Lee Wrights Wins Libertarian Party of Tennessee’s Presidential Straw Poll

March 24, 2012

Reported last night in the Examiner, by Craig Schlesinger

“A few short minutes ago, the Libertarian Party of Tennessee held a presidential straw poll at their annual state convention. Lee Wrights won with 49% of the vote, and Gov. Gary Johnson finished second with 24%.

This space will carry more in-depth coverage of the entire convention (everyone was extremely cordial, from LP-TN officers, members, candidates, and speakers from outside organizations) in the coming days, but here are the just in straw poll results:

Lee Wrights – 49%

Gary Johnson – 24%

Carl Person – 3%

Joy Waymire – 3%

Jim Burns – 3%

Kelly Walls (write in) – 3%

R.J. Harris, Bill Still, Leroy Saunders, and James Ogle each received 0% of the vote

NOTA [none of the above] – 15%

Strong third place showing for NOTA!

Lee Wrights delivered a memorable line at last week’s LP-Colorado presidential debate, ‘Freedom is always the answer. Now what’s the question?'”

Credits:

Wrights2012.com

92 thoughts on “Lee Wrights Wins Libertarian Party of Tennessee’s Presidential Straw Poll

  1. Krzysztof

    Good job! We need someone like Wrights or Still to defeat Johsnon, who can’t be trusted because of his main backers Roger Stone and Wayne Root. He’s also not nearly as good on the issues.

  2. Catholic Trotskyist

    Who is Kelly Walls? She’s never been covered here that I’m aware of. Did all of the 3% people get just one vote each?

  3. Chuck Moulton

    Lee Wrights delivered a memorable line at last week’s LP-Colorado presidential debate, ‘Freedom is always the answer. Now what’s the question?’”

    That’s a classic Ernie Hancock line.

  4. Richard Vanier

    Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Straw Polls all over the country by large margins and IPR never mentions it. Lee Wrights wins his first straw poll and boom IPR has got an article about it.

    I know my making note of this is going to upset some people. But sometimes that facts are the facts.

    Live Free!!!! And yes I will voting for him in Las Vegas.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    RV@7:

    “Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Straw Polls all over the country by large margins and IPR never mentions it.”

    Google is your friend. It took me about 15 seconds to find mentions of Johnson’s California and Florida straw poll wins on IPR. There are probably others.

    “Lee Wrights wins his first straw poll and boom IPR has got an article about it.”

    “Dog bites man” may be news. “Man bites dog” definitely is.

  6. Kleptocracy And You

    Congrats to Mr. Wrights. Thank’s for a honarable effort this cycle !!

    Sadly for him and others the resumes will deside this nomination for the delegates.

    @1 is the problem I have with blog forums. (I mean the man’s or woman’s name links to a REPUBLICAN candidate’s site but they know what’s best for the LP) A look at donar records shows that Stone and WAR are not Johnson’s “main” backers, it’s NOT even close. Frohman from VA has given GJ $5,000. Can you even find Stone or Root as contributors ? So that first statement is FALSE, second Gary Johnson is more of a libertarian than many of the hypocrites on here that feign purity. Gary Johnson scores BETTER and HIGHER on the Nolan Chart than king fundraiser Dr. Ron Paul .

    Research, research, research you will learn facts, which are better than lies every minute of the day !

    Never doubt former highly successful two-term Gov. Gary Johnson is our friend and will represent us in a fine manner !

    An Up todate record –

    Gary Johnson’s Nolan Chart Score – http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=2&a2=2&a3=1&a4=3&a5=4&a6=4&a7=1&a8=4&a9=2&a10=1&a11=4&a12=5&a13=3&a14=5&a15=2&a16=1&a17=5&a18=5&a19=1&a20=1&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=85&e=80&t=25

    I just hope these negative nebobs will stop the troublemaking after the nomination is completed!

  7. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    RV @ 7: I’ve personally posted at least one article about Gary Johnson winning in CA, and I know there have been more. And, I also posted this one. I have little spare time, and only post when I can.

    Be happy your guy is winning straw polls. I’m happy my guy won this straw poll. I’m fairly certain quite a few more articles will be posted here about both Johnson and Wrights between now and the November election.

  8. Paul's Endorsement

    Gary Johnson scores BETTER and HIGHER on the Nolan Chart than king fundraiser Dr. Ron Paul .

    Which Nolan Chart? I’ve seen many Nolan charts since the 1990s, in that the handful of questions keep getting changed.

    And because there are only a handful of questions per Nolan Chart…

    1. The Chart is easily rigged to “prove” who is a libertarian, by cherry-picking its few questions.

    2. Which also means that the Chart is largely useless as proof of anything.

    The Chart’s main purpose is to cherry pick those questions that will convince people on the street that they are libertarians. But seasoned libertarians should know better than to take the Chart seriously.

    The Nolan Chart is an activist’s tool to stimulate conversation. It is not an accurate measure of something as nuanced and complex as one’s political philosophy.

  9. Robert Capozzi

    12 pe: Which also means that the Chart is largely useless as proof of anything.

    me: Agreed. I’d submit that there is no way to quantitatively measure another’s L-ness, as L-ness is a qualitative thing.

    Do you agree, or do you think there is such a thing as more or less L that is scoreable?

  10. notnalB moT

    The Nolan Chart is an activist’s tool to stimulate conversation. It is not an accurate measure of something as nuanced and complex as one’s political philosophy.

    Shhhhh. That is closely guarded top secret information that LP members should not be made aware of.

  11. Tom Blanton

    Real libertarians don’t pander to conservatives and right-wingers using right-wing talking points and demagoguery.

    Real libertarians know that reducing the size, scope and power of government is the answer – not just marginal reform and/or tax cuts.

    Real libertarians know that the Fair Tax does not reduce the size, scope or power of government.

    Real libertarians know that preventive wars increase the the size, scope and power of government.

    Real libertarians are not pro-business, they are pro-market.

    Real libertarians don’t believe in the initiation of force.

    Real libertarians believe in self-governance and property rights.

    Real libertarians know that libertarianism is not the same as “true conservatism.”

  12. paulie

    Krzysztof

    Johsnon, who can’t be trusted because of his main backers Roger Stone and Wayne Root.

    Main backers according to whom?

    And aren’t you a Merlin Miller/A3P supporter?

    Catholic Trotskyist

    Who is Kelly Walls? (sic)

    Tony Wall’s wife. Tony is the former state chair. I see other people have listed some of her other party positions.

    OTHER

    Lee who?

    Funny.

    Richard Vanier

    Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Straw Polls all over the country by large margins and IPR never mentions it.

    We mention it all the time, and each IPR writer makes their own decisions on what to post and when.

    Become an IPR writer if you would like to improve IPR.

  13. Kleptocracy And You

    The Nolan Chart is a chart. The QUIZ the Advocates for Self Government use is but one quiz that uses the CHART to grade a score. The chart ended (replaced) the old untrue outdated left-right line chart used by the oligarchy and their lackeys, ie far left to far right with no room for LIBERTARIANS. Understand yet ? DUH !

    I refer to –
    On the Issues and Vote Match, which cover almost all issues ! No cherry picking involved to favor one candidate over the other.

    Take some time and use the little gray cells PLEASE.

    Gary Johnson on the issues – http://house.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

    This is used to give GJ the score from above. Anyone who falls within the L quadrant on the chart is welcome to join the LP by me. You tiptoppers (of the chart) are never going to reach your goals by EXCLUDING people who you can agree with on 75 to 80% of the issues. Get them in, then educate them. Big tent for the LP or fold it up and pour water on the fire, cause the Party is OVER! Gary Johnson is a libertarian even if you don’t want to admit it.

    Gary Johnson said. “I have issues with the extreme right of the Republican party. I do. I always have,” he added. “And I have issues with the extreme left of the Democrat party. I always have. But I don’t know if I really have issues with what you’d call the extreme segment of the Libertarian party.” (me-he extended a hand of friendship to the “tiptoppers”, will you accept that hand or not? Work with the man, he has the resume for the job!)

    Gary Johnson: ‘Mickey Mouse Would Poll 15 Percent Against Obama And Romney’ – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/gary-johnson-mickey-mouse-barack-obama-mitt-romney_n_1219290.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

    Help Gary Make the Fall Debates. Fifteen Dollars ($15) NOW and Twenty-Five Later or better $50 later will help Gary Compete with the Corrupt Corporate backed Obama and Romney ! (me-$5,000 NOW would actually be the BEST of all)
    https://donate.garyjohnson2012.com
    Thanks!

    Please don’t be a mushroom and allow the overpaid LACKEY major media to pick your candidate ! RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH !!!

    Who is Gary “IRONMAN” Johnson ? – http://www.youtube.com/user/govgaryjohnson#p/u/13/XmzKH3iivYU

  14. Volvoice

    Lee has alot of support in TN. The state coordinator for GJ was there also…..a very nice guy who was warmly welcomed along with the other candidates who either spoke directly or sent in a video. No candidate was ignored…all should be listed at our St website…unlike the national LP who has a penchant for seeming to know who will be the chosen one and then ignoring all others. Also we passed a resolution against the “there’s no such thing as a poor libertarian” floor fee. At least we know that Star and Mattson are still hard at work for liberty!!

  15. Brian Holtz

    Here’s a high-precision Nolan quiz that more closely tracks the LP platform than other such quizzes. Click the blue and red questions to cycle through the available answers to them.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    17 tb: Real libertarians don’t believe in the initiation of force.

    me: Care to rephrase? Force seems to be initiated all over the place, near as I can tell.

  17. Kleptocracy And You

    I’m grayer in the beard than most of you on here, but the “political homeless” quiz, 20 to 25 years ago was used effectively to find people in your area who might be interested in the LP. Using Holtz quiz above or the Advocates quiz with the Political Homeless Chart could be used now as an effective local tool to find libertarians in your area (colleges, county fairs, malls, etc.). It also introduces many to the LP for the first time in their lives. It also shows a LP presense locally and people see we are just regular folks just like them.It’s time to start building the Party again! There are some nice tools you can use to get started.

  18. Tom Blanton

    A foreign policy of endless wars based on dubious pretexts has always increased the the size, scope and power of government.

    In the past 10 years, we have witnessed an almost complete loss of privacy with warrantless surveillance and government databases. Habeas corpus can now be suspended and the president may order extrajudicial executions for merely being a suspect. Billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars have been squandered on war, robbing future generations of prosperity.

    I could go on and on about the perverse and hideous results of war – especially senseless wars. And yet, these little libertarian “tests” invariably omit this issue of “foreign policy” as if it is just a trivial and divisive issue that just shouldn’t be brought up.

    So, any bigot that espouses killing, torturing or exploiting human beings in any nation deemed evil by war profiteers or political Zionists can be a perfect little libertarian as long as he is OK with gay unions and medical marijuana while favoring tax cuts and gun rights. Fuck any notion of anything approaching real freedom. A tiny tax cut here and a reduction in a mandatory prison sentence there. Viola, the new libertopia!

    Some people need to pull their heads out of their asses and shove some liberty up there instead.

    Perhaps the call of these new libertarians should be:

    I want freedom! Send me a dynamic moderate leader I can follow!

  19. Paul's Endorsement

    @ 25, well said.

    Several years ago, I was told of a “libertarian” who was as Islamophobic and war-mongering as any Neocon. Yet he was livid that the city had cited him for having a dirty front yard.

    He did much whining over this at his local libertarian supper club. He was morally outraged at being forced to pay a fine which violated the “libertarian principle” of his keeping his property in whatever condition he wished.

    Yet he felt no outrage over U.S. bombing of foreign Muslims. Hell, he approved of it as a “pro-defense” measure.

    To say the LP should admit people who support 75% – 80% of LP positions misses the real picture, because it emphasizes quantity over quality. Some positions are simply — and properly — deal-breakers.

    Who decides which positions are the deal-breakers? That’s not a problem. That’s decided at convention. Barr/Root were deal-breakers for many people in 2008, and so they left the LP.

  20. Robert Capozzi

    25 tb, it appears we agree. I’m not a fan of these tests, either, as they are simplistic and pre-suppose a rank-ordering of L ideas…in the extreme:

    – gun grabber
    – some regulation
    – anything you can carry you can carry where you want when you want
    – nuke in every garage

    I often can’t answer these, since they are simplistic, hypothetical or contextual.

    On foreign policy, then, I happen to agree that US foreign policy has been wrong-minded for decades. Does that necessarily mean that ending all alliances tomorrow is indicated? Politically, does advocating ending all alliances tomorrow lead to positive movement away from interventionism?

    Near as I can tell, you seem to think there is One Right and True Answer, pure Light in the Darkness of Insanity. Oh, were it only that simple….

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    @28,

    “a rank-ordering of L ideas…in the extreme:

    – gun grabber
    – some regulation
    – anything you can carry you can carry where you want when you want
    – nuke in every garage”

    That’s not “a rank ordering of libertarian ideas.”

    That’s a Capozzi laundry list of possible consequences, heavily tinged with his opinion of same.

  22. Marion

    “more Libertarian than Ron Paul”–with all respects to Dr. Paul. that is not relevant to who gets the Libertarian nomination nor is Paul the standard we hope to emulate.

  23. paulie

    LG, CTTCS: Audrey is Robert’s mom, although she looks more like she would be his wife or sister judging by appearance alone. And why would I take Robert less seriously based on how she voted on something on the LNC?

    Klep:

    Now that Johnson is actually in the LP and regularly attending LP state conventions, has anyone tried actually administering the quiz to him and reporting actual results, rather than getting OnTheIssues.org guesstimates?

    I would be curious to know his actual results and what questions he answers no or maybe to.

    If someone has given him the quiz please let us know.

    If not, please see if someone can get him to go on record at the next state meeting.

    ‘Mickey Mouse Would Poll 15 Percent Against Obama And Romney’ — Help Gary Make the Fall Debates.

    Would you like to bet me any actual money when I bet that Johnson will not poll 15% in an average of nationwide polls in September that is used to decide who will be included in the debate? If so how much?

  24. Robert Capozzi

    28 tk, of course. Point is, these sorts of quizzes don’t capture any nuance and are often simplistically and ranked. Since I don’t support the right to tote bazookas or pack machine guns in the subway, I’d have to pick “some regulation.”

  25. Robert Capozzi

    More…

    Importantly, I reject the notion that another L’s position is more, or less, L than mine is. It’s just different.

  26. Paulie

    it in no way gives robert more or less credibility its just interesting:)

    That part was a response @30 …sorry I combined comments ‘cuz I was in a hurry.

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@356,

    “Importantly, I reject the notion that another L’s position is more, or less, L than mine is. It’s just different.”

    I agree that it’s not a question of “more” or “less.”

  28. Paulie

    Sooner or later you do accept that notion. Otherwise, someone who is in no way shape or form a libertarian can say she is one and you have no way to say otherwise. At that point it becomes a completely meaningless term.

  29. Darryl W. Perry

    @34 RC
    these sorts of quizzes don’t capture any nuance
    I’m curious if you’ve ever looked at the quiz at Quiz2d.com?

    Here is one question:
    Guns
    Once upon a time, gun ownership was a constitutional right, on par with freedom of speech. Today, guns are registered, and you are considered unfit to own a gun until proven fit. In some cities, gun ownership requires a very hard-to-get permit.
    Should the Second Amendment stay in force?
    *NO! Private gun ownership is too dangerous. (The 2nd Amendment is an obsolete relic from frontier days.)

    *No. Ban private handguns. Carefully control hunting weapons.

    *OK, but require registration and background checks.

    *Yes. Legal handguns actually prevent crime, save lives, and give women equality. (And registration requirements are a dangerous slippery slope.)

    *YES! Private MILITARY arms are the last bastion against tyranny. (And gun registration is a dangerous slippery slope)

  30. Robert Capozzi

    40 p, as a L, I maintain that anyone can SAY whatever he or she wants. I, and you, can ALSO SAY I think GJ and RP are L, and Santorum and Kucinich are not Ls.

    My default position is to accept someone who says he or she is an L is an L, but I reserve the right to not accept such a claim.

    There are Ls who’d say I am not a L because I don’t believe there’s a “right” to tote a machine gun into the subway. Some Ls might say I’m not L because I’m pro choice. Others might say I’m not L because I generally support a prohibition on late-term abortions.

    These sorts of nuances are simply not captured by these broad-brush quizzes.

  31. Robert Capozzi

    41 dwp, well, the next to last one is closest to my view, but it’s not my view. I’ve scanned many quizzes, and while well meaning, I don’t find them especially useful or insightful. A simple one is probably fine for OPH purposes, but applying Hayek, you cannot quantify the unquantifiable.

  32. Kleptocracy And You

    Gary Johnson on the issues – http://house.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

    The Link above shows over 100 issues used to grade Gary Johnson’s score. It wasn’t 10 questions it is well over 100 detailed issues covered including foreign policy, see for yourself at the Link above.

    ^^^^^!

    example Gary Johnson on War and Peace

    No military threat from Iraq, Afghanistan, nor Libya. (Aug 2011)
    Iran is not currently a military threat. (Aug 2011)
    Let Israel deal with Iranian nukes; not US role to tell them. (Aug 2011)
    Absolutely would not have gone into Libya; get out now. (Jul 2011)
    We wiped out al Qaeda 10 years ago; leave Afghanistan. (Jun 2011)
    No threat from Libya; so no authority to topple dictator. (Jun 2011)
    Afghan War initially warranted, but not for 10 years. (May 2011)
    Military surveillance should discover WMD before invasion. (May 2011)
    I opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. (May 2011)
    No Afghan timetable; start withdrawing tomorrow & finish in a few months. (May 2011)
    Eliminate ineffective interventions in Iraq & Afghanistan. (May 2011)

    Gary “IRONMAN” Johnson 2012: Defense = http://www.youtube.com/user/govgaryjohnson?feature=BF#p/u/12/tJKCWa22fHY

    Gary Johnson “This Is A Slippery Slope When It Comes To Deciding These Situations In The Future” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXKPJLlbp-s&feature=related

    —–

    Shallow and negative. Holier than thou. Some people are worse than hypocrites in the local churches. GOOD BYE !

  33. paulie

    Klep 44

    I still want current answers from the man himself.

    It shouldn’t be too hard to get them, after all he is around active LP members on a regular basis now.

  34. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    P, so then look at the very first Quiz question. I don’t know how to answer it. As a TAAAList, I really can’t really say. Since it says, “over a period of time,” I’d say maybe things could evolve in, say, 200 years that Nonarchy could work, so the last choice might be mine, although I’m not sure I agree that taxation is “theft,” per se, since property needs a rule of law in order for it to be a meaningful concept. Maybe in 50-100 years the next to last choice might work.

    On the other hand, liberty might best be maximized by taking a Georgist path, in which case the LVT/citizens dividend might be counted at “government” or it might not. I could argue that either way, and the levels of compensation could be structured in quite a wide range.

    When a quiz can be answered a number of ways correctly, I would say that the quiz has lost its utility. Empiricism is often impractical!

  35. Tom Blanton

    Near as I can tell, you seem to think there is One Right and True Answer, pure Light in the Darkness of Insanity. Oh, were it only that simple….

    Yes, Bubby, there is One Right and True Answer. From both the moral and utilitarian view, it is Wrong to engage in war with another nation when that nation has not attacked, is not preparing to attack, and is no existential threat simply based on lies from those who benefit economically or politically from such a war. Wrong. Period. Especially wrong for those who claim to favor freedom and “limited government.”

    There’s a little bit of Light to illuminate your Darkness, Capozzi.

    If you can find some “net gain” in freedom from preventive war. let’s see the math. For someone who can’t put a numerical quantifier on libertarianism, you seem to have no trouble attributing imaginary numbers to various issues and how they rank on your own imaginary libertarian scale.

    @ #12:

    The Nolan Chart is an activist’s tool to stimulate conversation. It is not an accurate measure of something as nuanced and complex as one’s political philosophy.

    This “test” has never been useful for anything other than other than a conversation piece. Unfortunately, many so-called activists that whip it out, administer it, and score it never figured that out.

    Apparently, the high-level libertarian thinker and all-round genius Brian Holtz hasn’t figured this out either. That is unless he employs it so that he can argue that his warmongering neocon friends are actually freedom loving libertarians who don’t mind bankrupting their children and giving up civil liberties in order to engage in glorious wars that cause their manicured toes to tingle in their tassled loafers.

  36. JT

    I have to disagree with anyone who says that political quizzes that use the Nolan Chart aren’t valuable. Many people, particularly students, aren’t aware of libertarianism as a political perspective wholly independent of liberalism and conservatism. But after taking the WSPQ at an Advocates OPH booth somewhere, for example, some of these people then check out libertarianism and the LP online. So while any such quiz is far from a perfect tool, it’s still useful as far as helping many people self-identify as libertarian-leaning (and become more so), as well as helping to recruit new LP members.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    After seeing the subsequent discussion, I guess I should elaborate on @39:

    —–
    RC@356,

    “Importantly, I reject the notion that another L’s position is more, or less, L than mine is. It’s just different.”

    I agree that it’s not a question of “more” or “less.”
    —–

    Capozzi’s position on arms/weaponry is “if I can imagine a circumstance under which the freedom of others might possibly lead to a situation in which I am conceivably endangered, or even if their freedom makes me just the least bit uncomfortable, I should be able to order those others around until I am absolutely certain that I am absolutely safe, and until I like what I am seeing.”

    That doesn’t fit into a “more or less libertarian” scale, because it doesn’t fit onto any libertarian scale.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    50 tk, no, that’s not true. First, why you think it’s about me and my biases is false. I simply offer my best take on solutions that are virtuous, workable and peaceful. I don’t think private nukes pass those tests, nor do machine guns in the subway.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@51,

    “I simply offer my best take on solutions that are virtuous, workable and peaceful. I don’t think private nukes pass those tests, nor do machine guns in the subway.”

    There are two problems with that:

    1) Private nukes and machine guns in the subway are figments of your imagination, not actual likely outcomes; and

    2) It’s not peaceful to construct a regulatory regime in order to protect yourself from figments of your imagination.

  40. Robert Capozzi

    48 tb: If you can find some “net gain” in freedom from preventive war. let’s see the math.

    me: I am generally opposed to preventive war, Brother B, but even if I wasn’t, math really can’t be done with any kind of precision. Hayek… unquantifiable…all that.

    52 tk, hmm, well, I’m not so sure that machine guns have not been toted in a subway. And when I say “private nukes,” I say it for effect. I’d venture to say that there certainly have been WMD held privately.

    So, it seems peaceful to me to prohibit some arms sometimes and other arms other times.

    We don’t really disagree here with the principle, do we?

  41. paulie

    JT,

    The WSPQ/Nolan chart is a useful tool to sort large numbers of people quickly into those who have very little or no affinity for libertarianism and those that might have some. It also helps get their attention.

    It becomes less useful when people fetishize it, ignoring other levels of nuance.

    To the extent that it is useful, it is more useful when someone takes it for themselves rather than having someone else guesstimate their answers.

    While the OnTheIssues guesstimates may be somewhat useful where no direct contact is available, in Johnson’s case I think it would now be more useful to get his answers, and explanations thereof, directly from the man himself.

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@53,

    “We don’t really disagree here with the principle, do we?”

    We absolutely disagree on the principle.

    I consider aggression “non-peaceful.”

    You consider certain kinds of aggression “peaceful” because they give you a false sense of security versus the monsters you imagine hiding under your bed — and if other people have to pay for that false sense of security with their freedom and their lives, well, tough shit for them.

  43. Tom Blanton

    I am generally opposed to preventive war

    Yeah, yeah. I’m generally opposed to busting out someone’s teeth with a baseball bat. But, to take the “moderate” position, there are always exceptions to this.

    I’ve been waiting for Root to come out with a “libertarian” defense of Zimmerman over his vigilante killing of an unarmed “suspect”, but maybe Capozzi should be the one to do this.

    After all, Zimmerman was only securing the peace he imagined might be breached.

  44. Robert Capozzi

    55 tk: I consider aggression “non-peaceful.” You consider certain kinds of aggression “peaceful” because they give you a false sense of security…

    me: Whatup with this penchant for personalizing things, Tomaso? No, it’s not about my personal sense of security.

    It IS about the fact that it’s a world filled with aggression. Every day, probably every minute, someone’s forcing someone else to do something against his or her will.

    But, if you believe that prohibiting personal ownership of WMD and regulating where some kinds of weapons are carried (eg machine guns on subways) are “aggression” and that owning WMD or carrying machine guns in subways is “peaceful,” then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

  45. Robert Capozzi

    56 tb, there indeed are exception to just about every rule…haven’t you noticed?

    As for Zimmerman, I’ve been beside myself on this for the past week or so, wondering how they could possibly not have arrested him. Despite the latest information, I’m still beside myself, as he used deadly force in pursuit.

    Say that there’s been a genocide going on on a Caribbean island. Some general has gone Kurtz, slaughtering scores. A league of Caribbean nations wants to stop this, but they need naval transportation and a few helicopters. The US has the means at the ready.

    That, for me, has the makings for a justified intervention.

    The horror. The horror.

  46. Eric Sundwall

    The ‘isolationist’ Wilson occupied Vera Cruz Mexico for 7 months over a dispute about a gas can and a midshipmen. This after decades of banana diplomacy. These Leagues have existed without bite for years. The dominate hegemon assumes control for better or worse.

    NY post columnist Fred Dicker talked the other day about bringing a gun on the subway to get to the shooting range near City Hall in NYC, years ago. I recall the ability to safely store a gun in my vehicle at school during hunting season. Whether the gun had automatic capabilities was irrelevant in those times.

    At the outset of the atomic era there was considerable question about whether the military or a civilian body should regulate the device(s). Which body was better suited, more responsible etc. Considering two states (US and Russia) still control 90 percent of these devices, one could certainly make decent political hay about this and never broach the subject of whether the Koch brothers have one.

    What strikes me is the lack of analysis regarding the Wrights victory in Tennessee. Is it a change of heart amongst LP members generally? An anomaly of ‘purists’ in this particular enclave? Will these delegates from TN deliver or prove effective at the convention? What makes this group different from the “we need someone ‘qualified'” cabal that lurks about any national gathering . . .

  47. Robert Capozzi

    59 es, it was a small number that showed in TN, so I’d not read much into it.

    The law is a signaling device. If someone packs a concealed automatic weapon in a subway car is the irrelevant point. Visualize a car filled with people sitting with machine guns on their laps. Is that something that makes any sense? Visualize just one person with a machine gun in plain sight. If that were legal and a frequent occurrence, the subways would be emptied…too risky.

    I oppose the Kochs getting a nuke, you?

  48. Eric Sundwall

    Legalize drunk driving . . . it’s about harm done, not the potential of it.

    That was the basis of laws of equity in English Common law. The advent of statutes has transformed us into an obeying flock fear mongers.

    I repeat . . . “never broach the subject of . . . “

  49. Robert Capozzi

    ES, these are the words of a conservative, not a radical. A legal theory developed during a pre-industrial, agrarian period hundreds of years ago…really?

  50. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    I accidentally posted the following on the wrong thread:

    I consider position paper #23 of the Guns & Dope Party to be a sufficient platform for any worthwhile party, and actually better than my own “World’s Smallest Political Platform.” It goes:

    —–
    Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching on one candy bar after another.

    After the 6th candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said, “Son, you know eating all that candy isn’t good for you. It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat.”

    Little Tony replied, “My grandfather lived to be 107 years old.”

    The man asked, “Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?”

    Little Tony answered, “No, he minded his own fucking business.”
    —–

    That’s libertarianism.

    Everything else isn’t.

  51. Robert Capozzi

    Tk, glad you find it sufficient to blithely say Mind yer own business is a comprehensive politcal philosophy.

    I agree with the sentiment, but tain’t even close for me, and I suspect most.

  52. paulie

    What strikes me is the lack of analysis regarding the Wrights victory in Tennessee. Is it a change of heart amongst LP members generally?

    TN is one of the most radical states. Also, iiuc Wrights was there and Johnson wasn’t.

  53. Thomas Hill

    @66 The Wrights campaign was in Indiana and Kansas City. We sent a video presentation to Tennessee and NC. We visited both LP Tenn and LPNC state conventions last year…

  54. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    TH @ 67: It’s nice to see you here on IPR!

    ES: As far as analyzing Wrights’ win, it would be great if someone from the Tennessee convention could post here and share some of the conversation that went on. That’s certainly not scientific, but it might help us understand what went wright there.

  55. Brian Holtz

    @61 Legalize drunk driving . . . it’s about harm done, not the potential of it.

    So if I volunteer your head into a game of Russian roulette, I’ve only harmed you when a bullet hits you? The LP Platform disagrees, and says that “deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm” constitute a “violation of the rights of others”.

    @62 It’s sooo unhip to be invested in the cause of freedom. Libertarian Ironic Flash, FTW.

  56. Robert Capozzi

    More to tk…

    I like the Mind yer own businessism up to a point. It might not be my business that a fellow citizen is murdered, but I’d be so bold as to say it’s in our collective interest that the law signal against and police murder.

  57. Tom Blanton

    So, Capozzi, if there were no LAW against murder, who would you kill first?

    How many preventive murders would you commit in order to avoid the possibility that someone might harm you?

    I’m sure you are generally against preventive murder, but what about all those people intent on nuking you?

    Would you follow the Zimmerman doctrine or the Cheney 1% doctrine of righteous murder?

  58. Tom Blanton

    To my knowledge, no candidate for the Guns & Dope Party ever lost an election.

    Robert Anton Wilson was no fool. A lot of his stuff was recently posted at Boing Boing during RAW week:

    http://boingboing.net/tag/raw-week

    It is cosmically significant that RAW spelled backwards is WAR in the same way that Santa spelled sideways is Satan. Has Wayne Allyn Root contemplated the implications of that?

  59. Robert Capozzi

    TB, I can’t think of a soul I’d kill with or without the law against murder, but since others DO murder, I’m pleased there is a signal out there to dissuade that dysfunctional behavior. I’d have no problem taking out someone or some group intending to nuke me, my fellow ciizens and possibly citizens of other nations.

    You wouldn’t?

  60. Matt Cholko

    RC said: “I’d have no problem taking out someone or some group intending to nuke me, my fellow ciizens and possibly citizens of other nations.”

    Me: This is a very hypothetical situation. Aside from the USA in the 1940’s, and POSSIBLY the USSR during the cold war, I’m not aware of any person, nation, or other group who has ever intended to nuke anybody.

    I’m even being generous by throwing in the USSR. It seems that if they had been intending to nuke the USA, or anyone else, they could have easily done so.

  61. Thomas L. Knapp

    “it’s in our collective interest that the law signal against and police murder.”

    People carrying objects you don’t approve of in places where you’d rather they didn’t isn’t aggression.

    Murder is.

  62. Robert Capozzi

    TK, which is it? Minding your business or opposing aggression?

    I’d say some things are threatening enough to be aggression, inherently so.

  63. Robert Capozzi

    74 mc, yes, oddly enough, major land wars like WWII have been avoided in part because of nukes. Despite my non-support of virtually all wars, nukes may have put a damper on major wars.

    I was simply responding to Brother Blanton. As a radical who likes to strike the root, I often challenge the absolutist, black-and-white analysis we often see coming from anarchoLs.

  64. Robert Capozzi

    more to tk 75: People carrying objects you don’t approve of in places where you’d rather they didn’t isn’t aggression.

    me: Why can’t you get it through your head that it has nothing to do with what I personally approve of. I personally have no interest in weapons of any kind, but I respect that others do have an interest.

    Why do you insist on making everything personal? Can you not imagine that a person can have a view of a healthy social order separate from one’s personal interests?

  65. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@78,

    “Can you not imagine that a person can have a view of a healthy social order separate from one’s personal interests?”

    Absolutely.

    As a matter of fact, that was my whole point.

  66. Robert Capozzi

    more to tk, your personalizing this issue reminds me of Limbaugh and Fluke. She advocates Pill coverage, she is a “slut.”

    Why play it that way?

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    “79 tk, I don’t understand. Please expand.”

    The fact that you take a “personal interest” in deciding what objects other people may own or where they may carry those objects is hostile to, and irrelevant to what constutes, a “healthy social order.”

  68. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@80,

    Um, no. My personalizing this issue is not similar to Limbaugh calling Fluke a slut.

    It would be similar to Limbaugh observing that Fluke advocates a contraception provision mandate for insurers, and asserting that that position is or is not [insert ideological adjective here].

    The reason I’m remarking on your positions, as opposed to, say, Ralph Nader’s, is that it’s you rather than Nader with whom I’m talking, not because I want to “personalize” anything.

    The point I’m trying to make is that what you call a “rank ordering” per “L ideas” is no such thing, because the libertarian question is not “what should people be allowed to own, possess or carry?” but rather “under what circumstances does what other people own, possess or carry become my fucking business?”

    And the answer to that question is “when they aggress.”

  69. Stop wasting your time on here

    You losers sit on this website and talk hypothetical bullshit all day. Get off your lazy asses and do something.

    It’s so funny, if the LP had 1/10th of a member for every post on IPR that was annoying and stupid and totally BS , we’d be a major party by now.

    Instead, you have morons like this Capozzi character sitting around debating the signaling of laws, and someone else attacking him for it. and then you get “I don’t understand. Please expand”

    WAKE UP YOU CLOWNS – THIS COUNTRY IS GOING DOWN THE SHITTER.

  70. Robert Capozzi

    tk, I see we have a fan (84) and a time-management counselor! ;-)

    “When they aggress” doesn’t work for me as a political philosophy, mostly because I find it woefully simplistic and begs many, many questions.

    84 stop, hmm, thanks, though, I’m doing the best I can. I’m making the case (in my own way) that the LP is a built on a foundation of sand, i.e., the Statement of Principles. The country may or may not be going down the shitter, but an otherwise well-intended organization built on sand (or is it quicksand?) seems to me utterly incapable of helping to reverse the current course.

  71. Robert Capozzi

    more to tk 83: under what circumstances does what other people own, possess or carry become my fucking business?”

    me: Either a) when they are carried onto public property or b) when the weapon is an inherent threat

  72. JT

    Stop: “You losers sit on this website and talk hypothetical bullshit all day. Get off your lazy asses and do something.”

    What exactly have you been doing for the LP? I suspect it’s not much.

    Stop: “It’s so funny, if the LP had 1/10th of a member for every post on IPR that was annoying and stupid and totally BS , we’d be a major party by now.”

    And how would you have any idea of how many IPR posts are “annoying and stupid and totally BS”? You must spend a lot of time on here yourself.

  73. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@86,

    —–
    more to tk 83: under what circumstances does what other people own, possess or carry become my fucking business?”

    me: Either a) when they are carried onto public property or b) when the weapon is an inherent threat
    —–

    1) “Public property” is just as much their property as it is yours. Why is it any of your business what they carry on their property?

    2) (a) Personal discomfort or paranoia on the part of B does not mean that what A is doing is “an inherent threat.”

    (b) If possessing/carrying something is an “inherent threat,” then possessing/carrying it is aggression.

    I guess this means dealing with the “oh, so it shouldn’t be illegal unless he actually pulls the trigger and actually hits someone?” canard.

    It is a canard, and that matter is long settled in common (and common-sense) law:

    “Assault” occurs as of the time of an “offer to do harm,” whether actual battery follows or not. If I point my bazooka at you and can be reasonably construed as preparing to pull the trigger, I have aggressed against you, whether the trigger ever gets pulled or not, and whether I hit or miss you.

    “Negligent assault” is the same thing without intent. If I’m in the subway and my bazooka is loaded and I’m waving it around, screwing with the trigger and playing grab-ass, I’m aggressing against those around me.

    If, on the other hand, I’m in the subway with my bazooka unloaded and slung over my shoulder, I’m neither intentionally nor negligently aggressing against you. I’m just carrying my stuff, and what that stuff is or why I have it with me is none of your fucking business unless I choose to share that information with you.

    Any claim to the contrary (unless it’s a privately owned subway and you’re the owner or the owner’s agent enforcing his property rules) isn’t “more or less L on a scale,” it’s just not L, period.

    Hint: If “peaceful” is what you’re after, take the idea that you’re entitled to run other people’s lives for them off the table. Because anyone who won’t do that is demanding, and will get, unremitting war.

  74. Robert Capozzi

    88 tk: 1) “Public property” is just as much their property as it is yours. Why is it any of your business what they carry on their property?

    me: Tom, you’re a hoot. If I own Disney stock, it does not follow that I can pack an Uzi when visiting Disney World if the Disney, Inc. prohibits it.

    As for long-settled law (like Eric, you are positioning yourself as a conservative, not a radical, as you seem to believe that the common law tradition is somehow unassailable), WMD are a relatively new phenomenon. 17th c farmers in England hadn’t really considered the possibility of doomsday devices.

    Consider a more radical approach!

  75. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@89,

    “If I own Disney stock, it does not follow that I can pack an Uzi when visiting Disney World if the Disney, Inc. prohibits it.”

    Did I say otherwise?

    “As for long-settled law (like Eric, you are positioning yourself as a conservative, not a radical, as you seem to believe that the common law tradition is somehow unassailable)”

    I don’t believe it’s anything like unassailable. That doesn’t mean that one can’t look at it and perceive that certain aspects of it developed organically for good and obvious reasons.

    “WMD are a relatively new phenomenon.”

    Yes, they are.

    And I’m open to the argument that possession of WMD is inherently aggressive by way of being “negligent assault.” But that’s not the argument you’ve been making. You’ve been asserting differences of degree when what’s at stake are differences of kind.

  76. Robert Capozzi

    90 tk: Did I say otherwise?

    me: No. But you did say: “Public property” is just as much their property as it is yours.” I don’t know what that is, but it sounds like no man’s land, not “property.”

    tk: And I’m open to the argument that possession of WMD is inherently aggressive by way of being “negligent assault.”

    me: I don’t feel the need to tuck the justification of prohibiting private WMD into a common law silo, that’s true. But, whatever works!

  77. paulie

    You losers sit on this website and talk hypothetical bullshit all day. Get off your lazy asses and do something.

    I got over a hundred signatures for each of three parties in the last 24 hours, including the LP. The LP ones will probably be volunteer. How did your day go?

Leave a Reply