Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
This Open Thread Was Brought to You by the Libertarian Party
This weekend I'm traipsing around the Libertarian Party state chairs' conference in Florida, prepping for a panel on Libertarians and the media early in the evening. Just a few minutes ago I ran into Wayne Allyn Root, the TV host, sports handicapper and - until recently - Republican Party donor. He just joined the LP (as a life member) to explore a presidential run. "You need an issue that's going to grab people," he told me, "Twenty million people gamble online. They just watched the government come after something that they were having a lot of fun doing."
Since this is an issue Radley Balko predicted would backfire on the GOP, I'm curious to see what people think about that; or what you think about Root as an LP presidential candidate.
tros|3.17.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Damn what do you think would happen if they put 20 million people IN JAIL for someting as harmless as online gambling.
|3.17.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Man, wouldn't it be great is the the State of the Union Address was issued by a toll-free number, and every other caller receieved one of two messages!?
|3.17.07 @ 4:00PM|#
"Twenty million people gamble online. They just
watched the government come after something that they were having a
lot of fun doing."
Ah, but unfortunately, while those 20 million people might
not like the government sticking its nose into their online Texas
Hold-em games, I'm sure most of them don't mind the jack booted
thugs swooping down from D.C. to ban abortion, confiscate handguns,
forbid a gay couple from getting hitched, or deny a cancer patient
pot.
|3.17.07 @ 4:01PM|#
More than twenty million people download porn online. More than
twenty million people download music in violation of copyright. And
way more than twenty million people use or have recently used
illegal drugs.
Politicians of both parties consistently support measures to crack
down on these activities, but good luck forming a party around any
of those issues. The people who do these things are not likely to
publicly admit it. They may be a large group but they will always
be a silent one.
And the same is true of online gambling.
Mitt Romney|3.17.07 @ 4:19PM|#
What, does he think signing up for a lifetime membership is going to make people forget his previous political positions?
I. Self. Divine.|3.17.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Those fucking assholes
I want my Party Poker!
Nanny state bullshit.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|3.17.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Ah, but unfortunately, while those 20 million people might
not like the government sticking its nose into their online Texas
Hold-em games, I'm sure most of them don't mind the jack booted
thugs swooping down from D.C. to ban abortion, confiscate handguns,
forbid a gay couple from getting hitched, or deny a cancer patient
pot.
Converting the moron masses, one personal issue at a time.
Goldwater Conservative|3.17.07 @ 5:07PM|#
The masses will never be converted to libertarianism, or even
supportive of it, except for when it is there pet interest (many
lifestyle libertarians seem to oppose economic libertarians as if
they are pedophiles are something.)
In order to appeal to the masses there will have to be oppression.
The masses need to feel better than someone.
If Goldwaterism, Sweet rational Goldwaterism, couldn't make it, I
doubt the direct libertarianism will.
Might = Right is the paradigm of the masses. And it is hard to
establish libertarianism via force...unlike every other
ideology.
P.S.
The AnCappers are a huge liability.
Jim Murphy|3.17.07 @ 5:21PM|#
HI THIS IS WAYNE ALLAN ROOT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND I'VE JUST UNCOVERED INFORMATION THAT I ***GUARANTEE*** WILL LOWER THE MARGINAL TAX RATE FOR ALL AMERICANS!! AND YOU CAN GET IT NOW ON A RECORDED MESSAGE--IF YOUR TAX RATE DOES NOT GO DOWN I GUARANTEE THAT YOU'LL GET A DEDUCTION ON NEXT YEAR'S TAXES!! CALL NOW!!
M|3.17.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Senator Goldwater,
Unlike his extant voter,
Said "America first!"
And was unknown to have cursed.
Jim Murphy|3.17.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Man, wouldn't it be great is the the State of the Union
Address was issued by a toll-free number, and every other caller
receieved one of two messages!?
If anything, Root's experience at having an opinion on both sides
of the same issue makes him uniquely qualified to hold political
office...
SIV|3.17.07 @ 5:57PM|#
"thugs swooping down from D.C. to ban abortion, confiscate
handguns, forbid a gay couple from getting hitched, or deny a
cancer patient pot"
I hate the State as much as the next guy, but when have the Feds
done any of these things(yet)?
Did I miss something?
The last one is true in some sense I suppose.
jf|3.17.07 @ 6:07PM|#
I hate the State as much as the next guy, but when have the Feds
done any of these things(yet)?
Did I miss something?
The last one is true in some sense I suppose.
Akira's just off his(her?) nut again.
Edward|3.17.07 @ 6:07PM|#
Libertarianism is just too goofy to appeal to large numbers. Continuing to run candidates on a party platform that only a minority of loonies will ever support may seem, well, loony. So what do libertarians get out of it? Probably the same thing adherents of any religion get--a sense of belonging and the comfort of a worldview that is at least internally coherent. It's amusing that libertarians see themselves as political at all. Libertarianism clearly has more in common with religion than with politics. Being faithful to the ideology is all that really counts; actually winning in electtoral politics is for that vast sea of ordinary mortals who haven't seen the light. The Libertarian party is very similar to the American Communist party in its decline. We Americans are very fortunate that our political cults have always remained marginal.
Goldwater Conservatism|3.17.07 @ 6:19PM|#
Continuing to run candidates on a party platform that only a
minority of loonies will ever support may seem, well,
loony
libertarianism =/= Libertarian Party
libertarianism is a philosophy.
It's the same BS people try when they want Conservative to mean The
Conservative Party (i.e. the haven't been conservative since we
turned our backs on Barry GOP)
We Americans are very fortunate that our political cults have
always remained marginal.
If you crack open a history book, you may have noticed that major
parties tend to usurp the ideas of minor parties. It isn't that
libertarianism or socialism are marginal, they are just competing
within big tent parties.
I'll tell you want is marginal: Fucking classical conservatism in
the Republican Party.
D.A. Ridgely|3.17.07 @ 6:27PM|#
Hmm, what do I think of Root as the Libertarian party candidate?
Well, let's see. Here's one of his own press
releases, from which I quote the following tidbit:
An avid philanthropist, Root supports quality charities such as
The Rainbow Center in Burundi, Africa, which used his recent
donation to build "Wayne Root Stadium" - a place where AIDS orphans
can play soccer.
Hey, what's not to like?
|3.17.07 @ 6:41PM|#
P.S. The AnCappers are a huge liability.
Hey, Goldwater Conservative, which of these 36
people are you?
Hint: When you use lingo nobody else uses, a lot of people won't
get what the fuck you're trying to say.
Edward|3.17.07 @ 6:49PM|#
Hint: When you use lingo nobody else uses, a lot of people won't
get what the fuck you're trying to say.
You know, it's probably best that they don't quite get it.
Edward|3.17.07 @ 6:52PM|#
Goldwater Conservatism
You know you're marginal when you're exchanging platitudes with a
handful of fellow true believers and an occasional troll.
M|3.17.07 @ 6:59PM|#
You know, it's probably best that they don't quite get
it
Edward's
Dead words
Don't arouse
As do similar ones by Leo Strauss.
Edward|3.17.07 @ 7:05PM|#
What could be worse
than rebutting a curse
with silly,
ambiguous
doggeral
verse?
|3.17.07 @ 7:09PM|#
I like the idea of the LP having a few signature positions and
downplaying the rest. People can only remember about 3 things at
once, 5 is max.
Let's go with some combination of
Medi-Pot
Eminent Domain
Out of Iraq now
Markets for Organs
15% Flat Tax
Online Gambling
Unfortunately, Wayne Allan Root is a shmuck. You can judge a person
from their website. Ron Paul is a pimp; Wayne Allan Root's a
ho.
M|3.17.07 @ 7:10PM|#
Edward (the Confessor) -
I give up. What? Co-opting one's opponent's tactics without
adducing new, let alone persuasive, information?
Edward|3.17.07 @ 7:13PM|#
M
I accept your surrender. Who's try to persuade anybody of anything?
I'm just a visitor at your temple.
Robert|3.17.07 @ 7:19PM|#
What we didn't get here is any reason to believe that gambling supporters will have any more success inflating a powerless political party to power than they would have converting a powerful political party to their side of this issue.
jf|3.17.07 @ 7:21PM|#
People who converse with themselves in blog threads are the saddest people of all.
|3.17.07 @ 7:25PM|#
The reason they gamble online is that they find it hard to get
anywhere after having been kneecapped so many times.
The LP - All our base are belong to Tony Soprano
M|3.17.07 @ 7:32PM|#
Is scanning exchanges for their apology and surrender quotients - ie the currency of the pecking-order - characteristic of those who distrust consensual arrangements?
|3.17.07 @ 7:43PM|#
"Converting the moron masses, one personal issue at a
time."
I'm no political consultant, but probably the LP could get more
votes by avoiding attitudes like that.
It's *theoretically* possible to respect another person's rights
while having contempt for the person himself, but it's hard to get
votes that way.
|3.17.07 @ 7:51PM|#
Yes, we are VERY fortunate we have the great Democrats and Republicans as the mainstream, rrrrrrrright.
LarryA|3.17.07 @ 7:57PM|#
"Twenty million people gamble online. They
just watched the government come after something that they were
having a lot of fun doing."
And there are eighty million gunowners. Given the last four years
under Bush and the current slate of Republican candidates, they may
be looking for an alternative as well.
How many smokers are out there? (Both kinds.)
Bush received 62,040,610 votes in the 2004 election. Kerry received
59,028,111. There were 122,293,332 total votes cast; half of that
is 61,146,666.
|3.17.07 @ 7:58PM|#
Edward,
You're right that I shouldn't call it "markets for organs." People
are uncomfortable with language like that.
But we do have an artificial shortage of organs in this
country.
How about "tax credits for organs."
I know it's not pure libertarianism but once we alleviate the
shortage, we can point to that victory and say "markets
work."
Once we have enough donors, we can use them as a constituency for
liberalizing transfer regulations.
eb|3.17.07 @ 8:02PM|#
"What? | March 17, 2007, 4:17pm | #
No haiku faggots?
Stay calm. What? has voluntarily entered rehab for reeducation.
|3.17.07 @ 8:08PM|#
It's been a while since I said this here, so I guess it's
time...
The primary reason, the *overwhelming* reason why a third party
cannot gain momentum around libertarian positions is that the
electoral/legislative systems in this country make third parties
not just ineffectual but profoundly counterproductive. People ought
to be horrified that two of our last four presidential elections
went to a different candidate then they would have without the
participation of a third party spoiler. Yet we rarely hear it
mentioned, and when we do too much time is devoted to
mathematically ignorant denials of the fact, and it appears
completely taboo to suggest that there is a major flaw in the
Constitution, which should be moved into line with mainstream 20th
century voting theory.
If third parties had a chance, then of course enough people with
strong support for one or more of the aforementioned libertarian
positions could be brought together in sufficient numbers to make a
difference. The roadblock is most definitely not the inability of
pot advocates and online gamblers and entrepreneurs and general
pro-freedom ideologues to get along, it's the lack of proportional
representation in our system.
|3.17.07 @ 8:12PM|#
The scuttlebutt at church about the internet gambling ban was
that it would be God's hand at work. The belief is that gambling is
as likely as porn or drugs to ruin a christian family. It is a
gateway sin. Stop laughing, I am dead serious. I know a lot of
people that got rid of their internet access, (and some sold their
computers), when they realized what was available online. The
preacher warns against even the play money games being
immoral.
Point is, a stand for internet gambling would scare away the
christian vote before they took a real look at the party. Like it
or not, the church vote,(yes the preachers tell the folks who to
support) is a substantial number of voters.
|3.17.07 @ 8:21PM|#
a stand for internet gambling would scare away the christian
vote before they took a real look at the party.
Better stay hush-hush about the LP position on drugs and porn
then...
How about "tax credits for organs."
What, are we trying to get the musicians' vote? ;-)
|3.17.07 @ 8:22PM|#
where he bets the dog if he rings the bell...
just kiddin, and by the way,
I am not condoning the baptist churches behaviour on some things. I
just want you all to have some understanding of how a large block
of voters tend to "think" and how that can effect an LP
candidate.
|3.17.07 @ 8:32PM|#
Seriously though, as a committed Christian myself, who considers
porn and drug use immoral and gambling stupid in the extreme, I
don't see a logical reason for Christians not to accept that just
because something is immoral means it should be illegal.
In fact, in Scripture it is written that God looks with far more
approval on someone who avoids immoral things by choice, rather
than out of fear of punishment. If one believes this, wouldn't it
be more pleasing to God if Christians caused people to refrain from
gambling, porn, and drugs by persuading them to do so of their own
volition, rather than by force?
Guy Montag|3.17.07 @ 8:39PM|#
Hope you are having a great time in Florida, David!
You would not have believed your eyes in DC this weekend. At least,
I didn't for a while.
M|3.17.07 @ 8:40PM|#
crimethink - Zackly. Statists fear for the stumbling weaker brethren; so does the Grand Inquistitor. One interpretation of Judas's impatience with Jesus was that He wouldn't take Jerusalem by fiat. Chritsianity's eschatology is gradual and voluntary.
|3.17.07 @ 8:44PM|#
What do they say about Pascal's Wager?
There are a lot of Christians, myself included, who think Pascal's
Wager is pretentious garbage, a great example of false
dichotomy.
M|3.17.07 @ 8:47PM|#
crimethink - I meant, not quite ingenuously, would they outlaw it as a species of gambling.
Goldwater Conservative|3.17.07 @ 8:49PM|#
The primary reason, the *overwhelming* reason why a third
party cannot gain momentum around libertarian positions is that the
electoral/legislative systems in this country make third parties
not just ineffectual but profoundly counterproductive.
I'm sorry, this excuse never flies. It still doesn't excuse
Americans away from group think (can't vote for a third party
because the vote is a waste, the candidate has no chance, or it may
cause xxx to be elected). In our current system, so sharply
divided, a third party would only have to get 25% to be highly
effective, and 10% to be relevant.
The proportional voting and alternative voting schemes is too easy.
All it will lead to is a handful of seats from a few distracts and
more hand wringing, in addition to European style coalitions. The
fault rests with voters, not the system. When 98% of an entire
voting population only votes for 2 candidates, the system is pretty
much exempt from blame.
|3.17.07 @ 8:54PM|#
M,
Perhaps a Baptist would say that it's OK to gamble with your life,
but not with your money. I'm a Catholic, so I don't believe
gambling is immoral in itself (though, for instance, it would be
immoral for a man to gamble away all of his family's money).
|3.17.07 @ 8:59PM|#
Goldwater Conservative,
Not to mention that Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992, and 8.4% in
1996. This is even more impressive when you consider that Perot had
no preexisting party structure to help him get on the ballot in
'92.
|3.17.07 @ 9:00PM|#
I have heard a lot of folks tryin to convince people to turn to
God arguing as Pascal. "If you turn to God and it's true, you win.
If it is untrue , you have lost nothing." It reveals an intense
lack of faith.
It is my opinion that folks try to legislate christian principals
because they can feel real special about themselves. And it is much
easier than walking on the narrow path. but dont get me started on
that sermon.
|3.17.07 @ 9:06PM|#
Hey Weigle,
Are you lurking incognito? I mean don't they know you're a Democrat
spy?
D.A. Ridgely|3.17.07 @ 9:25PM|#
People ought to be horrified that two of our last four
presidential elections went to a different candidate then they
would have without the participation of a third party
spoiler
They should be even more horrified by the fact that any of
the candidates won.
Cyrano De Bergerac (as transla|3.17.07 @ 9:46PM|#
What could be worse
than rebutting a curse
with silly,
ambiguous
doggeral
verse?
That wasn't doggerel, that was the title.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|3.17.07 @ 9:50PM|#
I'm no political consultant, but probably the LP could get
more votes by avoiding attitudes like that.
The LP blows. It's a bunch of dorks that got beat up on in high
school trying to assert some sort of power over others.
|3.17.07 @ 10:01PM|#
I don't understand Pascal's wager. I don't believe in God, and
if I tried to put my money on God I wouldn't be able to.
It assumes people can pick and choose what to believe. Like if I
said I would give you a million dollars if you believed George Bush
was secretly a martian. Could you just convince yourself it was
true, all the while knowing that you're trying to convince yourself
in order to get some kind of reward?
Did Pascal believe in a God that was just happy if you went through
the motions?
|3.17.07 @ 10:03PM|#
crimethink and I are beginning to wonder:
If Big Brother had a pair of ice tongs gripping the scrotum of
every voting male and whatever pinching some equally painful part?
of every voting female, assuming Big Brother said this was good for
us, would we vote to have Big Brother stop causing us the
pain?
What if God said Big Brother is his Earthly deputy?
leviramsey|3.17.07 @ 10:07PM|#
I suppose that as scamdicappers go, Root is better than Stu Feiner or Jim Feist. That's not saying much....
M|3.17.07 @ 10:31PM|#
if I said I would give you a million dollars if you believed
George Bush was secretly a martian. Could you just convince
yourself it was true
Yup - that's how deep my skepticism runs concerning my basis for
believing that he's not a martian. After all, what do I know about
martians? But I would choose to decline your offer, because I
prefer to keep what sanity I believe I possess. But that's just me.
When the market for organs, such as the brain, is opened...
Goldwater Conservative?|3.17.07 @ 10:36PM|#
The LP blows. It's a bunch of dorks that got beat up on in high
school trying to assert some sort of power over others.
Do you have evidence they were beat up? There are few social groups
in American High Schools, so it shouldn't be hard to provide
evidence. I find it odd that a people arguing to reduce the use of
force and the size and scope of the government are trying to exert
power. Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Religion all work to
that end. Libertarianism leaves one with power of themselves and
only consensual power over another, and that is scarier to humans
that a dictatorship. For in a dictatorship one can always blame
someone else when problems occur.
The IVth|3.17.07 @ 11:06PM|#
Do Libertarians only aspire to impose their "system" at the
Federal level? I would like to pay less taxes on the profits from
my monopoly
beverage distributorship that was licensed to my Great-grandfather
by the State legislature.
If this Libertarian thing is for State and local government I must
oppose it as it threatens the family business model of %150 markup
at the wholesale level.
D.A. Ridgely|3.17.07 @ 11:10PM|#
if I said I would give you a million dollars if you believed
George Bush was secretly a martian. Could you just convince
yourself it was true?
I'd have problems believing the secretly part.
Goldwater Conservative|3.17.07 @ 11:19PM|#
Do Libertarians only aspire to impose their "system" at the
Federal level? I would like to pay less taxes on the profits from
my monopoly
beverage distributorship that was licensed to my Great-grandfather
by the State legislature.
If this Libertarian thing is for State and local government I must
oppose it as it threatens the family business model of %150 markup
at the wholesale level.
Sorry, your monopoly would most likely fall apart, since states
usually impose absurd prices for liquor licenses that impede small
start ups and competition to the satisfaction of their local
contributers. If you provide superior products for reasonable
products then local citizens will decide, by their dollars, how you
survive.
|3.18.07 @ 12:04AM|#
"Being faithful to the ideology is all that really
counts;"
So, tell us about your days in the Seminary of Supercillious
Snottiness, Eddie.
-jcr
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|3.18.07 @ 2:47AM|#
Barney steals the thunder...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/15/frank_eyes_restoring_web_gaming/
|3.18.07 @ 7:31AM|#
We Americans are very fortunate that our political cults
have always remained marginal.
Yeah, thank Jesus you got a "mainstream" president, and not a
Libertarian kook who never would have done something like invade
Iraq.
We've only lost what - 3,500 Americans thanks to you and the
politics you love. Asshole.
amazingdrx|3.18.07 @ 8:38AM|#
Wow, corporatarianism (right wing corporate feudal "libertarianism") has reduced this site to gibberish. I warned you.
David Brin|3.18.07 @ 8:51AM|#
The voters are idiots! It feels good to say that, right?
Alas, pragmatically speaking, that won't change any minds. And it
sure won't get them to vote for you!
In a market -- one of your beloved markets -- an
entrepreneur who presents the same product over and over, deriding
customers for not buying it, would be the real fool. You'd laugh at
such a fellow and tell him he deserves what he gets -- bankruptcy.
Yet, you never view your political program that way, do you?
No. Instead, it's the same lapel-grabbing doctrine.
.....
Listen to some of today's true believers rail against society.
You'd think we lived in a wretched Orwellian dictatorship filled
with bovine Democrats, porcine Republicans, and sheeplike voters,
all of them too stupid to perceive The Truth.
Alas, nothing causes these delightfully articulate firebrands to go
tongue-locked more efficiently than asking the following question:
"Can you name one human civilization, past or present, that was
even half as close to what you desire as contemporary America is
today?"
Like their spiritual cousins, radical feminists, these fellows
enjoy the indignant rush of knowing they are right. And like
radical feminists, they find it galling to be reminded how far
freedom has already come.
...
Here's a thought that might help freedom-loving men and women win
office and gain influence over society's future course: Perhaps
our fellow citizens aren't fools after all!
Isn't that the central basis for the libertarian creed? The notion
that educated free adults can be trusted with matches... not to
mention their bank accounts and votes? If the masses are
intrinsically stupid -- sheep -- then the paternalists are right
and no future society of maximized freedom will ever be
possible.
The fundamental premise of libertarianism is an assumption that
people are basically rational and wise. Yet this flies right in the
face of the most common libertarian lament -- that those idiots out
there keep electing statists and every resulting policy has been
just plain awful.
One of these two deeply held beliefs is just gonna have to
go!
My advice? Distrust the one that feels too good to be true
-- contempt. It's a delusional addictive drug, fellas and gals. Let
it go.
Consider instead the possibility that your fellow citizens have
been doing pretty damned well with the crude tools at hand. Rising
up out of the Cro-Magnon ooze, then shrugging off the tyranny of
chiefs and kings and priests and magicians and clerks and robbers
of all kinds, they have somehow managed to build the first
civilization that raised millions of... libertarians!
You, yourself, are proof that there's something right about
society. No?
So grit your teeth and then chew on this: Your fellow citizens
have been doing the best they can.
|3.18.07 @ 10:02AM|#
backfire on the GOP
Like most bad politcal ideas, it was actually pretty much
bipartisan:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/crime/20000723.asp
Vote on HR 3125 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act July 17,
2000
----------- Yeas Nays NV
Republicans 165 44 12
Democrats -- 79 114 18
Independents- 1 1 0
TOTAL ----- 245 159 30
D.A. Ridgely|3.18.07 @ 10:33AM|#
The fundamental premise of libertarianism is an assumption
that people are basically rational and wise.
Rational, maybe; but wise, Dr. Brin? Dubious, highly dubious.
In any case, I'd say "the fundamental premise of libertarianism,"
assuming there is such a thing, is that it doesn't matter
whether other people are wise or not, they nonetheless
have no right in general to coerce those who disagree with them.
That is to say, while there is a consequentialist argument in
support of libertarianism -- no comparing interpersonal utility and
whatnot -- even if that were not the case there would still be the
(more fundamental) deontological argument that what is in my best
interests is none of your damned business and vice versa unless and
until we both agree to make it so.
Two points. First, yes, our "fellow citizens have been doing the
best they can" inasmuch as that means acting (voting) in their own
subjective, rational best interests; but that is only to say that
liberty is not perceived in general as an unqualified good. People
desire security as well as freedom and are perfectly willing (we
might even claim too readily willing) to trade some of
that freedom for security, or at least the promise of security.
Indeed, that is the case even among libertarians,
anarcho-capitalists excepted.
Second, I think it is fair to assume that the overwhelming majority
of those who self-identify as libertarians would no sooner endure
the inanity that is (and, as far as I can tell, has always been)
the Libertarian Party than they would voluntarily have themselves
committed to a mental hospital. True, the LP attracts scores of the
lapel grabbing ideologues of whom you speak -- the adolescents (of
all ages) who never quite got over their political epiphany from
reading Rand or Heinlein or whomever; but, worse yet, it positively
rejects any sense of political pragmatism. "What? You don't believe
individuals should have the right to own nuclear weapons? Well,
there's no place for you here, you Nanny-State Fascist!"
So, sure, the U.S. and the West in general are (still) far superior
to the rest of the world now and the entire world historically. But
isn't the more critical question which direction our fellow
citizens are heading in and taking us along with them
now?
|3.18.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Mr. F. LeMur,
Overwhelming Republican support paired with 42% of Democrat support
is "pretty much bi-partisan"?
Nobody Important|3.18.07 @ 10:36AM|#
David Brin | March 18, 2007, 8:51am
Consider instead the possibility that your fellow citizens have been doing pretty damned well with the crude tools at hand. Rising up out of the Cro-Magnon ooze, then shrugging off the tyranny of chiefs and kings and priests and magicians and clerks and robbers of all kinds, they have somehow managed to build the first civilization that raised millions of... libertarians!
Libertarianism. So easy, even a caveman can do
it!
Nobody Important|3.18.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Mr. F. Le Mur | March 18, 2007, 10:02am
Like most bad politcal ideas, it was actually pretty much bipartisan:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/crime/20000723.asp
Vote on HR 3125 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act July 17, 2000
----------- Yeas Nays NV
Republicans 165 44 12
Democrats -- 79 114 18
Independents- 1 1 0
TOTAL ----- 245 159 30
David | March 18, 2007, 10:34am
Overwhelming Republican support paired with 42% of Democrat support is "pretty much bi-partisan"?
209 Republicans voted on the bill. 79% of them voted for it.
193 Democrats voted on the bill. 41% of them voted for it.
2 independents voted on the bill. 50% of them voted for it.
There were 245 votes for the bill. 67% of the votes for it were
Republican, and 32% of the votes for it were Democrat.
bj|3.18.07 @ 11:56AM|#
In what sacred scripture does it say that no one has a "right" to coerce anybody else? What utter drivel. The history of the human race is the history of coercion, and anybody who thinks coercion is going to disappear anytime soon is dreaming. Of course such utopian dreams have always been with us, too. They're the consolation prize for the coerced (aka the losers.)
|3.18.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Dr. Brin is worth listening to.
Read the article linked under his name.
For further discussion on the gun issue.
http://pandagon.net/2007/03/15/shooting-off-guns-and-feeling-good/
"So I woke up this morning thinking about the political aspects of
pleasure. Also, coffee. The reason is, bizarrely enough, that this
post of Lindsay's where she wisely dimissed the "home protection"
pro-handgun argument made me realize that the bad faith nature of
pro-gun arguments is one reason anti-gun people find them so
irritating. If you posit that you "need" a handgun for home
protection, you open up all sorts of debates about whether that's
paranoid, what the risks are compared to the risks of someone in
your household misusing the gun, and whether or not it's worth
spraying someone's brains all over your carpet in order to protect
your $250 TV. (Answer: no. Get some insurance.) Plus, the home
protection argument sort of ignores the fact that having a bunch of
fancy guns is one reason people get targeted for burglary, because
guns are both easy to steal and easy to get a lot of money for on
the streets."
D.A. Ridgely|3.18.07 @ 12:14PM|#
The history of the human race is the history of coercion,
and anybody who thinks coercion is going to disappear anytime soon
is dreaming.
True, as well, of arrogance and stupidity. Your point?
|3.18.07 @ 12:16PM|#
blah blah blah blabedy-blah and whether it's worth spraying someone's brains all over your carpet in order to protect your 13-year-old daughter from rape. (Answer: no. Get her some counseling.)
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|3.18.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Vote on HR 3125 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act July 17,
2000
That's not the bill that was signed into law.
|3.18.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Meanwhile, in Vermont, the rights of the individual are on the march, not being rolled back. story .
|3.18.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Graphite,
I don't think you read the essay.
But just for a quick note...
Compare
"whether it's worth spraying someone's brains all over your carpet
in order to protect your 13-year-old daughter from rape."
with
"what the risks are compared to the risks of someone in your
household misusing the gun"
On a relative risk scale, your daughter is in greater danger with
the gun in the house.
Now as a gun rights advocate, I don't think that means you
shouldn't have your gun, but use a better argument.
|3.18.07 @ 1:11PM|#
I did read the article, don't actually have a daughter but was
pretty annoyed by an attempt to trivialize home invasions as a
matter of $250 TV sets.
If you lump everyone who has guns in the house into one
undifferentiated, statistical mass -- if you treat the gunowners
who keep guns locked and hidden, but accessible, as exactly the
same as some dolt with a loaded revolver in his bedside dresser --
then yeah, I'll concede that having a gun in the house probably
increases the risk to your child. But since these statistics ignore
things like proper gun storage and education of everyone in the
household about gun safety, they're pretty useless.
I'm not going to drop the home defense argument because I believe
in the right to self-defense, I think it's a more important right
than sport-shooting, and I believe that I should be allowed to
possess reasonable weaponry to defend that right, if
necessary.
Plus I have a sweet TV.
|3.18.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Here's a blog that's chock full of people who bump the risks-of-gun-ownership statistics up a few notches: http://idiotswithguns.blogspot.com/
Dolt 45|3.18.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Graphite -
How is an unloaded and/or not-instantly-accessible weapon going to
be useful in self-defense?
If you've answered this somewhere that I've overlooked, please
don't shoot me.
|3.18.07 @ 1:38PM|#
You're right, I'm sure there's never been a case where a
criminal was scared off with an unloaded gun. Totally useless for
self-defense.
Actually, now that I think about it even more, Marcotte is making a
remarkably stupid argument here. If you truly believe that having a
gun in your house poses more of a risk than a home invasion, and
therefore cannot justify gun ownership for purposes of
self-defense, does it make any sense at all to accept that risk
because you think "shooting is just plain fun"?
|3.18.07 @ 1:57PM|#
C wrote:
I like the idea of the LP having a few signature positions and
downplaying the rest. People can only remember about 3 things at
once, 5 is max.
Let's go with some combination of
Medi-Pot
Eminent Domain
Out of Iraq now
Markets for Organs
15% Flat Tax
Online Gambling
The only one of the above which will grab people is the Flat Tax.
Eminent Domain can, but will take a strong publicity push, aimed at
the individual voter.
Out of Iraq is a nonstarter -- if you look at the poll numbers,
most people don't have a strong opinion on it, and many of those
who do have solid reasons for OPPOSING a pull-out (including
myself).
Medi-Pot will likewise take a strong publicity push, which I think
it should be getting anyhow. If we start now, it could be an issue
come election time, but it won't get there without a lot of help
from a lot of people like me, who can show that we're not
interested in so-called "recreational use" of dope (I don't even
use tobacco or coffee). In fact, it was this issue that kept me
away from the LP for many years, until I realized that the Dope War
was counterproductive, expensive and an excuse for rights
erosion.
Markets for Organs and Onling Gambling are nonstarters. If we focus
on them we waste resources which would be effective
elsewhere.
In each case, there is of course a niche constituency which SHOULD
be penetrated with the libertarian message, but for the broad
audience, only a brief mention will do more than hammering a
nonstarter issue.
Other niches include gun rights, school choice, local political
issues, and the overall Dope War incursions into our rights and
wallets.
However, if it really gets down to it, WE NEED TO FORGET ABOUT
FEDERAL ELECTIONS and work on the LOCAL offices.
In other words, if you can't walk to every house in the electorate,
it's the wrong battle to be fighting. If we take over the local
political scene, in a decade we will start putting Libertarians
into Foggy Bottom.
22-caliber skidoo|3.18.07 @ 2:00PM|#
And here I thought the primary use of a gun lay in its actual, not theatrical, use. Duh me.
|3.18.07 @ 2:05PM|#
brotherben wrote:
Like it or not, the church vote,(yes the preachers tell the
folks who to support) is a substantial number of voters.
Maybe in your church. In mine, we are told to consider the issues
in light of the Gospel, and make our own decisions in keeping with
that -- but there is no endorsement of any person for any office,
and rarely anything about a specific proposal.
For strongly religious voters, such as myself, it is necessary to
discuss the most basic principles of libertarianism, and show how
they mesh with the Gospel to a greater extent than any other
political philosophy.
The mistake that so many libertarians (including a bunch here) make
is to put up a wall between themselves and people with strong moral
bases, instead of exploring the many ways that libertarianism is
strongly moral itself, and finding ways to communicate that to
people who don't know yet.
Mike Laursen|3.18.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Root takes aim and shoots
Falling unheard in the woods
A magic bullet
M|3.18.07 @ 2:10PM|#
The mistake that so many libertarians (including a bunch
here) make is to put up a wall between themselves and people with
strong moral bases, instead of exploring the many ways that
libertarianism is strongly moral itself, and finding ways to
communicate that to people who don't know yet
I think you're right, but it may go against that bunch's morals to
do so (really).
Eric Dondero|3.18.07 @ 3:35PM|#
I can't type. I'm too busy wetting myself over Wayne Root's
potential candidacy.
And I'm a heterosexual male. So you know it's gotta be good.
|3.18.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Graphite wrote:
You're right, I'm sure there's never been a case where a
criminal was scared off with an unloaded gun. Totally useless for
self-defense.
You lose. In the vast majority of cases, no shot is fired, thus the
loaded/unloaded issue is moot.
However, I personally know of one case where a young mother
protected her daughters and a neighbor from a thug with a tire
iron. She was safekeeping it for a friend who hadn't left any
ammunition.
|3.18.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Americans can still play poker online for money. Check into it. Anyone who is that serious a player knows they still can. Oh, and it's legal.
|3.18.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Still, I think some of the resistance to treating handguns
like the toys they really are goes back to puritanical attitudes
that pleasure itself is suspect. That, and reducing a man's phallic
symbol to a "toy" is emasculating.
I've always found the post-modern-silly-ninny-neolinguist-femminst
fixation on how men are drawn to phallic-shaped objects to be
fucking ridiculous. In some instances it can be true, like Prince's
guitar in the half-time show, but alot of times I think it ignores
the fact that phallic-shaped objects are used because the shape is
the most effecient form to get certain tasks done (space ships
wouldn't be able to get to space if they where shaped like vaginas)
not to mention that about 85% of all objects are either long,
cylinderal, or some combination of the two.
Plagiarist M|3.18.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Everything's either
Concave or convex,
So that everything, everything, everything's
Sex.
|3.18.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Progressives need to start being more aggressive in making
pro-pleasure arguments as a way to combat mercenary advertising, as
well, since the mainstream discourse about the values of pleasure
is almost completely owned by marketers that argue that the main
and possibly only way to feel pleasure is to buy their
crap.
As always, Pandagon is striking all the things I hate most about
liberal idology. The purpose of advertising isn't to brainwash
people into buying products, it is to provide an image in people's
heads long enough that they remember it next time they are in the
store.
I'm watching a commerical break right now, and so far there has
been an ad for eHarmony, toilet paper, toilet bowl cleaner, (I
guess the people who watch the WE network have bad bowelsl), hair
color products, and Mortin. None of them imply in any means at all
that the people watching the ads would be unhappy if they don't use
it, each of them simply state that if the audience where to want to
use the products that they sell, that theirs is the best and most
effieient type.
And don't even get me started on how finding happiness through
materialism isn't exactly a bad thing.
|3.18.07 @ 4:43PM|#
Jonathan C. Hohensee wrote:
I'm watching a commerical break right now, and so far there has
been an ad for eHarmony, toilet paper, toilet bowl cleaner, (I
guess the people who watch the WE network have bad bowelsl), hair
color products, and Mortin.
Was that the WEE network???
And perhaps all this other stuff they need is why they also need
eHarmony, di ba?
Seriously, ads are there to program you to recognize their junk in
the store. That's why so many ads now have some little set of
musical notes set under or next to the product name as it's spoken,
and radio ads repeat the product name over and over, then the phone
number 3 times in a row. It's all PsyChrap.
|3.18.07 @ 4:44PM|#
J Golden Rockwell
It has been my experience that many mainline denominational
churches here in the deep south are full of sheep that are easily
lead,(and mislead). By coming out in favor of internet gambling,
the candidate would be putting up that wall you spoke of. I am not
saying this behaviour is correct or christ-like from the churches,
simply that this is what occurs. Some issues turn the churches away
and the churches here represent a large block of voters.
Fluffy|3.18.07 @ 4:51PM|#
I think the extremism of the Libertarian party is less useful
than it once was.
And it WAS useful, once. Back when the Republican party had a lot
of soft-libertarian positions, the only reason for a libertarian
party to exist in the first place was to define the extreme and
push it.
But that Republican party of yore is gone, ideologically and
demographically. In its place is the Evangelical Nationalist party.
You'd think they'd have the good grace to change their name, but
for some reason they want to hold on to that good old "R".
I think that means that there is an opportunity for an ersatz
Libertarian party to stake out a somewhat more incrementalist
approach than "Sell All Public Lands! Cancel Social Security!
Eliminate the Income Tax Immediately!" Even if these are good
positions, they aren't what the public is willing to accept as
possible on the first day of governance.
A set of positions are needed which are electorally possible, and
create the conditions for additional steps in the direction of
"liberty" as we move along.
I think those positions would be:
Flat Tax
Elimination of certain federal departments with their more popular
elements folded into remaining departments [Education, for
example.]
Means test for Social Security [this sets up the long term doom of
the program without coming right out and saying it]
Regulatory "simplification" [read: deregulation]
Additional free trade pacts
School Choice [got to set up the death of the public schools, again
without coming right out and saying it]
Campaign Finance reform "simplification" [read: stealth repeal].
Got to have something in there to get George Will to write nice
columns about you.
Gun control repeal
Many of these line items are in the Evangelical Nationalist Party
platform - oops, sorry, I meant the Republican party platform - but
they have no real interest in pushing them, not when they can spend
time sending people to concentration camps and handing them over to
third parties for torture and, you know, fun stuff like that.
John Kindley|3.18.07 @ 5:29PM|#
I'm still playing poker online. Also, there's a pretty interesting site, e-pokerusa.com, which offers something called Duplicate Poker (modeled after Duplicate Bridge). Because you're playing with the same cards that people in your same seat position on other tables are dealt, it's considered a skill-based game rather than a game of chance. The site operates out of New York and you can load your account with a Visa or Mastercard.
|3.18.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Seriously, ads are there to program you to recognize their
junk in the store. That's why so many ads now have some little set
of musical notes set under or next to the product name as it's
spoken, and radio ads repeat the product name over and over, then
the phone number 3 times in a row. It's all PsyChrap.
It's Head On! Apply
directly to the forehead!
Repetition sells
John Kindley|3.18.07 @ 5:55PM|#
"You need an issue that's going to grab people"
My nomination for a position that would grab people and should be a
major focus of libertarians: Recognition of our natural right to
not pay any taxes on those fruits of our labor that are needed to
establish and maintain a decent and reasonably secure life. More
concretely, no person should pay any income tax on their earnings
up to the mean U.S. household income; nor any consumption, property
or wealth taxes on the "necessaries of life," including food,
medical care, and housing.
No tax returns for the majority of Americans, following recognition
of this natural right, would certainly be a position that would
grab people.
Simian Says|3.18.07 @ 6:01PM|#
You need an issue that's going to grab people
That's what someone said to King Kong's sire.
|3.18.07 @ 6:06PM|#
Fluffy:
The only American political party which has sent anyone to
concentration camps is the Democratic Party, who cheerfully sent
110,000 "persons of Japanese ancestry" to camps in 1942.
If your reference to "concentration camps" is regarding Guantanamo,
let me remind you that those people were mostly captured IN BATTLE
(which is why the USSC decided that they are protected by the Laws
of Land Warfare). They are lucky to be alive -- each is in
Guantanamo because he is believed to be of value in the war against
terrorism, otherwise they would have been handed over to the Afghan
or Iraqi government (and likely rendered slightly dead).
The problem with exaggeration is that it leads to marginalization,
because once one thing you say is disproved, it puts all other
things that you say in doubt (think "Clinton"). It also lets you be
categorized. Once this has happened, what you say is ignored --
those on each side assume that they know your whole point, that you
are just another warm body on one side or the other. If you're
going to do that, you might as well be a Republicrat.
Accuracy at all times (even with it serves your opponent) pays off
later, when the opposition is caught exaggerating. Just as you put
more weight on the ankle that you never broke, you put more faith
in the source which has worked to be honest, letting the chips fall
where they may.
Example:
Once, during a petition drive, I was in a public debate with one of
the proponents, who was completely mangling his position through a
lack of ability to explain. I spent several minutes "cleaning up"
his side of the issue, and once he had agreed that I had given the
accurate position, including his arguments in favor, I proceeded to
shred his position by showing how what they said the petition would
do actually couldn't be done by the petition as it was worded.
After I was done, a number of people asked how they could strike
their signatures from the petition. I told them not to worry about
it -- I've never seen an issue so dangerous that it couldn't be
voted on. If it came up to a vote, they could vote against it. The
petition failed to make the signatures, and I take a certain pride
in whatever part I had in that failure.
If you are scrupulously as accurate as possible, then people WILL
pay attention to what you say. If you have a problem with
Guantanamo, express yourself, don't just parrot the catchphrases
you've heard from others.
After all, if you can't come up with your own way to explain
something, SOMEONE ELSE IS THINKING FOR YOU.
|3.18.07 @ 6:10PM|#
Simian:
"I wasn't bullets that killed the beast."
Well, yeah, actually, it WAS . . .
"You picked a fine time to leave me, Fay Wray . . .!"
|3.18.07 @ 6:17PM|#
Once, during a petition drive, I was in a public debate with
one of the proponents, who was completely mangling his position
through a lack of ability to explain. I spent several minutes
"cleaning up" his side of the issue, and once he had agreed that I
had given the accurate position, including his arguments in favor,
I proceeded to shred his position by showing how what they said the
petition would do actually couldn't be done by the petition as it
was worded. After I was done, a number of people asked how they
could strike their signatures from the petition. I told them not to
worry about it -- I've never seen an issue so dangerous that it
couldn't be voted on. If it came up to a vote, they could vote
against it. The petition failed to make the signatures, and I take
a certain pride in whatever part I had in that failure.
I see what you're saying, but sometimes things that are "clearing
things up" to you means "tricking them into making strawmen
arugments" and "being a smug prick" to others.
|3.18.07 @ 6:34PM|#
This is where it's important to be as accurate as possible. If
someone came back with the videotape and only played my own
explanation, they would be unable to tell that I wasn't on the
pro-petition side.
This is what INFORMED consent is all about. When you trick someone
into supporting you, they really AREN'T supporting you, and next
time around they will remember how you faked them out.
That's what really sunk Al Gore, if you recall. Even his core
constituency got tired of all the lies, from inventing the Internet
to being the inspiration for "Love Story." It's one thing to make
false campaign promises, it's another to toss out so many EASILY
DISPROVED lies FOR NO REASON.
If you do your best to make the issue clear in someone's mind, then
explain why your position is the best one, they either agree or
not, but either way, they have an honest, informed opinion. If they
don't agree this time, they will again remember next time how hard
you worked to make sure they knew what the whole story was, and
they will listen to you on the new issue.
Robert Stacy McCain|3.18.07 @ 6:42PM|#
Dave, I don't know anything about online gambling. But I do know
this:
What happens in Orlando, stays in Orlando.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|3.18.07 @ 7:16PM|#
I'm still playing poker online. Also, there's a pretty
interesting site, e-pokerusa.com, which offers something called
Duplicate Poker (modeled after Duplicate Bridge). Because you're
playing with the same cards that people in your same seat position
on other tables are dealt, it's considered a skill-based game
rather than a game of chance. The site operates out of New York and
you can load your account with a Visa or Mastercard.
www.betzip.com operates a monthly fee poker site where all tourneys
are freerolls.
Pretty interesting.
Guy Montag|3.18.07 @ 7:43PM|#
What happens in Orlando, stays in Orlando.
Unless you have an R behind your name.
|3.18.07 @ 8:14PM|#
The only American political party which has sent anyone to
concentration camps is the Democratic Party, who cheerfully sent
110,000 "persons of Japanese ancestry" to camps in 1942.
Ummm, actually a key player in that act was Earl Warren, then
Attorney-General of CA.
Warren was later either praised as a great civil libertarian or
damned as a bleeding heart soft on crime liberal depending on one's
leanings. He was, however, a Republican his whole life.
Like most of the bad things in this great country Japanese
internment was a huge stinking pile of BIPARTISANSHIT.
Goldwater Conservative|3.18.07 @ 8:24PM|#
I don't the LP, or libertarians in other parties, have to worry
about selling certain positions, it's about selling others. I'm not
even a Libertarian (really it's semantics at this point) but I've
found the biggest weakness within the movement(s) is that
proponents do a poor job of explaining, or brush off, what happens
on other issue. Someone voting for a (L)libertarian on the issue of
the flat tax, may want stronger gun control or oppose the rights of
people to get high.
I'm sure you noticed, especially when coming up against
self-righteous liberals, that it's always the issue at hand that is
minimized (say supporting Gay Rights) and the perceived results of
libertarianism that are hyped up (people addicted to meth, and
Grandma on the street).
In my estimation 80% of liberals are simply not debatable, I don't
know what it is, but even Christian Evangelicals are more
reasonable, because even if you can't convince them that
homosexuality isn't immoral, you can get them to budge on outlawing
it (this was a big deal in the 80's and 90's) and allowing civil
unions.
Also, only 19 percent of voters identify as liberals, 60-70 percent
identify as moderate to conservative, yet liberals are prone to
speak as if libertarians are Utopian cranks that will never appeal
to America.
I miss the days in which
this would be my favorite shirt
The Republican Party has no idea what the Old Right is nor do they
know what conservatism is. It wouldn't be so bad, except, they,
like liberals, act as if their new fangled manifestations are
actually helping America.
Goldwater Conservative|3.18.07 @ 8:34PM|#
An old poll, but shows a point I was trying to make earlier. I
don't think majorities can be won over in certain categories.
Interesting that only 85 percent of Libertarians supported it. I
assume the other 15 percent opposed regulation and taxation. I
think this is one of those issues where the issue is a non-starter
if one opposes taxation and regulation of Marijuana.
----------------
Respondents' support for marijuana law reform was strongly
influenced by age and political affiliation. Nearly two-thirds of
18-29 year-olds (65 percent) and half of 50-64 year-olds think
federal law should be amended to allow states the option to
regulate marijuana, while majorities of 30-49 year-olds (58
percent) and seniors 65 and older (52 percent) oppose such a
change.
Among those respondents who identified themselves as Democrats, 59
percent back taxing and regulating marijuana compared to only 33
percent of Republicans. Forty-four percent of Independents and
85 percent of Libertarians say they supported the law
change.
Respondents' opinions were also influenced by religious
affiliation. Nearly 70 percent of respondents who identified
themselves as Jewish, and nearly 60 percent of respondents who said
they were non-religious believe that states should regulate
cannabis, while only 48 percent of Catholics and 38 percent
of Protestants support such a policy.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6838
|3.18.07 @ 8:35PM|#
Isaac Bartram wrote:
The only American political party which has sent anyone to
concentration camps is the Democratic Party, who cheerfully sent
110,000 "persons of Japanese ancestry" to camps in 1942.
Ummm, actually a key player in that act was Earl Warren, then
Attorney-General of CA.
Warren was later either praised as a great civil libertarian or
damned as a bleeding heart soft on crime liberal depending on one's
leanings. He was, however, a Republican his whole life.
Like most of the bad things in this great country Japanese
internment was a huge stinking pile of BIPARTISANSHIT.
The order was signed by FDR. The order was not contested by the
ACLU (co-founder Norman Thomas ranted about that one), and when one
ACLU lawyer in San Francisco DID take the issue up, this caused a
rift between that chapter and the national leadership that lasted
for decades.
Yes, there was bipartisanship, but the ringleaders were the
Democrats. Isn't it ironic that the DP was pro-slavery, put the
Nikkei behind barbed wire, fought the Civil Rights Act tooth and
nail, but somehow get the minority vote year after year?
Interestingly, most of the Japanese Americans were Republicans,
including Iva Toguri (later jailed as "Tokyo Rose," then pardoned
by Gerald Ford).
Fluffy|3.18.07 @ 9:08PM|#
If we have a camp set up for detention outside the conventional
legal system, and it's not a prisoner of war camp, it's - what,
exactly?
Among the terms we have available, "concentration camp" is the one
that fits best. The term has a meaning dating back to the Boer War
and the Spanish war against Cuban revolutionaries prior to the
Spanish-American war.
I'm not going to stop using the most applicable term just because
many Americans aren't able to properly assess whether that term can
be applied to the actions of their own country, and just tune out
instead.
It's possible that the Guantanamo detainees might have fared even
worse had we simply turned them over to the sovereign power in the
area where they were detained, once that nation was in a position
to receive them. But it doesn't really matter. That would be
Afghanistan's moral problem and not mine.
What words would you want used instead, exactly?
SIV|3.18.07 @ 9:28PM|#
IB,
Hell I grew up in GA thinking his full name was Impeach Earl
Warren- thats what all the billboards said.
|3.18.07 @ 9:37PM|#
A camp set up for detention = "detention camp."
You aren't using the "most applicable term," you are using the term
which fits your political views.
In keeping with that rule, my preference for them would be
"cemetery." Very few people return to combat from a cemetery, which
can't be said about the people released from Guantanamo.
I think that Bush was wrong not to put them on trial, to solidify
their legal status. The Laws of Land Warfare apply differently to
soldiers serving their nation than to combatants fighting ad hoc,
as most of these were.
|3.18.07 @ 10:32PM|#
liberterians had a platform
that was a hard sell
the people didn't like it
and screamed "go to-
hello operator
give me number nine
and if you disconnect me
I'll kick your-
|3.18.07 @ 10:40PM|#
-Behind FDR's desk
He made one law pass
to throw the Japanese in jail
and spend money out of the-
-ask me no more questions
tell me no more lies
Nixon's in the bathroom
zipping up his-
|3.18.07 @ 10:45PM|#
Flies are in the medow
bees are in the park
banning internet gambling
leaves me in the-
dark, dark, darker than the ocean
Darker than the sea
Darker than Al Gore's version
of how global warming will be
M|3.18.07 @ 11:11PM|#
Jonathan Hohensee
Sends us zen koans. He
Writes them artistically
And minarchistically.
|3.19.07 @ 2:24AM|#
The LP will be having its national 2008 convention here
in Denver. That's superb as it will serve as a far more intelligent
counter-point to Americas socialist party, AKA the Democrats, who
will also be convening here.
BTW, Denver is second only to San Francisco in yearly per/capita
consumption of books.
Mike Laursen|3.19.07 @ 2:52AM|#
I think the extremism of the Libertarian party is less
useful than it once was.
Interesting comments, Fluffy. I never thought of the Libertarian
Party's extremism as doing a lot of damage to the libertarian
movement, but maybe you're right. Maybe it WAS useful in the
past.
Mike Laursen|3.19.07 @ 2:53AM|#
Aaargh. Meant, " I always thought of the LP's extremism as doing a lot of damage to the libertarian movement,..."
Mike Laursen|3.19.07 @ 3:00AM|#
That's what really sunk Al Gore, if you recall.
When was Al Gore sunk? He and Bush virtually tied in the
Presidential race. And he's tremendously popular with liberals
right now.
|3.19.07 @ 3:52AM|#
A Matt Stone - Trey Parker ticket would make the most sense. I
can't think of anyone else worth even considering as the next
president. The South Park creators have shown more common sense and
deeper understanding of the real world than any corrupt career
politician in Washington - ever.
Unfortunately these guys are unlikely to volunteer for the job, and
the sheep will keep voting for democrats and republicans. It's
pretty sad and hopeless...
|3.19.07 @ 4:51AM|#
I think that means that there is an opportunity for an
ersatz Libertarian party to stake out a somewhat more
incrementalist approach than "Sell All Public Lands! Cancel Social
Security! Eliminate the Income Tax Immediately!" Even if these are
good positions, they aren't what the public is willing to accept as
possible on the first day of governance.
And I suppose the next thing you'll do is call me a dupe for
believing in conspiracy theories. Right?
:)
I hear you. But it won't work without some genuine True Believers
behind it. The Offical Voice of The Party, of course, will have to
moderate them in order to get the platform to sell.
Sounds a lot like the problem we've already got. All we need are
some neo-sorta-libertarians. Which the rank and file will summarily
drum out of camp.
But if we started using haikus we might have a chance. Though as
someone said earlier, you can't have haikus without having
Zen.
to be lib-
ertarian, without BEING
libertarian
er, maybe
we are libertarain
without being LIBertarian
(we are too)
er, maybe
we want you
to vote for us now
just do it
er, shit. I give up.
we are, but
we are NOT vote for
us today
Who'd have thought that Zen haikus would save liberty in
America?
If you want to sell a platform in politics you must say something,
without saying anything.
Only then can you do what you want.
|3.19.07 @ 4:54AM|#
JGR,
If they don't agree this time, they will again remember next
time how hard you worked to make sure they knew what the whole
story was, and they will listen to you on the new issue.
Your dedication is admirable. But how come historically, the Boy
Scouts almost never win? And by the time they do, they aren't The
Boy Scouts they started out to be?
Zen looks like a better prescription to me. Your tactic is only
going to work on people who actually think. There ain't enough of
those to win an election.
Eric Dondero|3.19.07 @ 10:19AM|#
Getting back to the subjest at hand, early reports from last
weekend's LP conference have Wayne Root "blowing the LPers away."
Plus, the LP of Florida elected a mainstreamer Karl Dickey, friend
of the Republican Liberty Caucus, as State Chairman.
Could the LP be mainstreaming itself, finally?
Let's hope so.
|3.19.07 @ 11:32AM|#
J Golden says...
"it's another to toss out so many EASILY DISPROVED lies" regarding
Al Gore and the internet.
Some facts are in order.
"Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies
that he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the
seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to
communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf
Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States
Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Some reactions from those in the know to his comment.
According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI
Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The
Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the
strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice
President in his current role and in his earlier role as
Senator."
The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore
with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through
Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of
Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet
"would not be where it is today."
Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia
University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political
leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we
perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits
about inventing the Internet?"
|3.19.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Al Gore produces so much hot air, he might be the cause of
global warming.
The next and last news I want to read about him is that he's living
in the wild on recycled berries and bear droppings.
|3.19.07 @ 1:03PM|#
I'll vote for this fellow, provided that he is actually a combination of Wayne Knight and Stephen Root.
|3.20.07 @ 8:11PM|#
Rick Barton wrote:
The LP will be having its national 2008 convention here in
Denver. That's superb as it will serve as a far more intelligent
counter-point to Americas socialist party, AKA the Democrats, who
will also be convening here.
It would be more accurate to say "America's LARGEST socialist
party." There are more people registered as Democrats than as
Republicans, which is thus the second-largest socialist party . .
.but far from the last on that list.
|3.20.07 @ 8:47PM|#
Neu Mejican:
Actually, the Internet was invented in 1962, while Prince Al was
still in prep school.
The Father of the Internet was Lick Licklider (whose name I keep
wanting to misspell) of MIT.
His "Galactic Network" proposal included email, streaming video,
RAOS (remotely accessible online storage -- aka "web pages"), and
newsgroups. It came online (as ARPANet) on the anniversary of the
dedication of the Statue of Liberty, in 1969.
In fact, I believe that I was on the Internet long before Prince Al
ever heard of it -- I got there (officially) in April of 1974. This
is long before Gore came into the picture.
Perhaps the Internet wouldn't be where it is today without Gore's
influence, but that's far from saying that he "created"
anything.
BTW, "invented" and "created" are synonymous in most usage.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245