This has been covered previously on the website. A Missouri Information Analysis Center report that designates supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin as potential militia-influenced terrorists. Baldwin appeared on the Alex Jones Show to talk about the issue.
The three politicians have collaborated on a letter that will be send to Missouri officials protesting the MIAC report. Baldwin stated that if the MIAC report is not fixed to get rid of the “absurd” claims, the three signatories of the letter will consider legal action.
You can read the full article here. Source: Infowars.
113 responses so far ↓
1 Morgan Brykein // Mar 20, 2009 at 12:54 am
Glad to see the three of them working together. We libertarians (I wouldn’t say Baldwin is completely libertarian though `~`) need to stick together.
If this turns into a big court case, there’s going to be some media attention, no doubt.
2 ATM // Mar 20, 2009 at 1:53 am
If they could have worked together better during the presidential election season . . .
3 Andy // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:12 am
” We libertarians (I wouldn’t say Baldwin is completely libertarian though”
Neither is Barr.
4 Morgan Brykein // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:22 am
Never said he was, necessarily.
5 Kimberly Wilder // Mar 20, 2009 at 7:28 am
Great to see three politicians working together for a good thing.
Glad IPR is covering the story. I think it is important for third party activists of all stripes.
We have to make sure that our government can not use the criminal justice system and the federal government’s spying powers to intimidate us, squelch us, or infringe on our Free Speech and right to associate.
6 mscrib // Mar 20, 2009 at 8:46 am
Well, neither is Paul, if you want to nitpick.
7 Legalfreedom // Mar 20, 2009 at 8:53 am
you folks are looking at this wrong.
1 its a red herring.
2 if this is the case they will know whom to truly fear if the economy tanks cause i myself will be 1 of the hunters.
3 refer to 1.
let them do their worst at us freedom loving people,as we will overcome them in the end and they will regret every time they badmouthed us
8 GMartine // Mar 20, 2009 at 9:16 am
A fascist govt will always consider free people terrorists.
9 Ron Moss // Mar 20, 2009 at 9:20 am
Three politicals motivated primarily by assuring constitutional foundations in government. (In the future)” You have not because you ask not”
10 NewFederalist // Mar 20, 2009 at 9:44 am
Wow! The response to this is amazing. People can’t even agree that this is terrible without attacking someone (in this case everyone) for not being a real libertarian. Is it any wonder the government figures they can get away with this?
11 Susan Hogarth // Mar 20, 2009 at 10:04 am
People can’t even agree that this is terrible without attacking someone (in this case everyone) for not being a real libertarian.
Hyperbole much?
Pointing something out is not ‘attacking’. Barr, Baldwin, and Paul all seem to deviate from libertarianism to some degree or another. No one here is ‘attacking’ them for that – just pointing it out.
I often think the people who loudly lament the ‘divisiveness’ of the movement are more divisive than people who simply recognize differences and move on.
12 NewFederalist // Mar 20, 2009 at 10:34 am
“I often think the people who loudly lament the ‘divisiveness’ of the movement are more divisive than people who simply recognize differences and move on.”
All true IF they move on.
13 Mik Robertson // Mar 20, 2009 at 11:07 am
It is likely that Baldwin, Barr and Paul all have positions that would increase liberty in some respects and others that may not. If it is always pointed out that some position may not result in increased liberty therefore the person advocating that position is not a libertarian, then no one is a libertarian.
Conversely, if you consider that some positions may attract those who are militia-influenced terrorists then pretty much anyone could be considered to have supporters that are militia influenced terrorists. Dennis Kucinich better watch out.
14 robert capozzi // Mar 20, 2009 at 11:33 am
susan, great point. it’s fair and valuable to point out DIFFERENCES of opinion. our difference, for ex., is that you seem to believe there’s such a thing as a plumbline L-ism. I don’t. So, I view Barr and Paul as Ls, even though I sometimes disagree with them. You may not view them as Ls.
15 robert capozzi // Mar 20, 2009 at 11:58 am
mik, fantastic point. the “pure” can be mighty lonely.
there is also the “backfire” factor. let’s say that somehow or other, the “radical” position of, say, open borders were actually enacted. might be good. might, however, be bad, as the US might get rapidly swamped with, say, half of Latin America. Perhaps the chaos is unacceptable, leading to massive “emergency” deportations. the above is speculative, not a prediction, and it could be Europeans or Asians.
I’d strongly suggest that one-dimensional application of theory is dysfunctional.
16 Fred Church Ortiz // Mar 20, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Barr will probably decide to write his own letter at the last minute, leaving RP and Baldwin’s with a big gaping hole in the text.
17 Trent Hill // Mar 20, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I dont think there is a “plumb-line” either, for libertarianism. Just a general direction towards less government.
Im REALLY glad Paul, Barr, and Baldwin are issueing press releases together. There was alot of animosity between Paul and Barr, as well as Barr and Baldwin, or at least–between their voters, volunteers, and activists. Hopefully these three will continue to work together in the future.
18 Trent Hill // Mar 20, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“Barr will probably decide to write his own letter at the last minute, leaving RP and Baldwin’s with a big gaping hole in the text.”
Ohk, regardless of what I think politically–this was funny crap.
19 Joe Murphy // Mar 20, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I was also happy to see all three of them working together. It is what we need if we are really going to achieve freedom from a strong central govt. We do not all have to agree on EVERYTHING to be on the same side(freedom that is).
20 MeetTheTruth // Mar 20, 2009 at 12:36 pm
You can watch Chuck’s response that was live-streamed from last Sunday’s services.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vn86dNE9mcg
21 Susan Hogarth // Mar 20, 2009 at 1:47 pm
let’s say that somehow or other, the “radical” position of, say, open borders were actually enacted. might be good. might, however, be bad, as the US might get rapidly swamped with, say, half of Latin America. Perhaps the chaos is unacceptable, leading to massive “emergency” deportations.
Lovely. Libertarians pointing out just how scary freedom is, and horrible its aftermath ‘might be’. That’s *just* what the LP needs.
What’s next, Robert – are you going to write about how children ‘might’ be starving in the streets if welfare is defunded? How citywide fires ‘might’ sweep unchallenged through our streets if we move to a system of private fire companies?
What an ambassador for freedom you are!
-sigh-
Gods. Give me the Latin Americans anyday. They can’t be dumber than the average US citizen, and their music and food is much better!
22 Susan Hogarth // Mar 20, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Libertarians like Capozzi make arguments here against libertarianism, and what happens? “Purists” get blamed… for being *divisive*!
All I can say is w.t.f!?
With friends like Robert, we don’t need enemies! We have to spend all our time defending freedom within our own ranks!
23 robert capozzi // Mar 20, 2009 at 1:58 pm
joe, if I understand the plumbline perspective properly, they would say there is AND HAS TO BE one set of “correct” positions. any deviation represents an inconsistency, and inconsistency is a threat to the very foundations of liberty. if we accept one deviation, they seem to say, we corrode the notion of “principle,” which can be objectively deduced in ALL human action.
they wish to hold high the banner of “pure” liberty as the ideal against which all progress is measured.
only by consistently opposing any and all monopolistic coercion can we successfully remove the State’s jackboot from our throats.
of course, there are numerous logic leaps and faulty premises bound up in this tactical Leninism, but it summarizes fairly, I think, our radical brothers’ and sisters’ vehement and intransigent perspective.
those who disagree with this perspective are to be mocked, shunned, condemned and otherwise ostracized as “unprincipled opportunists,” “regimists,” “sell outs” or “centralizing Lincoln idolators.” sometimes deviationists are told to “walk into traffic.”
I WISH I were making this stuff up!
24 HumbleTravis // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Who cares if they’re libertarians? Americans should be opposed to the MIAC report regardless of what unpopular views it smeared.
The issue here is not what label that “libertarians” give them, it is how Missouri law enforcement considers some of their followers to be terrorists. MIAC certainly isn’t talking about their differences in immigration, drug or trade policies. They are painting them all with the same brush.
25 Susan Hogarth // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Who cares if they’re libertarians? Americans should be opposed to the MIAC report regardless of what unpopular views it smeared.
Of course.
26 robert capozzi // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:21 pm
susan, it should have been quite obvious that I specified Latin Americans, but then cited Europeans and Asians. Latin America is contiguous and, last I checked, accounts for most US immigration in recent years. cheap shot! maybe if I’d of said “Martians” you would not’ve been confused by my plain words.
I share your love for not only Latins, but all people. And I’d like immigration to be as free as possible.
For many, Susan, full blown anarcho freedom IS scarey…haven’t you noticed? Yes, immediate cessation of the welfare state is unattractive, for social orders evolve. The risk of millions starving may be far fetched, but abolitionism too could easily backfire, as it did in 1861-5, for ex.
Your apparent construct seems unable to incorporate practical considerations, countervailing conditions, and ripeness…but I STILL love you dearly.
Politics isn’t physics.
27 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Glad to see the three of them working together.
So am I.
We libertarians (I wouldn’t say Baldwin is completely libertarian though `~`) need to stick together.
Has Baldwin ever claimed to be a libertarian? Not to my knowledge.
But, I’m glad he is working with Paul and Barr on this.
28 Susan Hogarth // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Capozzi,
…if I understand the plumbline perspective properly,…
You don’t. So please stop spreading confusion and ill-feeling by ‘explaining’ the positions of people you don’t agree with but who happen to be your allies to others.
I suggest you work harder on stating your own positions intelligibly rather than spreading confusion, ill-feeling, and divisiveness by representing your confused feelings and opinions about others’ positions *as* their positions.
29 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Neither is Barr.
Well, neither is Paul, if you want to nitpick.
They’ve used the L-word and run on it. So there is a difference right there.
Although, this is indeed a tangent.
30 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Great to see three politicians working together for a good thing.
Glad IPR is covering the story. I think it is important for third party activists of all stripes.
We have to make sure that our government can not use the criminal justice system and the federal government’s spying powers to intimidate us, squelch us, or infringe on our Free Speech and right to associate.
I agree. Anyone know of Green or Socialist leaders issuing any statements about this? We need to support each other in matters like this.
31 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Barr will probably decide to write his own letter at the last minute, leaving RP and Baldwin’s with a big gaping hole in the text.
LOL.
32 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I dont think there is a “plumb-line” either, for libertarianism. Just a general direction towards less government.
Plumbline = consistently for much less government across the board on all issues. However, we welcome partial alliances.
Im REALLY glad Paul, Barr, and Baldwin are issueing press releases together. There was alot of animosity between Paul and Barr, as well as Barr and Baldwin, or at least–between their voters, volunteers, and activists.
My understanding is that it was mostly staff-level, and there was no real animosity between the candidates themselves. Although, I did not ask any of them personally.
33 robert capozzi // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:35 pm
susan, i’ve certainly read murray’s unexpurgated strategy memo…I even bought it for a bit in my youth.
so, sorry, though, which part did I misrepresent?
34 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I was also happy to see all three of them working together. It is what we need if we are really going to achieve freedom from a strong central govt. We do not all have to agree on EVERYTHING to be on the same side(freedom that is).
To the extent we agree, we can certainly work together.
BTW, we still need a CP writer(s) to post stories here at IPR…
35 Susan Hogarth // Mar 20, 2009 at 2:56 pm
For many, Susan, full blown anarcho freedom IS scarey…haven’t you noticed?
Yes, I have. I view myself as an ambassador of freedom, not someone trying to warn people against it. This is why I try not to make their fears worse by feeding them. This is a technique you might try – rather than saying “Gosh, I guess freedom *might* cause death and destruction, after all.”
36 Susan Hogarth // Mar 20, 2009 at 3:09 pm
susan, i’ve certainly read murray’s unexpurgated strategy memo…I even bought it for a bit in my youth.
Are you typing on a phone, or are you just having a ‘celebrate e e cummings’ day?
Your memory of some of Rothbard’s writing != radical libertarianism. So, please, let *radicals* explain to others what *they* mean by radical libertarianism. It will be less confusing all around – unless, of course, you goal is to -increase- confusion.
so, sorry, though, which part did I misrepresent?
Better minds than mine have broken on the rock of your willful ignorance, Robert. I’m not playing that game with you. All I ask is that you stop representing yourself as an expert on the beliefs of Group Y to Person X when you are actively hostile to Group Y’s beliefs.
And in case that’s confusing:
Group Y = libertarian radicals
Person X = anyone
37 Donald Raymond Lake // Mar 20, 2009 at 3:19 pm
One more time, the [obvious fatal flaw] is that the TPW and IPR site[s] is not a full spectrum alternative political activist blog. Faulty foundations!
Paulie, IPR needs posters of non neo con, non theo con, non paleo con blogs. Honesty, honesty, honesty……….
Again, the FACT that person after person infers that IPR is a Libertian/ Lib Lite site and that Barr, Baldwin, and Paul are de facto libertarians, is another piece of evidence of the gross dishonesty tolerated with entire ‘movement’. Sad, sad, sad…………
38 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Lake, once again your complaints make no sense. We just added one more Green, and another one came back. We also added a registered Libertarian who thinks Nader would make a great president.
Your repeated complaints are entirely without merit. Most of the people who write here are leftists, greens (Gregg, Kimberly), or left-leaning libertarians (me, Ross, Morgan).
On the other hand, we have zero writers affiliated with the Constitution Party, although Trent used to be in the past.
In overall stories, and especially in recent stories, Greens, Nader and Socialist have a lot more coverage than the Constitution Party.
You’ve not gotten any people who actually want to write here to ask to do so. Do that, and there’s a very good chance they will be added.
FACT that person after person infers
What persons are those? Besides you, the individual who makes the most persistent claims of bias is Dondero, who believes we are left wing.
And in fact, he may have somewhat of a point. (See “selected articles”).
39 Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 20, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“of course, there are numerous logic leaps and faulty premises bound up in this tactical Leninism”
Lenin was a democratic centralist in terms of tactics — the group decides, then everyone in the group has to proceed in lock step.
Rothbardian radicals aren’t democratic centralists, they’re dialectical materialists — they abhor a contradiction and seek to collapse such contradictions as they may find so as to reach the truth. Their resemblance to Leninists isn’t tactical, it’s philosophical.
40 robert capozzi // Mar 20, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Susan, I so cherish our dialog!
You indicated early in this thread that Barr and Paul “deviate” from Lism, yet both have run for president as Ls and both are – I believe- life members.
Did you intend to qualify your assessment, or are you saying that YOU know what “real” L-ism is, and they don’t? Do you not see that is highly divisive? Judge, jury AND executioner?
41 robert capozzi // Mar 20, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Tom, thanks for the clarification.
I seem to recall that Leninists were also trained to avoid weak points in their ideology by making personal attacks to distract from their own weakness.
In my experience, Rothbardians employ this tactic as well. Recall that Murray came up in a Red Diaper environment, if I recall correctly. It seems understandable that he’d incorporate that zealous approach for vestigial cultural reasons.
Old habits tend to die hard.
42 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 4:22 pm
@38 correction,
Kinberly is no longer a big-G Green, but still largely of that ideology.
But on a larger point, Don still seems to classify the LP and CP together. This is true of some Libertarians, but not all – I’m a lot closer to the Greens than I am to the Constitution Party myself.
The “neocons” thing is just a throwaway line – very, very few people here support a lot of US intervention abroad. Pretty much just Dondero, a few random people who stop by rarely, and maybe the Whigs. Pretty much everyone else is for scaling US military interventionism way back or ending it completely: Greens, socialists, libertarians, constitutionalists – that’s one thing we all agree on.
Greens and Libertarians are not “theocons,” clearly. Who is a theocon or neocon that writes here, Don?
Trent is somewhat “paleolibertarian”/paleoconservative. Everyone else – no.
Now, we probably should get one or more people in that vein. But they aren’t here yet.
43 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 4:26 pm
44 robert capozzi // Mar 20, 2009 at 4:36 pm
pc, if your def. of plumbline is accurate, I might be one, too.
I guess the issue is: what is “much less,” and how quickly one ADVOCATES for specific liberty-enhancing measures.
If I advocate for a 5% cut in federal discretionary spending, is that on the plumbline?
…the things one learns on IPR!
45 Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 20, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Bob,
Just to clarify: There was a point at which Rothbard himself DID advocate a Leninist tactical approach to party politics.
That’s why it’s easy to mistake the motives of the (largely Rothbard-influenced) radical wing of the LP as rooted in such a tactical approach.
I believe, however, that that perception is mistaken. The LP’s radical wing is not so much a faction (a grouping around specific policy aims) as a sect (a grouping around a specific single methodology or root principle — specifically a dialectical methodology which doesn’t tolerate contradiction and seeks to resolve it or to collapse competing theories under it).
Yes, they want the party to operate on that single methodology/root principle, but that’s effect, not cause.
46 Morgan Brykein // Mar 20, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Wow, my first post that made a huge impression.
47 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I guess the issue is: what is “much less,” and how quickly one ADVOCATES for specific liberty-enhancing measures.
Well, yes. In the strictest sense, to the extent you defend coercive monopoly government continuing to exist, you are not libertarian. But to the extent that you want to cut it, you are libertarian relative to what we have now.
If gradual cuts start taking place, to the extent you continue to support them, you are relatively libertarian.
If I advocate for a 5% cut in federal discretionary spending, is that on the plumbline?
I don’t think so. A night watchman state can be plumbline libertarian, at least for the purpose of practical politics. Taking the federal budget back one year (or less), not so much.
But don’t get me wrong – it would still be better than what we have now. I just would not get too excited about getting involved in advocating such a thing. That’s like asking the KKK to cut back 5% on lynchings when they’ve been going up every year.
48 robert capozzi // Mar 20, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Tom, yes, great insight. And that sounds right…methodology first, tactics, more or less an afterthought.
49 robert capozzi // Mar 20, 2009 at 6:08 pm
pc, interesting…perhaps we’re getting somewhere.
First, let’s stipulate that I consider myself L, and ultimately no one’s been empowered to judge who is or isn’t L, including me, except for me.
2 words jump out at me in your note: “defend” and “excite.” How is it that advocating a change in direction as a first step is “defending” anything? The State exists, and no silver bullet will fell it. Advocating cuts merely plays the game as it’s played. In theory, I’d like most or possibly all of it to go away, but I’ll take what I can plausibly get.
And, while I respect that you are personally “excited” by more grand ideas, how does that factor into what you deem L or not?
Psychology is an important factor in forming our personal perceptions, but it seems unusual that you’d bake the excitement factor into discerning who is and isn’t L. I can understand your preferring an L who advocates State abolition, but to rule out someone with more relevant positions strikes me as odd.
50 Michael H. Wilson // Mar 20, 2009 at 6:25 pm
There’s a saying that perfect is the enemy of good. There is some truth in that with Libertarians. Too often and too many refuse to work with others unless they hold to the same beliefs completely.
There is also an interesting joke or story in which to members of the same faith meet on a road and go through all the dozens of permutations of their particular faith until finally they find something they don’t agree on and one of the men calls the other a heretic at that point and wishes him to die and be cast into hell. Kinda reminds me of Libertarians.
51 Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 20, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Michael,
I think you’re thinking of this Emo Philips routine:
—–
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge,
about to jump off. So I ran over and said, “Stop! don’t do it!”
“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.
I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”
He said, “Like what?”
I said, “Well…are you religious or atheist?”
He said, “Religious.”
I said, “Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?”
He said, “Christian.”
I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”
He said, “Baptist!”
I said, “Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”
He said, “Baptist Church of God!”
I said, “Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed
Baptist Church of God?”
He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”
I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879,
or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”
He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”
I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off.
—–
52 Michael H. Wilson // Mar 20, 2009 at 7:13 pm
I think you are right Tom.
Thanks. I must get a copy.
MW
53 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 8:07 pm
LOL.
Is that supposed to be me, pushing RC off?
First, let’s stipulate that I consider myself L, and ultimately no one’s been empowered to judge who is or isn’t L, including me, except for me.
You’re certainly libertarian in the face of the status quo. Unless/until we get to a much smaller state which you oppose cutting further, “libertarian” is a good enough shorthand for government work.
But let’s examine your statement on its own, as a general rather than specific case, using “anybody” rather than “I.”
Is this universally true?
These guys claim to be L:
http://nazi.org
The LNSGP. Their L is the same as ours. The NS is, well, you see the URL. GP, like Greens.
Are they L just because they say so? If you say no, who are you to judge?
2 words jump out at me in your note: “defend” and “excite.” How is it that advocating a change in direction as a first step is “defending” anything? The State exists, and no silver bullet will fell it. Advocating cuts merely plays the game as it’s played.
Defend, as in not oppose. So, as I’ve said: you’re clearly libertarian when it comes to opposing the status quo.
However, keep in mind that the game is being played on many levels simultaneously. On one level, you are cutting off the branches of a noxious weed. On another, you aren’t attacking its root.
On one level, you are asking for the changes that the players at the table can take seriously. On another, you aren’t seated at their table, and you’re making concessions before you even get to start bargaining.
On one level, you’re putting out fires; on another, you’re letting the dry wood pile up higher.
Do I know the real answer, the optimum strategy? Not really. So, at least for now, we are definitely on the same side. Later – we’ll see.
Optimism makes reality more bearable, so I optimistically believe that a small trickle of greater freedom will breach the dam state.
54 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 8:16 pm
In theory, I’d like most or possibly all of it to go away, but I’ll take what I can plausibly get.
I’m for that. But, I see it as a metastasizing cancer, so ultimately I do want it to go away.
And, while I respect that you are personally “excited” by more grand ideas, how does that factor into what you deem L or not?
It’s all relative.
Psychology is an important factor in forming our personal perceptions, but it seems unusual that you’d bake the excitement factor into discerning who is and isn’t L. I can understand your preferring an L who advocates State abolition, but to rule out someone with more relevant positions strikes me as odd.
I don’t rule it out.
On one hand, I’d like the Klan to stop killing people in my town. On the other hand, if it’s my neck on the line, I’d like to be one of the 5% who slips out. But not if it means I have to stop working towards busting them up completely, and not if it means I have to join them.
I admit it’s a dilemma.
But I also don’t think we really have the luxury to sit around and argue about it; I see crosses burning all over town and hooded men on horseback turning down our street.
55 Kimberly Wilder // Mar 20, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Knapp wrote…
–He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”
I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”
He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”
I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off.–
Wow! Thanks for that. Maybe I heard it before. But, boy is it funny.
I have extra appreciation because:
A. I just joined a left Libertarian list-serve where the whole intro page is about who they are officially and not officially affiliated with, and the thinking of which deceased colleague they admire the most.
and
B. For real, I was brought up “Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod.” And, I always knew that my Synod was a little different. In fact, we did not let women on the alter to preach. I believe that that Synod may have died out.
Also, I wanted to say that, at the very start of this thread, someone said since people were quibbling over who was what political stripe, people were not sticking together against the wrongs of the federal government. And, as others have said, I think that is wrong. Most of us were celebrating the battle against the MIAC report. And, the rest was just sideways conversation about how things were framed.
56 libertariangirl // Mar 20, 2009 at 10:17 pm
“Barr will probably decide to write his own letter at the last minute, leaving RP and Baldwin’s with a big gaping hole in the text.”
i know its redundant , but i just logged on ,
that is hella funny LOL
57 Kimberly Wilder // Mar 20, 2009 at 10:25 pm
On a different note. A critical question is:
Why do people quibble? and
How could you cause them to quibble less?
Would be interested in people’s thoughts on those deeper topics.
One thing I have been thinking about is why people quibble. I think there are many layers of reasons:
-Many of us were acculturated in public schools, where you are taught that the people they put next to you at your desks are your classmates and you must get along with them. People do not have the social skills to realize they might not like everyone, and they can just walk away from some people.
-Also, we were acculturated more in daycare and school than with our families. Because we go to school at 3 years to 5 years, instead of at 7 years like in other countries. For that and other reasons, we lack basic intimacy skills.
-Similarly, we lack communication skills in the area of conflict resolution. Because of the way our society is so patriarchal and hierarchal, and our schools are even more so, so that the authority figures usually work things out for us by telling us what to do and who was right in an argument.
-Mimetic Theory in action: when a person sees one person “lunge” for a piece of territory, that person tends to lunge in a socially mimicking fashion.
-Also, being human, and tending to want to see things on a human level, most of us don’t acknowledge the extent to which every day we are at work in politics, is a day we are tooe-to-toe with greed and the huge forces behind the two-party duopoly and the power status quo. We are really fighting a revolution every minute of every day. And, we forget that. So, we get confused about who and what is the enemy. (Including the fact that the duopoly probably has levels of spies and compatriots planted in every one of our parties and campaigns. Read “The Art of War” to remember just how battles are fought.)
and…
How could we quibble less?..some suggestions…
-Strategy from a wise, passed employer of mine: get people working. When people’s nose is at work, they are more happy and have less free time to argue.
-Make more projects and separate committees: That fills the need grown-ups have to be productive; It gives people space to spread out and hide from people they do not like; It cuts down on the territory fighting over the whole mother ship.
-Inject more art into each organization, party or culture. Because, everyone is so stressed and battle weary. Having art (and images of nature) soothes and heals us at a deep level. It also creates those much-needed projects.
-Have classes that help people deal more with the communication and conflict. Could include: Non-violent communication classes. Conflict Resolution classes. And, workshops that address simmering wounds and battles such as addressing sexism and racism in the bigger culture of the group culture.
-One of the best tricks to creating community and soothing rifts is to share food together. People can’t help but be happy when their tummies are full. It creates great dialogue. And, tends to put people into a place where they feel at home, and use good manners. Heck, maybe before everyone opens up the page at IPR they should have a chocolate bar. I think I am going to go have the last bit of (it’s organic milk if you are lucky) Ben and Jerry’s chocolate ice cream in my fridge…
Kimberly
58 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 11:36 pm
The listserv is quibbletastic.
But the selected articles are good….
Right column of page:
http://all-left.net/
Blogs and organization websites (middle column) are pretty good too…
LeftLibertarian.org aggregates a lot of the blogs also.
59 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 11:42 pm
In retaliation, Ron Paul will….
(joke contest, folks!)
60 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Well, we kind of self-select for people who are big on having it exactly their own way and don’t want to stay in the big tents of the larger parties.
Then, we find ourselves in a situation where they don’t care what we think, and we have no power. Who do we have to turn our frustrations on but each other?
And as I alluded to in my last comments in response to Capozzi, we are in a situation which seems to many of us dire and imminent, and there is no general agreement whether particular tactics we are contemplating may make the situation worse.
Add that up, and the quibbling is easier to understand, I think.
61 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Hmmm. Never connected those dots. For me, it was a year and a half old or so. Mandatory Soviet child care. Women were required by law to go back to work at that point, and kids had to be in day care – and of course there was no provider choice. So it was even worse. I was told that I stopped walking and talking for several months after that.
62 paulie // Mar 20, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Great suggestions!
This is one reason I have been pushing Libertarians to recruit from the left…libertarians coming from the right are less apt to think of the value of art in politics, and that of conflict resolution work, among many other things.
Although I share a general aversion to overgrown coercive monopoly government with right-leaning libertarians, I am more culturally at home with leftists – even many big government leftists – on many things like this.
63 paulie // Mar 21, 2009 at 12:00 am
Doesn’t work for me, unfortunately. I eat with nervousness/anger.
Good manners? Well, maybe for a caveman.
64 Libertarian Joseph // Mar 21, 2009 at 3:27 am
Chuck Baldwin should learn that protectionism is never a good idea.
65 Nate // Mar 21, 2009 at 3:32 am
In retaliation, Ron Paul will….
…sign the letter and then put a little arrow towards Chuck’s name with “I’m with stupid” on it.
…threaten to “take his neo-Nazi money and go home,” if people won’t play nice.
…gain a lot of followers.
66 Robert Capozzi // Mar 21, 2009 at 6:42 am
Paulie, excellent point about the Libertarian National Socialist Greens. (I must say that sounds like something the Onion made up.)
Like you and Kimberly, I’m very big on non-violent communication and conflict resolution. But if a Nazi said “I’m a L,” it does seem appropriate to distance L-ism from Nazis. Indeed, during NewsletterGate, recall that I publicly called on Rockwell to “tear down this stonewall.”
I draw a distinction between what I consider theoretical and methological divides between, say, anarchists, minarchists, and lessarchists and matters of marketing and communications and image making.
So, as a lessarchist, I respect the theories of anarchism and minarchism in all their flavors. But when we’re trying to build consensus for political action, there are some over-the-line matters that I strongly believe are off limits. Haters: off limits. I have compassion for haters, too, but I don’t want them assuming leadership positions, as their views are toxic and therefore harmful to the greater goal of liberty.
67 Bryan // Mar 21, 2009 at 7:41 am
I realize this has turned into a conversation on what constitutes a Libertarian and non-violent conflict resolution, however I am still stuck on the original subject and why this coalition is necessary.
When I first saw the report that MIAC had distributed the document in question, I admit I blew it off, the document was sent to Alex Jones through an “anonymous” source. Then people started to react to it, including apparently Barr, Paul and to no surprise Baldwin.
I had to look…and followed the links at Jones’ web sit to the “report” posted Fri. 13th. My first reaction to any conspiracy theory is skepticism, and on this one I still am.
If you look at the scanned images, pictures are running over borders, there is what appears to be a caption with no photo, and some text is covered up by pics. This is not the product I expect from a good hoax document, much less one produced by the government…they are typically VERY anal about appearance.
The typical conspiracy theory is based on some degree of truth, so there may be some concerns about the “report”, but why is a conspiracy site the only place that original information on this report being produced.
If there is some merit to this, the Republicans better watch their backs too. Most are anti-abortion, fly the flag, and belong to various freedom organizations. On top of that, Ron Paul is an elected Republican, and ran for the Republican nomination in 2008…the R’s must be feeling left out by not being mentioned in the report…
68 Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 21, 2009 at 10:38 am
Bryan,
Skepticism is always a good first approach.
However, the existence and content of the report have been confirmed by MIAC, by the head of Missouri’s Department of Public Safety, and by the governor of Missouri.
Jones ceased to be the sole producer of original material on the report some time ago.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
69 Steven R Linnabary // Mar 21, 2009 at 10:59 am
Glenn Beck has also reported on this extensively this week, both on his syndicated radio show and on his Faux News show.
Cops profiling is really nothing new. And activists should be aware of this. Afterall, if YOU were a cop, would you be luckier stopping a car with a “DARE” bumpersticker or an identical car with a “Legalize it!” bumpersticker?
The profiling will NEVER be used in court to account for a traffic stop. Some other excuse will be used, such as a flickering tail light or an over inflated tire. They don’t really need a legitimate reason.
PEACE
70 Bryan // Mar 21, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Not wanting to sound argumentative, but the only thing I could find on Beck’s reporting was “it has been reported” stuff. With no indication of where he got this information.
Also, all the other hits I got on the subject were blogs, and most of them were either directing you to Jones report, or giving their “take” on his report.
If anyone has more direct links they would be appreciated….
71 Susan Hogarth // Mar 21, 2009 at 6:37 pm
There’s a saying that perfect is the enemy of good. There is some truth in that with Libertarians. Too often and too many refuse to work with others unless they hold to the same beliefs completely.
Why all this handwringing? No one here has ‘refused to work with others’. Why are people so freaked at simple discussion of disagreements?
72 Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 21, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Bryan,
Here are three “mainstream media” stories on the report:
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=276049
http://www.kmov.com/video/topvideo-index.html?nvid=343405
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=276049
As you can see from those reports, the existence, authenticity and content of the report are attested to by MIAC, the Missouri Department of Public Safety, and the governor of Missouri.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
73 Michael H. Wilson // Mar 21, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Susan you can address me specifically since I wrote that piece. Don’t get your knickers in a twist.
I have been in this party since 1980 and too often seen people from boths sides of the aisle take that attitude and it does more harm than good.
That being said I have probably encountered it more often directed at myself and others because we wish to legalize drugs. I have had that issue shoved in my face more than once. In fact I have come to believe that those who do not wish to legalize drugs simply don’t understand all the implication of the drug war, or don’t understand the Libertarian philosophy.
I could also say much the same about the issue of Jury Nullification. More than one lawyer in the party has told me how that idea is foolish.
On both of these issues I mention I have had members of the party apparently refuse to help at events I and others were working. I cannot say that was the reason for certain, but I was lead to belive it was at least part of the problem.
Of course I also wish to grow the party and others see it as a tool to whip the Repugnicans into line and thus wish to keep it small so that they can control it.
MW
74 Robert Capozzi // Mar 22, 2009 at 6:14 am
Susan: Why are people so freaked at simple discussion of disagreements?
Me: I don’t know anyone who’s “freaked.” But there does seem to be a point when theoretical internal debate becomes dysfunctional, at least for those of us who’d like to see the LP actually challenge the Rs and Ds in a meaningful way.
Then there’s the uncivility factor. When I was on the Platcom, another member accused me of being Aaron Starr’s “puppet.” At that point, I’d never met or communicated with Mr. Starr, so the charge was obviously ludicrous, even paranoid and insane. An anecdote, but an emblematic one.
At root, if one “camp” believes they are the “true believers” and another “camp” believes there several legitimate sub-schools of L-ism, what we have here is a failure to communicate. We have asymmetry.
With all due respect, Susan, you perpetuate the asymmetry is most basic ways. You continue to not recognize non-NAP-adherents as “Libertarian,” which is highly disrespectful, since many non-NAP-adherents consider themselves to be Libertarian. That seems to be both toxic and corrosive, for it seems you are in fact NOT interested in “disagreement,” but rather “conversion” to your way of thinking.
And, when I bring this to your attention, you have thus far stonewalled or diverted. But today is another opportunity for you to re-introduce respectful communication into the equation.
Are you game?
75 Bryan // Mar 22, 2009 at 11:11 am
Tom, thanks for the links…just a little embarrassment here, I have your blog saved in my lp folder, and didn’t think of looking there before the google…oops.
The posts in your blog was the type of info I was looking for…neither hysterical rant nor turtle defense…
oh well live and learn…
76 libertariangirl // Mar 22, 2009 at 1:43 pm
robert I believe in all different kinds of L’s too .
But saying ‘we dont believe in the initiation of force to achieve political goals ‘, the NAP ive always believed is the foundation of our Party.
It doesnt say we never use force , we can answer it when used against us . But I have to agree that initiating violence is not Libertarian.
its not one of those Libertarian ideas that can have have many positions and still be Libertarian , such as abortion . the NAP , ive always believed is a founding principle and w/o it everything else loses meaning .
please give me an example of how the NAP would not apply and still be Libertarian .
I am trying to understand because unlike alot of Libs , I dont feel i have complete understanding and am always looking for differing veiws and opinions
77 Robert Capozzi // Mar 22, 2009 at 10:08 pm
L girl,
NAP is woefully incomplete and unsatisfactory for me as political strategy. It’s like saying A, B and C are letters, therefore the only legitimate word in the English language is “cab.”
NAP is a construct that has appeal, but constructs are merely constructs, not strategy. It’s disconnected from reality, IMO.
The reality is that there human history and human action virtually always involve force initiation. Where there is no government, things fall apart rather quickly, like things are in Somalia. It IS a helpful construct for me in that peaceful social orders involve minimal force initation. In a world with WMD and nations, I would not push the button for anarchy tomorrow, especially if it only involved the US. There are too many other nations with long-range nuclear weapons, for ex. And that’s just for starters.
NAP is just too one-dimensional for this hombre. I’m a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery, so I get NAP. I agree that for the most part the LP was based on the NAP idea. Some Libertarians have thought through the founder’s opinions, and found them wanting, including me.
Appeals to “tradition” are not Truth, not even close.
I don’t pretend to have a monopoly on Truth, either, but I find the “minimize coercion, maximize liberty” construct far more serviceable. There may come a day when the the nation-state is reduced to a nightwatchman state, and then and only then does the full implications of NAP…personal secession, the “right” to kiddie porn production, the “right” to private nukes…become germane.
78 Jim Davidson // Mar 23, 2009 at 1:05 am
Capozzi writes: “You continue to not recognize non-NAP-adherents as “Libertarian,” which is highly disrespectful, since many non-NAP-adherents consider themselves to be Libertarian.”
Apparently Bob Barr considers himself to be a libertarian, but that doesn’t make him one. Many people claim to be all kinds of things: tall, glamorous, handsome, pleasant, wealthy. Barr is none of these things, either, I think.
The zero aggression principle is simply the definition of libertarian. A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.
Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.
See L. Neil Smith’s other fine ideas at ncc-1776.org
79 Jim Davidson // Mar 23, 2009 at 1:09 am
“Where there is no government, things fall apart rather quickly, like things are in Somalia.”
Utter authoritarian lies. Things have not fallen apart in Somalia. To the contrary, when the Somalis have been left alone to pursue their own lives, they have done very well, and thrived. They have the best cell phone service in Asia and the lowest prices for international calling in the world.
When Capozzi has his representatives in government send troops to “advise” Ethiopians to invade Somalia and massacre Somalis, then things do fall apart. Somalis keep putting things back together, though.
Since 1991 when they ousted the USA supported dictator Siad Barre, the Somalis have withstood sixteen (16) separate attempts by the UN and USA to impose a central government on them. They have resisted because they will not be taxed. They will not be taxed because the objective of the UN, USA, and IMF is to get those taxes to pay off the debts of the former dictator – who slaughtered the Somalis that he did not torture.
Of course, Capozzi supports an authoritarian system of government and calls it “libertarian.”
80 Melty // Mar 23, 2009 at 1:27 am
Somalia’s not in Asia.
81 Melty // Mar 23, 2009 at 1:34 am
Don’t most anarchists believe in the nonagression principle?
82 Robert Capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 5:06 am
Jim, with all due respect, you attribute things to me that simply are not there, and are not my views. Lucid minds can review what I write, then read your summaries of my views, and then make their own assessments. I’m confident most will find your accusations WAY off base.
I obviously did not send “representatives in government send troops to ‘advise’ Ethiopians to invade Somalia….” I’m just a middle-aged American citizen…you give me FAR to much “credit.” Were it up to me, Ethiopia would not invade Somalia, for the record.
Nor do I support an “authoritarian system of government and calls it ‘libertarian’.”
You seem to be suffering from a severely dualistic worldview, which you appear to be projecting onto me. I prefer to look at the world clear-eyed, and do my best to observe what is and what works and what steps might be taken to improve the human condition.
Tilting at windmills may appeal to you. Near as I can tell, there are no windmills nearby or on the horizon.
But, then, I’m philosophically radical. I’m not afraid to ask basic questions, and see what I find to be true.
“Can the world be reduced to one principle, like NAP/ZAP”? No, is my answer. The world is much more complex than that. Theory has to work to be valuable, for me, at least. If it DOESN’T work, then theory needs to be fine-tuned until it does.
Jim, you seem to present yourself as the Pope of L-ism. You decide who is and who is not L. Have you ever asked yourself the radical question: By what authority do you have to judge who is and who is not L?
“Check your premises” was excellent counsel in my book. Have you done so recently?
83 Robert Capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 5:09 am
melty: Don’t most anarchists believe in the nonagression principle?
me: no, although most if not all anarchocapitalists have the opinion that the NAP is “moral.”
anarchosyndicalists don’t adhere to the NAP opinion, is my sense.
theoretical asymptotic anarchists/applied lessarchists find NAP modestly helpful, not a bad starting point, but an ultimately inadequate inquiry.
84 Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 23, 2009 at 5:48 am
Bob,
The problem with pragmatism is that “what works” is not a complete standard.
Zyklon B “works” if the goal is to kill groups of people who have been herded into a closed room for that purpose. It doesn’t “work” if the goal is to cure cancer or tune up your car.
So far as I can tell, “applied lessarchy” “works” if the goal is to elect Republicans who promise to shrink government but grow it instead after the votes are counted. That doesn’t happen to be my goal.
85 Melty // Mar 23, 2009 at 5:55 am
thanx Robert
86 Robert Capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 6:27 am
Tom, good point. For me what works is that which promotes peace and liberty.
Since I am an applied lessarchist who’s never voted for a duplicitous R, I feel good about my approach, which also has many, many other holes. All approaches do, near as I can tell.
So on this you and I have a shared goal.
TAAALism seems more SERVICEABLE than applied NAP-ism. It involves virtuous, often reasonable and moderate, actions that minimize coercion, ones that can be understood by voters and plausibly enacted in the short- to intermediate-term. That seems a worthwhile goal to me. Positing abstract theory in the public square seems inappropriate and futile to me.
I’ve elaborated on the concept of what works, what is right, and what is peaceful here:
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003726.html
87 Michael H. Wilson // Mar 23, 2009 at 6:29 am
And a point I should have made earlier is that we need to find what we have in common and work on that. Instead too many of us look for what we disagree on and work on that drives us apart.
I suggested on another list that we write to our congress person and ask what it costs to deploy U.S. troops abroad. Maybe if all of us did something similar we could draw attention to that issue. Maybe if the LP took that issue up we might be able to do something. However as long as we focus on our differences nothing gets accomplished and the other guys win.
88 Robert Capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 7:00 am
michael, working together’s grand. sometimes, though, we should respect if another L wants to “sit on their hands,” they should. Ancaps could have done that with Barr, for ex. Minarchists with Badnarik. Constitutionalists with Browne, etc.
Carping seems contra-indicated.
89 Melty // Mar 23, 2009 at 10:01 am
I’m not good at abbreviations. TAAALism?
90 Bryan // Mar 23, 2009 at 10:28 am
I have a question…
I DO believe in, support, and will fight for the Constitution of the US.
I DO believe that the federal government should be limited to the authority granted, and perform the responsibilities given, by the Constitution.
I AM NOT an anarchist, with or without the various self-identifying prefixes or suffixes.
Am I a Libertarian?
91 robert capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 11:09 am
theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist is TAAAL
92 robert capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 11:13 am
Bryan, well within the tent in my book. Susan and Jim may have a different take.
93 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Paulie, excellent point about the Libertarian National Socialist Greens. (I must say that sounds like something the Onion made up.)
Like you and Kimberly, I’m very big on non-violent communication and conflict resolution. But if a Nazi said “I’m a L,” it does seem appropriate to distance L-ism from Nazis. Indeed, during NewsletterGate, recall that I publicly called on Rockwell to “tear down this stonewall.”
Very good. I don’t think Nazis can really be libertarian either. But I’m wondering how this squares with what you seem to proposing as a criterion elsewhere here – that by definition, anyone who says they are a libertarian is therefore automatically a libertarian by virtue of saying so?
How about anti-property rights anarchists, some of whom also use the term libertarian? I think Bill Clinton once called himself a libertarian. I’m not sure if W ever called himself one, but a few other people have. There must be some way of saying that, at some point, someone is making a false claim to being a libertarian, right?
94 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm
95 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 2:52 pm
via facebook:
96 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 2:58 pm
By the same authority that you have in saying that the LNSGP, and (probably) Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and anti-property rights anarchists are not libertarian. That is, by applying your definition and the historical definitions of the word in conjunction.
97 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:00 pm
But you think NAP, ZAP or whatever you want to call it doesn’t always work, so of course you would not want to state it as a goal. Whereas, I do have this goal, and I can’t achieve a goal I don’t set out to work towards.
However, I’m all for minimizing coercion.
98 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:01 pm
There are different levels of “we” depending on level of agreement about different issues. Person A may be part of We groups 1,2,4, and 5, Person B, 1, 3 and 4, and so on.
99 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:05 pm
You may be a Libertarian (party label). There is also a separate, partially overlapping small-l libertarian philosophy based on the non-initiation of force principle, and you would seem to be a constitutionalist rather than a small-l libertarian. However, given our starting point in today’s real world, the difference between the two is largely trivial. We have a long way to go before we’d part company on many real world issues.
100 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Matthew Jeffers sent a message to the members of Screw MIAC! I’m NOT a Terrorist!
——————–
Subject: CORRECTION! “Complaints” have been sent, not lawsuits.
Sorry about that everyone. Got ahead of myself
Anyways, support these groups that are fighting back against MIAC.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.libertyrestorationproject.org%2F2009%2F03%2F23%2Fnixon-violates-the-law-with-state-profiling-effort-complaint-alleges%2F
In Liberty,
Matthew Jeffes
“Screw MIAC!”, creator
101 robert capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:15 pm
pc, I personally draw the line at haters. I don’t wish to associate with them, and I believe they hurt the greater goals of peace and liberty.
102 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:20 pm
pc, I personally draw the line at haters. I don’t wish to associate with them, and I believe they hurt the greater goals of peace and liberty.
Yes, I understand and agree. That was the starting point of my comment. The rest remains as yet unaddressed.
103 robert capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm
pc, I guess I really don’t mind anyone calling themselves L. I have my broad definition of who I might support and associate with.
You seem to be searching for definitional precision in an imprecise world.
104 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Not necessarily precise, but it has to have some definition, otherwise it means nothing at all.
105 robert capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:58 pm
pc, sure, I support ideas and people that who advance liberty and reduce coercion.
106 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Do you have any universal standard, or only relative ones?
For example: in a country where adulterers are stoned to death, proposing that they be whipped in public instead is a move in a relatively libertarian direction. Does that mean someone advocating whipping for adulterers is therefore a libertarian?
107 robert capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 5:33 pm
PC, I roll with an all things considered perspective. It’s relative and often situational.
I don’t find dualistically labeling change A “libertarian” and change B “not libertarian.” Rather, I consider the context and whether A or B will work, are fair, and are peaceful.
Politics is more like 3 dimensional chess, not checkers.
Just my take.
108 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Well, yeah, it’s more than just 3-dimensional.
But whether something is peaceful or fair is not always easy to determine.
I think non-initiation of aggression is a good goal, but I take half-measures where I can get them rather than nothing.
109 robert capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 6:01 pm
PC, damn straight. What works, is fair, and is peaceful are ALL difficult, and it’s made quantumly MORE difficult if one’s time horizon is very long term.
But I’ve concluded that a priori ethical formulas are a blind alley. It’s fine for science fiction, but not politics. IMO.
110 paulie // Mar 23, 2009 at 6:04 pm
But I’ve concluded that a priori ethical formulas are a blind alley.
I don’t think you have concluded that so categorically. I expect you probably have some moral absolutes, at least within some parameters?
111 Robert Capozzi // Mar 23, 2009 at 8:06 pm
PC: I expect you probably have some moral absolutes,…
Me: Yes. Love is an absolute.
112 CHUCKtheFED // Mar 24, 2009 at 9:13 am
Missouri State response…
http://lpmo.org/media/releases/2009/MIAC-BrittLetterToBobBarr.pdf
113 CHUCKtheFED // Mar 24, 2009 at 9:15 am
I suggest that all who feel affected by the M.I.A.C.’s report make a copy of the letter, and slip it behind your driver’s license.
Leave a Comment