Steve G.

With Liberty & Justice For All… with Exceptions.

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics on June 17, 2008 at 8:27 pm

I’ve always been rather concerned about the direction the Libertarian Party has been heading over the last several years. I was attracted to the party because of the strong stand it took in favor of the sovereignty of the individual – every individual – not just Americans. With the nomination of Bob Barr, the LP seems to have become the party of liberty for some people – only if it will “get us elected.”

Suddenly we hear fascist terms like “illegal immigrants” and “state’s rights” coming from so-called ‘Libertarian’ Party candidates. Whatever happened to supporting the rights of all individuals? What happened to our principles?

Libertarianism is the belief that each individual has total and complete sovereignty over her/his own life. As sovereign individuals we have the right to do whatever we want to do in our pursuit of happiness so long as we never infringe on the rights of others. Why, then, the rhetoric about deporting “illegals?” Is there even such a thing as an “illegal” human? And what about “state’s rights?” When is it moral for the state to do something that is it not moral for an individual to do?

I guess I’m just confused. I thought I was a member of a pro-liberty party. When I woke up from the dream and realized it was a nightmare, I decided it was time to do something about it.

Enter, the Liberty Party. Right now we’re just a Massachusetts group. Perhaps we’ll become the latest chapter of the Boston Tea Party. All I know is that I could no longer be a member of a political party that believes in supporting a candidate that supports the rights of “states” over the rights of individuals.

Perhaps one day the real libertarian message will win the day once again and will be the official party platform of the LP. Maybe I’ll rejoin at that time. But until then, here is a little competition to help the market make a better product.

  1. Bob Barr is a NWO mole put in the LP party to ensure minimal votes in the general primary. He is an ex-CIA “war on drugs” stooge and voted for the (un)PATRIOT ACT. The fools that by his Damascus conversion bullshit deserve him as their candidate.

  2. Jim,

    I think it’s a shame that the Boston Tea Party doesn’t have an affiliate in the state where the event it’s named for took place … and hope that your new organization considers becoming that affiliate.

    The two terms you cite as alarming — “illegal immigrants” and “states rights” — are high on my own “this ain’t right” radar.

    Of all the problems with the 2006 platform, one of the worst in my view was that the Libertarian Party started advocating more government than it had previously advocated on immigration. Wrong direction, guys!

    And, of course, states don’t HAVE rights — people do.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  3. Whats a general primary there Johnny? I assume you meant “general election”

  4. I guess I’m just confused. I thought I was a member of a pro-liberty party.

    There are a few barfers that are confused as well.

  5. Right you are Jason. Thanks for the clarification.

  6. Johnnyjeepers: what gives you magical insight to *know* that Bob Barr is a “NWO mole”? Where is the smoking gun? The signed papers or his lifetime membership role in the super-secret NWO Social Club, secret handshake and all?

    And you know what? Yes, Bob Barr was a FORMER CIA employee. But then again, so was two of Ron Paul’s campaign advisors: Michael Scheuer and Philip Giraldi.

    Let that sink in for a moment: Ron Paul welcomed the advice and help of two CIA employees.

    Go ahead: let it sink in some more.

  7. Let that sink in for a moment: Bob Barf voted FOR the patriot act, FOR illegal wars of conquest and AGAINST freedom of religion among other disgusting deeds.

    Go ahead: let it sink in some more.

  8. Meanwhile, there is now a LibertyMix update!!

    http://libertymix.nfshost.com/

  9. A lover of liberty, individual freedom, and the U.S. Constitution would not have violated his duty to uphold the law of the land by signing the Patriot Act. One must assume he answered to another master. Now the prodigal Barr is seeking his political absolution from those he abused.

  10. states don’t HAVE rights — people do

    I agree. Say this in an LP context, and lots of people cheer. Say that to Ron Paul, and 90% of the people who were cheering just minutes ago jeer and turn nasty.

    I’d argue that the sell-out of “principle” in the LP didn’t start with Barr-Root, it started when so-called “libertarian purists” went gaga over Ron Paul, sans reservation.

  11. “And, of course, states don’t HAVE rights — people do.”

    Acknowledged. However, since states are more accountable to the people than the federal government is, shouldn’t one root for the state when it is in conflict with the feds?

  12. States have rights as well as people under the 10th Amendment:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

  13. States don’t have rights. They have powers delegated to them by the PEOPLE. PEOPLE who ultimately hold any and all rights.

  14. The PEOPLE are given the illusion of having rights to exercise. One day every two years they get to pull a lever to decide which corrupt politician will hold them hostage until the next one is elected. In the interim, the PEOPLE suffer under the tyranny of their leaders, while their supposed rights are flagrantly violated.

  15. You don’t seem to get it, Johnny. Individuals have INHERENT RIGHTS that they are BORN WITH. These rights are NOT an illusion. The REAL illusion is that the government “pretends” to “protect” these rights.

  16. I agree with you wholeheartedly. My reference to state’s rights was based solely on the language in the U.S. Constitution.

  17. That is true: states don’t have rights. However, neither does the federal government. The libertarians that refer to “states’ rights” are in my experience simply referring to the fact that we live in a federal system, and that those areas of authority constitutionally reserved to the states should be kept from the federal government. One can oppose both state and federal governments, but still want to use one to fight the other.

    It is Libertarianism 101 that states don’t have rights. There is no need to harp on people who quite rightly want to prevent the growth of the biggest government in the area–the federal government. As an anarchist, I believe in secession on the individual level. In the meantime, until we convince enough people of our ideas to avoid martyrdom, why should libertarians ever rejoice at any aggrandization of the federal government. After all, any time “states’ rights” are mentioned it is in the context of a federal encroachment on things that people are at least characterizing as being reserved to the states. Because I don’t believe that any involuntary government is right, and because I indeed believe statist to be dangerous, I think it is most important to prevent the growth of the federal government. States are much easier to fight on each issue. Using the silver bullet of some federal favor is like intentionally catching syphilis so as to avoid sexual contact with the diseased.

  18. “illegal immigrants”
    this is an internationally accepted termto denote to individuals who are in another country of their birth illegally, that is without a visa, or with an expired visa. It is very far from being a “fascist” term at all. Unless you are an anarchist….

    “states rights”
    The senator that inspired the founders of the LP: Barry Goldwater, very much strongly believed in states rights. “States rights” in a federalism means the legal relative independence of the state from the federal government interference.
    The whole principle is to bring government closer to the individual, e.g. a state
    is smaller and has much better “local knowledge” about an issue and the people than the federal government. It also allows for more choice, and more freedom, as certain states would decide other than others. Take medical marjuana for instance, instead of being totally outlawed in the whole country, with “states right” there is more freedom for the residents of California, where the state has the law that it is allowed to use marjuana. Of course the ideal is to have it totally unbound, but this is in any case progress. In the education field it also means each state can set its of contents, to a relative degree. This also means more freedom for the individual in a state. If one is very unhappy with a rule in state A, you can move to state B where more freedom exists.

  19. Allow me to weigh in: I agree. States don’t have rights, individuals do.

    States are simply the coercive collection of all the people who believe that coercion is a good tool for solving problems that often don’t exist. As such, the individuals inside the “States” may have rights, but only insofar as they are not a part of the state.

    So when they demand I lay down my arms, (or my vastly more effective video cameras), I say “Molon Labe! …They stream to a remote HD!”

    …I find Barr’s (Verney-removed) blog posting from BobBarr.org against jury nullification of law to be troubling (in his commentary on “the Yates Jury” reprinted here: http://www.conservative.org/columnists/barr/060802bb.asp ), especially since it pits him against his vastly more enlightened VP candidate, Wayne Root. (And no, the case in question is not relevant to this statement of Barr’s principles: “They [jurors] are not instructed to apply the law as they might like it to be, or how they think it should be. Jurors are to apply the law as it is. That includes the law concerning insanity.”
    ) Then again, it seems like I was the only delegate who bothered to read ALL of Barr’s blog posts BEFORE the convention, and consider them fully.

    Nonetheless, I think that voting for Barr is voting for the least of several evils, because
    1) He won’t win, but he might get on TV, and say some things that are better than what the others are saying. (Barr is an intellectual giant next to Obama and McCain.)
    2) He may gain more states of ballot access for the LP.
    3) He may introduce a few more intelligent people to the LP, who will hear the word libertarian, and investigate our party and the word, understanding that no candidate ever truly represents anyone, and that all politics is damage control.
    4) All politics is defensive, because while actual representation is theoretically possible, it is very unlikely, and Barr is good on some issues.
    5) Barr has a good running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, who should go on to represent the LP in the future (since he is competent to explain most of the ideas of freedom to the masses in a way that is likely to resonate with them.)

    Sure, Harry Browne was a great guy, and explained freedom very nicely. …But neither he nor Badnarik could campaign their way out of a wet paper bag.

    As an interim step towards the LP moving away from being delusional, I think that Barr is suboptimal, but adequate.

    I could be more enthusiastic about Barr if he would more wholeheartedly embrace the ideas of freedom, and if he would fire the people who grossly failed him and the LP in WV. (Shane Cory, Russell Verney –two people who don’t know how to run a petition drive.)

    The last time I talked with Russell Verney, he basically stated that he was either not going to pay me, (or grossly delay paying me), because I didn’t agree to an extra-contractual, time-wasting, and self-destructive “daily signature turn in” with Shane-blithering-Cory.

    Apparently, Verney thinks that by blaming me for the fact that they didn’t hire and relocate several pro petitioners into WV at the appropriate time, they can continue to pull the wool over people’s eyes about why they failed in WV. …Maybe so.

    Of course, Verney and Cory are “tits on a bull” worthless, and fairly clueless about why they can’t seem to raise money, and Barr is bound to figure this out sooner or later. Let’s hope it’s before he figures out that defrauding LP petitioners is unintelligent, and gets his ass sued into oblivian.

    The LP has developed very real problems with integrity that center around various people not being punished for defrauding LP petitioners.

    Interestingly, if the LP had any brains, they would only hire LP petitioners, and they would utilize them to get the petition drives done BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER.
    BETTER: LP activists would LIKE to have material to hand out, and since they vet people for being registered to vote, their VALID signatures cost less, making campaign-subsidized lit distribution a viable option. (Assuming the campaign is fiscally responsible)
    FASTER: With even cursory planning, every state petition drive could have been done faster, because 5 more pro petitioners (capable of relocating) would have been working on them. (In several cases, minus the “blacklist”, travel expenses could have been entirely eliminated, since blacklisted LP petitioners were actually in states that needed to be completed for the LP, working for the Constitution Party.)
    CHEAPER: See above. Time is money, literally, in petition drives. In addition, the LP paid mercenaries to often gather large numbers of invalid signatures. They then later made no distinction between mercenaries and LP activists, stupidly confusing invalid signatures with valid ones. Luckily the major parties were not aware of this, and the fired and blacklisted petitioners chose the moral high ground, and chose not to embrace Sean Haugh’s “scorched earth policy”, otherwise, the LP would have likely lost ballot status in PA and NY.

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of people running petition drives for the LP who are subnormal in ability and intellect, and can’t get petition drives done: (Verney, Cory, Haugh). (Verney may be good at other things, just as Cory may well be a competent web admin, just as Haugh may be good at throwing wadded up pieces of tissue paper and crying.)

    Two good old friends are behind most of these people’s failings: (Eric Dondero, Scott Kohlhaas). The Chair (Redpath) is competent, and usually honest, but he is now compromised by covering for Kohlhaas’s shady past. I guess because Redpath believes that life shouldn’t be cruel to Kohlhaas, even if its cruel in direct repayment for the financial misery Kohlhaas heaped on Andy Jacobs, Gary Fincher, Paulie Cannoli, and Mark Pickens in 2006. Andy was never given so much as an apology for the money Kohlhaas stole from him, and now Kohlhaas is using Haugh as his condom, having the irrational and ranting Haugh screw over anyone who knows about NEBRASKA 2006.

    BTW: If someone’s employer chooses to pay them vastly later than when the money was owed, that is FRAUD, because the person suffers financial damage in the form of late fees and ongoing expenses, and loss of interest on their money, and loss of the use of their money. One instance of FRAUD creates more and more instances of fraud. The reparable 2006 dishonesty that Kohlhaas never owned up to created several problems for him (noisy petitioners who wouldn’t shut up). Redpath covering for Kohlhaas led to several of the LP’s best workers being “fired and blacklisted” by Kohlhaas (who used the nut-job Haugh to do the dirty work, since the guy is a loose cannon, and doesn’t mind making long-term enemies via his irrational and hostile actions and statements).

    …Well, I’m joining their “scorched earth” club. Simply by telling these truths, I clearly am creating enemies of anyone who would prefer our party was not publicly riddled with incompetence and fraud. Oh well. Let ’em hate me. What are they going to do? “Fire” me again? Waste my time and LP donor money by forcing WV to fail again?

    Are they going to continue to escalate things, after they are sued for nonpayment? Will they like it when I take out full page media ads in WV? Will they force me into battling the LP in my spare time, until I’ve torn it in half? Are they utterly determined to pointlessly make an enemy of me for no reason?

    They’re already hiring lawyers to try to fix WV, in addition to all the ads they ran futilely trying to “recruit and train” local petitioners. —A huge waste of donor money!

    I know that they’re basically thinking “If only these dark secrets would just crawl back into the shade and “go away”.” …Trouble is, when you stab someone in the back, and try to destroy their reputation, along with their career, sometimes they call you on it, and refuse to shut up about it.

    Perhaps Kohlhaas’ and Haughs’ long histories of fraud and subnormal political “thought” are catching up with them. perhaps those people (Cory, Verney, Dondero) who believed that their ways were the official operating procedure of the LP were mistaken. ..Perhaps not.

    Criminal cover-ups don’t go away on their own. They require clean-up.

    …Or perhaps something as simple as the LP leadership no longer caring about force and fraud IS the downfall of the LP. It easily could be. Who will support a political party based on fraud that isn’t even a successful swindle? At least the other parasites get to hold the reigns of power on and off. Perhaps this means that the CP, BTP, and other minor parties will replace the LP.

    My own opinion is that this would be that “it’s a shame”, because none of those parties has the kind of history of exploitable knowledge base that the LP has, nor does any other party have the history of politically defending the non-aggression principle. Kohlhaas is a part of that history, but so is Gary Fincher, Andy Jacobs, Paulie Cannoli, Mark Pickens, and myself, and several others who have been maligned and screwed over, simply because they know the truth (and/or wished to operate in an efficient and intelligent manner).

    It’s time to fire Haugh, discipline Kohlhaas, and utilize whatever manner of internal oversight the party possesses.

    Or it’s time to admit we’re just another miserable pack of parasites calling itself a political party, and be done with any talk of ideas or “principles”.

    If this is the case, then perhaps that doesn’t mean the LP is useless… It would just mean that it wasn’t as useful as what many of us (myself included) thought it was.

    So do we clean house, or do we continue to waste each others’ time for no good reason?

    Kohlhaas’s years of service to the party are still salvageable (without attempting to fire and blacklist him for good), but the Chairman simply needs to
    1) Correct Kohlhaas’s past errors, by allowing him to formally apologize on record to Andy et al, and pay them a reasonable interest rate on the original amount of the sum owed to those who were defrauded. If he does this, he should retain the recommendation from National that he be allowed to work for the State LP’s (with oversight and final responsibility from the National LP for any future defraudings). After all, the National LP happily claims credit for all of Scott’s work that went well, so they should claim some credit for Scott’s work that goes south.
    2) Disallow him a national LP position of authority that allows him to silence his critics (especially via a dummy position at National).
    3) Recognize that having longtime friends who are helping you is better than having longtime former friends who are now bent on your destruction. Valuing one side of this equation is not going to help anything, and it may well create powerful internal enemies who will never go away, until the LP is DEAD as a doornail. Give me an external enemy over an internal one anyday!
    4) draw up clear and enforceable contracts that officially forbid the abuse of authority, and that maximize petitioner utility with a realistic understanding of minor party political work –oral contracts simply don’t work, since noone can be trusted to honor their word, and Libertarians are no more immune to corruption than most people are. (I worked for them when they were, and saw the transition. Better people than myself have gambled and lost their innocence to political idealism.)
    a) NOTE: there is a lot to this, and if it’s bungled it will be even worse than it is now. The person who does this will need to cover all the bases, including what to do in a situation where there is no intelligent chain of command in a bad situation (like WV in 2008)

    I posit that we should learn from our mistakes and restructure our organization so that they are not repeated.

    One warning sign for candidates:
    They refuse to debate their opponents.

    Any future candidate who refuses to debate his opponents should be scorched earth, no matter how many “thupporters” he brings to the convention. A precondition of running as a libertarian should be that you put forth your positions vocally.

    After all, isn’t that what we expect of them in public?

    If a candidate refuses to debate his opponents, then he simply didn’t get his shit together soon enough, or he is untrustworthy. Either way, bad sign.

    Moreover, that candidate was rewarded for allowing the more dedicated opponents burn their energy and resources getting free media attention for the LP.

    -Just what I’ve been thinking lately.

    -Jake

  20. hermes wallet replica With Liberty & Justice For All… with Exceptions. | Last Free Voice

  21. hermes price With Liberty & Justice For All… with Exceptions. | Last Free Voice

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: