Steve G.

Ron Paul: ‘I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin’

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics on September 22, 2008 at 5:30 pm

At the end of a lengthy essay posted on the Campaign for Liberty blog, Rep. Ron Paul writes, “The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for ‘remaining neutral’ in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

“I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years. … I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.”

  1. Notice this:

    Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress.

    This is the meat of the matter, and is the reason the LNC should have immediately resolved to support Paul’s C4L four principles after Barr botched the press conference, rather than squabble over apologies and censures and other ridiculous posturings.

  2. OK I admit I am not a Barr fan, but I am voting on the LP line this year. Why — first read the CP Platform. Then look at how many states the CP will be on the ballot. Only the LP is big enough to get out the message of Liberty!

    Please, RP doesn’t support this. What happened to Freedom of Religion? RP did not just find Jesus and forgot about the Constitution.

    No sir, my firm belief is he is not even aware that one of his staff members wrote this very poorly written blog. Check out what Dr. Paul said on CNN Late Edition yesterday and then explain why he would change his mind about endorsements overnight?

    Sorry, I am not buying this after seeing him in 1/2 dozen interviews. In fact, this illegitimate blog posting is enough to make me not support the CP at all or any of its candidates. Shame on you!

    Want to know the truth? Call (202) 225- 2831

    PS — Of course if this was true you would expect it to be on the CP’s web site: http://www.constitutionparty.com/ but it’s not. A call to the CP will also bring you closer to the truth!

  3. TPW has nothing on this. Guess they won’t report anythign negative on their boy Barr again.

    BTW, notice that the release mentioned Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin by name, but not Barr? That means that Dr. Paul is still rightly pissed.

    The Starr letter probably iced the cake on this one.

    The majority of the LNC lacked the courage to do anything. Not everybody, and we know who had the courage to do something, but that’s saying something.

  4. BAM! And thus Ron Paul body-slams Bob Barr, thus putting him back in his place.

    Right about now would be a good time for the LNC to explain why they failed to act when Barr recently tried to upstage Ron Paul.

  5. Maybe by “Libertarian Party Candidate” he meant George?

    Just kidding.

  6. NotaBarrFan is trolling this all over the place.

  7. So, has anyone called the 202 number, or reverse directoried it for that matter?

  8. It’s Ron Paul’s House office number.

  9. Called the office at 4:47 pm right after I first read about this. The lady who answered, Jane or Jeanette, said she already has received a lot of calls and said that Congressman Paul did not endorse anyone and referred to his official statements on the matter about backing third party or don’t vote at all… yadda yadda yadda.

    They only wish he would finally come out and take a stand (any stand) and frankly so do I. But having a volunteer or staff member at the CFL take matters into their own hands is not responsible and make Ron Paul look foolish. I hope they fire this blogger ASAP and clear things up or releases an official statement signed by Congressman Paul with a press conference so we can see him say it himself. This is not RP’s style and for sure not they way he writes or speaks. Shame on the CFL and the CP!

    Now call the CP and what do they say? “we are aware on certain web sites there is a mention of an endorsement by Ron Paul, however we have not received anything official to date.”

    Please do not take my word, call yourself, do some research, email the congressman or the CP. Prove me wrong, please!

  10. Ron Paul wrote:

    “Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.”

  11. Ron Paul just now gave a speech about re-opening his Lake Jackson office. Call him now at 979-285-0231 and find out the truth yourself!

    PS — And no he did not give any endorsements during his speech.

  12. The item was posted by Jesse Benton, who says it was written by Ron Paul.

  13. Jesse is a bad boy and now is in a lot of trouble according to Ron Paul’s COS:

    Tom Lizardo
    Chief of Staff
    Phone: 202-225-2831

    Jennifer Bailey
    Scheduler
    Phone: 202-225-2831

    Rachel Mills
    Press Secretary
    Phone: 202-225-2831

  14. I wouldn’t vote for Chuck Baldwin even if Moses came down from Mt. Sinai bearing golden plates from the Angel Moroni telling me that Xenu was returning to toss me into a volcano if I didn’t vote for him.

    I wouldn’t vote for Bob Barr under those circumstances either, though.

  15. LOL!

    Unless Ron Paul is going to try his “I didn’t write that article, it was ghostwritten” gambit again, I suspect there are several dozen LP critics of my critique of Paul’s politics who have several pounds of fresh egg on their faces.🙂

  16. Whatever happened to the petition to kick Barr out as our candidate? Did the Barr campaign ever see it? How about the Executive Committee? Surely they know that many people (close to a thousand maybe?) were pissed off enough to want Barr gone. Was there ever feedback from anyone
    (besides Rachel and Angela)?

  17. […] in the comments at Last Free Voice, “NotABarrFan” says: Jesse [Benton] is a bad boy and now is in a lot of trouble […]

  18. my wife donated some of her art to benefit efforts to stop Proposal 5 in California

    Wow, so your wife is opposed to a ballot initiative to reduce incarceration of nonviolent offenders?

    PS — you guys don’t have a marriage license, do you?

  19. Brian Miller – I got the proposal # wrong. There are efforts by religious right bigots to abolish same-sex state marriage while leaving heterosexual state marriage in tact. That is what I’m referring to.

    Yes we do have a marriage license. We were married in 2001 before I had thought deeply on the issue. I would gladly revoke it if possible (is it?). BTW: When working for Ron Paul, I met a lot of religious conservatives who were anti-gay bigots but nonetheless rejected state marriage and they themselves did not have marriage licenses.

    Brian Holtz – You are right — the CP platform is abominable. Truly horrible. Chuck Baldwin’s personal platform is considerably better, but still very bad — particularly his page where he attempts to appeal to people who believe in “traditional marriage.” I caught heat for calling him on that here:

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/chuck-baldwin-best-candidate-for-pro-traditional-marriage-voters-at-odds-with-constitutional-experts/

    Also, I covered your article worthily condemning the ugliness and idiocy of the CP platform:

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/09/libertarian-reform-leader-tells-paul-supporters-to-check-out-cp-platform/

    Your article actually inspired a libertarian-leaning CPer to quit the party.

  20. Yes we do have a marriage license. We were married in 2001 before I had thought deeply on the issue. I would gladly revoke it if possible (is it?)

    Yes, it’s called legal divorce. Better get to it.

    When working for Ron Paul, I met a lot of religious conservatives who were anti-gay bigots but nonetheless rejected state marriage and they themselves did not have marriage licenses.

    Or so they claim, anyway.

    I do know that Ron Paul and his wife have one. “Principle” indeed.

    His call on Baldwin is just underscoring the lack of principle he and his movement represent. The Emperor has no clothes and has just gone around parading naked in the streets.

  21. The 202 number is Ron Paul’s congressional office, which is closed for the evening. I received no reply when I tried calling about 5 minutes ago.

  22. The (979) 285-0231 number is Paul’s constituent office in Texas, which was right in the path of Hurricane Ike and may very well be damaged or inoperable without power.

    I haven’t tried calling that office, but I doubt anyone is there, given that it’s 8 PM local time there.

  23. Brian – It’s fair to call me a hypocrite, maybe, but it’d be much fairer to call me one if I were single right now and legally married a woman. I personally think divorcing is a little much for the sake of logical consistency, but you can pillory me over that if you’d like.

    Unlike Rob Power, you have never accused me of being homophobic and, even as ugly as our spats have gotten, have been respectful of an ideological divide, and I appreciate that.

    So whatever. You don’t like Ron Paul. I don’t like one or two aspects about him, both of which Phillies shares (although going to other way on marriage). You say that Phillies is a libertarian and Ron Paul is not. Fine. I don’t want to be a “libertarian” then.

    No need to fight.

  24. It’s fair to call me a hypocrite, maybe, but it’d be much fairer to call me one if I were single right now and legally married a woman.

    All I want is what you’ve already got for yourself. You cannot have it both ways, kiddo.

    Anyway, back to the topic at hand…

    You don’t like Ron Paul.

    Actually, I’ve never met Ron Paul. I hear he’s a sweet, likable old man.

    His politics, on the other hand, suck. He’s not libertarian and never was. This Baldwin endorsement is just an exclamation mark at the end of the prior sentence. No more explanation needed, frankly.

  25. If Ron Paul believed that Bob Barr is a CIA operative running a COINTELPRO type operation (or some other hideous scam) within the LP, this announcement might be exactly the type of thing he might write.

    Anyway, this is just the type of thing that is an everyday occurrence in bizarro world.

  26. this is just the type of thing that is an everyday occurrence in bizarro world

    Actually, I’m not surprised at all. As one very prominent member of the Libertarian Party commented to me this evening in a phone discussion, “the Constitution Party is a much better fit for Ron Paul than the Libertarian Party anyway.”

    When one looks at his legislative record — especially a number of the bills he’s presented over the past few years — there’s a lot that the CP would love and the LP would loathe.

    I spent the better part of 18 months pointing this out to people who wouldn’t listen — now they’re getting a splash of cold water in this announcement and feigning shock. But there’s nothing shocking about it in the slightest.

  27. All I want is what you’ve already got for yourself.

    Which is “fair” if you think the government should be involved in marriage. I don’t think it should be involved in that or anything else. But I’m an anarchist, so there we have it.

    I just don’t think my wife would look too kindly on the idea of divorce (believe it or not). Then again, we could get legally divorced and then draw up contracts to achieve most of the same relationships. A few would be sadly missing, as you’re all too aware.

    Okay. I’m done.

  28. Which is “fair” if you think the government should be involved in marriage.

    Government *is* involved in marriage.

    You’re trying to impose a different standard on me and others than you accept for yourself. Not cool.

  29. Brian – I’m saying libertarians should agitate for getting the government out of the marriage business. Yes, heterosexual libertarians should show solidarity by rejecting what’s available to them and not to homosexuals. Yes, you are right that far too few have done this up to this point.

    But if we have an unideal situation, I just don’t agree that you should expand the government’s improper authority to make things more fair; when a reduction of that authority would achieve the same fairness and also be much freer and better.

  30. Then put your money where your mouth is and file for legal divorce.

  31. Brian writes:

    “As one very prominent member of the Libertarian Party commented to me this evening in a phone discussion, “the Constitution Party is a much better fit for Ron Paul than the Libertarian Party anyway.” ”

    Seems to me that Bob Barr’s “federalism” and “state’s rights” political philosophies are a more of a match for the Constitution Party than the Libertarian Party. Especially since it would be alright with Barr if states outlawed gay marriage and continued to kidnap and put people in cages for getting high. And Baldwin is way better than Barr on non-interventionism and corporate welfare and the fed.

    Not that I am going to vote for either Barr or Baldwin.

  32. I wonder if the GOP chieftains will take RP’s endorsement sitting down…

    It’s one thing for him to NOT endorse McCain, another to endorse Baldwin. His personal perogative, of course.

  33. There is something disheartening about this split in the Liberty Vote. Clearly the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the Ron Paulites, and all the anarcho-capitalist and minarchists swimming along in their own semi-distinct political currents should be able to set aside their minor dogmatic differences and unite behind one candidate representing the “Liberty Agenda.”

    I am not saying that Bob Barr is a perfect Libertarian, but who is? It simply seems that the Libertarian Party is the proper vehicle for the unification and implementation of the Liberty Agenda.

    All of our infighting and squabbling over ideological purity is holding us back.

    Is it better to stick to one’s convictions so steadfastly that the Republicrat statists continue to take away our freedom exponentially, or is there possibly some merit to unifying behind a slightly more flexible (albeit just as specific) platform and set of rules, so that we can finally get something better than the pitiful and counterproductive attempts of “Libertarian Republicans” (see Ronald Reagan)?

  34. <>

    We are uniting behind one. Chuck Baldwin. Join us.

    I continue to have trouble seeing why people make such a big deal about Baldwin’s (or his party’s) social conservatism. If libertarians can tolerate Ron Paul’s We the People Act, I don’t see how any of their ideas are any different. And really, even if I were an atheist, it would be hard not to see any of their religious ideas as anything worse than merely wrong but innocuous. If there are any real problems with Baldwin, it’s in his protectionist ideas (see the Baldwin/Castle doctrine) not his social conservatism. But I’ll compromise on some things for the sake of other more important ones. Hopefully many others will too.

  35. I strongly encourage the Ron Paul people to join the Constitution Party, and leave the LP to the Libertarians.

  36. C4L = over 100,000 members in 3 months

    LP = what? 20,000 members in 37 years?

    Just keep digging it deeper, Brian!

  37. C4L = over 100,000 members in 3 months

    LP = what? 20,000 members in 37 years?

    Hey, if they’re into the Constitution Party, I don’t care how many there are.

    Hillary Clinton got 18 million votes — should we be scrambling to beg her to join the LP too?

  38. Incidentally, the CP has verified the Ron Paul endorsement:

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=776

    So it’s official.

    As I’ve said all along, Ron Paul is a right-wing social conservative religious nut — NOT a libertarian.

    Never was a libertarian. Never will be. Period. End of.

    It’s ridiculous that things had to go this far before people’s eyes were finally opened.

  39. All I know is that when Ron Paul said end the war on drugs, he didn’t base his opposition to it on some stupid “federalist”, “states’ rights” argument or some stupid, unprincipled utilitarian argument. He based his opposition on solid pro-liberty principles – the government has no right! Same thing with the death penalty, which Bob Barr just this week gave his wholehearted support of. Same thing on the marriage issue, solid libertarian grounds – the government has no right. He also has a foreign policy and free trade and economic position which at least dovetail with solid libertarian principles.

    He is wrong on abortion and immigration, but that obviously doesn’t disqualify him from being a libertarian by Bob Barr’s standard, and that of many others in the LP who despise him for not endorsing Barr.

  40. Thank you for nothing, Bob Barr campaign.

    I defended you.

    I put my trust in you.

    I freaking rejoined the party because of you.

    And now this.

  41. Brian: I think RP is a libertarian, but I think he let the Bob Barr snub get the best of him and did this purely out of spite….or at least RP’s staff did it out of spite.

  42. I wonder if the GOP chieftains will take RP’s endorsement sitting down…

    Doubtful.

    They have been waiting for an opportunity like this to put Ron Paul in his place. I would not doubt if he loses a committee assignment over this.

  43. Ron Paul’s BS on the marriage issue is just that — BS. He has a marriage license.

    As for the other positions — opposition to the war on drugs and the war in Iraq, you could say Dennis Kucinich is equally libertarian. Heck, moreso when you factor in immigration, abortion, and other positions. Giving Paul a free pass on those means Kucinich only needs a free pass on economic issues.

    It all gets rather silly, rather quickly.

    The reality is that some libertarians chose to build a cult of personality around Ron Paul that was impervious to logic, reason or principle. Some were peeled away when he introduced dreck legislation like the “Marriage Protection Act,” some were peeled away when his racist newsletters were exposed, and a few will peel away as a result of this Constitution Party endorsement.

    Others will continue following Paul right out of the liberty movement, rationalizing all the way into the far right until Baldwin and Paul march them off the edge.

  44. It’s ridiculous that things had to go this far before people’s eyes were finally opened.

    It doesn’t seem anyone’s actually agreed with you on this thread.

  45. I strongly encourage the Ron Paul people to join the Constitution Party, and leave the LP to the Libertarians.

    I can’t join the CP, because it’s even worse on economics than you are (though not worse than George Phillies), but I will gladly leave the LP and already have! Good luck and good will.

  46. Filing for divorce as a political statement only gives the government even more power, especially if there are children because then the court retains jurisdiction over both parties until the child is 18.

    I’m not a Ron Paul fan, but as for joining the Constitution Party ….. I would caution those who are not religious to consider that decision very, very carefully in light of the fact that they will then be dealing with (and will be identified as, either correctly or not) religious extremists.

  47. Brian, Ron Paul’s endorsement of Chuck Baldwin doesn’t make him a “religious nut” nor does it confirm that he’s “not a libertarian”. By any reasonable standard, he’s a libertarian, certainly more so than the Libertarian Party’s own presidential candidate.

  48. If I vote this election, I will proudly vote for the Boston Tea Party (they’re on the ballot in my state) to stick it to the LP. Charles Jay’s vicious attacks on social conservatism have pleased me very much, and I am happy to see that he and Knapp have thoroughly distanced themselves from the LP’s rightward shift.

    As for Chuck Baldwin: fuck him and the right-wing theocrat “Constitution Party” he rode in on. I have just about had it with all of the Bible-thumping bigot nutters and their whining about “family values.” Most of us already hated Barr and wouldn’t blame Paul for not supporting him, but Paul’s decision to endorse a party of Rick Santorums (shudder) does not speak highly of him.

  49. Brian Miller,

    I would like to point out a few excerpts from Dr. Paul’s written statement. Please indulge me by reading and considering my analysis of the situation.

    1) “This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree.”

    If Dr. Paul does not consider himself to be a libertarian, then why would he make a statement like this in relation to himself, Nader, and McKinney? Why would he make the effort to make specific mention of concession that he will likely not be able to “get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians”? If he considers himself to be a conservative rather than a libertarian, then he could have easily stated, “This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become CONSERVATIVES, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree.”

    2) “I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman.”

    “I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.” (Note: The last one he attended was in 2004, at which he spoke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Libertarian_National_Convention#2004)

    If he does not consider himself to be a libertarian, then why does he take the time to make specific allusions to his past and current association with the Libertarian Party?

    In my view, Ron Paul is certainly a libertarian. He has stated before that his only disagreements with the Libertarian Party platform are on the issues of Abortion and Immigration. Furthermore, he has stated openly and clearly that he holds the following positions:

    * Support for contractual rights of LGBT individuals to marry (He stated this in the John Stossel online interview, which may be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M)

    * Support for legalization of drugs and prostitution (See the Stossel video)

    * Support for legality of internet gambling, and opposition to regulation of internet content (per his voting record)

    Do these three sound like socially conservative positions at the level of public policy? Not to me, they don’t.

    One area where I do think Paul’s views are troublesome for many libertarians is his emphasis of the 10th Amendment as opposed to the 14th Amendment in relation to the respective jurisdiction of the Federal and State levels of government. Dr. Paul clearly is someone who believes strongly in a large amount of jurisdiction for states per the 10th Amendment, whereas many libertarians (including me) would disagree and say that the 14 Amendment calls for the federal government to step in on a lot of issues that Paul would leave to states. This comes down to Constitutional interpretation, and Dr. Paul isn’t necessarily any less libertarian for advocating a more federalist interpretation.

    Furthermore, I will add that while I worked with Dr. Paul’s Presidential Campaign as a grassroots activist, I got to know many past and current employees of his over the past year. Here’s a sampling of them:

    * Jeff Frazee. He was the National Youth Coordinator for the campaign, and the person with whom I worked most closely. Jeff worked for the Badnarik campaign in 2004 under Stephen Gordon. He was heavily involved in the College Libertarians at the state (Texas) and national levels. I’ve had many conversations with him. He is a turbo-libertarian. He is currently one of the key people at the helm of the Campaign for Liberty.

    * Rachel Mills. As listed above, she is Ron Paul’s Congressional Press Secretary. She lived in Durham County in the Triangle area of North Carolina, which is where I’m from and currently live, before she moved to Washinton, D.C.. She was heavily involved with the Libertarian Party in the Triangle, having run for office numerous times as a Libertarian. She also organized the Ladies of Liberty calendar, featuring women in the Libertarian Party posing in pinups. She and her husband Mike are ferocious anarcho-capitalist libertarians. (And I say ferocious because I’ve debated with both of them, myself being a minarchist libertarian.)

    * Don Rasmussen. He was the Events Coordinator for Dr. Paul’s Presidential Campaign, and he holds the same position for Campaign for Liberty. I’ve spoken with him numerous times, and even partied with him on one occasion. Suffice it to say that he is most definitely a libertarian.

    * Justine Lam. She was the E-Campaign Coordinator for Dr. Paul’s Presidential Campaign. She attended the Institute for the Humane Studies, one of the preeminent libertarian intellectual centers in America. (I believe she also worked for them, too.) She’s definitely a libertarian.

    * Brian Gentry. He was the State Coordinator for South Carolina. I worked with him closely to coordinate the effort of students in South Carolina leading up to the Primary. He currently works for the National Right to Work Committee. He’s a libertarian.

    Furthermore, although I sadly never got to know him, the late Kent Snyder was one of the key members of Ron’s inner circle since the 1980s when he ran as the LP nominee for President. Kent was a long-time activist for libertarian causes. Furthermore, Kent was an openly gay man, and I doubt that an openly gay libertarian would have remained with Ron for more than twenty years unless he knew where he truly stood on LGBT issues.

    This is just a microcosm of the people who Ron has employed, both past and present. The overwhelming majority have been and are libertarians, and many (if not most) have been Libertarian Party activists at some point. If Ron does not consider himself a libertarian, then why does he hire so many bonafide libertarians and keep them in his inner circle? I’m sure that if he wished, he would rather easily be able to hire from his pick of Constitution Party activists and socially conservative supporters of his.

    Dr. Paul’s endorsement of Chuck Baldwin, in my opinion, boils down to two things:

    1) Anger toward, and perhaps mistrust of, Bob Barr; and

    2) Friendship with, and perhaps trust of, Chuck Baldwin.

    It’s easy to ascertain 1) by reading his written statement. For one, he never refers to Barr by name, but rather to him as the “Libertarian Party candidate.” This conveys some ill will toward Bob Barr, as is usually the case when people refer specifically to others in a letter, but not by name. He referred to Baldwin, Nader, and McKinney all by name.

    He also made numerous mentions of the press conference and its goal to begin a united front of Third Party efforts to challenge the Two Party system, and he clearly expresses ill feeling toward the fact that the “Libertarian Party candidate” chose not to attend. He refers to criticism that the “Libertarian Party candidate” has offered toward him in a not-so-happy tone. It’s very plain to gather from the letter that Barr’s absence from the Presser did not please him.

    Furthermore, I’m sure that Ron Paul remembers Bob Barr’s days in Congress as a drug warrior, Wiccan-hunter, and “Yea” voter for the Patriot Act and Iraq War. After all, Dr. Paul was in Congress for all but one term of Bob Barr’s time there. I’m guessing he probably got a good sense of the man during that time.

    It’s also easy to ascertain 2) by past references to Baldwin as a long-time friend and a strong supporter of his Presidential campaign, which he does once again in the letter.

  50. Curioser and curioser.

  51. Something else to consider:

    Dr. Paul endorsed a Libertarian Party candidate for Mayor in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/04/libertarian_candidate_for_ann.html

  52. Paige: correct, Paul also endorsed a few months ago Libertarian Pat Dixon, LP Texas, who got re-elected.

    Message to Brian Miller who say Paul is not a libertarian. Well Paul has been a member of the LP since at least 1987, featured as speaker, lastly at the 2004 convention, is known to most as the most libertarian politician in congress, including many Reform and Radical caucus members of the LP, yet Brian Miller (and Dr. Phillies) in their infinite wisdom has the monopoly over the definition of the term “libertarian”. One of the founders of the LP – David Nolan – must then also be wrong in considering Paul a libertarian. Brian also disqualifies many in the LP as being libertarian, as they do consider Paul as a libertarian.

    Let us look at the Nolan chart based on Paul’s votes:
    http://house.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
    Paul is very solidly in the libertarian camp.

    Interesting also to look at CHuck Baldwin on the Nolan chart:
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Chuck_Baldwin.htm on the border between “libertarian” and “right-conservative”, so Baldwin – despite certain deviations – is also quite libertarian.

    And here is Barr:
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm
    Based on his current platform, Barr would be much more libertarian that his past voting record.

    Brian seems to have forgotten that he pointed out that Kent Snyder, who worked with Paul in his 1988 and 2008 campaigns and knew Paul’s positions in detail (did some of his MA on him) was a gay. Now if ever Paul would have been a homophobe, why would he have been so close to Snyder? Why would Paul receive support from gay intellectuals like ANdrew Sullivan and Justin Raimundo? Why would he receive more votes from gays in San Francisco than Hillary CLinton, for instance? Look at the detail interview with Paul with John Stossel, dealing with issues in detail.

    It is clear Brian is totally WRONG in his claim Paul is not a libertarian. If the LP thinks Paul is not a Libertarian, they should strip Paul of his lifelong membership of the party immediately.
    He also overlooks the fact that Baldwin is more libertarian than the CP and Paul is obviously more consistent libertarian than Baldwin. Supporting Baldwin does not mean Paul supports every detail of the CP platform, very far from it. Brian, since when does supporting a political candidate means you agree with everything he or she stands for? The CP is hardly expected to win the election, thus their platform will not be implemented. Ever heard of a protest vote?

  53. […] commentary has been interesting…there’s been doubt that Paul actually wrote this, and that it was done by one of his […]

  54. Interesting, two new interviews last night, three scheduled for today, and not ONE mention from Ron Paul himself about this endorsement. I think it is very disrespectful of his staff to put words in the man’s mouth when he isn’t willing to say anything himself.

    Want to know the truth? Call (202) 225- 2831 or 979-285-0231 or his chief of staff’s office at 202-225-2831 (ask for Tony). Encourage Ron Paul to take a stand, be the man, and publicly support Baldwin for President!

  55. Several comments were caught in the spam filter late last night, due to multiple links. They should all be here now.

  56. Stefan,

    With any politician, you have the record of deeds, and you have the words associated with campaign.

    Barr’s actual record through last year, when he funded — the way former Congressmen get to do — a stack of reactionary bigot Republicans (and a Democrat), are in bright shining contrast to his words. Most reasonable people — I will grant that you are being an honest exception — look at the deeds and the dollars, and conclude that deeds and dollars talk, and the words are rose fertilizer from the hind end of male cows. I’ll be going over this in far more detail for my defense of Angela Keaton.

    You ask how gays can support Ron Paul. The Republican party of homophobic bigotry has attached to it the Log Cabin Republicans. One reasonable supposition is of course that some people find other issues more important than who they sleep with.

    Some time back, pollster.com iirc ran a major analysis of the political inclinations of Congress, looking at large numbers of votes on economic, social, and foreign policy issues.
    On one hand, they found that Congress was bifurcated, so that liberals were fairly consistently liberal and ditto for conservatives.

    They also did scatter plots, e.g. economic and social issues as the two axes. Their interesting result was that the libertarian quadrant was totally vacant. There were absolutely no Congessmen who were strong social liberals and strong fiscal conservatives.

    Phillies

  57. Paige:

    Ron Paul is usually a reasonably honest man — skipping his current stance on authorship of his newsletters — and he always calls himself a conservative.

    I don’t have to search far for his position on GLBT issues. His position in debate was that DontAsk Dont Tell was all right with him. He supports the racist bigot states rights doctrine that it is all right for states to take away your rights, whether on marriage or on abortion.

    For more details on his stands, I urge you to listen to his interview on The American View,

    http://www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/898/aview_20070825.mp3?PHPSESSID=da0fb7564466b18359c8064c4708f011

    which make it painfully obvious why he endorsed Baldin, namely Paul and Baldwin are birds of a feather on their core beliefs.

    Ron Paul also sent letters to California Libertarians, urging them to abandon their Party’s candidate to support a Republican.

  58. 62 George Phillies

    Ron Paul . . . and he always calls himself a conservative.

    If you read Ron Paul’s recent “A New Alliance” in which he “supports” Chuck Baldwin, he essentially aligns himself most closely with libertarians. This is what makes the “support” for Chuck Baldwin (definitely a conservative) most interesting.

    Factor in this statement by Paul:

    “The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.” (emphasis added)

    and you have an excellent counter argument to the calls of many like George Phillies that Ron Paul is simply a conservative. I would agree that Ron Paul is a libertarian with conservative personal values, but politically, Ron Paul IS a libertarian.

    Would a conservative say “Sure” when asked by John Stossel if gays can marry? I doubt it.

  59. George, in this statement you make, “Ron Paul also sent letters to California Libertarians, urging them to abandon their Party’s candidate to support a Republican.”,

    is that Republican Ron Paul himself, or a “Ron Paul Republican” who has closely aligned him/herself with Ron Paul’s platform?

  60. 2 NotABarrFan

    OK I admit I am not a Barr fan,

    and voting for Barr is a mistake. Why? Barr doesn’t represent libertarianism. Without going over ALL of the non-libertarian stances Barr takes, on balance, party platforms notwithstanding, Baldwin promotes a more consistent freedom/libertarian position than does Barr. Neither are perfect, or are close to Harry Browne or Mary Ruwart (yes, Mary is VERY knowledgeable in free market economics!)

    The major area I have disagreement with Baldwin is free trade. Baldwin is somewhat light on economics, but Barr is even lighter. However, this is the one area of the CP platform which Baldwin agrees with, which he is promoting. A second area is the immigration issue, though I do agree open borders puts even more strain on taxpayers, due to the existence of the extensive welfare state in America.

    I think a little Mises or Rothbard economics training could change these, however.

  61. So SL are you supporting Baldwin too over Barr too?

    Are you going to resign on principle and join the CP and encourage others to follow suite?

  62. Ron Paul and GE have used their marriage licenses to marry their respective spouses. The time to revoke the license is b4 the marriage. Now that each marriage is a fact, it is rather dull to be concerned about the license being revoked by any party (husband, wife, state).

    Where do marriage licenses come from? They come from racism. Before Loving v Virginia a license was required to keep black people from marrying white people, by whatever standard the state imposed.

    What are marriage licenses now? Revenue for the state.

    It is possible to involve the state in a contract. Buy from the or sell to them, they are involved. It is slavish to get on your knees and beg them to license an activity which is lawful without their license.

    A good rule is to take nothing from the state and give nothing to the state. It is not always easy, and it is sometimes not possible, but it is worth pursuing.

    A divorce is a legal proceeding in a government court to dissolve an agreement between two persons. Getting a divorce would not revoke the marriage license, it was already used for the marriage event. Getting a divorce would, in effect, go back to the state on your knees to beg them for something else, compounding the slavishness.

  63. Eric Garris has pointed out that Ron Paul’s congressional office is prohibited from commenting on his political endorsements.

    He has asked that they not be bothered with these calls, and that all calls should be made to the Campaign for Liberty.

    Garris is pretty close to Ron Paul and his staff, so I’ll take his word over Jerry’s and not can the Congressional office.

  64. 16 Brian Holtz

    I guess Ron Paul hasn’t read the CP Platform:

    To avoid embarrassment, It’s probably good he hasn’t read the current LP platform either! Thanks to the Reform Caucus, the LP has given the non-libertarian candidates (hint Barr/W.A.R.) a platform they can run on!

    NOTE: Ron Paul ran ON a very principled LP platform in 1988. Barr has no such obstacle for his conservative campaign.

  65. 66 NotABarrFan

    So SL are you supporting Baldwin too over Barr too?

    Are you going to resign on principle and join the CP and encourage others to follow suite?

    Sure, just for you I’ll leave the LP. First, I’ll resign my LNC alternate position, and my chair of an LP affiliate in Florida.
    All because you “caught me” in a contradiction. Sure you did.

    I’ve never supported Barr . . . I only support libertarians. Note: I am not supporting Baldwin, though I much prefer him to Barr.

    BTW, learn to spell . . . suite is a hotel (or other) accommodation as stated in Wikipedia . . .” a group of rooms occupied as a unit”.

  66. I received, for whatever reasons, a stack of Ron Paul fundraising letters. Without exception, Paul referred to himself as a conservative, never as a libertarian.

    The vote-Republican letters I am aware presented themselves as being signed by Paul himself.

  67. Steve, have you even read the 2008 LP Platform? I’ll repeat the two questions that radicals kept dodging before Denver:

    1. What in your opinion is the most important libertarian principle that (a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree) is missing from our Denver Platform?

    2. What in your opinion are the most important specific policy questions that (a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree) do not have any answer in our Denver Platform but should?

    You can even ignore the parenthesized parts if subjunctive thinking isn’t your forte.

    If you’re unaware of how extensively Ron Paul deviates from “plumbline” Libertarian radicalism, see http://knowinghumans.net/2007/12/teflon-libertarian-moderate.html

  68. Paige, you said:

    One area where I do think Paul’s views are troublesome for many libertarians is his emphasis of the 10th Amendment as opposed to the 14th Amendment in relation to the respective jurisdiction of the Federal and State levels of government. Dr. Paul clearly is someone who believes strongly in a large amount of jurisdiction for states per the 10th Amendment, whereas many libertarians (including me) would disagree and say that the 14 Amendment calls for the federal government to step in on a lot of issues that Paul would leave to states. This comes down to Constitutional interpretation, and Dr. Paul isn’t necessarily any less libertarian for advocating a more federalist interpretation.

    There’s a place for both, because they do different things. The 10th reins in the federal government to Constitutional limits (or at least it’s supposed to!). The 14th reins all governments at all levels to keep them all from infringing on out inalienable rights as We the People.

    That also means that the 14th requires government to protect the rights of the people, as they are supposed to do, but they cannot do things outside the limits of the Constitution per the 10th as well, and the rest is up to the states and the People per the 9th and 10th.

    It actually makes perfect sense if you realize that “consent of the governed” means that the People are superior to the government–the People rule the government–instead of the other way around–the government rules the People–like politicians think. The People have all the power and we only consent to give some of it, a limited amout of it, to government. The problem arises in that the government and our idea of what “limited” means vastly differ (we’re a lot closer to correct, and they are completely wrong), and nobody seems to know how to revoke that consent, which is long overdue. Hence the statist quo ante.

  69. Geroge said @62:

    Ron Paul also sent letters to California Libertarians, urging them to abandon their Party’s candidate to support a Republican.

    George, I think that would be news to most LPCA members. What’s your source and timeframe on this?

  70. I’ve heard this from George before, and Tom Knapp also says that in 2000 “Paul signed a letter urging registered Libertarian voters in two [San-Diego-area] California US House districts to vote for Republican congressional candidates who were on the ballot opposite Libertarian opponents.” Richard Rider of the SDLP confirms this, but doesn’t recall who the Republicans were and whether Paul’s letter said anything bad about the LP. None of the three of them has been able to produce copies of the letter, but I believe them that it happened.

  71. Ah, before I came to CA then. I thought it was recent, as in this cycle.

  72. Yes. The letter DID happen. I received a copy of it. I threw it out a couple years ago though. Wish I remember who those candidates were. I think this calls for me to contact Gene Berkman. I bet he would know.

  73. Brian, you support Bob Barr. It’s pretty obvious that you don’t really care how extensively a politician deviates from “plumbline” Libertarian radicalism.

  74. i have voted libertarian for 29 years there is no way i will vote for barr the man is a neocon in libertarian clothes but then again the LNC has been taken over by the necons i dont know whom i will be voting for i just may write in ron paul even tho i know it will not be counted and this is for all of you morons that voted for barr at the convention FUCK YOU

  75. […] Ron Paul NOT supporting Bob Barr [Shot of adrenaline to me thanks to Peter Orvetti over at Last Free Voice for waking me up to Paul’s endorsement] Apparently Barr ticked off Representative Paul – current […]

  76. Rocky, if you measured Libertarian radicalism in the conventional way (by how much government one would tolerate), then I indeed care how much a politician deviates from radicalism. Namely, he should deviate neither too much nor too little. (True Libertarian radicalism is measured by how much systematic aggression one would tolerate, and on that score self-styled LP “radicals” aren’t radical enough for my taste.)

    Barr advocates somewhat more government than I do, but my support for him isn’t so much a function of how much he agrees with me or what his record was like before he joined the LP. Rather, my support is a function of how effective he is now at promoting the LP’s core message: that we are the only party that is neither liberal nor conservative, and that instead advocates both more personal freedom and more economic freedom.

    The jury is still out on his effectiveness. He is getting far more media than his nomination opponents could have, but we need to analyze how much of that exposure is on-message. I’m in the middle of systematically scoring all of the Barr appearances on national TV that I can find. That’s 50 so far, which as far as I can tell is about an order of magnitude more media than the Badnarik campaign earned. (Pointers to Badnarik earned media appreciated.)

    I also plan to score all of the TV and radio commercials I can find from the 2008 Ron Paul campaign (19 so far). Although Paul’s platform and earned-media message was quite libertarian, the message that his commercials presented was clearly more conservative than it was libertarian. Thus I argue against both Rockbardian fanboys who hold up Paul as a paragon of libertarian radicalism, as well as against Angrytarians who would revoke Paul’s libertarian credentials because of litmus tests over LP franchise schisms (abortion, immigration) or over how to minimize government power (through radical decentralism).

  77. Thus I argue against both Rockbardian fanboys who hold up Paul as a paragon of libertarian radicalism, as well as against Angrytarians who would revoke Paul’s libertarian credentials because of litmus tests over LP franchise schisms (abortion, immigration) or over how to minimize government power (through radical decentralism).

    I tend to agree with Brian here.

  78. Brian, I’ll be interested in your results. A potentially very interesting investigation.

    However, consider the secondary and tertiary effects of all those appearances. Say Barr in one appearance addresses 5 issues. Say he gets 4 90s and one 60. The mean is an 84. Not bad.

    But I’d submit that the QUALITATIVE analysis may be more salient. If the viewer forms the impressions that:

    – There’s a choice other than R or D, liberal or conservative.
    – Freedom is important in both economic AND personal matters.
    – The Iraq War is a disaster. Why do we have so many troops overseas?

    And he or she concludes:

    – I’m open to L ideas. Let me research this further.

    Barr would get a 95+ in my book. I’d overlook my disagreements with his answers on federalism, for ex. A candidate is “bait” for a bigger set of ideas.

  79. Brian Holtz . . . I not only have read the 2008 platform, and voted against every LRC written plank, I am horrified with the “directional” aspect of it.

    The Party of Principle has become the party of “direction”.

    Direction is fine for strategy . . . principle is necessary for foundation.

    The LRC has effectively destroyed the foundation of the LP.

    The confusion that the LRC has thrust upon the LP members is to substitute strategy and tactics for foundation. The fundamentals of third party effectiveness (moving the debate and public opinion-the strategy and tactic) is moving the debate toward libertarianism. How in He*l can we move the debate and public opinion through tactics and strategy toward libertarianism, if the libertarianism IS the tactic and strategy? The whole thing becomes tautological!

    This my friends, IS the problem with the “directional” platform that the LRC has given us. The LP is now just a floating entity, with direction . . . to anywhere at any rate, without a foundation, without a home base. It’s mind boggling how this thing called the LP can survive like that!

  80. The directional LP platform brings to light one other deficiency, along with being foundationless . . . the LP is now goal-less. There is no goal. there is only direction toward . . . what? Lower taxes? How low? More liberty? How much liberty? Fewer wars? How fewer? One a decade? One a century?

    The LP platform stinks as badly as does the CP platform. Even though I disagree with much of the CP platform, at least it has a foundation and stated goals. But then, CP members are purists in their beliefs. Their party hasn’t been polluted with reformers . . . yet.

  81. Congratulations, Steve, you utterly and completely failed to answer my questions. I repeat:

    1. What in your opinion is the most important libertarian principle that (a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree) is missing from our Denver Platform?

    2. What in your opinion are the most important specific policy questions that (a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree) do not have any answer in our Denver Platform but should?

  82. “There is no goal”? LOL.

    As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

    We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

    Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

    In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

    These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

  83. Brian,
    Perhaps it was a typo. It should’ve read:
    “There is no spoon.” ; -)

  84. Mr. LaBianca’s statements above are correct and not only does Mr. Holtz demonstrate his own cluelessness through his condescending rejoinders, he actually proves Mr. LaBianca’s point by showing he is more concerned with what others think than any foundational principle.

    Mr. Holtz is obviously concerned with what 2/3 of “NatCon” delegates agree with. Throwing aside the notion that one would have to be a mind reader to know, this is a perfect example of substituting foundation for strategy.

    Where Mr. LaBianca would like to advocate principles he believes in, Mr. Holtz would rather advocate principles he thinks others believe in. This is where I would disagree with Mr. LaBianca – this is not a directional strategy. When you merely tell people what you think they want to hear and already agree with, you aren’t moving in any direction – you are standing still.

    In my judgment, a person so tightly bound by a straight-jacket of conformity that he confuses a craving for acceptance and approval with a guiding principle will never know the meaning of liberty or freedom.

    “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.”

    “We”?

    “Liberty”?

    How about:

    As a collectivist organization calling itself Libertarians, the group seeks a world of fewer taxes and a little more freedom; a world where a majority of individuals are sovereign over the collective and one is only forced to sacrifice his or her values when deemed appropriate by NatCon delegates.

  85. Tom Blanton writes

    TB) a person so tightly bound by a straight-jacket of conformity that he confuses a craving for acceptance and approval with a guiding principle will never know the meaning of liberty or freedom (TB

    I love it when an opponent can be rebutted simply by repeating the words he either ignored or didn’t comprehend. I repeat: “You can even ignore the parenthesized parts if subjunctive thinking isn’t your forte.”

    My questions were:

    1. What in your opinion is the most important libertarian principle that (a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree) is missing from our Denver Platform?

    2. What in your opinion are the most important specific policy questions that (a 2/3 majority of NatCon delegates would agree) do not have any answer in our Denver Platform but should?

    The point of the parentheses was this: we went into Denver with an amputated platform, and we had only about six hours of floor time to fix it for this presidential election cycle. It’s simply inane to think that the Platform Committee cared only about “conformity” and not about Libertarian principle. What we cared about was: how much Libertarian principle can we get the delegates to put back into the Platform in those six hours? The 2008 Platform was finished with only about 2 minutes to spare.

    I’ll re-state my questions for the parentheses-impaired:

    1. What in your opinion is the most important libertarian principle that is missing from our Denver Platform?

    2. What in your opinion are the most important specific policy questions that do not have any answer in our Denver Platform but should?

    You can either answer them, or not.

  86. Tom seems to believe there are self-evident, free-floating L principles that exist regardless of the opinions of Ls that cannot be articulated and applied in a wide range. This theoretical, a priori construct seems to require no deviation from this plumbline.

    I respect that opinion, but I would ask who is the authority empowered to discern exactly what the plumbline is? Is there a L pope?

  87. Yes Robert, there is a L pope. And, of course, that L pope would be none other than Brian Holtz himself.

    I am merely an individual and can’t speak for the collective “we” that is the LP. It is my understanding that this organization now wants less taxes and more freedom.

    The long-standing principles that have existed that can simply be articulated that form the basis for a fairly flexible plumbline have been the principle of self-ownership and the principle of non-aggression.

    This is not a theoretical a priori construct, this is straight forward a posteriori observation, Robert.

    And no matter how clever the L popes may be, even by half, and regardless of the sophism, condescending remarks, and their insistence on being taken seriously, they must acknowledge that those two simple principles have been the basis of libertarianism for a long time.

    Now if the L pope wants to argue that one can’t claim self-ownership or a little aggression is a good thing, fine. Let Him make the proclamation.

    As far as the LP platform goes, I could care less. Just like the LNC, LPHQ and most LP candidates and members could care less. I’m no longer a member of the LP. I just wish the LP would stop embarrassing those libertarians outside of the LP.

    By the way, do you guys actually talk the way you write? If so, it’s no wonder the LP is withering away. People think they have stumbled into a freshman sausage party for emotionally disturbed nerds. Freakin’ scary.

  88. Bzzt. Self-ownership and non-aggression are both included in the 2008 LP Platform:

    “All individuals are sovereign over their own lives […] all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives”

    “Individuals have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose […] force and fraud must be banished from human relationships […] No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.”

    The Holy See gives Tom Blanton special dispensation to attempt again to answer the questions:

    1. What in your opinion is the most important libertarian principle that is missing from our Denver Platform?

    2. What in your opinion are the most important specific policy questions that do not have any answer in our Denver Platform but should?

    P.S. I’m not the one arguing that “a little aggression” is OK. That would be the radicals who want to set at zero the default contestable fine for micro-aggressions (e.g. pollution) whose costs are orders of magnitude less than the cost of pursuing a tort claim. Alas, the LP Platform isn’t yet anti-aggression enough to make this point.

  89. Not up for an extended debate on this at all, but I just saw you mention at least one important issue the new platform fails to address in a comment at TPW;

    corporate personhood and nonconcensual limited liability.

  90. Corporate personhood wasn’t in the 2004 platform, but there was indeed one sentence opposing limited corporate liability. Congratulations, you’ve exposed the Reform Caucus conspiracy to “water down” the LP Platform.🙂

    However, I never heard any Platform reformer complain about this LP position, and I for one oppose special limits on liability for corporations. As far as I can tell, a corporation is fundamentally just a scaled-up limited partnership that has no general partners. The crucial question is: would capital formation be threatened by a requirement for each corporation to have at least one liable general partner? I suspect that it wouldn’t. If corporations are equivalent to scaled-up limited partnerships, then the traditional leftist argument against limited shareholder liability evaporates — unless they are against limited liability for limited partners. I don’t see how they could be, since that in turn seems equivalent to a transferable contract that pays a share of firm income and is a particular sort of claim against the firm’s assets upon liquidation. There’s nothing wrong with that.

  91. Limited liability can be achieved via voluntary contract.

    It is REDICULOUS(TM) to think that the owner of 100 shares of Wal-Mart should be liable for the actions of the corporation with billions of shares.

  92. I don’t think a single general (unlimited) partner would satisfy paulie, Brian.

    Maybe I’m wrong, though.

  93. Now you all see why I stay out of Platform arguments. It gets far more complicated than it needs to be.😦

    Mission Statement and Scope explain the Party’s purpose.

    Bylaws explain how Party operations are structured and done.

    Platform explains what we believe in and our goals, derived from the Mission Statement and Purpose.

    Program explains how to achieve the Platform and fulfill the Mission Statement.

    Policy and Operations Manuals derive from Bylaws and best accepted business practices.

    Why any of this is more complicated than that is beyond me. Arguing over how many libertarians can dance on the head of a pin, and whether they are pure enough, is a sideshow that keeps from getting the job done.

    And it has been that way for decades.

  94. Tom, if Brian is the L pope in your book, then we’re watching a different movie, or you’re not getting the metaphor. Brian certainly has a take on “Scripture,” but he recognizes that there are other ways to interpret and advocate for liberty. A “pope” attempts to impose doctrinal discipline.

    Re: “Now if the L pope wants to argue that one can’t claim self-ownership or a little aggression is a good thing, fine. Let Him make the proclamation.”

    My solution for those who wish to opt out of this mess of a civil society is nonarchy pods. All the best to those that make that choice.

    http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/003225.php

    I definitely feel you, Tom, on being embarrassed by the LP. I was embarrassed when a Rothbardian LP candidate for Congress advocated private nuclear weapons. (Apparently he didn’t get Murray’s memo on the subject…thankfully even “Mr. Libertarian” didn’t abide by that loopy idea!) I was embarrassed that the 06 platform retained the alleged “right” to any and all dangerous weapons.

    Perhaps we’re even on the embarrassment meter.

    As to how I speak, think Robert DeNiro or Tony Soprano. :-0 Whatyagonnado? Fogetaboutit.

  95. Looks like LP-basher Cappozi in contrast feels that de-facto monopolistic private ownership of nuclear weapons by right-wing religious nuts who think Buddhists are evil witches under color of government is of course perfectly OK. Like Baldwin or Palin.

    In the early years of the LP his type denounced the Libertarian view because private ownership, combining with common law liability, would effectively end nuclear weapons. Making people directly responsible for the liability they created would end them quickly.

    They’re like people who denounce the free market one day for creating monopiolies, the next for ‘too much’ competition.

    In any event that was kept out of the LP platform as not politically relevant since all nuclear weapons are disastrously unsafe. They denounce the LP platform for what it is not to sneakily justify current injustice.

  96. Robert wrote (nearly all in comprehensible American language):

    “My solution for those who wish to opt out of this mess of a civil society is nonarchy pods. All the best to those that make that choice.”

    Well Robert, I don’t use the terminology of “nonarchy pods” as it requires too much effort to define it. But, I would suggest that the only way to opt INTO civil society is to opt OUT of government. Government has replaced civil society – it certainly doesn’t create or compliment it.

  97. The Pope of the LP was of course Rothbard, and we reformers just seek an ecumenical Reformation in which the LP makes room for Libertarians to disagree with narrow Rothbardian anarcholibertarianism. My nominee for our 95 Theses is http://ecolibertarian.org/manifesto.

    Michael, that Platform repair/improvement is not the best match for your interests/talents does not mean that nobody should work on it. Libertarians of all people should understand the ideas of comparative advantage and differing utility functions. (OK, cue your usual insults against invoking ideas. After all, it’s not like the strength of the freedom movement lies in its ideas…)

  98. ken, please, I don’t represent your views for you. please refrain from representing mine for me.

    your point: “…the Libertarian view because private ownership, combining with common law liability, would effectively end nuclear weapons. Making people directly responsible for the liability they created would end them quickly.”

    does not ring true for me. do you really believe that torts will dissuade a person or a government from using a nuke?

    I’ll grant you this: it’s perhaps the most novel argument i’ve ever heard, from an anarchoL or, really, anyone ever!

    I salute you!

    I note you claim yours is THE L view, not A L view. perhaps YOU are the L pope now that Murray has passed😉

  99. tom, rothbard coined the term “nonarchist,” so I use it out of respect to him.

    I continue to describe my philosophy as theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist, so i’m sympathetic to nonarchism, but I find it hyperbolic and far-fetched.

    it’s all good, though.

  100. Rothbard has left the building.

    Now, in 5,000 words or less and using the term “a priori” at least twice, describe the similarities between Rothbard and Elvis that 2/3 of the Reform Caucus would agree with.

    For extra credit, make a Rothbard pinata or a Rothbard strawman.

    In lieu of a final exam, dig up Rothbard’s grave to determine if his corpse is still there.

  101. The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.

  102. Tom, despite your last jesting post, my take is that Rothbard’s thinking still is quite influential among a subset of the L community. Heck, he’s still influential ON ME. I consider myself a Rothbardian/Randian in recovery. Both of them remain influences on my thinking.

    Whether they influence your thinking: I can’t say.

    I prefer to say Rothbard and Rand were the initial “shock troops,” but for me in some very important ways I think they both veered into thought patterns that are counterproductive in the quest for freedom. Both had a penchant for overstatement and a kind of absolutism that doesn’t work for me.

    I respect that other Ls feel it’s principled to tow the Rothbardian line. That’s cool. What’s NOT cool is this notion that Rothbardian L-ism is the ONLY legitimate approach to liberty. Flunk one litmus test and you’re out, seems to be the position of latter-day Rothbardians.

    That’s not how I roll.

  103. …a Rothbard pinata or a Rothbard strawman..

    Let me wax lyrical:

    “I’ll take back my Pinata, it’s wasted on you”

    or:

    “I could wile away the hours
    Conferrin’ with the flowers
    Consultin’ with the rain
    And my head I’d be scratchin’
    While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
    If I only had a brain”

  104. Susan,

    Are you suggesting that Murray was The Scarecrow?

    I see him as the Wizard, actually, in effect claiming all the answers while he didn’t.

    Or at least the Tin Man, who heartlessly suggested that fetuses are “parasites.” (As you know, I’m pro-choice, I just find his analogy repulsive.)

  105. Holtz,

    The missing principle from the LP platform is “zero aggression”.

    I care not whether 2/3 or more, or less agree that it should be there. The delegates to LP conventions are more interested in not “alienating voters” which a principled platform (they perceive) will do.

    The deficiency is that the average libertarian who gets involved in the LP no longer is educated as to how principle is disseminated, and people are persuaded of its correctness. So, what happens, we water down a principled platform and make it directional, because as Harry Browne correctly stated many times, most everyone wants “smaller government” . . . the direction is to smaller, the principle is . . . you got me. Smaller how? How much smaller? What areas need to be smaller? Make everything much smaller, but make the EPA 200 times larger? No . . . abolish everything, except have a negative income tax for everyone who earn less than $50,000 per year?

  106. 87 Brian Holtz

    Congratulations, Steve, you utterly and completely failed to answer my questions.

    Your tactic is to frame “the debate” in your terms. Sorry, I don’t take the bait. Only a fool would, and because I utterly disrespect the LRC and its motives. and have said so on several occasions, I am certain that you already take me for a fool. The feeling’s mutual.

  107. One final point on this abomination that the LRC foisted upon the LP – the “directional platform”:

    Is this the “Libertarian Party” or the “Toward Liberty” Party?

    The platform is the foundation of a political party – this 2008 LP platform, in order to complete the “mission” of the LRC, needs to have in it, the name change to the “Toward Liberty” Party. This party, truly is no longer “Libertarian”.

  108. Holtz missed the point again:

    “Michael, that Platform repair/improvement is not the best match for your interests/talents does not mean that nobody should work on it. Libertarians of all people should understand the ideas of comparative advantage and differing utility functions. (OK, cue your usual insults against invoking ideas. After all, it’s not like the strength of the freedom movement lies in its ideas…)”

    I never said nobody should work on the Platform, Brian. What you don’t get is that all that platform stuff is wheel-spinning and axle-wrapping about that WHICH DOES NOT BUILD OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAKE THE PARTY FUNCTION. That’s the problem that has plagued the LP for 37+ years. Do you think that the major parties ignore their infrastructure and base-building to overfocus on their platforms? Nope. So why, Brian, are WE in the LP doing that all the time? Why did the whole mess between the ’04 and ’06 and on through ’08 have to happen at all???

    I didn’t need a Platform to arrive at my POVs on libertarianism, and I have read few books on it. I got there by common sense. That’s why I stay out of the Platform issues: to me, I am secure enough in my own beliefs that I find the Platform to be of no concern to ME. So I focus on other areas and leave the Platform bickering to those that actually care.

    As I said a few months ago: It makes no sense to argue over whether the train stops at Minarchistville or Anarchist City when the train has no engine and no cars and is still on blocks in the station house.

    I’m saying that we need more focus on building the damned engine and cars than poring over station options or what the advertising flyers look like.

  109. Sorry, Steve, but the 2008 LP Platform says all the same things about aggression and force initiation that the 2004 Platform said:

    ) We believe force and fraud must be banished from human relationships […] We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose. […] People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. […] No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. […] The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. (

    The phrase “zero aggression” has never been in any LP platform, and none of the words “smaller” and “direction” and “toward” is in the 2008 LP Platform. Stop arguing with the voices in your head, and read the platform.

    I’m not “framing” the debate. You ignorantly said the LP Platform is “goal-less”, and so I quoted its stated goal to you. You claimed the LP Platform has lost its “foundation” of principle, so I challenged you to identify a principle that it has lost. You’ve failed utterly to do so.

    Michael, the existence of effort to repair/improve the LP platform does not mean that the LP “ignores its infrastructure and base-building”. The LP can walk and chew gum at the same time. If you want a sample of what I’ve been working on besides platform reform, see http://libertarianmajority.net/bh-lp-activism.

    Just because you ignore the LP Platform doesn’t mean the rest of America will too. See page 1 of http://libertarianmajority.wdfiles.com/local–files/platform-portal/PlatformTruth.pdf for some of the kooky positions taken by the 2004 platform. For the price we were paying, see the list on page 2 of uses of the platform to attack the LP.

    As far as I can tell, those attacks have stopped. The Platform is now repaired, and I look forward to you aiming all your derision about platform activism at the radicals who will be trying to re-radicalize the platform in 2010. By the way, can you quote yourself ever criticizing all the wasted effort that was sunk into Restore04? Or was all your criticism reserved for those of us who rolled up our sleeves and hammered out a repaired platform that the delegates could actually pass?

  110. MS: It makes no sense to argue over whether the train stops at Minarchistville or Anarchist City when the train has no engine and no cars and is still on blocks in the station house.

    RC: Agree wholeheartedly! I prefer to call it the Lessarchist Local train. Rolling back the state will be hard, slow work. Arguing abstract theory can be fun, but is a distraction, IMO.

  111. ” . . . abolish everything, except have a negative income tax for everyone who earn less than $50,000 per year?”

    Milton Friedman and Henry George would be pleased with this one! I’d vote for it, too, although I wonder where the revenue would come from…

  112. hermes handbag Ron Paul: ‘I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin’ | 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: