Posted by Daniel Wiener at LP blog, Oct. 5:
The John & Ken talk radio show on KFI-AM 640 in the Los Angeles area has endorsed Dale Ogden, the Libertarian Party candidate for Governor, over Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman. For those who are not familiar with John & Ken, they are an enormously influential team which dominates the afternoon rush hour airwaves. According to Wikipedia, John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou host the most popular local talk radio program in the United States, with a peak audience of one million listeners during their 2pm – 7pm time slot.
John and Ken tend to be crusading populists, and libertarians would find their views on various topics a mixed bag. But their vicious take-no-prisoners attacks on numerous incumbent (and aspiring) politicians are legendary. This endorsement will probably add tens of thousands of votes to Dale Ogden’s November total.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/not-so-wild-west.html
pc: Probably not, but you’d have to persuade me that allowing a state to continue to metastasize wouldn’t be even worse.
me: Ouch. Have I given you the impression that I want to see the metastasizing continue? Man, I’m REALLY not making myself clear.
A wonderful analogy, though. Chemo for the State — yes. Shrink the tumor — yes. Gradually, so the patient isn’t killed, though. Cancer is easily eradicated by death, but that would be contra-indicated.
tk, actually, Tom, that was directed to Paulie.
Good for you that you’re so confident that your product is the superior one. Frankly, you’ll not be surprised to learn that I find the absolutist abolitionist anarchist view weak, porous, grandiose; reliant on hyperbole when cornered; unwilling to look at the problem from other perspectives and practical considerations; built on reedy constructs; dogmatic.
But you are personally fun to chat with, even when shackled by blue-pill thinking…at least apparently so.
Of course, who knows: Maybe you’ll one day say something just the right way that will turn on a lightbulb in my head and I will realize just how wrong-minded I’ve been. I’ll hold high the black banner; don the bowtie; and turn the love in my heart to hate for the State. If indicated. 😉
you’d have to persuade me that there’s a plausible means to have no State in a territory that already has WMD, is rich in natural resources, and has vast amounts of wealth without involving profound levels of economic dislocations and profound risk for catastrophic damage to the environment.
Probably not, but you’d have to persuade me that allowing a state to continue to metastasize wouldn’t be even worse.
They may well be “gangsters,” but they are our gangsters.
And reality is going to hit them like an ice cream truck:
Bob,
What makes you think that I want to persuade you?
My assumption is that you’re happy with the opinions you have, else you’d have traded them in for better ones by now.
I’m not trying to sell you a Cadillac. I’m trying to sell the Cadillac to others. You’re just the sucker I’m pointing at when I tell them “or, you could settle for the Yugo.”
tk, consider the strong possibility that you are projecting. You label ME supersticious, yet you invoke a “Known Ravenous Beast” analogy (I guess) to, I guess, describe the existence of the State. Seems awfully paranoid or wildly overstated, a ghoulish comic book caricature, perhaps. The State does a lot of dysfunctional things, sometimes bloodthirsty things. Yet, most States don’t go out and kill most citizens, or even draw their blood! Projection makes perception, perception makes reality.
pc, you don’t need to convince me that the State attracts ill-motivated players. Nor do I need convincing that peacekeeping mechanisms can be (and are, thank goodness) privately supplied.
For me to don the bowtie and cackle like the Penguin from Batman (obscure reference to MNR!), you’d have to persuade me that there’s a plausible means to have no State in a territory that already has WMD, is rich in natural resources, and has vast amounts of wealth without involving profound levels of economic dislocations and profound risk for catastrophic damage to the environment.
They may well be “gangsters,” but they are our gangsters. In my estimation, the lessarchist path is a difficult one…perhaps a 9.2 level of difficulty. The abolitionist anarchist path is more like a 9.999999999999… And the outcome it points to is undesirable to me, unless you can persuade me on the earlier point.
paulie // Oct 20, 2010:
Sarah Palin says the tea party people are winning. The question is, what are they winning?
So far, none. Stay tuned.
[a] could not agree more
[b] TEA Parties *eyes wide open*
[c] TEA Parties, attention, threats (how ever twisted, torturous and sneaky) to the establishment? *
[d] Half a century of American Lib thot, well I stand by my original state ment, no matter how dishonest the tea baggers may be / are!
* fairly substantial, born of the GOP, fueled by the MSM, I get it —– but the presence, UNLIKE THE LIBS, is substantial, even tho the tea baggers are not the only peace party *sarcasm* or have a 2012 candidate named W. A. R. *sarcasm* or illuminates the non existent $100T budget deficit *sarcasm*
Bob,
“Utopian” and “superstitious” aren’t intended to be “name-calling.” They’re intended to be accurate factual descriptions of your worldview.
Revolutions don’t just “sometimes” turn ugly — there’s no avoiding the ugliness.
Your assessment of the existing ugliness, however, is so far off that it taints your evaluation of the potential ugliness.
Because you don’t want to be forced to choose between Known Ravenous Beast A and Potentially Ravenous Beast B, you insist (in defiance of all known fact and evidence, and as it eats you) that Known Ravenous Beast A is actually a domestic animal (a mean Doberman, perhaps) which can be trained and maybe even eventually bred into a chihuahua.
“Utopian” and “superstitious” are the nicest ways of putting it.
While I share your concern with what rogue individuals or small groups might do with weapons of mass destruction, the same individuals can act within governments, including at the top. In fact, I’ve seen that some recent studies have shown that sociopaths are attracted to concentrations of power and tend to be more successful than average at rising through the ranks. Monopoly governments also have an absolutely appalling record of screwing things up by accident, as well. If they don’t kill us all on purpose, they may yet do it accidentally. I’m surprised it has not happened yet, if anything. Then again, my omniverse hypothesis would explain that.
The scenario that I was addressing was your point that we can’t get rid of a regime because other regimes would invade. As for what happens between neighbors, the incentive to have peaceful commerce is one that causes would-be combatants to find peaceful ways of resolving their differences for the benefit of all, regardless of whether those ways involve a monopoly or not. Depending on how rapid the transition is, there may well be an initial period of chaos, but it doesn’t persist.
I’ve read that the “wild west” wasn’t so wild in reality, with less violence than the big cities back east, despite the lack of professional police forces in most towns. I’ve also read that the UK in the 19th century had a private court system. There are other examples around the world in different eras. Even in our own time, private security agencies and arbitration services are pretty widespread.
Real-life example, not just theory, suggest that peacekeeping mechanisms would evolve fairly rapidly.
I’m not. Scare tactics would quite likely carry the day.
Well, yes.
Or, it might happen by default as regimes collapse. Not the best scenario, but possible.
Thank you very much for posting my comment. What I meant to write, is I am for a female for Governor. Chelene Nightingale [Constitution Independent].
–James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
“Why do you THINK they called it Google?”
Join the Frees!
GoNott Search, Opposite gender #1
http://www.usparliament.org/parpar.htm
that is Revolutions sometimes seem virtuous but turn ugly…
tk, hmm, well, thanks for your input. Can’t say I agree, nor do I see how you conclude that I’m either utopian nor supersticious. Name calling is beneath you.
Defusing explosives should be done with care, else the bomb goes off and the damage is done. Revolutions sometimes seem turn ugly, and the new regime is at least as tyrannical as the one it replaced.
Putting the fire out sounds like a good idea, but I’d think a true realist recognizes that more damage can be done if the process is done cavalierly and carelessly.
The law of unintended consequences works both ways.
Bob,
Like I said, I’m a hard-nosed realist, you’re a utopian superstitionist.
You think it’s “prudent” not to be hasty about abandoning the death cults that have killed hundreds of millions over the last century and continue their murders apace.
I think it’s imprudent to keep tending that kind of fire and prefer to work on putting it out before it burns all of us.
tk: I’m a realist who thinks the worst of humanity; you’re a utopian who thinks the best of it.
me: Hmm, well, I don’t think it’s realistic to think the worst of humanity. My evidence is what I assume is the ratio of murderous thoughts:commission of murder. My guess is it’s at least 100:1.
If their pay stopped, you might be right: Perhaps the silo operators would seek to extort protection money. If you point to “anarchy” as involving such a scenario as attractive and positive, it’s fair to say that I don’t agree….like, in spades, man.
Perhaps it is YOU who’s having a kumbaya moment. Perhaps you’d somehow disengage all WMD worldwide prior to anarchy. Perhaps you’re not actually a “no particular orderist.” I’d hope so, since the prospect for chaos on a massive scale — far surpassing the current state of chaos — is highly likely under your “vision.”
ADR. IMO.
Bob,
You write:
“TK seems to believe that the silos won’t be abandoned”
Correct. I’m a realist who thinks the worst of humanity; you’re a utopian who thinks the best of it.
You believe that if the state disappeared, 99% of humans would run off to sing kum ba ya and leave the nukes to be claimed by the Charles Manson 1%.
I believe that if the state collapsed, 99% of humans who found themselves sitting on top of huge piles of wealth would decide to hold onto that wealth and milk every last drop out of it.
The big money in nukes isn’t in their use. No matter how much you’re offered, you can only use or sell a nuke once and then it’s gone and everyone’s mad at you.
Much more profitable (and peace-enhancing) to rent deterrence (“Another Satisfied Client of Mutual Assured Destruction, Inc. — Don’t Even Think About Fucking With Us!”) to as many customers as possible on a perpetual basis.
pk and tk, perhaps as a classic case of projecting, it is I who’s projecting my own delusions of grandeur on you two. That IS possible. But I doubt it.
TK seems to believe that the silos won’t be abandoned, and that COULD be true. One of the reasons that the threat of use of WMD is credible is that it is coordinated. With no State, the idea of rogue, free agent silo operators and long-range bomber squads and bio and chemical weapons possessors and God knows what other weapons sounds like a prescription for disaster. Apparently, it’s conceivable for you? Or, the idea of independent fiefdoms among the silo operators might vie for control of surrounding territory; long range bombers might negotiate with the highest bidder.
When we’re dealing with such dangerous weapons, I happen to believe that some coordinating discipline is HIGHLY indicated.
PC’s guerilla operations is true to a point, except guerilla operations are generally fighting for something. With no State, your neighbor or the Russians, Chinese, and Brits could all be viewed as hostile. Unless and until one can evolve anarchically, the rule of law requires a State. Rothbard’s tribal precedent argument is for me ridiculous; tribes are states.
In such a state of chaos, even the idea of commerce seems far-fetched. Venturing out of the house would likely become a questionable event. With no peacekeeping mechanisms in place, anyone can do anything anytime with the only check is personal counter-force.
Your truth is your truth, and I have to respect that. I’m sure I’ve just scratched the surface of the impracticality of an immediate stateless society. I’m reasonably sure that, if presented the choice of less government or no government, less would win any popular vote by an epic landslide. While such a vote “proves” nothing, it’s my opinion that the case for anarchy cannot be proven, either. The best you can hope for is to change opinions on a massive scale. Given the stakes and the risks involved, practical humanity will require a LOT of validation to take such a leap of faith. Mere constructs won’t do.
In the meantime, some state seems to be a necessary “evil.” Less state seems highly indicated. And, maybe, some day, when private solutions have evolved to handle baseline peacekeeping mechanisms, we can have another conversation about whether the final step is prudent.
The fact that it is off topic aside, anyone have any thoughts on #51? Check out the included link,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thaddeus-russell/11-freedoms-that-drunks-s_b_759831.html
I just find it interesting because it’s a view of history I haven’t heard before.
Comment references thrown off due to rescuing a comment (#61) from the automated spam filter.
Although, I’m not sure whether it deserved being rescued, I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
And Ostrowski provides details at the link @ 64:
Which Tea Party US Senate Candidates Are for Abolishing Federal Agencies?
I’m very disappointed in the federal tea party candidates. The NYT has identified 138 of them and their list appears to be accurate.
I will in the coming weeks be reviewing platforms.
Let’s start with the Senate Candidates.
Joe Miller–Senate–Alaska. His website does not mention the abolition of any federal agency that existed before Obamacare. He is accused of wanting to abolish Education but the evidence for that is sparse.
Ken Buck–Senate–Colorado. His website does not call for the abolition of any federal agency that existed before Obamacare.
Christine O’Donnell–Senate–Delaware–ditto.
Marco Rubio–Senate–Florida–ditto
Sharron Angle–Senate–Nevada–ditto
Pat Toomey–Senate–Pennsylvania–ditto
Rand Paul–Senate–Kentucky–ditto but there are reports that he favors abolishing the Dept. of Education.
Mike Lee–Senate–Utah–ditto but there is a veiled reference to possibly abolishing Education.
Ron Johnson–Senate–Wisconsin–ditto.
I will follow-up with phone calls to each candidate but I don’t expect these results to change much.
So what the hell is going on? A movement whose core ideology is radical has a bunch of candidates whose vague platforms seem designed not to offend anyone. Experience shows that candidates tend to slipslide away from their bolder promises to cut the size of government after they win. But these people have already slipslided away during the campaign.
We are on target for 1994 again when many voters thought they voted for smaller government but all they got was a change of rulers.
I guess this confirms my last two books that basically said that electoral politics was not the way to change America.
Update: All candidates have been directly contacted to confirm my research. None so far has contradicted my conclusion.
Obama-care is the path to nullification…Please
read, share, and start a movement!
http://confederateunderground.blogspot.com/2010/10/we-should-thank-111th-congress-for.html
In response, see this by James Ostrowski at Lew Rockwell blog:
Sarah Palin says the tea party people are winning. The question is, what are they winning?
To answer that question, I am doing a review of the nine US Senate tea party candidates identified by the New York Times.
The issue? How many are proposing the elimination of a single federal agency?
http://politicalclassdismissed.com/?p=11315
So far, none. Stay tuned.
“The Russians nuke Fairbanks”
Why would they do so, given that doing so would likely represent a greater, rather than lesser, risk of nuclear immolation of their own cities than they would have run by nuking Fairbanks back when the Lords of the Potomac ran North America?
Oh, wait, I forgot that you live in the fantasy world of “silo abandonment.”
“Becoming a banking haven is a great way for a country to avoid invasion”
Unless you are Panama, in which case it was an epic fail.
Perhaps, given his guiding genius, you should give Mr Lake and friends their own set of threads, and park them with the petitioner threads.
That’s what I’m trying to do. For now, unless Trent overrules me, those comments should be confined to threads that mention Ms. Nightingale in the body of the article. Otherwise, I will consider them to be spam.
It’s not just because they are off topic. Off topic comments are commonplace here, and not generally a problem. It’s the degree of repetitiveness and rudeness that makes them a special case. I don’t want them drowning out other conversations.
And they still have plenty of posts to carry out their bickering on, so there is nothing too restrictive about this one simple rule.
As to the charge of hypocrisy:
“Off topic, but worth a read: ”
[Lake: and you have the mechanisms to start a new ‘article’ on the ‘index page (?)’
It wouldn’t be on topic for an IPR article, as it does not relate to alternative political parties or independent candidates.
As I said, it’s not off topic comments per se that are the problem.
Regarding CA Gov, MSP Dale Ogden [Libertarian] and MSP Chelene Nightingale [Constitution Independent] are the best two candidates of the six choices for Governor.
I have very good initial opinions of them, mostly because they both voted on the “Coalition of Seven”, (eight with Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] for US Senate) eballot. You can see their actual eballot in the links to the ballot below.
What we have is a dilemma, because Gov is a single winner district, but we have two good candidates. If this were a two-member district or a seven member district election, then we might get one for Gov, and one for Lt. Gov. (or visa versa).
Single winner districts deny us voters when there are more than one good candidates for one single seat.
I did have the pleasure to meet Chelene and her husband Michael at a fundraiser for the Free and Equal Party. I didn’t get to talk, because I had to run, but I was impressed with her husband as being a very nice person, and I was also impressed with her beauty, friendliness, and height. She must be over six feet tall.
She’s having a $50. a plate fundraiser tonight in the LA area, see her website for more details.
(See the coalition results below)
I am for the opposite gender #1, so I guess she’d break the tie with a male for CA Gov.
MP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
“Join the Frees!”
http://www.usparliament.org
——–begin eballot————-
Eballot: Elects “Coalition of Seven” – Vote Here
Under Single Transferable Vote (STV)
10/14/2010 through 8/5/2014
The Four Eballots Cast Thus Far;
http://usparliament.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=44
See Totals;
http://usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30
Current Approved Rules;
http://usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=50
Directions to Voters
Do not use X marks. Mark your choice
(s) with numbers only. Put the figure
1 beside your first choice, the figure 2
beside your second choice, the figure 3
beside your third choice, and so on.
You may rank as many choices as you please.
Do not put the same figure beside more than
one choice/name. Copy, paste and email
the marked eballot to the volunteer vote
counter at [email protected].
Candidate Name Party/Category
Governor
___ ________________ ________________ (write in)
___ Chelene Nightingale [Constitution]
___ Jerry Brown [Democratic]
___ Laura Wells [Green]
___ Dale Ogden [Libertarian]
___ Carlos Alverez [Peace and Freedom]
___ Meg Whitman [Republican]
Lieutenant Governor
___ ________________ ________________ (write in)
___ Jim King [Constitution]
___ Gavin Newsom [Democratic]
___ James “Jimi” Castillo [Green]
___ Pamela J. Brown [Libertarian]
___ CT Weber [Peace and Freedom]
___ Abel Maldonado [Republican]
Secretary of State
___ ________________ ________________ (write in)
___ Merton D. Short [American Independent/Constitution]
___ Debra Bowen [Democratic]
___ Ann Menasche [Green]
___ Christina Tobin [Independent]
___ Marylou Cabral [Peace and Freedom]
___ Damon Dunn [Republican]
Controller
___ ________________ ________________ (write in)
___ Lawrence G. Beliz [American Independent]
___ John Chiang [Democratic]
___ Ross D. Frankel [Green]
___ Andrew “Andy” Favor [Libertarian]
___ Karen Martinez [Peace and Freedom]
___ Tony Strickland [Republican]
Treasurer
___ ________________ ________________ (write in)
___ Robert Lauten [American Independent]
___ Bill Lockyer [Democratic]
___ Charles “Kit” Crittenden [Green]
___ Edward M. Teyssier [Libertarian]
___ Debra L. Reiger [Peace and Freedom]
___ Mimi Walters [Republican]
Attorney General
___ ________________ ________________ (write in)
___ Diane Beall Templin [American Independent]
___ Kamala Harris [Democratic]
___ Peter Allen [Green]
___ Timothy J. Hannan [Libertarian]
___ Robert J. Evans [Peace and Freedom]
___ Steve Cooley [Republican]
Insurance Commissioner
___ ________________ ________________ (write in)
___ Clay Pedersen [American Independent]
___ Dave Jones [Democratic]
___ William Balderston [Green]
___ Richard S. Bronstein [Libertarian]
___ Dina Josephine Padilla[Peace and Freedom]
___ Brian Fitzgerald [Republican]
For paper ballot, corrections or more information:
Telephone 415-686-1996
* * *
Well Mister ‘Libs as the ONLY peace party’ Philllies, progress has been made. Just the fact that the California AIP, which has had nothing to do with national CP for over two years is now listed under some thing other than Constitutional Party.
I mean you do not need be a PhD ——- oh, you R!
your argument might have been persuasive prior to 1945. In a WMD world, I don’t find it so.
In a post-1945, WMD world, guerrilla armies have still kicked modern military powers, including nuclear powers, out of their countries, all over the world. So, your caveat is incorrect.
And it doesn’t even apply to the other argument I made in #52 at all, so here it is again:
“But an even better reason to give armies to not invade is commerce. Where goods cross borders freely, armies are far less apt to. Becoming a banking haven is a great way for a country to avoid invasion, as all of the world’s gangsters value a safe, secure and private place to store their ill-gotten loot more than they value yet another piece of land to plunder.”
Somehow, all US governments dissolve tomorrow. The “gang” running Russia, for ex., wants to control the territory formerly known as the US. They announce that they do, and the troops start filing in. They meet pockets of resistance. The Russians nuke Fairbanks, and warn that those that resist will meet a similar fate. Maybe they take out Bangor, ME if the resistance continues.
In the pre-nuclear era, the same sort of tactic was employed with other technology, such as burning down cities in countries resisting invasion, or cutting off their food supply and starving them to death, etc.
There are numerous reasons why an invading army might be hesitant to start actually nuking American towns. Including, but not limited to,
*Moral condemnation from the rest of the world
*Actually emboldening rather than breaking the will of the resistance, which would not be confined to any one town, or even to urban areas in general
*If they nuke too many cities, the resulting radiation effects will create a country that is not worth occupying (and not safe to occupy).
paulie // Oct 20, 2010 at 10:39 am
“Off topic, but worth a read: ”
[Lake: and you have the mechanisms to start a new ‘article’ on the ‘index page (?)’ Do you even have an idea of how illogical you are? Appologies can be forwarded to [email protected] or [email protected] ………..]
Perhaps, given his guiding genius, you should give Mr Lake and friends their own set of threads, and park them with the petitioner threads.
Lake, I’m not going to argue about this.
There are plenty of posts that are specifically about Nightingale, if you and your opponents really feel a need to keep keep playing your games and calling each other names, do it there.
I’ll consider any more comments of that sort in unrelated threads from this point on to be spam. If Trent wants to overrule me, fine, but otherwise, that’s what I’ll do. And I don’t care which side does it, either.
Like I said, enough is enough. The whole subject of Nightingale has been the cause for literally thousands of rude, repetitive and often times content-free bickering comments on dozens of threads, and the vast majority of those have come from a very small handful of IP addresses.
All I’m asking for is that you at least keep it on threads that explicitly mention Nightingale in the body of the article. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.
Like you said, “the first amendment is the first amendment, but with SOME limits of decency and internet protocol.” Any such limits have been repeatedly crossed anytime Nightingale is mentioned. So, from now on, at least keep it out of threads that don’t mention her.
This one doesn’t.
paulie // Oct 20, 2010:
[email protected],
Enough is enough. [Lake: yes, start being more fair! Cody Quirk, Don Grundman, Trent Hill, Red Phillips are allowed to get away with inter net murder!]
Unless a thread is classified “Right Wing Minor Parties” [Lake: FINALLY!] and/or “Constitution Party” in relation to the AIP of California and/or mentions Nightingale in the body of the article it is not an AIP thread.
This article is none of those things. It is not an AIP thread.
[Lake: not only is it an AIP thread, but you have missed yet another opportunity of ‘making a difference’ —– not thru advocacy, merely/ just thru fairness!]
[Lake: gee, even other posters disagree! What’s with bad boy Cody Quirk? He has behaved badly and definitely inappropriate, cost the contributors of IPR thousands of dollars, and is (yet) treated like royalty. What’s going on, as Gongo and Tish / Two Marks and an Ed are on the out side looking in, thru a cloudy dark glass!]
It’s bad enough that you and the other combatants on both sides in the AIP drama have turned any discussion having to do with the Constitution Party, AIP and/or Nightingale into a totally ridiculous mud fest, but there are plenty enough of those threads and you don’t have to go into other threads to do it.
[Lake: say it, man up, just say it: Cody Quirk. There, was that soooooooooo hard?]
if an article explicitly mentions Nightingale, as an AIP thread, as she is a November 2010 AIP candidate.
[take the crap to one that does not act like Don Lake, like 11 year old Cody Quirk, whom apparently has special dispensation on IPR as he did on TPW (RIP).]
I hope I was sufficiently clear this time.
[Lake: I can only presume that you are just too use to the political masturbation and ineptitude of the half century of Lib Infinite Debating Society. In an era of run away local, regional, state, federal and international government. Libs have gone no where fast. Decades of government growth and the fakey dakey TEA Parties have done more in four months than Libs in four decades!]
pc52, your argument might have been persuasive prior to 1945. In a WMD world, I don’t find it so.
Somehow, all US governments dissolve tomorrow. The “gang” running Russia, for ex., wants to control the territory formerly known as the US. They announce that they do, and the troops start filing in. They meet pockets of resistance. The Russians nuke Fairbanks, and warn that those that resist will meet a similar fate. Maybe they take out Bangor, ME if the resistance continues.
The Chinese might want a piece of the action, too. Heck, even the Brits.
No, I’m sorry. That pre-45 thinking just no longer works.
tk: The question is whether or not I was a gangster. You consider it “prudent” to coddle insanity. I’d rather wor k on curing it
me: Healing insane thought and behavior is near and dear to my heart, Tom, I assure you. If you didn’t consider yourself a gangster, and virtually no one else considered you one, then — dag gummit — you weren’t one!
Perception is reality. I’d suggest it’s insane to think otherwise.
Now, if you feel inspired to correct or change perceptions, to offer others a more useful perception that reveals truth as you understand it, that is of course your prerogative.
I’m doing the same thing, and it’s my prerogative. My theme, which I’m sure you’ve gotten, is to suggest that absolutism and abolitionism (i.e., taking the extreme negotiating position) are the path of most resistance to increasing liberty. This is probably an unpopular view in the LM, since so many Ls have been forged by reading Rothbard and Rand. Among Ls, my views might be considered “weak,” or “sell out” or what have you. My perception differs, because my paradigm differs, even though most abolitionists will grudgingly acknowledge that I’m an L, given the positions I take on the issues…a “namby pamby” L, but L, nonethess, or at least a “fellow traveler.”
To be clear, I don’t think my paradigm and approach are “better”; I just so happen to think it’s more likely to work.
ok, let’s assume the State is tantamount to a street gang. With 200 or so street gangs stretched across the globe, some with advanced weapons and WMD, getting one street gang to relinquish its territory seems imprudent to me, UNLESS the other street gangs do the same.
Would you give the same advice to actual street gangs? Should they refuse to disarm, unless their enemies do the same?
Hoping that individuals will repel invasion sounds charming like a good science fiction book, but that vacuum of gangs is IMO an invitation for extra-territory gangs to flood in, each wanting a piece of the action.
Individuals defending themselves isn’t a science fiction book. Guerrillas have fended off modern armies in many places around the world.
More importantly, even the threat of resistance from well-armed people has actually deterred at least one invasion. During WWII, the Japanese did a feasibility study for an invasion of the US West Coast, and concluded that too many American citizens owned guns to make it worthwhile. Switzerland’s militia-style military, while not quite anarchic, is another example of relying largely on a well-armed citizenry to deter invasion. Likewise, Israelis typically have “assault” weapons at home, as military reserve duty is universal for adults who are healthy enough and not too old – not that I condone a draft, of course.
But an even better reason to give armies to not invade is commerce. Where goods cross borders freely, armies are far less apt to. Becoming a banking haven is a great way for a country to avoid invasion, as all of the world’s gangsters value a safe, secure and private place to store their ill-gotten loot more than they value yet another piece of land to plunder.
Off topic, but worth a read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thaddeus-russell/fired-teaching-american-history_b_767172.html
Excerpt:
ok, let’s assume the State is tantamount to a street gang. With 200 or so street gangs stretched across the globe, some with advanced weapons and WMD, getting one street gang to relinquish its territory seems imprudent to me, UNLESS the other street gangs do the same. Hoping that individuals will repel invasion sounds charming like a good science fiction book, but that vacuum of gangs is IMO an invitation for extra-territory gangs to flood in, each wanting a piece of the action. They could easily demonstrate their overwhelming power to force submission. Sorry, but I find the idea of house-to-house resistance to be ludicrous, which is the “best” scenario I’ve seen from abolitionists. Or Hoppe’s insurance company dream…also profoundly implausible, or likely to fall back into a functioning State.
Unless and until that possibility can be solved, I’d prefer to deal with our native gang over invader gangs. I’m fairly sure that overwhelming majorities would agree. Sanity is in many ways a relative thing. For ex., it could be that institutionalized paranoid schizophrenics are actually the sane, healthy ones, but, for now, they are the ones deemed to be insane.
Bob,
The question is not whether or not I “thought of myself” as a gangster when I was a gangster. The question is whether or not I was a gangster.
You consider it “prudent” to coddle insanity. I’d rather work on curing it.
pc, sorry I missed your meaning. I agree, it’s a tough call. I didn’t read Sipos’s links…
I’m more familiar with Michael Savage. I wouldn’t want him to endorse a L candidate unless and until he renounced his hatemongering. If he endorsed a L, I’d probably not acknowledge it. If he sent a check, I’d send it back. At least, that would appear to be indicated, based on my limited knowledge of Savage.
Street gangs don’t necessarily view themselves that way either. They may see themselves as fighting to protect their neighborhood, their friends, take revenge on those who have done them wrong, exercise pre-emptive self defense, etc. Of course, like all regimes, they see a need to collect “taxes” so as to compensate their soldiers for doing their patriotic duty to their ‘hood, and as with any military, R & R time is important as well.
tk: Anyone who thinks giving a street gang billions of dollars to draw imaginary lines on the ground and wave guns at people crossing back and forth across those imaginary lines is “exercising good judgment or common sense” is out of his goddamn gourd.
me: Thanks for the feedback. If there’s a viable alternative, I’m all ears. It’s a “street gang” in your mind, not — near as I can tell — in the minds of either the “gangsters” nor virtually all people. Yes, the Stockholm Syndrome might explain it for us “hostages,” but how do explain it for the “gangsters.”
For ex., weren’t you in the military? Did you view yourself as a gangster back then, plundering the population? Did your fellow soldiers believe that’s what they were, too?
Ogden should renounce their endorsement, then?
They are not quite as bad as Stormfront, and they have a big following, so probably not. But it’s a a judgment call. What if someone who made similar insinuating comments about Jews and Blacks on a regular basis had a show with a million listeners and wanted to endorse you for office? What would you do?
Most people reading that would say Ogden is pro-immigrant, pro-prudent border control.
The Glass statement you’ve previously highlighted MIGHT draw votes away from a closed-border R. I seriously doubt Ogden’s will.
Um, yeah, that was my point. I was disputing the quoted contention that Ogden would draw anti-immigrant votes.
Lake,
Enough is enough.
Unless a thread is classified “Right Wing Minor Parties” and/or “Constitution Party” in relation to the AIP of California and/or mentions Nightingale in the body of the article it is not an AIP thread.
This article is none of those things. It is not an AIP thread.
It’s bad enough that you and the other combatants on both sides in the AIP drama have turned any discussion having to do with the Constitution Party, AIP and/or Nightingale into a totally ridiculous mudfest, but there are plenty enough of those threads and you don’t have to go into other threads to do it.
Again: unless an article explicitly mentions Nightingale, take the crap to one that does.
I hope I was sufficiently clear this time.
paulie17: Ogden can steal some of the anti-immigrant vote from Whitman now.
Nope, that was me quoting someone to respond to them, read the rest of #17
Bob,
I meant it the way the dictionary says, too. So at least we’ve cleared up whether the defect is in your vocabulary or your sanity.
Anyone who thinks giving a street gang billions of dollars to draw imaginary lines on the ground and wave guns at people crossing back and forth across those imaginary lines is “exercising good judgment or common sense” is out of his goddamn gourd.
ts, do you think Ogden should renounce their endorsement, then?
tk, hmm, you tease, you. I mean it like the 1st entry in the dictionary: “Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense”
It’s prudent to have checks at the border. It’s prudent to maintain a national defense. It’s prudent to have cops and courts.
It’s not prudent to use “stimulus” to reinvigorate the economy. It’s not prudent to maintain military bases across the globe. It’s not prudent to outlaw private, personal behavior like smoking marijuana.
No, I think I’ve got a handle on the word. If I don’t, please share your concerns.
Bob,
You keep using that word (“prudent”).
I do not think it means what you think it means.
If anyone doubts that John & Ken are only concerned about “illegal immigrants’ ” use of government entitlements, consider John’s frequent use of the term “clown house.”
Here’s the definition: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Clown%20House
John frequently laughs at, disparages, and complains about the “infestation” of clown houses in California neighborhoods.
“Infestation.”
Clearly, John is concerned that “illegal immigrants” depress wages and living standards just by being here and working cheaply.
“No American can work that cheap,” John has said. “We have standards. No American is gonna work for $3 an hour so he can afford to live in some clown house. No American can compete against that.”
John has often said so in different, but more or less the same, words.
iow, it’s not a personal or group attack. There is no disparagement there that I can see. There is a prudent judgment being expressed.
Carvey doing Bush 41: wouldn’t be prudent at this juncture… 😉
paulie17: Ogden can steal some of the anti-immigrant vote from Whitman now.
me: For real? How do you construe the quote as “anti-immigrant”? Most people reading that would say Ogden is pro-immigrant, pro-prudent border control. It would be interesting if immigrants were polled and asked “Do you think anyone can go anywhere anytime for any reason?” I doubt many would say Yes.
The Glass statement you’ve previously highlighted MIGHT draw votes away from a closed-border R. I seriously doubt Ogden’s will.
Very good point Timothy, my former friend “The Last Conservative” was bringing this very point up about the contradictions of conservative women politicians. Will Grundman respond? Probably not.
[Lake: Oh no. IAP / Nevada Constitution Party stuff! Oh wait, Nightingale is CP! *whew*]
# 29 Jill Pyeatt // Oct 20, 2010:
……….. Part of a parent’s responsibility is to teach her child a work ethic ………..
[Lake: thx for standing up for decency and logic on Cody Quirk’s cyber bullying and lying nonsence. Oh, that’s right, you’ve done nothing!]
[Lake: The first amendment is the first amendment, but with SOME limits of decency and internet protocol. Personal responsibility? Doctor Don Grundmann’s repeated threats to physically harm me and others! Personal responsibilities? Quirk’s problems in High School, college, California, now possibly living in Reno, possibly in Aunt Nadine Hansen property, living off of an ongoing allowance? Ah, personal responsibility. You really do not seem to care all that much ………..]
Needing to work is a legitimate reason for a mother to work. However unless it is financially necessary a mother should not work. As for Sarah Palin and Nigtengale their families did not need the money. Even if their family did there are thousands of jobs available besides being a governor. In fact if Nightengale’s family needs the money then running for governor is irresponsible because she should have been looking for a job since becoming governor is almost nearly impossible.
# 24 Timothy Yung // Oct 20, 2010:
“I am a former supporter of Nightengale (sp) but I am going to switch to the Libertarian candidate. The major reason I am switching my vote is that (Chelene Ward) Nightengale (sp) is a mother of a child. ”
[Lake: AT LEAST one, there is a FORMER spouse, does that mean her Washington State daughter is a FORMER child? Children, one, two, three? Ask Nightmare Nightingale, she does not me return my quires. The numbers either are different at different sites or have a question mark behind it / them!]
#15 Catholic Trotskyist // Oct 19, 2010:
“Lake has posted his phone number and email address a few times on this site ……. at least take this to an AIP thread ”
[Lake: as Lake said. THIS IS AN AIP THREAD. and is thoroughly appropriate!]
Although it does at least have some connection if John and Ken were really thinking about endorsing Chelene [Ward Nightingale].
[Lake: Jeez, thx for making my point. The current, official, certified AIP really feels ‘targeted’ by IPR and not treated in a *fair and balanced* manner. We talk about paulie, Trent Hill, Gary Odom, Quirkie Cody Quirk (nephew and ‘Sponge Bob Reno Nevada’ free loader of IAP biggie Nadine Hansen), Red Philips ‘amongst our selves’ on a regular basis.]
Timothy, oh Timothy. I disagree with you. Part of a parent’s responsibility is to teach her child a work ethic. If she needs to work, she needs to work.
The other option for some of us was welfare. How can you reconcile that with your comments?
By the way, I am not a divorced woman.
Jill: “I asked [Dale Ogden] how John and Ken responded on their show when he talked about immigration, and his answer was that their problem is with entitlements for immigrants.”
Then apparently Dale wasn’t listening to Ken and John. Either that, or Dale is intentionally spinning.
I heard the show, and I was paying attention.
John was explicit in that he also has a problem with immigrants undercutting wages: “I don’t believe in importing people to work for $3 an hour.”
The crowd responded enthusiastically to John’s statement.
And then Dale responded, “I don’t believe in importing people to work for $3 an hour either.”
Lake, IPR is alive and well; it has a much stronger foundation than TPW and it is unlikely to go away for many years. Get over it.
Sorry, I was really referring to Sipos when I was referring to Knapp. Too many Thomases on here!
Paulie, Knapp is right. Ogden may be pro-immigration, but John and Ken are very anti-immigration. With John and Ken endorsing Ogden, this is probably the biggest audience that is aware of Ogden; so it makes sense that he would waffle on immigration, and more people will begin to think that Ogden is anti-immmigrant even if he isn’t.
I am a former supporter of Nightengale but I am going to switch to the Libertarian candidate. Ending the welfare state will prevent many illegals from coming here in the first place and many illegals would leave if welfare payments stop. He also understands that borders need to monitored from criminaliens. The major reason I am switching my vote is that Nightengale is a mother of a child. One of the major problems that our society faces is out of wedlock babies and mothers who work outside of the home instead of taking care of their children. Mothers should be at home taking care of children not running the state government. This something that social conservatives should understand including supporters of Sarah Palin. I would think the Constitution Party would have understood this too but I guess not.
*paulie, fair and balanced*
Third Party Watch did not last for ever.
Independent Political Report won’t either, even tho the need is great!
[john and ken]
[Nightmare Nightingale ON THE California AIP TICKET]
[Nightingale was mentioned on the broadcast]
[The endorsed candidate was in Nightingale’s race]
[From the very beginning, this was / is an AIP thread!]
[*fair and balanced*]
Dale spoke at our regional meeting last week. He was very clear in his answers about immigration, and the answers were close to the words on his website. I asked him how John and Ken responded on their show when he talked about immigration, and his answer was that their problem is with entitlements for immigrants.
We have an excellent candidate for Lt governor, also. Dr Pam Brown is an economics professor at a local college, and they spoke with her, also. I wasn’t able to hear it, though, darn it (you know, that pesky making- a- living thing).
I certainly hope it translates to more votes. The choice between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman couldn’t be worse. It will be lose/lose if either of them wins.
I heard John & Ken endorse and interview Ogden, before a live audience.
Ogden waffled on immigration. His talking points were pleasing the crowd, until the conversation turned to immigration. Then it sort of (but not quite) sounded as if he supported open borders.
Gasps and angry murmurs erupted from the previously cheering crowd. Angry questions ensued.
Ogden became even vaguer.
John retorted, “I don’t believe in importing people to work $3 an hour.”
Ogden waffled some more, but added, “I don’t believe in importing people to work for $3 an hour either.”
Those are the only exact quotes that I recall.
Ogden’s final words can be interpreted either way. Libertarians likewise don’t believe in “importing” people to work for $3 an hour, yet they support people’s right to enter freely and work for $3 an hour.
John then ended the interview, saying, “Well, libertarians have some peculiar ideas about certain things, some of which you may not agree with. You can go to their site and learn what they’re all about.”
The crowd’s final applause was weaker and less enthusiastic than before Ogden said anything about immigration.
I don’t expect Odgen or the LPC to mention these details in public statements. As with the Demopublicans, the LP’s fumbles, waffles, and “controversial” issues are tossed down the Memory Hole…
The Republican Party is America’s Communist Party. Joe Stalin Miller.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/10/18/gop-joe-miller-sez-turn-america-into-east-germany-goes-stasi-on-reporter/
“If East Germany can do it, we can do it!” — Joe Miller
Yes, Republican candidate for Senate Joe Miller actually spoke those words yesterday, asking his audience in Alaska why America can’t build its own Berlin Wall.
(more at link above…)
And speaking of anti-migrant votes….
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/10/19/fascist-germany-theme-spreads-in-republican-border-talk-john-yates/
With Republican Joe Miller calling for America to take after East Germany before having a reporter hauled away and arrested for asking the wrong questions, Republican John Yates has seconded the call for an East German border policy:
Vote Republican for a more East German America.
Ogden can steal some of the anti-immigrant vote from Whitman now.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Dale_Ogden,_2010_California_gubernatorial_candidate,_talks_with_Wikinews
Q: Explain how you think California’s immigration laws should work.
A: Philosophically, I believe in open borders. People should be able to come and go as they please. However, the government should not take money from one group of individuals (taxpayers) and give it to others. We should not subsidize nor penalize immigrants. If people want to come to the United States and California to work and take care of their families, they should be allowed to do so. However, those who commit crimes against persons or property should be either imprisoned (for serious offenses) or deported. In that regard, the United States government needs to monitor and control its borders.
I’m glad that John and Ken are at least not endorsing Whitman. Ogden can steal some of the anti-immigrant vote from Whitman now.
Don Grundman, are John and Ken also agents of the NAACP and SPLC? Probably.
“Looking for Don Lake”, Lake has posted his phone number and email address a few times on this site. If you’re really looking for him, send him a private message. Or at least take this to an AIP thread as Paulie said. Although it does at least have some connection if John and Ken were really thinking about endorsing Chelene.
Would John and Ken endorse PLAS? Or Catholic Trotskyism? Probably not, sadly. Losers.
I’m voting for Dale, and I’m glad he got an endorsement.
I don’t want to keep this thread going if it is to be about Chelene Nightingale. Granted, she has a few good ideas, but the social issues, especially the religious based ones really turn me off. Still. For a politician. I’d totally hit that.
Can you guys take this to an AIP thread?
Thanks.
no longer a Gilchrist fan, she (Nightmare Nightingale ——- my term) makes him look positively sane.
again, and I mean this sincerely, how can one be California Constitution Party and the California American Independent Party ——-which currently abhors the national CP, as I have done since 1998 ………..
Can I registered GOP AND Democratic Party as the same instant? CP or AIP not AND!
well some of us worked day and night getting the word out ………
Children, one, two, three …………. ah!
I heard it myself…..ahahhaah THE TRUTH IS OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nightigale ATTRACTS LUNATICS! ROFL THATS WHAT JOHN AND KEN SAID LIVE ON AIR!!!!!!!!!!to over 1 million voters…can’t get better than that. ha ha HAAAAAAA
I’m not a John and Ken fan, but I’m glad they endorsed a Libertarian.
” looking for Don Lake ” – Yet ANOTHER fake name/non-name of Mark Seidenberg; the coward who, in literally hundreds of posts, will not write under his own name. As the fake ” Vice-Chairman ” of the corruption faction of the AIP, the Robinson criminal enterprise, this is no surprise as he is continually attacking the Governor candidate of the party by endless lying all across the Internet; an attitude and characteristic totally in line with being the ADL, SPLC. and Republican Party agent that he is.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
Hey don, tell mark s and the rest of the AIP that on Nightingales facebook, Gary Odam is telling people to contact Don Grundman chairman of AIP if they want to register. We all know that they will double talk and try to get them to sign on as a Constitution party (new) in CA. this is fraud to the max…please pass this on.
yep they did Not Pick Chelene Nut Nightingale, she was on the show, and they did not endorse her. Infact last week, Jim Gilchrist showed up on the day Dale Ogden Joined John and ken, and John and ken said on air…”the nightingale for governor supporters threw a glass of wine on Gilchrist. John and ken said LIVE on air that Nightingale attracts the lunatics! 1 million people heard this I did too.
He is a true Libertarian. You can take that to the bank.
I’ll be the first to admit I know nothing about candidate Dale Ogden; but this endorsement does beg the question: Is Ogden a true libertarian or is he closer to a middle-of-the-road populace?