Steve G.

Restore04: Bill of Rights

In Libertarian Party-US on May 21, 2008 at 7:56 am

Click here for hi-res version.

(7th in a series of images found in the curbside recycling bin outside Restore04 HQ. Reliable sources claim that this slide will be distributed on the floor in Denver, but are not sure by which side.)

  1. What a dishonest idiot.

    The platform has always called for full safeguards. Libertarians have also campaigned for less restrictions on and automatic payment funds by voluntary subscription of defense counsel, for non-punitive and alternative sentencing, mediation and and restorative approaches. In many ways there was no meaningful re ight to defense counsel in many states until Libertarians organized coalitions to fight for it, so this strikes me as really morally evil. This guy is on the platform committee?

    This all may be related to his strange claims on the 6th Amendment I’ve read here and there. The Amendment clarifies access to all of the prosecution witnesses so there is a complete case. previopusly prosecutors often withheld evidence and still do. Witnesses ‘for the defense’ are actually witnesses the prosecution failed to bring. The defendant doesn’t have to mount a defense…they’re presumed not guilty. What witnesses could the defense compel? You can’t prove a negative, only the failure of the prosecution case. He perpetuates the sloppy language Libertarian thinkers a seek to correct.

    Or perhaps he thinks because it isn’t mentioned in detail we’re against it…but isn’t this the guy who called for gutting the entire document and produced the out of context mess that doesn’t directly address these issues either in every technical detail? What a hypocrite.

  2. Sounds like somebody needs to ask a tough question to Dr. Ruwart.

    http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-11-num-1.html#Ruwart (2nd question)

    See also:
    http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/05/checkbook-justice-in-ruwarchistan.html

    “Full safeguards”? If you think the 2004 platform calls for the safeguards I say above are missing, then quote it. Go ahead. Try.

    I’m not on the side saying their proposed Platform is a detailed, comprehensive vision of how a libertarian society would operate, so spare us the trumped-up hypocrisy charge. If you actually care about facts instead of boorish name-calling, my wet-dream platform is in fact more comprehensive on due process rights than either the Bill of Rights or the 2004 platform:
    http://ecolibertarian.org/manifesto. But if you want to see the best extant declaration of such rights, go to http://libertarianmajority.net/bills-of-rights-archive and search for the string “1948”.

    Your prove-a-negative objection is specious. If I’m on trial for a capital crime in Ruwarchotopia, and you’re the only witness who can place me far away from the crime scene, then I’d like to have a little more than just Scooby snacks to entice you to come to court and keep me out of the hangman’s noose.

    Still, nice try. Mixed in with your name-calling, you actually strung together a few attempted arguments, and required me to cite some facts to rebut you. This is progress. Others here can learn from your example.

  3. Okay, these ARE starting to get really old now (and I even lean toward the reformer side!). The first couple were pretty succinct and funny, you could take a 2-second glance and understand the joke. Now they’re getting more complex and unfunny, you carefully read it for a few minutes before realizing that there ISN’T a joke to understand.

    Jumped the shark.

  4. This was one of the last ones to get created, and I’ll concede that the “void where prohibited” joke is weak. The rest are funnier.

  5. I liked the pony. It was pretty funny.

    This one was pretty weak, considering I still don’t get the joke.

  6. I liked the pony’s ass. Brian, more ass! Restore ASS to the LP. I’m getting ass in Denver.

  7. # brianholtz Says:
    May 21, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    This was one of the last ones to get created, and I’ll concede that the “void where prohibited” joke is weak. The rest are funnier.

    Anyone actually believes that this “series” of “jokes” are intended to be “funny” is also delusional. Holtz is deliberately trying to slander the principled position of upholding liberty.

    Disgusting in my view.

  8. One-pony-trick pony.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: