the article would have the advantage….but he didn’t. This was written so poorly that I ended up disliking the author, rather than the intended target.
I’m sure Shane didn’t ’shit his pants’ and rather, you simply saw what you needed to believe. You come across as immature, and perhaps needing to believe you are on par with the more accomplished people you write about.
17 Michael Seebeck // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:40 am
Jeremy @12, Cory resigned before Angela was re-elected. She was elected the first time before he came on board, IIRC.
18 Michael Seebeck // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:42 am
rdupuy, it’s called exaggerated sarcasm. Kind of like when I make the statement, “I watched Aaron Starr’s jaw fall off his head and onto the floor when he saw what Starchild was wearing.” Obviously Starr’s jaw didn’t fall of his head, but the exaggeration is there to illustrate. It’s how she writes these things. Not an immature rant at all, just a writing style.
19 JimDavidson // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:49 am
@12 Angela was on the LNC before the Denver convention. She was re-elected to continue her service. During her previous term, she worked closely with Aaron Starr and others to raise money for the LP - and raised a great deal. Her work has been quite exemplary, in my view.
I think she was very bitter that the LP chose a nominee - or its insider clique pushed through the nomination anyway - who is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, a war monger, a former drug war prosecutor who still wants to fight parts of the drug war at both state and national levels, and anti-privacy - having voted for the USAPATRIOT act, for example.
It doesn’t seem to me that the LNC ought to be disciplining members who take exception to the Barr campaign running against the LP platform. Rather, the LNC ought to be disciplining the Barr campaign for running against the LP platform.
Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and polyamorous members of the LP are offended by the Barr nomination, and ought to object as loudly and as often as possible. Barr is a disgusting vermin.
20 JimDavidson // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:55 am
I wasn’t there, but I say if Brian Miller smelt feces when he saw the look on Shane’s face, then his report should be given credit. I feel confident that Brian would be able to establish whether someone crapped his pants.
For my own part, I like a colorful style in prose. Ambrose Bierce and Lenny Bruce were pioneers in using clear language, and not beating around the bush.
21 TheOriginalAndy // Dec 3, 2008 at 7:08 am
GE said: “Don’t for a second think that my opinions are motivated by dislike for Bob Barr (whom I voted for). Politically, I am much more in line with Barr than with Phillies.”
You voted for Bob Barr?!?!?!?! WTF??? I thought that you said that you weren’t going to vote this year, although before this you said that you were going to vote for Ralph Nader just to help prevent Barr from getting 3rd place.
Given all of your negative comments about Barr, I’m really suprised that you voted for him.
I voted for the Libertarian Pae rty candidate for President in every Presidential election in which I voted (Browne in ‘96 & 2000 and Badnarik in 2004) until this year. I did not want to reward the LP and the Barr campaign by voting for them given the fact that they have done numerous things in which I disagree, so I cast a write in vote for Ron Paul.
I’m shocked that you of all people voted for Barr.
22 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 3, 2008 at 9:59 am
“2) A coffee date that I enjoyed with both Stewie and Angela during the CLC (Conservative Leadership Conference) in Las Vegas where, at the mere sight of Alan Hacker, Stew turned purple-faced and started ranting that “Hacker has defrauded the LNC and the LP!!!â€
You were at a conservative event and you were talking down to the LP? Ha. That’s what I call hypocrisy!
23 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 3, 2008 at 10:13 am
maybe they should decide weather theyre libertarians or conservatives?
24 sff // Dec 3, 2008 at 11:01 am
I appreciate the humor of this posting, but I must make the following points:
I have never been contacted, either by phone, e-mail, or any other means by CBS News. I have just searched the old e-mail messages in the spam folder and there is no message from anyone at CBS News.
Turned purple? I don’t remember turning purple over anything, nor was I ranting over anything. I remember seeing Alan Hacker come in. My recollection is that we discussed whether he was going to sit anywhere close enough to overhear our discussion.
I agree that Shane looked very disturbed, but it wasn’t any of his business so I really didn’t care what he thought of it. We were having a discussion between several members of the LNC and representatives of Outright Libertarians in front of their booth.
The conversation with Bob was appropriate and I felt that Brian expressed his opinions clearly. I wouldn’t say that he “grilled” Bob.
I thought that the discussion was productive and that Bob appeared to understand more of the position that Brian was explaining to him than he had before they talked. I’m not a mind reader, so I can’t say what Bob was thinking, but reading body language and listening to words that were spoken I believe that he and Brian both moved closer to understanding each other.
It was a good debate.
That’s all I have time for today. Have to get some work done…
25 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I supported Phillies as the LP nominee. Once Barr won the nomination, I kept close eye on him. As long as he stayed within the LNC planks, I continued to promote his candidacy. Has he slipped away, I would have stopped. Either way, my vote for Barr was a vote for continued ballot access for the LP in Texas. He was also the best option on the ballot, in Texas.
I voted a straight LP ticket. I knew McCain was going to take Texas, anyway, it was a given. Just like Obama was sure to take California. It’s just the way things work, for now.
26 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Did you know that Phillies is a protectionist? ha ha
27 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Andy - Here’s what I just told Richard Winger, who was equally shocked I voted for Barr:
I will have you know that I originally wrote in Ron Paul, but there was a problem with my ballot (a machine-printed dot on one of the write-in ballot lines for a low-level office). On being given a second chance, I voted for Barr. I took it as an omen that voting for Paul (which would not have counted) was a bad idea and I chose the least repugnant candidate. That, I’m afraid, was NOT protectionist-idiot Baldwin.
28 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:26 pm
After seeing Phillies miss out, I was hoping to see Ruwart win. I was disappointed with the Barr selection but I dealt with it.
In what way do you consider Phillies to be a protectionist? If you are speaking of being an economic protectionist and those policies only affecting nations run by autocratic or communist type leaders, I’m ok with that. I saw nothing from Phillies that made me feel he had any intent to restrict trade with any democratic/non-socialist style governments.
29 yankeefox // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I think the LP convention would have been interested to learn that Phillies had no intention of honoring its choice of Presidential candidate.
A political party is nothing if it can’t select ONE candidate for each general election – a prerogative NH denied the LP. Of course, in the world of George Phillies, it would have been legitimate for “groups†of Democrats to put Hillary on the ballot along with Obama and “groups” of Republicans to put Huckabee on the ballot along with McCain.
30 hogarth // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:29 pm
If you are speaking of being an economic protectionist and those policies only affecting nations run by autocratic or communist type leaders, I’m ok with that. I saw nothing from Phillies that made me feel he had any intent to restrict trade with any democratic/non-socialist style governments.
Why should I be allowed to trade with socialists? Or monarchists, for that matter (since you seem to be excluding them, too). What about anarchists - do you exclude them as well?
31 hogarth // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Why should I be allowed to trade with socialists?
Please insert NOT between “I” and “allowed”.
Damn!
32 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Hogarth, I will not justify my lack of desire to help support socialist economies. I will also not be drawn into a “True Scottsmen” debate.
Yankeefox, I agree that the post convention Phillies was not what I had hoped for. N.H., I think, was a bad decision by Phillies. It was up to the convention where I had supported Phillies, not post convention. I am friends with Phillies’ press director (Carolyn Marbry) who I think has stepped down from that position during the N.H. issue. I didn’t ask her about it but she stopped talking about the campaign during all that.
Knowing her, I’d like to see her run in 2012. Very smart and I think she would make a great candidate. I just don’t think she wants the headache.
33 paulie cannoli // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:01 pm
http://phillies2008.org/phillies_on_free_trade
When we place a financial burden however labeled on American manufacturers, fairness dictates that foreign imports be subject to the same burden, a tax equivalent to whatever minimum wage and environmental restrictions foreign manufacturers are avoiding.
34 Trent Hill // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:09 pm
“who is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic”
I think that is a stretch. Perhaps the policies he support are some of these things–but I dont think Bob Barr is concsiously sexist, racist, or xenophobic. I also sincerely doubt he is afraid of homosexuals, though he may feel that homosexuality is a sin.
35 hogarth // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Hogarth, I will not justify my lack of desire to help support socialist economies.
There’s no reason you should. I only ask that you not interfere with my equal desire to help (1) myself and (2) people living under the burden of a socialist government.
If I agree to not force you to trade with socialists, will you agree to not force me to NOT trade with them?
36 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Paulie, I might take that statement differently than some. I see it as saying that if our government wants to regulate domestic companies where they have a problem competing with foreign companies from other nations, it would only be fair to our domestic companies to place similar financial burdens on foreign imports.
To me, that is meant to say that we should not stifle our own companies if we have no intention of doing the same to others. Or, stop stifling economic growth, all together.
Maybe I read it wrong. Maybe it was worded badly. Not sure but I didn’t see a problem with how I understood the comment.
37 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Hogarth, I see no way you would be helping yourself or the people of that nation. The socialist government will make sure that the local equivalent is more affordable than you. It’s the way they keep it in the family where they can control it. It a socialist thing. You would have no way to do better than the local equivalent.
Helping that nation would not be very helpful. Your costs will be regulated to that of which the government of that nation sees fit. If you impede on their ability to make money, you will either not be allowed to trade or you will be regulated to the point that you could lose a lot of money.
Either way, you can’t trade freely with a non-free economic structure, like socialism. Regardless of your own nations policies.
38 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 pm
There are “non-socialist†type governments?
Democracy = socialism. So your characterization of the countries Central Planner Phillies will “allow†you to trade with is oxymoronic.
39 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:23 pm
George Phillies is pretty much a standard liberal who believes everything his public-school teachers taught him. He’s with the ACLU, for god’s sake. He’s a moderate Democrat at best.
40 hogarth // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Hogarth, I see no way you would be helping yourself or the people of that nation.
That’s an interesting discussion, but irrelevant to the point, I think.
You may see ‘no way’ that I would be helping myself or others by taking heroin, but I suppose (hope) you’re enough of a libertarian to ‘allow’ me to make that decision for myself. Are you?
I’m simply asking for the same consideration with respect to trade. it’s none.of.the.government’s.business who I choose to trade with.
If you impede on their ability to make money, you will either not be allowed to trade or you will be regulated to the point that you could lose a lot of money.
Well, then, if these governments are doing such a good job of busybodying that no free man could/would trade with socialists, why would you and/or George Phillies feel the need to pile on more busybodying?
41 Trent Hill // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Yea, I respect George Phillies’ intellect, but I dont see what seperates him from the average progressive. I suppose he’s less protectionist and for lower taxes/spending—but not dramatically lower.
42 paulie cannoli // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Non-”average progressive” views from phillies2008.org:
“A partial solution is reached by allowing people at some age of adulthood to opt irrevocably out of the Social Security system”
“We should make Washington, D.C. a model for how business deregulation lets small businessmen make their community wealthy.”
“Our only hope is a President who points at Federal program after Federal program, corporate welfare scheme after corporate welfare scheme, and says the same four words “We can’t afford that.”"
43 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Phillies is slightly to the libertarian side of Bill Richardson.
44 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I don’t think so.
45 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Mandude0 - Don’t be a moron. It’s called division of labor and comparative advantage. If you don’t understand these concepts, study up. If you can’t understand them, like George Phillies, then you’re not smart enough to be a libertarian.
46 Trent Hill // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:20 pm
One neednt be “smart” to be a libertarian GE. The arguements for libertarianism can be based down just as simply as those for socialism…they’re just harder to accept for the average person. “Do I want ‘free stuff’ or to ‘work for everything’? No question.”
47 hogarth // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:23 pm
One neednt be “smart†to be a libertarian GE. The arguements for libertarianism can be based down just as simply as those for socialism…they’re just harder to accept for the average person. “Do I want ‘free stuff’ or to ‘work for everything’? No question.â€
That’s what folks mean when they say we have marketing issues. We need the question to be: “Do I want to work for myself only, or for a bunch of freeloaders?” No question!!
48 paulie cannoli // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:25 pm
That’s what folks mean when they say we have marketing issues.
It could be stuff like this:
Don’t be a moron. If you can’t understand … then you’re not smart enough to be a libertarian.
49 JimDavidson // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:46 pm
@34. “I think that is a stretch. Perhaps the policies he support are some of these things–but I dont think Bob Barr is concsiously sexist, racist, or xenophobic. I also sincerely doubt he is afraid of homosexuals, though he may feel that homosexuality is a sin.”
I don’t think it at all a stretch. He can lie to you about his views, but he is consciously pursuing policies that support my understanding of his views.
How do you interpret his eulogy for Jesse Helms? He wrote that Americans should be grateful for the entire Helms career - which included a long segregationist period. Several people supposed that Helms was a one-off thing, where Barr eulogised him because it was something he could do to get Barr’s name out in the press. But then he endorsed Chambliss who is also a blatant racist (and something of a pederast from the video I saw on The Daily Show).
How would you characterise Barr’s call for a pogrom to cleanse the military chaplain corps of any Wiccans? Seems like religious bigotry to me, which scent rises from many things Barr does.
I stand by my statement. If you don’t think Barr wants to continue to fight the drug war at the state level and by pursuing foreign intervention in Colombia, because Barr has said some nice things recently about medical marijuana, then perhaps you are naive. There’s nothing wrong with being jejune. Revel in it while it lasts.
50 JimDavidson // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:48 pm
@40 Susan’s position on free trade is correct. Phillies is wrong.
51 Michael Seebeck // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:51 pm
G.E., there are plenty of LP members who are ACLU members–including me. And no, I don’t agree with the ACLU on everything, either.
52 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:58 pm
So what? That doesn’t make them any less unlibertarian.
I agree with some of the Party for Socialism and Liberation’s platform. But I don’t join it. I would before the ACLU, though.
53 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:58 pm
G.E., there is no reason to get personal. Freedom and Liberty are different to EVERYONE. If you cannot understand that, you are not smart enough to be considered human.
Treat others as they treat you. A socialist nation will restrict you from practicing free trade. You will be taxed on your exports to them and your exports to them will be heavily regulated to the point where you are not trading freely. In return, I see no reason why our nation should not provide the same courtesy to their nations companies.
Free trade is a two way street. I’m not proposing that you not be allowed to trade with another nation or they with us. What I am saying is that if they allow free trade with us, we’ll allow free trade with them. If they want to tax and regulate our trade to them, we’ll do the same in return. There is nothing unlibertarian about that. It would be no different than retaliation to an attack. If they wish to live, peacefully, with us, we’ll live , peacefully, with them. If they wish to attack us, we will respond in kind.
Aggression begets aggression. Tell me where turnabout being fair play is not a Libertarian concept.
54 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:00 pm
paulie - I’m NOT concerned with “marketing,” especially not to “libertarians” who don’t understand free trade. Maybe your problem with “marketing” is your sissy style. I think LRC recruits more people into being libertarians than the LP ever has or will.
55 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I wasn’t.
Only if you’re a socialist. Free-market economists have long understood the suicidal nation of retaliatory tariffs, etc.
There’s a lot of “they” and “we’ in your comments. Not surprising from a Phillies supporter.
56 Trent Hill // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“That’s what folks mean when they say we have marketing issues. We need the question to be: “Do I want to work for myself only, or for a bunch of freeloaders?†No question!!”
Precisely Susan. Libertarians too often try to make intelligence an issue in any conversation, and then they’re pissed when America doesnt get it—or doesnt want to. Limousine Libertarians is what my uncle calls them. They think libertarianism is for the intelligent, the moral, the whatever. Instead, they ought to be figuring out ways to pitch the simple ideas of liberty to the stupid, the poor, the whatever.
“I think LRC recruits more people into being libertarians than the LP ever has or will.”
Depends on what your definition of “libertarian” is. But I think FEE recruited more to libertarianism than either.
57 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:06 pm
If you are trying to use “A Phillies supporter” as a derogatory term, you are only showing your maturity level.
The world is made up of sovereign nations. So, there is nothing wrong with using “they” and/or “we” to make the separation. We are a nation, they are another nation. Since when did Libertarians not recognize the sovereignty of individual nations?
58 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Since forever.
59 paulie cannoli // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I think LRC recruits more people into being libertarians than the LP ever has or will.
Got measurable metrics on that?
60 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Ok, G.E., so that maens it would be perfectly fine for the U.S. to send our troops to be stationed in any nation we see fit? Is that what you are saying? You know if they try to stop our military, our military will respond with violence, right? Why? Because those nations will see themselves as being sovereign. They will see U.S. troops entering their land as an invasion.
Is it your intent to force your version of Libertarianism on every nation on Earth? Unless that is your plan, you have no right to remove the sovereignty of any nation to your ideological whims.
61 G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Mandudeo = not worth my time.
62 paulie cannoli // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Ok, G.E., so that maens it would be perfectly fine for the U.S. to send our troops to be stationed in any nation we see fit? Is that what you are saying? You know if they try to stop our military, our military will respond with violence, right? Why? Because those nations will see themselves as being sovereign. They will see U.S. troops entering their land as an invasion.
Is it your intent to force your version of Libertarianism on every nation on Earth? Unless that is your plan, you have no right to remove the sovereignty of any nation to your ideological whims.
No, GE is an anarchist, as am I.
63 paulie cannoli // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Mandudeo,
It may be helpful if you look at it from the standpoint of individual consumers and businesses rather than nation states (or more accurately, armed gangs who illegitimately declare themselves as leading nation states).
64 hogarth // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Susan’s position on free trade is correct.
Stop it! Between Davidson agreeing with me and Holtz praising me, I’m getting the creeps.
Y’all are ruining my rep and perturbing my equanimity.
65 yankeefox // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Mandudeo - Don’t take GE’s comments personally - he voted for Barr after calling Barr supporters “Subhuman” - that’s just how he rolls.
And I do think you’re position on trade is not wholly un-libertarian. I believe the late great Harry Brown wanted to eliminate all taxes but import duties. But to most libertarians, any trade restriction in the pursuit of “fairness” is an abridgment of individual liberty in fact. As someone once said, “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
66 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Why are anarchists arguing politics? Not trying to be rude. Anarchist see no point in government, Libertarians see government as evil but a necessary evil that must be kept to a minimum and under control of the population.
G.E. is an anarchist trying to tell me, a Libertarian, that I am not a Libertarian because I don’t believe what he does. That makes no sense. Discussing politics, as an anarchist, isn’t going to be worth your time, if you are a true anarchist.
In case you guys didn’t notice, the name of this site is “Independent POLITICAL Report”. Did you not expect to see discussion of politics and separation of sovereign nations here?
In an ideal world, there would be no government. Unfortunately, the world is not and will never, for the foreseeable future, be ideal. Until that ideal time comes, we have little choice but to do what we can to limit the footprint of government. Governments have grown to huge. We cannot just stop government from being government.
THe problem is, in business, there will be hierarchy. Any business will have an owner. That owner will eventually select managers to handle various departments as the company grows. There will be some form of government existence even if we remove all the current governments of the world.
It is human nature to develop groups with leaders and followers. It has been that way since the beginning of history. It will be that way until the Earth finally gets consumed by the inflating Sun as it burns through it’s fuel and becomes a red giant. There will always be some form of government. That’s why Libertarians exist, to make sure that governments do not get too over powering.
67 hogarth // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Mandudeo,
I suggest you continue dialogue with Paulie and ignore GE. You’ll both be happier, and Paulie has more patience for teaching, apparently. A shame.
Paulie’s right - you and GE (and just about every other lib here) are coming at this from different viewpoints. One of my first lessons from a fellow lib was to stop saying ‘us’ and we’ when referring to the government-of-the-US and ‘they’ and ‘them’ when referring to the governments-of-other-places. It’s sometimes convenient shorthand, but it’s a bad mental habit to get into.
If I wanted to sell (say) blue jeans to the Russians in 1970, the Russian/Soviet government **AND** the US government sure would have tried to make it difficult, but there were apparently a lot of willing customers.
Consider the government-enforced embargo against Cuba. Who does that hurt? Cubans, mostly. Who does it *support*? The Cuban dictatorship, mostly.
Trade restrictions are always a bad idea. We can’t really change what other governments do to the people they rule over, but we have some slight hope of modifying what our government will let us do.
68 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Y’know, Yankeefox, if he were a true Anarchist, he wouldn’t have voted for anyone.
I think it’s safe to say “Pot…meet kettle”.
69 hogarth // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Why are anarchists arguing politics? Not trying to be rude. Anarchist see no point in government, Libertarians see government as evil but a necessary evil that must be kept to a minimum and under control of the population.
You need to read some history of the movement and maybe work out a Venn diagram
Here’s the short of it: many folks consider themselves both libertarian and anarchist. Many folks consider themselves both statist (minarchist, usually) and libertarian.
It is human nature to develop groups with leaders and followers.
Sure. But that doesn’t (necessarily) say anything about government, and it *sure* doesn’t say anything about the desirability of government. After all, it’s human nature to get ill, too, but that doesn’t make illness desirable.
70 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Hogarth, I see where you are coming from. I have made no attempt to say the companies or individuals of the U.S. should not be allowed to trade with these nations (See my post, above, explaining retaliations).
I think trade with Cuba should be opened. As I said, earlier, if they do not tax and regulate U.S. exports to Cuba, there is no reason the U.S. should tax or regulate imports from Cuba.
71 hogarth // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Y’know, Yankeefox, if he were a true Anarchist, he wouldn’t have voted for anyone.
Reading assignment:
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm
It’s all gold, but the money line for this discussion is:
“Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to.”
72 hogarth // Dec 3, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Hogarth, I see where you are coming from.
I’m not sure you do - and that isn’t meant as an insult.
I have made no attempt to say the companies or individuals of the U.S. should not be allowed to trade with these nations (See my post, above, explaining retaliations).
What do you mean by ‘these nations’? Any nations?
I think trade with Cuba should be opened. As I said, earlier, if they do not tax and regulate U.S. exports to Cuba, there is no reason the U.S. should tax or regulate imports from Cuba.
Right, I thought so. But suppose the Cuban government DOES tax-and-regulate, say, steel imports. Does that mean that *my* government should prevent *me* from selling cars in Cuba?
Why?
73 paulie cannoli // Dec 3, 2008 at 7:04 pm
And I do think you’re position on trade is not wholly un-libertarian. I believe the late great Harry Brown wanted to eliminate all taxes but import duties.
Argument from authority is a fallacy in logic.
74 TheOriginalAndy // Dec 3, 2008 at 7:14 pm
“And I do think you’re position on trade is not wholly un-libertarian. I believe the late great Harry Brown wanted to eliminate all taxes but import duties.”
Harry Browne wanted to reduce government down to only what was specifically listed in the Constitution. After this he suggested renting out a large arena to debate where we go from there.
75 paulie cannoli // Dec 3, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Why are anarchists arguing politics?
If we chose to ignore politics, that doesn’t mean politicians would ignore us.
Anarchist see no point in government, Libertarians see government as evil but a necessary evil that must be kept to a minimum and under control of the population.
Incorrect. Libertarians are anarchists who believe in individual property rights. Some libertarians believe in participating in politics as a practical necessity, while others don’t. There are also minarchists, who are close enough to being libertarian that, when engaging in practical politics, we call them libertarian.
G.E. is an anarchist trying to tell me, a Libertarian, that I am not a Libertarian because I don’t believe what he does. That makes no sense.
From the point of view of many libertarian anarchists, that is indeed the case. However, it’s not IMO the best approach when engaging in real world politics. If minarchists want to call themselves libertarian and work with libertarians, I see no reason why they shouldn’t, and many reasons why they should.
Discussing politics, as an anarchist, isn’t going to be worth your time, if you are a true anarchist.
Many anarchists, myself included, disagree. Like it or not (and I don’t), we do have a political system, and we have to deal with it. Likewise, some socialists may not like the existence of money, but they still have to make a living.
In case you guys didn’t notice, the name of this site is “Independent POLITICAL Reportâ€. Did you not expect to see discussion of politics and separation of sovereign nations here?
In case you did not know, GE started the site, and I am currently posting most of the articles here. So please don’t lecture us about the name of our site.
In an ideal world, there would be no government.
Ah, so you are an anarchist. Good.
Unfortunately, the world is not and will never, for the foreseeable future, be ideal.
How do you know?
Until that ideal time comes, we have little choice but to do what we can to limit the footprint of government.
Good, then we agree in opposing protectionism.
There will be some form of government existence even if we remove all the current governments of the world.
It does not have to have a coercive territorial monopoly.
It is human nature to develop groups with leaders and followers. It has been that way since the beginning of history.
At one time, the same could be said of slavery, unification of church and state, and many other evils.
It will be that way until the Earth finally gets consumed by the inflating Sun as it burns through it’s fuel and becomes a red giant.
I disagree.
76 paulie cannoli // Dec 3, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Y’know, Yankeefox, if he were a true Anarchist, he wouldn’t have voted for anyone.
Some anarchists have made that argument. Others disagree. I didn’t vote for anyone, but I participate in the political process I would eventually like to eliminate in many other ways.
77 yankeefox // Dec 3, 2008 at 7:24 pm
TheOriginalAndy - Thanks for jogging my memory on that one. I’ve always agreed with Harry Brown’s pragmatic approach that says “if you want dramatically smaller goverment, I’m with you.” This is what unites Libertarians, be they Anarchists, Constitutionalists or whatever.
78 paulie cannoli // Dec 3, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Many folks consider themselves both statist (minarchist, usually) and libertarian.
I am not aware of anyone who considers themselves a statist and a libertarian. Statist, as a self-description, is only used by a small handful of authoritarians (and even those generally prefer other terms, such as communitarian), and a few non-libertarians who have spent time debating libertarians. Libertarian minarchists might describe themselves as minarchists or libertarians, but I’ve yet to hear one call himself or herself a statist.
79 Mandude0 // Dec 3, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Right, I thought so. But suppose the Cuban government DOES tax-and-regulate, say, steel imports. Does that mean that *my* government should prevent *me* from selling cars in Cuba?
Why?
No, that is not what I am saying. If they (Cuban government) decides to tax and regulate steel, *your* government should NOT prevent you from selling cars in Cuba. *Your* government should level the field and tax and regulate imports from Cuba just as Cuba taxed and regulated imports from the U.S..
Trade is still allowed. The U.S. simply retaliated on behalf of U.S. based companies to show the Cuban government that the U.S. government does not appreciate the Cuban government taxing and regulating imports from the U.S..
Those taxes and regulations prevent proper pricing for sales and impedes true market value for goods and/or services.
If Cuba attacks Florida, I would expect the U.S. government to retaliate on behalf of the state of Florida. It a form of aggression against Florida from Cuba. Taxation and regulation of U.S. based companies is aggression of the Cuban government against U.S. based companies. I have no problem with the U.S. government responding in kind.<