Larry Elder Abandons Libertarians?

Matt Drudge is reporting in a one-liner on his front page that radio talk show host Larry Elder is contemplating a run for elective office, and has switched his voter registration to Republican. If his show is any guide, what he switched it from was the Libertarian Party. Perhaps announcing your allegiance to the LP is one more thing you can't say in America.

Comments

[Brett Cashman]

I suspect Mr. Elder's decision to run on the Republican Party ticket is a result of the perceived electability of third-party candidates in general, and not due to "the Libertarian Party" having become some kind of dirty word.

And let's face it: the LP has, over the last several years, come to resemble a debating society and a sideshow attraction far more than a credible political movement interested in electing legitimate candidates to public office. I make no judgements about the lifestyle decisions of folks like blue skin guy, but people like him do not inspire voters to take Libertarian political candidates seriously.

[Bern]

We've already scheduled our first two fund raisers here in Centersville, Ohio

[PLC]

"Perhaps announcing your allegiance to the LP is one more thing you can't say in America."

Not if you want to get elected to anything, anyway....

[max power]

Yeah, pretty much the only press that the LP has gotten in the past year has been blue skin guy and that jackass from New York with his "Toy Guns for Tots" campaign. Best to go the Ron Paul route if you actually want to win...

[JDM]

Let's not forget the Druid that ran for Governor in California.

[Buck Hicks]

I don't get to listen to the Larry Elder show but I heard him being interviewed about six months ago and he was asked whether he was a Libertarian or not. He said he shared many ideas with the Libertarian party but he did not belong to it.

[J.Babbit]

To get elected to anything you need MONEY -- lots of it. Where's that gonna come from? Surely not from a checkbox on your 1040, is it?

[Edd Tollet]

Elder isn't a libertarian. He supports initiating force against nations that are not an imminent threat and have not attacked us.

[geophile]

Oh, there is a "chill wind" a blowin', RS, yes indeed.

[RS]

Edd Tollet is of course correct, which is why no sane person can be a pure libertarian - unless they're suicidal or have some plan to cover the US with some sort of protective dome, leading away from any notions of free circulation of people and goods anyway.

[BC]

Protective dome? Yes! Yes!

[ron]

RS - thats a reference to elder's book "the 10 things you can't say in america"

dipshit.

[Anthony]

So Elder said he wasn't a member of the LP? Perhaps he's registered "Decline To State", or whatever his state's equivalent is, and would prefer to have the backing of a major party before running for office. In California, one had to be a memeber of a party for about 12 months prior to the election to run in the primary, and the rules for getting on the primary ballot aren't as hard as getting onto the general election ballot as an independent.

Do you really think he could win a Dem primary?

[Edd Tollet]

Iraq was never a serious threat to the United States. Choosing not to beat up 3rd rate countries is not suicidal. Harry Browne is correct, the US seldom picks a fight with countries sporting a formidable military.

[Charles]

Elder has sauntered to the conservative side of the spectrum lately. For Christ sake, he had Ann Coulter on and didn't jump her nuts about... well just about anything she's ever said. I fear we've lost one. But he was a good one while he lasted.

Farewell Sage, we hardly knew thee.

[Lefty]

Funny how, when forced to choose, the LP's fall to the GOP side which seems, on balance, less interested in freedom and liberty than advancing a very tight, dogmatic agenda. I just hope Elder remembers where he came from when it comes to being whipped into a vote for something he has a principled problem with.

[Plutarck]

"...the GOP side which seems, on balance, less interested in freedom and liberty than advancing a very tight, dogmatic agenda."

The GOP? I thought you just described every major establishment political party in the First World.

[Croesus]

Plutarck,

How are your lives? 🙂

Do libertarians as a rule favor Republicans, and if so, why? Is it due to the perhaps more inventionist history of the Democratic party (or at least the perception that is the case)?

[Michael Wagner]

"some plan to cover the US with some sort of protective dome"

Yep. Made of tin foil.

[gae]

Although I'd rather Larry Elder seek office on the LP ticket, I can respect his decision to do otherwise so long as he doesn't abandon libertarian principles. Ron Paul is a good example of what's possible.

I did send this message to Elder last night after seeing the Drudge item:

Dear Mr. Elder,

Matt Drudge is reporting, with no elaboration, "SYNDICATED AM TALKER LARRY ELDER CONTEMPLATES RUN FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE; SWITCHES VOTER REGISTRATION TO REPUBLICAN PARTY..."

If true, that's wonderful news! As a fellow libertarian, I offer my sincere best wishes for your success.

I'm afraid you are certain to hear from other libertarians, especially LP members, who will be unhappy (and likely worse than that) if you seek office as a Republican. The heck with them! I believe that if you hold elected office you would do your best to advance the cause of liberty. If working within another party helps you get there, then so be it. Just ask Ron Paul.

[RS]

DOH! Dipshit je suis, Ron. And thickheaded at that. My apologies to BD.

For what it's worth, economic policy is probably central to Elder and most candidates which would put him more in agreement with the Republican side. On most other issues, both sides want to legislate the hell out of us, just in different ways, for different agendas, ie abortion - advantage Dems, guns - advantage GOP, etc.

[Brennan Stout]

Glad to hear Larry is taking up the opportunity to achieve public office. If there is anything we need more of it is people like Larry who are not afraid to say what they have to say to communicate.

Good Luck Larry.

[RS]

"one more thing you can't say in America"
Looks like Doherty's trying to join the Sarandon/Robbins Party - soon we'll be seeing him on every channel telling us how he's being refused the the right to express himself.
Good luck with the gig Brian.

[thoreau]

Croesus-

For some reason, Libertarians do tend to think of Republicans as the "lesser evil." I'll be the first to admit that if you want lower taxes and less regulation of business you should vote Republican. BUT, those lower taxes won't lead to lower spending (the GOP loves debt) and the deregulation is likely to be selective and favor cronies.

And I'll be the first to admit that you'll get more speeches railing against Big Government from Republicans. BUT, they'll still try to spy on you with Total Information Awareness.

And sure, the GOP will talk a good talk about how Clinton shouldn't have meddled in the Balkans. But don't expect the GOP to start bringing troops home from around the world.

And I'll grant that the GOP talks a lot about less power to Washington and more power to the states. But every time California tries to make its own decisions the GOP Congress and White House put the kibbosh on it.

My personal take on it: If we have a Democrat in the White House and the GOP in charge of Congress, we can count on the GOP to mount effective opposition every time the Dem in the White House tries some shenanigan. But as soon as Bush II became President the GOP Congress swooned all over him. Anything he wants is just fine, and the Dems are either too weak to oppose him, or else they like it when he wants more power for the federal government. The only time the Dems mount effective opposition is when Bush tries to cut taxes or nominate pro-life judges. And since neither party is interested in supporting those tax cuts with spending cuts, I'm pretty agnostic on the question of "Pay big taxes now, or pay big taxes later when the interest on the debt is due?"

So, basically, the GOP likes Big Government as long as it's being run by their guy, since they seem to think Bush is an annointed savior or something.

[Micha Ghertner]

I'm not familiar with the election laws in California, but here in Georgia, libertarian talk-radio host Neal Boortz can't run for public office unless he quits his job. Does anyone know if this is true elsewhere?

[B.Clinton]

Micha, California talk-radio host Ronald Reagan ran for public office after he quit his radio job. You should know.

The worst thing imaginable is a politician with free reign over a microphone and the air waves.

[jc]

Everybody loves Larry -- but will the current core of whacko evangelical, collectivist, warmongering, statist, protectionist Republicrats now propping up the Busheviks feel the same?

[Dantist]

http://www.pur.gen.az/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1052625554

[Micha Ghertner]

Thanks, uh... Mr. Clinton.

I actually did not know that. I was born the week Reagan was elected, so I was unaware that he had a radio show. Thanks.

And as for a politicians with free reign over a microphone and the air waves, it wouldn't be such a bad thing if it was a politician I liked. By the same token, there's nothing wrong with democracy as long as the majority agrees with me. 😛

[Lefty]

Truth be told, anybody having access to a wide ranging radio or TV show has the base to be a candidate for public office. At least half of eligible voters don't vote. Jesse Ventura, a pro rassler and shameless self promoter triggered the highest voter turnout in modern Minnesota history. It felt good but laid the groundwork for government deadlock and a disastrous current fiscal situation that could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, had some governing occurred four years ago when all this was foreseen.

The danger is of someone of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Tim Robbins' ilk getting bored with their day gig and wanting to make real history at the national level. Politics, like plumbing and carpentry, is serious business with bad consequences when fucked up. It shouldn't be left to any rock star with a microphone and a media contract.

[Nicolas Martin]

Based on the foolhardiness, corruptability, and irrelevance of the LP, it should be something even a libertarian shouldn't say. Nothing in the past 20 years has harmed libertarianism more than the LP. If the party doesn't soon dissipate the very word "libertarian" is in danger of becoming a joke.

[RS]

Sheesh, at least I know I'm not the only one who can mistakenly read something too literally and react like a thickheaded dipshit.

[James Merritt]

LP Sux says, "yet I read in my local GOP newsletter quotes from CATO analysts, see a quote from Milte Friedman, notice a mention of Hayek...etc. and I watch C-SPAN and see Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican libertarian..."

Nobody disputes that the GOP are good at talking the talk, and gulling freedom-seeking citizens to vote for them on that basis. But do they walk the walk? Have the Republicans ever actually made net government smaller in your lifetime? How many of the "Contract with America" reforms were ever passed, and of those, how many survived until the present day? Do we not hear GW Bush himself supporting the misnamed, silly, and anti-freedom "Assault Weapons Ban"? Weren't we supposed to get more freedom the very moment that the GOP controlled Congress and the Presidency? Where is it? The GOP's libertarian leanings have all proven to be lip service, in the past thirty years that I have been paying attention to elections. No more chances, no more excuses.

You bring up Ron Paul, who is routinely targeted for defeat by his "own party" during the primaries, and given only grudging support during the general election. I think that Paul took the path of least resistance: he knew that his ideas and candidacy were viable, but that he could best defuse GOP opposition and court Texas voters by running as GOP, whereas he would have been hammered on all sides by running as a third-party, independent, or even a Democrat (not to mention the clash between his value system and the Demo platform). But how many GOP pols point with pride to Dr. Paul? Not many, at least not in public. Were it possible for him to win without being GOP in his district, I think he might give it a go, and this is one of the reasons why a third party needs to exist and become strong: so that people like Ron Paul and others of similar mind and intrinsic electability will not themselves have to choose the "lesser" of two evils for a campaign vehicle.

"Join your local GOP, get your libertarians friends to join, and presto...you have done more for liberty than any of the idiotarians who infest the LP." -LP Sux

That's what the Justin Raimondo/Pat Buchanan crowd were saying in the 1990s, when they were trying to get the GOP Presidential nomination and soliciting libertarian assistance in doing so. As in previous proposed Libertarian "assaults on the castle," that one went down in flames, and soon afterward, we saw Buchananites attempting the same strategy (to success, this time) with the Reform Party as the target. (Unfortunately, the Buchanan campaign imploded, taking the Reform party along with it, so I am very glad that the LP -- under the maligned Harry Browne, interestingly enough -- avoided the poison pill of taking federal campaign finance dollars; else they might have been a more tempting target for some other non-libertarian opportunist.) Some Libertarians I know, who bought the "work within the system and strike a real blow for liberty" line in the "Go Pat Go" days, came back to the LP, or went independent -- at least those who weren't burned out and disillusioned from the apparently hopeless struggle.

I know of Libertarian government officials who have eagerly presided over the downsizing or elimination of their own elected or appointed government offices. I know of Libertarians who have refused to increase their pay, given money back to the government, or taken no pay at all, to make clear that it was their intention to reduce the size and power of government, not suckle from it. I know of Libertarians who have successfully fought growth, and, despite serving alongside government-growing Demos and Republicans, managed to cut their little piece of government back in significant ways. How often do you hear of GOP or Demo politicians doing that?

As far as whether a political party should be ideological in nature, I think it is very important for a strong, strongly ideological party to exist in competition with the non-ideological, Coke and Pepsi parties. I think it is doubly important, when the idology in question is "freedom." SOMEBODY has to hold the entrenched parties' feet to the fire, and the only way to effectively do that is to present a serious electoral challenge. When the Demos and GOP start going after the LP, as they appear to be doing now, this suggests to me that such a challenge to the power structure -- or the imminent perceived threat of one -- does exist. In that case, more support for the LP seems called for, not less. The duopoly is driving us over a cliff in ever-accelerating slow-motion for the past several decades. In order to change the course, something has to break the duopoly. If the LP is making a difference, enough to draw fire from the duopoly, then it would make more sense to me for those who love freedom to push on the lever that seems to be having an effect: join the LP, or at least don't be afraid of investigating LP candidates and voting for them if they seem like good people. If you think that the LP includes "idiotarians," then get involved yourself and render them irrelevant by your own effective effort.

By the way, to JimN and anyone else who has done the same, thanks for voting for libertarian candidates. That JimN didn't vote straight libertarian seems to indicate that, after investigation, he found candidates he could actually, positively support among libertarian ranks. I hope that is true, and that we all find more of such people on the ballot in future elections.

[LP Sux]

"Nobody disputes that the GOP are good at talking the talk, and gulling freedom-seeking citizens to vote for them on that basis. But do they walk the walk? Have the Republicans ever actually made net government smaller in your lifetime?"

They are not an idealogical block. They are a big tent, a viable forum for libertarian ideas. The fact that they actually can make policy and yet give lip service to the ideas shows how persuasive the ideas are.

" No more chances, no more excuses."

Great job marginalizing yourself. You are just to lazy to bother to sell your ideas in the marketplace, which makes me wonder how much your believe in libertarianism! It is really easy to get 5-10 people LPers talking about libertarianism like it is a D&D session, but totally ineffective.

"That's what the Justin Raimondo/Pat Buchanan crowd.."

Pat is not a libertarian and Raimondo is a tinfoil hat wearing supporter of child molestation. Given that it is hard to beleve Justin ever left the LP, as they tend to welcome freaks of all kind. The rest of us will continue working for liberty in the real world because we understand that liberty must be grown organically and through consensus.

You LPers can do what you wish, but if you insist you have any more impact on the real world than a Star Trek convention or a Dungeons and Dragons game, I reserve the right to laugh in your face!

BTW- Tell Harry that I want my $35 back. My 1999 LP dues may have given him "freedom in an unfree world" but stealing from your fellow Party comrades is pretty despicable.

[James Merritt]

JimN says, "I have to disagree that Browne's problems were 'very minor.'"

I said they seemed very minor in comparison with the kinds of things that go on in the two big parties (yet these people end up running our government, just the same!); I didn't say they were minor from the point of view of a party that touts its own adherence to principle. Thus, I think that it is inappropriate for Browne to be the party's standard-bearer in any future election. That would seem to be punishment enough, unless you think the evidence shown so far forms the basis of a winnable civil or criminal fraud/embezzlement case. I looked at the charges and the evidence as published, and things looked pretty tame to me, as political scandals go; certainly not rising to the level of litigation, much less criminal prosecution. But scandal it most definitely seemed to be, in the context of the public image that the LP seeks to cultivate. Your mileage may vary.

I have to say that I think people would have judged Browne a lot less harshly, had he achieved his stated goals of 1M+ votes or massive growth of the party, or even if he had broken through to the debates. All the parties with ANY money at all are, at one time or another, profit machines for their movers and shakers. It's not right, imho, but it happens. The reason you don't hear so much about this kind of thing in the media is because people seem to be willing to forgive a lot of chicanery if the result is a win, and almost none if the result is a loss. The Demos and GOP win often enough that the money issues tend to get swept under the rug, below the media radar; such things happen often enough that the media don't even seem to consider them news, unless the scandal is sufficiently egregious.

The good news is, because Browne didn't win, and in fact disappointed a great many people with his electoral performance, the Browne questions were raised and examined, changes in party personnel and procedures were made, and the rank-and-file were disabused of any illusions they might have had that "it can't happen here." In that sense, the Browne incident seemed, in my view, to serve almost as an INOCULATION against future shenanigans. I'm not saying that clever operators won't find ways of gaming the organization in the future, but maybe we're sadder but wiser now. At least, we'll be collectively wiser if the old-timers who remember the facts stick with the party and don't abandon it to newcomers who have no sense of party history, and so will be doomed to repeat, or even inadvertently improve upon, the mistakes of the past. When Larry Elder cozies up with the GOP after a long period of friendliness to (and often outright promotion of) the LP, the signal often taken is that the LP -- either the party itself or the third-party approach -- is a lost cause. I think it is a mistake to jump to either conclusion. The party is only as good as the people in it. If you don't like the way things are, YOU can change things for the better. If you think that third-parties in general are a waste, you're certiainly on firmer ground, historically speaking, but the attention paid to hurting the LP by the Demos and GOP in recent years makes me think that perhaps the third party strategy is having some measure of success, so giving up on the LP now would be very unfortunate timing, indeed (or fortunate, for fans of the Demos and GOP).

[S. Carpenter]

"Politics, like plumbing and carpentry, is serious business with bad consequences when fucked up."

Please do not insult the carpentry business. Politics IS a fucked-up business to begin with. Bad consequences are its trademark M.O.

[Jim N]

Interesting that James brings up Harry Browne. That asshole is one of the reasons I'm not a member of the LP.

[Faust]

Dantist, I have only one thing to say to you:

PURGEN - @-@-di-(4-oksifenil)-ftalid, xroniki q?bizlik zaman? istifad? olunan, i?l?dici x?susiyy?tl?rin? g?r? antiqlikozidl?r? ox?arl??? olan v? ?sas?n yo?un ba??rsa?a t?sir g?st?r?n madd?dir.

There! Take that!

[A.Gore]

Micha, what's wrong with democracy when the majority doesn't agree with you? What's wrong with democracy when you're in the minority?

[geophile]

Comparisons of any kind between use of teargas in a law enforcement operation and the vicious murder of thousands of innocents are backward and silly. Any further discussion on this is absurd.

A scandal involving the de facto leader (or any member) of a third party is more damaging to that party than a similar situation would be to a major party. When scandals arise, purges are necessary, and the Libertarians have not done this. One of Harry Browne's cronies in his scandal (Michael Cloud) recently ran for John Kerry's senate seat here, and is dating the recent candidate for governor (Carla Howell). I'm sorry to say that I voted for Cloud, but only because I knew he wouldn't win, and because I was against Kerry. Howell was a poor candidate with little appeal. At this point I don't feel comfortable voting for any Libertarian candidate. When a situation in a major party comes up, at least I know I'll have the media to tell me what's up. Nobody is policing the Libertarians, and so I have no way of knowing who they are as people, only what they claim to be.

[thoreau]

On how libertarian the GOP really is or isn't, and on how libertarian the Dems may or may not be:

The GOP definitely talks the talk on economic freedom and gun freedom. They even talk a little of the talk on civil liberties and occasionally foreign policy.

The Dems definitely talk the talk on civil liberties, sometimes foreign policy, and even free trade now and then.

However, the GOP as a whole does a poor job of walking the walk. The GOP has many excellent individual members, but as a whole they are all too eager to give George Bush more power at home, and the leadership shows no signs of reining in federal spending.

A tax cut today that leads to huge interest payments tomorrow is only slightly better than no tax cut and no interest payments on the debt. A much better situation would be a tax cut AND a spending cut.

Since the GOP is unable to restrain any of Bush's bad ideas, and they're unable to match his good ideas (tax cuts) with spending cuts, maybe the best solution is a GOP Congress and Democratic President, to keep the checks and balances in place. Giving the whole thing to one party or the other is a bad idea.

Final thought on Dems vs. GOP: The left wants to tax me. The right wants to arrest me.

[James Merritt]

LP Sux says, "They [the GOP] are not an ideological block. They are a big tent, a viable forum for libertarian ideas. The fact that they actually can make policy and yet give lip service to the ideas shows how persuasive the ideas are."

No, it shows how much the public is willing to be fooled and led around by the nose. If the ideas were really persuasive, they would persuade people to wake up and actively vote for candidates who would do more than pay the ideas lip service, whether those candidates were in the GOP, Demo, Green, Libertarian, or Tinfoil Hat parties. Indeed, I personally doubt that the GOP faux-libertarian rhetoric actually attracts that many voters to their "big" tent. In fact, the tent is shrinking with every election cycle -- same for Demos -- as is shown by party registration and electoral participation statistics. Talking the libertarian talk seems more a dodge to keep the growing number of disaffected republicans from bolting parties or dropping out of the system altogether. I think the latest bad-mouthing of the LP by GOP, and any efforts the Republicans make to grab high-profile, self-avowed Libertarians like Elder, are similar attempts to keep GOP voters from bolting, rather than to entice LP members or unaffiliated, libertarian-leading voters to join the GOP. It doesn't look like the parties will get many of the unaffiliated or non- voters in any case. Third parties have the most to gain -- numerically, at least -- from the non-voters, and from defections away from the major parties. If ALL the LP voters went back to the main parties, it would be just a blip. If every LP voter were joined by a turncoat Demo or GOP member, it would likewise be a blip, though it would double the strength of the LP! But even that much of a blip might be enough to spoil some races, or even make the LP a contender or winner in others. Thus would the dam begin to crack and burst. Can't have that, can we? Gotta put a stop to it, by any means necessary. Speaking of "by any means necessary..."

"Pat is not a libertarian and Raimondo is a tinfoil hat wearing supporter of child molestation..." -LP Sux

I have always said that Pat was no libertarian, although Raimondo and others straight-facedly painted Pat as the "best hope for libertarians" at the time. Yeah right: Tell me another Grimm tale. While I have never been an admirer of Raimondo, I really think that LP Sux is abusing the power of anonymity that his screen name provides here. Calling Raimondo names from behind a mask does not advance LP Sux's case, and in fact only serves to cast suspicion on it and the author.

Did the Reason folks go to an off-site meeting and temporarily abandon "Hit and Run"? Or has the word come down that we need more "knock down, drag out" flame wars here to spice things up and increase the eyeball count? Has Reason gone tabloid, at least in its online incarnation? If not, where's the adult supervision?

[LP Sux.]

"The Dems definitely talk the talk on civil liberties"

this is a joke right?

[LP Sux]

"While I have never been an admirer of Raimondo, I really think that LP Sux is abusing the power of anonymity that his screen name provides here."

My anonymity shouldn't be an issue. I take issue with Raimondo himself wrote:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j012203.html

Yes it hyperbole is to say he "supports child molestation" but Raimondo is very sloppy with his facts and is more guilty than anybody in the realm of name calling. He is excatly the type of dweeby weirdo that infests the LP.

As for the rest of your post, if you can't stand the heat....

[andrew]

whoever said we needed a cur in spending:

First, i completely agree with you. NO benefit can come to economy withou a tax cut and corresponding cut in spending( those god damn keynsians dont know what they are talking about). Secondly, lets face it; an revolution is the only way we can accomplish a libertarian state. The state secedding argument wors well but look at california whe the fed sued them for growing harmless pot. Anyway. fuck them all adn cheat on your incopme taxes, taht is the only way to maintain some freedom

andrew

[Anonymous]

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9167/justlies.html

[thoreau]

LP Sux:

The Dems do "talk the talk" on civil liberties.

But they sure don't "walk the walk" (with a handful of notable exceptions).

Talk is cheap. Walking can get you tired.

[LP Sux]

"The Dems do "talk the talk" on civil liberties"

Sure, if you consider welfare a "civil liberty," or privacy, or health care, or education...but they don't seem to give a damn for ammendments 1-2 (hatecrime/thoughtcrime laws, gun control, etc)

[James Merritt]

"Yes it hyperbole is to say he 'supports child molestation' but Raimondo is very sloppy with his facts and is more guilty than anybody in the realm of name calling. He is excatly the type of dweeby weirdo that infests the LP." -LP Sux

I'm glad you're willing to admit the hyperbole. I don't know how sloppy Raimondo is or is not with facts, but I have been on the other end of his name calling, years ago when he was trying to undercut my "pro LP" stance; still, the fact that he engages in a behavior doesn't mean you should too. For instance, if the GOP were jumping off a cliff and taking the country with them would you go along too? Oh, I forgot: you ARE!

I disagree with you on the second part of your statement, as I've met a broad swath of LP members in 20 years, including a large and growing number of "regular folks," especially among the ranks of candidates. While it is true that "dweeby weirdos" exist in the LP, that is also true in the Demos, GOP, Greens, and other parties. The major parties want to perpetuate the dweeby image, of course, as it helps quash competition, while the media go along because it makes for good "quixotic loser" human interest stories during campaign season. As the LP has grown, the demographic ratios have changed, however to the point that I think neither your statement nor the common cliche holds true today, if either ever did.

"As for the rest of your post, if you can't stand the heat...." - LP Sux

Well spoken, for a fellow wearing an asbestos suit. I do believe you are making my point for me, so there's nothing more for me to say: I am going to sit back and relax for a while, and let you do all the work. I want to hear from others as well. I particularly appreciate thoreau's points, and agree with geophile that the LP needs to police itself more effectively. I think the latter is, however, a reason to get involved with the LP and try to improve it, rather than abandon it for a bloated, corrupt old organization that was way beyond redemption in the 1960s. As far as final straws go, the election of Nixon marked the end of the GOP as anything but a lip servant to liberty, as far as I am concerned.

[Anonymous]

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0503/0503conslib.htm

[geophile]

Jim N, I am totally with you on that, though it'd take a bit more for me to join the party than for them to simply dump Browne. Last year he, with serious intent, compared the use of tear gas in the Branch Davidian standoff with Saddam Hussein's gas attack at Halabja. Two words: Jack. Ass.

[Micha Ghertner]

A.Gore,

The problem with democracy is that there is nothing sacred about the will of the majority. When the majority votes to violate the rights of the minority, it is just as wrong - if not worse - than when rights are violated by a tyrannical dictator. Lord Acton put it best,

"It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist. But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason. "

[rover]

Great job James.

"LP Sux" keeps calling names at the "nerds"
like the scrawny friend of a bully.

While you continue to reason clearly
and politely.

[J. Wollstein]

"If people are going to try to get me to play the game of "least of evils," then I'll still end up voting Libertarian, because, as political sinners go, those guys are angels, compared with the Demos and GOP."

But don't expect to WIN anything, Mr. Merritt. Because with all this back-biting and infighting, you're only making fools of yourselves. (No wonder Larry Elder left.) You guys are like a bunch of old hags, cackling away. For what?!

Remember how the thinkers at the first constitutional convention behaved . . . Take a lesson from them. They grabbed that magnifying glass, FOCUSED it, like a laser . . . compromised a little here and there, sure . . . but they made sure they didn't SCATTER their purposes all over creation -- like you guys are doing here.

The result: They WON!

[James Merritt]

JimN hurls fairly crude insults at Harry Browne, while Nicholas Martin offers that the Libertarian Party has been the biggest source of harm to the libertarian movement in the last 20 years.

Is Martin a Reason staffer? I ask because I have read almost identical words from Reason writers and former Reason people (notable example, Virginia Postrel in her own blog), so I certainly get the idea that there is no love lost between the Reason crowd and the Libertarian Party. Bias noted. Maybe Martin just picked it up by hanging out at this website.

JimN feels that Harry Browne is a "jackass" for comparing Saddam's use of (US-supplied!) gas against Iraqis, with the Clinton/Reno treatment of the Branch Davidians at Waco. In either case, people were injured and killed. In either case, the harm and death that ensued need not have happened. In both cases, the government was attacking citizens on questionable pretexts, when the case could be made that neither group of persons was any real kind of threat to the power structure (at least, not until they were made "martyrs" by that same power structure!). We expect this kind of thing from brutal bully-boys like Saddam, but it ought to be shocking to the point of outrage when it is perpetrated by the American President. So was JimN outraged by Waco? And if he didn't support the Libertarian Party and Libertarian candidates when they spoke out about the incident, what did JimN do to communicate his outrage to elected officials in Washington? It's not enough to slap Clinton and Reno on the wrists and even turn them out of office. Sooner or later, someone else will come along to abuse power in a similar way. (Some people argue, for instance, that Bush and Ashcroft have only picked up where Clinton and Reno left off.) Whatever their faults, the Libertarians stand for taking easily abused, exceessive power from the government, and keeping government busy with its basic, fundamental functions, so that there is little opportunity for it to abuse the power that remains. This is the heart of the issue, and this is the exact opposite of what the Democratic and Republican parties do when elected, regardless of what they say on the campaign trail.

So, if you don't give the Libertarians any help, if you think that the LP contains jackasses who act counterproductively to the aims of the "libertarian movement," yet you KNOW from ample experience of the past several decades that the old, entrenched parties will never address the real problem, what will you do, what CAN you do to help make this country's government behave in a more libertarian fashion?

I'd be a lot more impressed with the opinions of those who so quickly put down the Libertarian Party and its candidates, if they had anything constructive to say. Despite all invective and abuse heaped upon them over the past thirty years, the LP has at least persevered to enjoy a steadily rising number of members in office -- hundreds are serving right now, including city council members, mayors, county supervisors, school board members, and even a sheriff in Colorado and a district attorney in California. This is a weak showing when compared with the Republicans and Democrats, to be sure. But it is orders of magnitude better than any other third party has been able to accomplish during the same period, precisely because the Demos and GOP have written the campaign and election laws to favor themselves and lock out any competition. More importantly, the elected libertarians have been able to make a real difference -- opposing and defeating taxes and wasteful government spending, mitigating or eliminating zoning oppression, upholding rights to privacy, free speech, religion, and so forth. Finally, I have been pleased to see routine RE-election of libertarians in the past decade or so -- despite opposition campaigns that often make the libertarian's views an issue -- thus confirming that a libertarian approach IS compatible with real-world government and that people frequently like the taste of libertarianism. After the voters get used to seeing libertarians around in local offices -- as many are, by this point -- it will be only a matter of time before those same libertarians move on to the state capitols and Washington.

Personally, I think it is BECAUSE that time is near, that we are beginning to hear more insulting things about the LP from Demos and GOP alike. No third-party can be allowed to demonstrate any chink in the armor of the (extra-constitutional) "two party system. In California, in particular, the GOP is especially weak and vulnerable, which must stick in the craws of national GOP leaders and GW Bush. The GOP here has already mounted at least two previous campaigns to marginalize the state LP and bring LP and LP-leaning voters "back" into the Republican fold (on the questionable theory that libertarians are more naturally at home in the GOP than the Demo party). The gloves appear to be off for this campaign season, so let's see what happens.

[Jim N]

James:

1. I didn't make the comparison between Waco and Iraq. I didn't even know about it.

2. I am not a Republican or Democrat. In last November's elections I voted in eight races. Four of the votes were for Libertarians.

3. My problem with Harry Browne has to do with that little bribery issue. You know, paying off party leaders with campaign funds to support his campaign for the LP presidential nomination over other LP candidates. How often does he discuss that on his radio show? Three cheers for "The Party of Principle."

[LP Sux]

" yet you KNOW from ample experience of the past several decades that the old, entrenched parties will never address the real problem, what will you do, what CAN you do to help make this country's government behave in a more libertarian fashion?"

yet I read in my local GOP newsletter quotes from CATO analysts, see a quote from Milte Friedman, notice a mention of Hayek...etc. and I watch C-SPAN and see Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican libertarian. Your pro-LP arguments are as lame as the dumbshit lie that the "Democrats are more really libertarian." Voting for the LP is as stupid as setting up libertarian colonies on Mars, starting Galts Gulch in Vermont, or whatever harebrained fantasy the "hard-core liberanarchists" are pushing nowadays. (question: do you anarchists use governemnt roads? government power or water? how does it feel to be consistant about your hypocracy?)

The US two-party system is non-idelogical! Join your local GOP, get your libertarians friends to join, and presto...you have done more for liberty than any of the idiotarians who infest the LP.

[LP Sux]

"The danger is of someone of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Tim Robbins' ilk getting bored with their day gig and wanting to make real history at the national level. Politics, like plumbing and carpentry, is serious business with bad consequences when fucked up. "

BAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! only someone with a nickname of "lefty" would be sooo paranoid that O'Reilly will somehow run for office. Lefty, everyone knows that O'Reilly is an ENTERATAINER, including him.

[James Merritt]

"1. I didn't make the comparison between Waco and Iraq. I didn't even know about it." -JimN

I went back and reread the thread, and it was indeed geophile who talked about Waco vs. Saddam, in answer to your post. I do apologize for the misattribution, but now I hope that geophile will answer the questions I mistakenly posed to JimN. I also don't think, however, that tossing around words like "asshole" and "dipshit," used liberally in this thread, increases its entertainment or information content.

"3. My problem with Harry Browne has to do with that little bribery issue. You know, paying off party leaders with campaign funds to support his campaign for the LP presidential nomination over other LP candidates. ..." -JimN

I also am troubled by the financial-ethical questions that were raised concerning the Browne campaigns for President in 1996 and 2000. This is one of the reasons I think that Browne shouldn't attempt to run again on the LP ticket. On the other hand, his "sins," as I read about them in Liberty magazine and elsewhere online, seemed very minor, at least in comparison with "big boy politics," of the type we read about every day in the papers and see on TV. Because I think that the LP can and should do better, as the "party of principle," I think that Harry now best serves as an advisor, pundit, and promoter of libertarian ideas -- all of which he does on his radio show. I especially like the grilling he has given to several would-be LP Presidential candidates recently. He made them squirm a bit, but that is nothing like what they will face on O'Reilly, Meet the Press (if they ever get that far), etc.

The kind of thing that Harry is accused of doing, the swamping of the NY party by the Howard Stern crowd, and the hijacking of the Reform Party by the Buchananites for the federal campaign finding warchest (after the attempted hijacking by the Natural Law Party!) are all things to which smaller parties are probably more susceptible than larger ones. I guess whether the LP deserves to be called the "party of principle" will depend on whether the leaders learn the lesson and use principle to infom future conduct. I'll certainly be watching. On the other hand, if people are going to try to get me to play the game of "least of evils," then I'll still end up voting Libertarian, because, as political sinners go, those guys are angels, compared with the Demos and GOP.

[Jim N]

I have to disagree that Browne's problems were "very minor." It appears that what he did was not even in the name of winning office. As far as I can tell, he treated the LP as a profit machine, enriching himself and his friends with campaign funds.

Why is this man still accepted as a member of the party?

[Anonymous]

"As far as I can tell, he treated the LP as a profit machine, enriching himself and his friends with campaign funds."

What do you expect from a Randian?

[Jim N]

James, I am a big fan of Justin Raimondo -- in the same way that people are fans of Baghdad Bob. Could you please elaborate on your experience with him? Is there a link?

[b2b supplies]

industrial catalogs gas heater b2b supplies business buy industrial catalogs gift box b2b supplies business buy industrial catalogs hand tool b2b supplies business buy industrial catalogs storage container b2b supplies business buy industrial catalogs truck part b2b supplies business buy industrial catalogs water filter b2b supplies business buy industrial catalogs water pumpb2b supplies business buy industrial catalogs b2b supplies business buy

[20gb ipod]

nice site ipod 4gb

[Minarich Christopher]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://online-sports-gambling.best-gambling.biz
DATE: 01/20/2004 10:07:31
Without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods.