That is pure nonsense. Once you know the answer to the question, it’s obvious that the problem is really quite simple; libertarians are playing by the rules of a game they know is totally rigged against them; is built in opposition to the very position they hold. There is no great divide, no wall, between theoretical knowledge and practical action. That kind of hermetical thinking is a breeding ground for the embrace of the most fantastic mystical claptrap.

His current supporters were the same people that tried to keep him out of the Lp when the ‘purists’ started an initiative to get more people like him as candidates: remeber, gravel was there too.

Browne, Ron Paul, McBride, Hospers were nationally respected figures, McBride a former legislator and creator of ‘Little House on the Prairie’, Paul a Congressman. Clark and Bergland outstanding rights lawyers and activists. Badnarik was a bit out there, but he was the darling of the current Barr faction, a fact they’re trying to paper over, and did as well as most of them.

Ruwart’s positions on child issues were taken from then current US law and are from an LP educational book on standard LP doctrine, so it’s by default also Barr’s position. The current laws harm the kids, period, and people are waking up to the fact that these laws are used to jail kids. She’s the LP Education Director, oaf, and knows a lot more on the subject than you, I’m sure.

Barr’s big problem in the LP is he’s surrounded by people, the LRC, perceived as right-wing crooks by many activists who do the real work. To take one example, there is concern a lot of those ballot signatures are phony, used to pay off the crooks’ supporters by national, which they control. Whether this perception is accurate or not, he may find that key states withold support or even ballot access as long as they’re hanging around his campaign.

Yes, but tyranny close to home is easier to overthrow. It may take some time…

…but I am confident, if we can set aside philosophical differences, we can make this work for the liberty of all Americans. And that, my brother, is the prize… “liberty for all.”

“It takes a revolution to make a solution”
-Robert Nasta Marley

Mary Ruwart is a REAL libertarian. She, unlike you damn fools, is an open and thoroughly consistent libertarian… in other words, an anarchist. Who does not compromise her beliefs and true libertarian ideas for the sake of power allegiances or temporary alliance with DEVILS like Barr.

As to the man suggesting that Spooner ought not to be read: crawl back to your true masters you sniveling tory ass. You are no friend of liberty.

Well, she’s not going to get the Democratic nod, I wonder if she wants IT bad enough to try a third party candidacy? I’d believe her as a libertarian about as much as I believe Bob Barr. If the party is going to sell out, Hillary would be the better vote getter.

I’ve been trying to cool down my disgust with Barr and the LP over the last couple of days and have been thinking maybe I’ll still vote Libertarian just for the contrariness value. Maybe. Damn.

Eat well, stay fit, Die Anyway.

———————————————-
Harry Browne, I miss ya.

Clinton?

If the LPUS strategy was to simply get L-column votes to prove we can be spoilers, why choose Bob “Who?” Barr, when they could have had Hillary? (I do think we have more chance of getting the Republicans to go libertarian than of getting the Democrats to do so, but if being a spoiler is the strategy, wouldn’t having someone who can pull almost as many Democrat votes as does the Democrat candidate make the point even more strongly?)

Donate today. Donate on July 4th. Donate on July 12th.

Thanks.

If the only way you can engage in “modern political debates” is by deliberately obfuscating your position, genuflecting in bad faith to the idea of constitutional legitimacy and the moral significance of Constitutional arguments, or trying as hard as possible to ignore the issue altogether — well, maybe that’s a pretty big strike against engaging in “modern political debates” in the first place. If you can’t stand up to a government action and say that it’s wrong because it violates some independent principle of Justice, _regardless_ of what any yellowed piece of parchment paper says, then what’s the use in even talking?

As I’ve said before, electoral politics is a shitty way to get things done. Radical libertarianism should be more concerned with building alternative institutions and direct-action, market-based efforts to undermine the Statist Quo.

As for effectiveness: which has been more effective at increasing liberty for migrants? 50 years of “immigration reform” is moving us again in the WRONG direction. Yet astoundingly, market-based direct action has allowed an estimated 20 million “illegal” immigrants move heroically into the US, despite the unjust attempts by La Migra to prevent them from doing so. 50 years of “drug reform” has absolutely moved us in the direction of less liberty, yet in that same 50 years, market-based direct action has allowed marijuana use to skyrocket, and illegal narcotics are more available than ever before.

Seems pretty clear to me which method has the best return on your investment.

I don’t see looking like a kook to be that much of a problem. I mean, isn’t everyone in favor of diversity these days?

I wish everyone would read Spooner. I make all of my students read “Vices are Not Crimes” as well as “The Constitution of No Authority” (then we read excerpts from Randy Barnett’s latest, and then debate about whether/how government can be just and/or legitimate without universal consent).

Surely, Spooner is among the greatest champions of liberty, but that doesn’t mean it’s useful in modern political debates to argue his point about the Constitution’s irrelevance. Doing so just makes us look more like the kooks many people already assume we are (rightly so in some of your cases). My point wasn’t that people shouldn’t read Spooner, but rather to know when and where it’s appropriate to use his arguments (hence “before you hurt yourself”).

Arguing about the Constitution’s legitimacy is fine in an academic setting, or in a dorm room at midnight, but it has no place in modern politics, particularly libertarian politics. The sooner we learn that lesson, the better.

All of that said, if you’d like a list of books to catch you up to speed, I’d be happy to provide it (Tom Palmer’s “Literature of Liberty” in Boaz’s “Libertarian Reader” is the best and most comprehensive list; it’s also available here, I think: http://www.libertyguide.com/repository/docLib/20060919_The_Literature_of_Liberty.pdf).

Go back and read my comment at #60. We don’t disagree on those points.

It’s very nice of you to protect us all from such dangerous literature. Do you have a comprehensive list of books you think we, the ignorant children, should not touch? Do you do library inspection house calls? If so, what’s your rate? I must have my library purged of dangerous books that aren’t approved by the libertarian nomenklatura immediately!

Just as an aside, which of the volumes of JJH2′s ‘copy’ should he put down? Was he reading all six of them at once?

#63 B
My guess is that is has something to do with having read the Tenth Amendment.

Have you read it? The Tenth Amendment also mentions “the people”.

The problem with the State’s Rights movement is that it’s not about liberty. It’s about which government has jurisdiction over something. Liberty is when no government has jurisdiction.

Tyranny closer to home is still tyranny.

Have you read it? The Tenth Amendment also mentions “the people”.

The problem with the State’s Rights movement is that it’s not about liberty. It’s about which government has jurisdiction over something. Liberty is when no government has jurisdiction.

Tyranny closer to home is still tyranny.

But the “state’s rights argument” is rooted in the Constitution, which was really my only point. It isn’t pulled out of the air, justified by some nice philosophical abstractions, or “given to us by God”.

The Constitution has the decided advantage of actually existing, and while certainly not perfect or sacrosanct, is vastly preferable to the system of government that we have.