Wolf's putting her finger on it. I've been giving this some thought, as I find Radar an interesting foil/opponent, in between any offerings by either of us to tie the other one's dick into a figure-8 knot.

One thing I better clear up right now is that I am not a paid-up LP member -- yet. What I am is registered as a Libertarian voter in California. I involve myself fairly deeply in the voting process, as I'm a polls worker on election days. (I've a decision to make as to whether I should work in the county Elections division for a bit of temp work or again be a polling place's Inspector for the upcoming special election in November. They pay you if you want them to, not a huge lot, but still grownup money.)

With a body of philosophy with three major and separate streams in it, the right-, the left-, and the anarcho-libertarian, libertarianism is already an umbrella term, and here lie the shades, or the varieties, if you prefer. The individual libertarian likely accommodates ideas from more than just one of these three in his philosophy of libertarianism -- for an instance, there is a lot in Rothbard's For A New Liberty that I strongly agree with, but I do not share his (tempered) enthusiasm for anarchism as a remedy for anything that actually needs curing.

You've described the Non-Aggression Principle. I am here to say that if you want libertarianism to have real influence on Earth, you must dump the Non-Aggression Principle as here described. The Non-Aggression Principle does not serve libertarianism. It castrates it, making it not merely vitiated but sterile also.

Without the physical and mental capacity to resist the goon-squad suppressive tactics of the antilibertarian rulerships out there, libertarianism will not spread to those very places that need it the most: goon-squad country. The NAP would keep the Libertarian Party and libertarian ideals as a sort of hothouse plant ranging only within the United States, producing only a bouquet of parlor politicians. They can talk nice talk, but where's the action? Where's the effect? Concentrate more on deeds than on theoretical ideological purity, or you won't have a party. You'll have a philosophers' hobby -- and nobody makes a better world by mental masturbation no matter how good it makes them feel, okay? Not that I'm complaining about aesthetics! You need men and women of action now. Make no mistake: peace is preferable -- but there will be wars. You want a libertarian world? -- wars must not defeat the libertarians.

You need trench fighters. You need the people who can make Republicans into Libertarians and people who can stop socialist Democrats cold. Yes, I'm for the time being begging the question of how the socialist Democrats might be better converted than merely brickbatted across the bridge of the nose. But do you have these people? I've been asked myself, out of the blue, if I might consider running for the office of harbor commissioner for Port Hueneme. Talk about your long shots! I declined on the grounds that I didn't think I understood the job well enough to expect to discharge it competently if elected. IIRC the LPoC did not field a candidate for that office that year. You need people who are prepared for a protracted conflict, for conflict there will be, and it will take a steely determination to carry us through times of not much reward or even times of defeat.


I contend it is miscalling things to say Iraq is either unprovoked or a separate war -- hell, the big thing our foes have in common is there isn't a libertarian thought in their fevered heads, yet democracy, which is not antithetical to Islam, is a more libertarian sort of governance than the feudaloid despotism most of them are stuck in. Iraq is a campaign in the overall war with people whose interests and privileges are threatened if political power and its attendant economic opportunities get spread widely around in the population -- the sine qua non of a genuine republic. It's even more sine qua non of libertarianism.

Paul, in one regard I'm a better libertarian than you are: I say to you liberty is every bit as good for Yusuf al-Iraqi and Dost Muhammad al-Afghani as it is for Joe "Freedom Freak" Sixpack. I say liberty should not be confined to within the shores of North America -- in some measure because we don't have anti-liberty-by-law troubles springing from within this continent. These problems come from places where libertarianism isn't practiced, or even thought of. We can think of people who aren't remotely as freedom-minded as we are, living just across town, but these do not have the weight of the State behind them. I say we must be prepared to operate in environments where they do.

I'm a better libertarian precisely because I support, in supporting the Iraq campaign, the removal of the tyrant, even if he doesn't want to cease his tyranny. The tyrant is anti-libertarianism, personified. This means prosecuting a just war; if you're going to fight a war it may as well be a just one. The tyrant will not hesitate to prosecute a war against you. If he does it efficiently enough and you die, what then of the liberty you hoped for? Better for liberty if the tyrant dies in your place. Better for your soul if you arrange to kill him instantly rather than, say, by impalement. Impalement gives the tyrant time to contemplate his sins and appreciate his passage from this life to the next -- but it gets your soul muddy, too.

In viewing wiping tyrants off the world's slate as some kind of evil, I say you fail libertarianism: your view is too short, your ambit too narrow. Time to see what Libertarianism can do for the world. That's the greater picture.

Blue, H-Monkey, Bruce: Amazing Grace is a tune of great musical merit, and is a tune for the ages. Almost every piper on Earth also knows it -- I've met exactly one piper who didn't, and I taught it to him. The guy'd never sung it in church. Maybe he was a Unitarian or something. It's also the rock simplest tune there is on the pipes; there is precisely one spot in the tune you need to play carefully to avoid the technical error called the "crossing noise." Easy, easy, easy; not only could a piper play it in his sleep, he could play it drugged.

That aside, the tune isn't particularly funerary. Another popular tune for funerals is Dvoràk's tune sometimes called "Going Home." Contemplative, melodious, and a slow march. But the real funeral tune on the pipes for my money is "Flowers of the Forest." "Amazing Grace" can bring tears to even the most self possessed of stiff-upper-lippers, but "Flowers of the Forest," played at a deliberate pace and with schmaltz (and that's deliberate, too) can make you tear your heart out of your chest with your fingernails for grief. The tune sobs and wails, and calls for a bit of self-possession on the piper's part if played solo. It's probably easier with a trio of pipers. The tune might even have an arrangement of seconds for one of the pipers to play.

I'll attest to that. I had to listen to between 25 and 35 drunk pipers play it a least a dozen times every Memorial day. There wasn't a deer, rabbit or squirrel within 3 miles of the place by nightfall.
Oh, and all the dogs were psycho. :bonk:

Dogs who aren't living in a piper's house do often visibly dislike the sound of the pipes. I use visibly advisedly: I'm taking upwards of 90dB and maybe more right there snuggled into the instrument -- I can see the dog's mouth moving, but if he's any distance away, I cannot hear him.

I've got news for you. You're not a better libertarian than I am in any sense because you're not a libertarian in any sense. The Non-Aggression Principle IS libertarianism. It defines libertarianism. Saying the LP should dump the NAP is like saying Christians should dump all the stuff about Jesus.

Libertarianism has been a philosophy for hundreds of years. It has always been about self-ownership, personal responsibility, and the non-initiation of force for political gain or social engineering. This is the foundation of libertarian thought and libertarian philosophy. You can't take away any part of it.

Republicans are no closer to being libertarians than Democrats. If anything Republicans are even worse than Democrats. They grow government at rates even the most socialist of Democrats would be ashamed of. They violate civil rights in the name of "security", they think it's the job of America to rule the world.

You think you're more libertarian than I am because you'd misuse the U.S. military and violate the U.S. Constitution to overthrow some dictator somewhere else on earth. The war in Iraq was NEVER about setting people free, and there will always be some dictator. But the tyrant becomes us if we attack.

You're saying that if some foreign country has a form of government other than democracy, or has policies we don't like, or treats its people in a way we don't like, that alone justifies America launching an unprovoked war of aggression to overthrow those people.

What if China decided they didn't like the way Americans live, and doesn't like our policies? What if the rest of the nations in the UN agree and decide to overthrow America? Would it be ok? Would it be ok for the UN to decide America should be disarmed and to tell America they'd send in people from Cuba, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to inspect our missile silos, military bases, the pentagon, and even the whitehouse at 3am without warning?

Why not?

The answer is because America has sovereignty. No more or less sovereignty than any other nation on earth. No nation on earth requires America's or the UN's permission to develop any weapons they choose or make any policies they want or to have any form of government including non-democratic ones.

Why should the rest of the world respect our sovereignty if we won't respect theirs? The fact is America's authority ends where America's borders end. We aren't the police of the world or the enforcers of UN sanctions.

I wish freedom for every single person on earth. But before we go around starting unprovoked wars trying to free other people, how about we free American people first. Our civil rights are being violated at an alarming rate. How about we fix our own country and restore the freedom we had just 30 years ago? How about we return America to the vision the founders had where government played virtually no role in our daily life rather than getting involved in almost every part of it?

Once we do that, we'll have far less enemies. How about we return America to being a neutral and non-interventionist nation that trades with and offers friendship to all nations but doesn't use our military to get involved in their disputes?

If you as an individual want to fight for the freedom of people in Iraq, or China, or anywhere else on earth, you should be free to go there and fight to overthrow that kind of tyrrany and to accept the consequences if you fail. You should be free to send your money, guns, and even yourself if you want to free the people of other nations. Just don't use MY military to do it because the military of the United States is only for the DEFENSE of American soil and ships and nothing else.

Not one person in Iraq is defending America. Not one U.S. military member in Iraq is following a lawful order. Each and every one of them is violating their oath, and the U.S. Constitution.

The fact is you can't be a libertarian and a supporter of the war in Iraq at the same time. Those two things are diametrically opposed. Being one disqualifies you from being the other.

I just want to say that I'm enjoying this, and also that Godwin's law does not apply if someone uses Hitler or Nazism *correctly* in this thread.

Oh, also, people in the mainstream parties will have something to learn from it. Radar's take is that the party should be limited only to hardasses who believe precisely as he does and therefore half of the people in it are there illegitmately. He thinks the LP will be stronger and more successful if half the people are purged from it. If you don't agree, consider what this means to your own party, if you affiliate with one. For example, many Ds now take the approach that the party will have more appeal if it takes "truly" Democratic approaches to policy. Does this or does this not work with Radar? Hint: the L party membership is between 20-25,000.

So what you're saying is that the Libertarian party would be precisely as effective demographically after the exodus as before.

Statistically, that's true. In the LP it doesn't really make one bit of difference if they represent 0.02% of the population, or 0.01%. In the DP or RP it makes a really big difference if they represent 50% of the population, or only 25%.

Considering the outcome of the last two national elections, it doesn't take many people to become a force to be reckoned with at the ballot box......if they get organized. :smack:

Actually what UT is saying is that the LP should sacrifice our principles for the sake of growth. This would make us no better than the major parties. Our uncompromising principles are what make us infinitely better than they are. I also believe the party would grow faster if we had a unified, consistent, and clear message without factions within the party arguing over them. In other words, I'd like everyone in the LP to actually be a libertarian. Not what I personally consider to be a libertarian, but what the Non-Aggression Principle (the defining characteristic of libertarianism) considers someone to be a libertarian.

UT is trying to make me out to be some twisted, hard-nosed, guy off the deep end but in fact the exact opposite is true. I welcome all libertarians to the party. And I'll work with non-libertarians outside the party on areas we agree on and work against them where we disagree. I'm a big tent libertarian. I just insist that everyone in the tent is an actual libertarian.

If the LP message had more continuity and consistency, people would be more apt to join the party. If I went to a store where I asked 2 employees to describe the products they sell, and got 2 entirely different and conflicting answers, I wouldn't buy that product. If I went to another store and got the same description of the product no matter who I asked, and it sounded like a product I wanted (freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, prosperity, etc.) I'd buy it without question.

Everyone should know that the LP stands for smaller government, personal responsibility, pro-choice in all things, and is against the initiation of force for political gain or social engineering.

Those who disagree with any part of that have no valid place within the LP. The purpose of the Libertarian Party is to carry out libertarian philosophy. Libertarian philosophy is based on the Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership.

Whether or not the LP would be more or less effective is debatable, but our message would have more clarity, consistency, and continuity. Everyone would know exactly what we stood for. I think it would bring us far more members and better qualified candidates. I believe it would help us in the long run.

You need not sacrifice YOUR prinicples.

You think for some reason that there is a coherent philosophy based on the NAP. That's sad.

No, it's not sad. It's a fact. What's sad is you aren't educated enough or libertarian enough to realize it. The Libertarian philosophy is coherent, and is based on the NAP. It's been around for longer than many other philosophies.

I was Libertarian enough. I got smarter and studied more things. Applying the NAP as a complete philosophy is a joke.

What does the NAP tell you about epistemology?

What does it tell you about the existence of a supreme being?

Why do educated, 100/100ers use it to arrive at entirely different conclusions on the law and abortion?

100/100 people don't arrive at different conclusions about abortion. All libertarians support the SOLE DOMINION of each person over their own body and the organisms growing within it. NOBODY else on earth or anywhere else has any say in the matter. To question the life and death decisions someone makes with regard to the organisms living inside their body is like questioning the life and death decisions of a supreme being over the people on earth (assuming you believe in one).

Nobody who supports using the force of government to prevent or punish someone for any decisions or actions they take with their own body or the organisms within that body are a libertarian.

What does the NAP tell you about the nature of knowledge itself? Just that it's not up for us to determine what others are to know, or how they can know about anything.

What does the NAP tell us about the existence of a supreme being? Just that it is up to each of us to make that decision for ourselves, and nobody else on earth has any legitimate right to force you to believe in a particular supreme being or lack thereof.

Precisely. Epistemology and origins, the central questions of other philosophies, and the NAP tells you nothing.

Now let's get political. What does the NAP say about one's responsibility to society?

Epistemology is the basis for many philosophies, but not all, and maybe not even most. Libertarianism is an ethical philosophy, not a philosophy that searches for meaning or knowledge. There are many types of philosophy and you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Not all philosophies are about the quest for truth or the nature of knowledge.

One does not have a "responsibility to society". One has a responsibility to themselves. The term "society" refers to a collection of individuals. Society has no rights. Only individuals do. Society isn't owed anything.

The rights of a single person are equal to those of all other people on earth combined.

Nobody on earth has the legitimate right to initiate force against others (especially for political gain or social engineering), but they do have the right to use force against those who have initiated it against them.

Yes, yes we know.

I'm not talking about a responsibility to government here. I'm talking about a responsibility to society.

Libertarians are fond of noting that, when there are blackouts, people just don't enter into controlled intersections just because there is no red light. They proceed with caution. So, would you say that you have a responsibility to proceed with caution if a light is out? Or can you simply bust through the intersection at top speed without guilt? What does the NAP tell you about that?

I wasn't talking about a responsibility to government either.

The Non-Aggression principle means that we don't have a right to physically harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property and they don't have the right to do that to us. If we do harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property, they are within their right to use force against us or to hire agents to do it for them.

If we approach an intersection with the light out, we don't have a responsibility to "society" to proceed with caution, but we do have a responsibility not to harm or endanger those particular individuals in the intersection. If refusing to proceed with caution would endanger them, we'd be compelled to proceed with caution or face the consequences.

If there were nobody at the intersection for miles, we'd have no responsibility to slow down. If we chose to speed through an intersection because we didn't see someone, but we hit someone anyway, we'd be criminally responsible for our negligence, damage, harm, and endangerment we've caused.

Undertoad covered all the essentials of any reply I'd make, and concisely.

A difference between Radar's thinking and mine is that I'm more interested in the global betterment I think Libertarianism shows the potential for than in ideological purity. The ideological purists, of any party that actually has them (more characteristic of US third parties than the Big Two), tend to be the very worst thing to come down the pike for any society they exert themselves on if they are placed in power.

This is why I don't buy Radar's litmus test nor nor his "Christians without Christ" analogy. It does not serve Libertarianism. It may satisfy a certain mindset, but as for me, I have a wider vision and don't mind saying so.

If you actually want libertarianism to happen, don't make the party hostile to growth.

You're just a bully with a new name, no better than Mao, Stalin and Osama.
Firmly convinced you know what's best for everyone else and willing to spend other peoples lives to force your utopia on the world.
Anyone that doesn't share your view is stupid and/or brainwashed and their views certainly not worthy of consideration.
You can't even see that since the beginning of time millions have willingly chosen Chiefs, Kings and even Dictators.
Your "wider vision" is laughingly myopic. :lol:

OK, so the NAP tells you that you have a responsibility to certain anonymous individual people, but not to "society".

So, now, let's say that you know the intersection will be down for a week because it needs extensive repair. And let's say your neighbor runs that intersection at 100 MPH every single morning on his way to work, because he believes he has no responsibility to anyone. And let's say the intersection is a half-block from an elementary school.

Do you have any responsibility here? What does the NAP tell you about it?

In this situation, nothing has changed. It doesn't matter how long the intersection is down or what speed he was going.

If people are present, and he's endangering them by speeding through the intersection, he's criminally liable. If he plows through a bunch of school kids or road workers, he should die for his actions and all of his possessions should be sold and the money given to the families of those he killed.

Each of us has a right not to be harmed or endangered by the actions of another person and none of us has a right to harm or endanger others through our actions. If someone does harm or endanger us, they have violated our rights and a crime has occurred. A crime has only occurred when the rights, person, or property of a non-consenting person are violated.

If the same neighbor drove through the intersection at 150 mph at 2am on a Saturday night, during the summer time when there wasn't a person for miles and nobody was physically harmed or endangered by this (not a residential street), he would not have committed a crime.

There is no entity known as "society". Society is nothing but a logical grouping of individuals. Society has no rights, only individuals do. Society is no more important than the individual. The wants of millions are less important than the rights of a single person.

But you have not answered my question. Do YOU have a responsibility here?

Actually, you don't buy the litmus test (Non-Aggression Principle) because it excludes you. And the reason it excludes you is because you're genuinely NOT a libertarian. You don't buy the Christians without Christ example because it makes absolutely perfect sense and you have no argument to refute it.

I am not making the party hostile to growth. I am merely refusing to sell out our principles for the sake of growth. This is exactly what the major parties did, and why everything is screwed up in America. They sold their souls to get in office and promised they'd change everything when they got there. When they did get there, they OWED the politically influential and wealthy special interests who paid for them to get there. They have always worked against the best interests of Americans and for the best interests of others.

Growth merely for the sake of growth is worthless. Growth while adhering to our principles is slower but more respectable. The Libertarian Party is THE ONLY way to achieve liberty in America without a bloody and violent revolution.

Bruce nailed you perfectly. History is replete with examples of people who thought they could make the world a "better place" if they could just kill all the people they think are bad, and use force to enforce their own vision of what was best for them. They've always been arrogant bullies like Napoleon.

All of the empires ever made or ever to be made have crumbled or will crumble because you can't change people's minds with force. Though if you use force against them, you can unite your opposition and entrench the ideas you are trying to fight.

Do I personally have a responsibility if my neighbor is speeding through an intersection and endangering or harming people? No, I don't. But I do have a responsibility to protect myself and my own family. As such, I'd most likely volunteer my assistance to those who were harmed or endangered in apprehending and punishing the criminal.

So -- via the NAP -- you not only reject government solutions, but also the notion that there is a resonsibility towards voluntary charity that nine out of ten Libertarians say would replace government solutions.

No. Via the NAP, I reject government solutions because they are funded by force, fraud, and theft and because they don't help those in need as much as private charities. I wouldn't have a RESPONSIBILITY to help those in need, but I would have a desire to help them. And because my money wasn't being stolen by government, I'd be able to afford to give more help those in need through private charity than I do now.

It's not charity unless it's voluntary.

The fact is many people don't give to charity because they mistakenly believe that these failed government programs must be helping someone and even if they did want to give, they've had so much money stolen from them by government, they can't afford to give as much as they'd like. Even if 1/3 of the money collected by government for social programs like welfare, medicare, public education, social security, etc. were donated privately, the benefits to those in need would double.

If government suddenly ended each and every one of those programs, private donations would skyrocket to help those in need because people who normally don't donate would not longer assume it was being handled by government, and they'd dig deep. Americans are among the most generous people on earth when people are in need. This would be especially true for our own people.

So do people have a responsibility to help those in need? No. But most people have a desire to help those in need and would do so if given the opportunity to choose what to do with their own money rather than having it stolen from them. Responsibility means obligation. It denotes a lack of choice in the matter. We have a choice. Some people will choose to be greedy bastards, and some will choose to be generous to a fault. The point is the choice is ours, not "society's".

Still, the NAP philosophy tells you have no responsibilities (and yes, no obligations) in a situation where you know your neighbor is endangering children.

No, it tells us we have no responsibilities that we don't willingly choose for ourselves. My neighbors have every right to stop him if he is endangering their children. They also have the right to appoint agents to help them. If my neighbors ask me to help and I agree, I can choose to stop this man, but at no point am I under an obligation to do so, unless I enter into some sort of contract with the neighbor for instance if they hire me to stop him.

The NAP does not say we don't have obligations and responsibilities, just that those can't be forced upon us.

There is much it "does not say". Other philosophies consider how to determine truth and how to determine beauty. How does the NAP come down on these items?

Why does one philosophy have to cover every facet of your life?
That's like one set of rules for baseball and football.
And what does your political philosophy have to do with beauty?
Come to think of it, what does politics have to do with truth? :lol:

We're just trying to figure out how much it applies to.

Back to the neighbor, let's say your friends appoint agents to operate for them and stop the guy, but he says he was driving in a safe manner, and appoints bigger agents with bigger guns to represent him. In the NAP, who decides which side is right?

The NAP doesn't prevent having a judiciary

A judiciary decides who's right. Who's on the judiciary?

Hopefully non-partial judges who are familiar not only with the rule of law, but with natural law. One that knows the limitations on the powers of the government and one who knows government may never have any powers that we as individuals don't have to grant to it.

Who decides who is on the judiciary?

The last time I checked, some judges were elected, while others were appointed.

What does the NAP tell you about who is on the judiciary?

It says they were either elected or appointed to judge to settle disputes, and to fairly and ethically determine whether or not a punishment fits a crime when a jury finds that a crime has been committed. Again, a crime has only been committed when the person, rights, or property of a non-consenting other have been physically violated, harmed, or endangered. The judge and jury also have a duty to judge not only the merits of the case, but also the fairness of the law itself.

The judiciary is elected or appointed. What if the judiciary does not act in accordance with the NAP?

Is that when we get to put them up against the wall, shoot them, and start over?

Under the NAP, what if the judiciary does not act in accordance with the NAP?

I suppose then you don't vote for him next time, or you don't vote for those who appointed him. If his actions are overtly egregious, I suppose you could try to get him disbarred, or fired. If he is using force to violate the rights, property, or person of someone who has not committed a crime (as defined earlier), I suppose you could use force or violence in your own defense against the judge or those following his orders, though I tend to try to solve things peacefully until violence is used against me. Then I don't care whether you're wearing a uniform or not. Nobody is above an ass kicking.

I'm sorry, are you talking about now you as a NAP user, apply yourself to the present government? Or are you talking about the government that would result from application of the NAP? I am more interested in the latter.

Government is merely a tool. Its legitimate powers are limited to what rights we as individuals possess to grant to it and which have been outlined by our Constitution.

You asked me what we'd do if judges (presumabely in a government that is expected to adhere to the NAP) failed to act in accordance with the NAP. I responded with what I'd personally do.

If your question was what government would result if the government didn't adhere to the NAP, the answer is we'd have the government we have right now.

An improper government, to be sure.

What does the NAP say, then, about how you get to a NAP-Approved gov't, without which there will be a guaranteed level of improper force applied? And what does it say about how to maintain that level of NAP-Approval?

Would that be NAPpiness?

I think it says, we have a duty to keep a very watchful eye on government and never to allow it to step beyond its extremely limited authority lest we end up with a government that violates rights instead of defending them. We can't let government exceed it's limited authority even for what we believe is a good reason, because it opens the door for others to overstep the bounds for bad reasons.

I've told you before I believe you're thinking too narrowly. And if I were not a Libertarian, how could Murray Rothbard have had such an effect on my thinking? Were I not a libertarian, I should have rejected his ideas and turned to others, I should think. What I am is not your sort of libertarian, though this prospect does not trouble me.

More like it's internally logical than that it is so perfectly sensible. As for the reason I don't buy it, reread my above.



And the growth of the Libertarian Party demographic has been what? We've been around since 1974. We're still at one half of one percent, somebody remarked up there. There's something we could be doing better if we want libertarianism in America or anywhere else.

Yeah -- Our Enemy, The State. This is, however, a counsel of despair.Just how in hell are you going to have any libertarian influence in anything if you give in to these counsels? You want libertarianism to happen? Best you learn how to win some more elections. That's probably going to mean stumping for Libertarianism Lite. This won't satisfy either the libertarian purists or the LP's philosopher princes, but a struggling third party should always be attentive to politics being the art of the possible. It's a long road to the full goal.

There's a difference between being patient and rationalizing inaction. Taking up all your collective time with ever-more-esoteric debates on Libertarian quiddities is the plague of third parties like ours. That is developing not a political party but a debating society whose primary effect is to determine who's "more Libertarian than thee." How about some policy proposals to campaign on, of such caliber as to be salable to the great grubby electorate, even in all its fickleness? A robust political movement should be visible on the American landscape by now: we've had over thirty years. Didn't it take the early Republicans less than ten years to seat a President?


And since when have the obdurate slavemakers deserved anything better than a swift death? If they forswear slavemaking and slavemindedness, excellent, for their lives are saved thereby -- but does not humanity have to turn away from unfreedom in order to be free. Considering that humans in general will fight like dogs to gain or keep power, they are going to need pretty substantial motivation to surrender privileges they think power secures to them.

Then be especially careful to avoid even the semblance of arrogant bullying of your own, in your spirited replies. The people I think are bad, you also think are bad. When those bad people are in a position to try and snuff out libertarian ideas in their bailiwick, they present libertarianism with a difficult problem. Tyrants do not fall because benevolent philosophers radiate moral indignation at them; they fall by the bullet. But fall they must, if you want libertarianism in any form. And you know it won't be homogenous.

How many times must I repeat that I understand this? What the force is for is to remove the obstacles presented by the antilibertarianists, of whom tyrants are the malignant form, and the least curable by calm and reasoned argument.

The fact that you agree with some of what Murray Rothbard says does not make you a libertarian. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of libertarianism you want to believe in and still be a libertarian. What if someone says they're a Christian but they don't believe in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" or "Thou Shalt Not Steal"?

What you are is a Republican who happens to agree with libertarians on a few issues. You're a dishonest person who claims to be a libertarian. Don't worry, there are plenty of other dishonest morons out there like Eric Dondero. You and him would be good buddies. He lies about being libertarian and also badmouths the party.


No, it makes sense internally, externally, and in every other way. It's irrefutable and your position is untenable.


The growth of the party has been slow, but it would have been much higher if we didn't have so many non-libertarians like you claiming to be libertarians so people get mixed messages. Many people don't know what a libertarian is because they hear non-libertarian war-mongers like you claiming to be one. If we had a unified, clear, and absolutely libertarian message being said the same way by everyone, we'd have more people joining the party, and more people giving the party.

There is no "libertarianism lite". There is libertarianism, and there is everything else. Having continuity in our message and our delivery will help us grow by leaps and bounds. Getting people like you to stop falsely claiming to be libertarian is one way to accomplish that.

If you were a member of the LP (which you've said you're not), you'd have signed the pledge that you will NEVER initiate force for political gain or social engineering, and you'd be violating that pledge if you supported the wholly unconstitutional, unreasonable, and totally unprovoked war in Iraq.

It's not our party. It's MY party and the party of real libertarians and that excludes you and your ilk.

The Republican Party got lucky and it was 145 years ago. Lincoln was the first guy they ever got elected and what a winner he was. He murdered 600,000 people, violated the Constitution, started the first income tax, violated habeas corpus, told the Supreme Court to fuck itself, etc. Lincoln should be remembered along names like Pol Pot.

Times are different now and a lot more dirty. That's why the Republicans fit in so well. They are filthy scumbags and thrive on dirty politics and dirty money. They love to work against the principles that built America and made it great.

I'm sure if the Libertarians sold our souls, and started taking dirty money, and violating our principles, we'd get elected pretty quickly too. Would it be worth it? Not at all.

The LP is guilty of anything other than inaction. We do a tremendous amount considering our resources. We've had our candidate on the ballot in all 50 states for the last presidential elections. Well 3 because the state of New Hampshire has a bunch of people like you who lie about being libertarians called the FSP who didn't file the papers even though we had enough signatures. They were at a fund raiser for the Republican Governor.


Since when are you or the U.S. government imbued with the authority to make that decision?

More idiotic, jingoistic, claptrap in an effort to disguise your bloodthirst and desire to commit unprovoked murder while calling it "defense" because YOU decided they are "slave makers" or "evil".

Really? You think of yourself as bad? You think of George W. Bush and all who support the insane and unconstitutional war in Iraq as bad? You think of anyone who makes excuses for murder in the guise of "security" is bad?

I am ready to take up arms and stand up against anyone who would try to snuff me or libertarianism. Tyrants do fall by force, and we should use that force against our own tyrants. It's neither the duty, nor the prerogative of the U.S. government to rid anyone else of their tyrants or to dictate how people will be treated in other nations.



You can repeat it until you die, but it will never justify your support of launching unprovoked wars and committing murder in the guise of security. It will never be America's job to police the world, determine the policies and forms of government of other nations, to settle disputes among other nations, or to overthrow the "tyrants" of nations that have not attacked us.

How many times must I repeat that? How many times must I repeat that you can't be a libertarian and an Iraq war supporter at the same time.

I can find no better sentence to illustrate the wrongness and futility of your thinking on this. You are preventing the growth and effectiveness of libertarianism. If you want libertarianism as much as you say you do, it's OUR party. Don't talk yourself into not having an effect on history because you got excluded. That would be [dramatic O'Reilly pause] ridiculous.

And to move the topic from "Are not!" "Am too!" -- just how much governmental intervention and governmental power is one willing to accept to guarantee the Non-Aggression Principle's force?

Our own tyrants? I ain't convinced we have any. We've got wannabes, not effective tyrants, thanks to the American habit of keeping power limited in both scope and time. Even the worst the regrettable Bill and Hillary Clinton could manage was "tyrants manqués."

I can think of no better way to tell you that you are not a libertarian. In fact you are very anti-libertarian. I'd love the party to grow by leaps and bounds, but I'd rather have it destroyed completely if it means allowing those with your jingoistic, backward, views into the party merely for the sake of growth.

We want all the libertarians we can find, but if you don't support military non-interventionism, neutrality in all disputes, and never initiating force against those who haven't used force against you, especially for social engineering or political gain such as overthrowing nations you don't think are up to snuff.

If the party never ever grows but keeps out bullies who don't recognize the sovereignty of other nations, and who want to misuse the U.S. military like you, I'll be a very happy man.

Yesterday while at the quarterly Executive Committee Meeting for the Libertarian Party of the state of California, I had to fight it out with a few of your ilk. But in the end with 5 minutes to go, I got enough support together to pass a resolution against the war in Iraq. We had three peace resolutions and the 2 better ones were shot down, but when they tried to close the meeting I forced it on the agenda.

Here's the wording of the one that passed:

That's why I didn't vote for Badnarik last general election -- he wouldn't have been able to address the evil that is totalitarianism. The sort of thing contained in that resolution leaves tyrants unmolested, and an unmolested tyrant will do everything in his power to stymie libertarianism. Who in the LP would want that?? Ridiculous.

I say again it is hardly Libertarianism to leave slavemakers in their stations. People under tyrants are unfree. Libertarianism is all about freeing the peoples, or it is about nothing at all.

You either have a political party that does something, or you have a debating society where the philosopher princes of the LP don't actually do any libertarianism, but lose themselves in contemplating its beauties. I think you know what I want to see.

And I cannot, after thought, bring to mind any such Constitutional requirements as the resolution references.

None.

We have no tyrants? Tell that to the people in Iraq who were murdered by the Bush regime. Tell it to Americans who have been locked up without charges or access to a lawyer and kept in jail for years. Tell it to all of America who have had their civil rights attacked. Tell it to the families who lost their bread winners in an unconstitutional war started by a military deserter. Tell it to the families who lost thier bread winners and who have become homeless because of the drug war.

Tell it to me, who was arrested on tax day for handing out pamphlets on government property, which I'm entitled to be on and my activities are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The United States is responsible for tyrants within our borders, and nowhere else. The Military of the United States is for defending U.S. soil and ships and nothing else. The limited authority of the U.S. military ends where the U.S. borders end. The limited authority of the president doesn't include any war making powers.

I wish freedom for all people. And if you want them to be free so much, send your money, guns, and even yourself there to help fight for their freedom. But whatever you do, don't use the U.S. military to do it. You can get together a militia, buy a bunch of guns or other weapons, and organize a resistance in those nations, and I will applaud your efforts. But the second you use the U.S. military to attack anyone who has not directly attacked American ships or soil, you and I are going to have a big problem and it might get ugly.

Everyone who is genuinely a libertarian would want it. This explains why you don't...because you are NOT a libertarian.

I say again, you're not in a position to say what is or isn't libertarianism because you're not one and don't seem to ahve a clue about it. People under tyrants are unfree. I wish them freedom and I hope they can overthrow their tyrants as we did. I think people who want to fight for their freedom should be allowed to do it as long as they don't use the U.S. military to do it.

We do have a political party that does something. We get people elected to reduce the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of our own government and demand that it adhere to the limits placed on it by the U.S. Constitution. We change public policy in our own country and hope for others to do the same.

The U.S. Constitution (The highest law in the land)says that ONLY Congress has war making powers. This means if we are going to take part in a war, it must be declared by Congress.

Breaking a tyranny is not the action of a tyrant, Radar. It seems to me more the action of an anti-tyrant.