This is a work in progress. The original (text in black) was written by Mike Renzulli and adopted by the LP of Arizona.
We are working on a final version which we hope that LP National and all state and local parties adopt.
WHEREAS American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with
the world, and conduct foreign policy based on the enlightened
principles of non-intervention as espoused by George Washington and; and
Thomas Jefferson
[Susan Hogarth] I also would
leave out the references to George Washington (definitely) and
Jefferson (maybe). Washington was no libertarian, and only looks like
one because the crap in office now is so appalling they’d make
Alexander Hamilton blush for shame.
WHEREAS the United States government should return to its historical
libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, foreign
quarrels and imperialist adventures, while recognizing the natural
right to unrestricted trade and travel; and
WHEREAS the United States has intervened in the affairs of Iraq and
Afghanistan, nations that neither directly attacked nor threatened
America, and our invasion of their sovereign territories is an attempt
to impose our values on people in other lands; and
WHEREAS such overt hostilities are immoral and contrary to the
principles of the philosophy of libertarianism and the Libertarian
Party; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of the United
States demands that the President of the United States and U.S.
Congress act to immediately end the occupations of Iraq and
Afghanistan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Armed Forces of the United States have
the full support of the Libertarian Party of the United States. We
believe that the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces will better
ensure their safety and create a more manageable situation for the
governments of Iraq and Afghanistan to maintain civil order; and
I also am not a fan of the ‘we support the troops’ language. I PITY
them (on a good day), but I damned sure don’t SUPPORT them. They are
engaged – willingly! – in unlawful and immoral acts!!! Let’s stop this
pandering to warmongerers.
–
Susan Hogarth
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of the United States
calls upon the United States Congress to impeach President George W.
Bush for lying to the American public about the reasons for invading
Iraq and Afghanistan; violating the War Crimes Act of 1996, the 4th,
5th, 6th and 8th Amendments of the Bill of Rights and Article 1
Sections 8 & 9 of the United States Constitution by allowing the
illegal surveillance of American citizens; approving the illegal
torturing of prisoners of war; sanctioning the holding of prisoners of
war without formal charges, legal representation or a trial by jury;
invading sovereign countries without a Congressional declaration of
war and illegally using government funds for domestic political
propaganda related to the war on drugs; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED we also call for the cessation of covert or
military activities of the United States government geared towards
directly or indirectly provoking hostilities with the Republic of Iran.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the passage of this resolution will be
communicated by the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of the United
States to the President and Vice President of the United States, the
heads of both Congressional chambers and all major national news media
outlets.
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Todd Andrew Barnett
Speaking for myself:
1) I generally agree with Susan about GW and TJ. I’m not a big fan of conflating the US founders and constitutionalism with libertarianism.
2) I think we should work on the “support the troops” statement a little. Many good people have come to the realization that the war is wrong while they are there, or even always opposed it but felt they had to join the military for financial reasons. Breaking their military contract is not always a realistic option for many of them. Even the ones who have been duped into supporting the war, or hold no opinions on the political issues and are “just doing their job,” are not the ones responsible for the policy or the ones benefiting from it. It’s true that some troops are sadistic pieces of shit, but I don’t believe they are a majority.
I think we should find some way of expressing our support for the average, non-piece of shit troop, while making clear that this does not mean we support the actions of those of them who are willingly engaged in war crimes.
Suggestions for the best way to word this are welcome.
Hmm, after getting rid of the references to the Founding Fathers that provide an extra amount of legitimacy to your position with the average reader and removing language that shows support for those in harm’s way who have taken an oath to defend the country and the Constitution, I can’t think of anything to improve it.
Oh, almost missed the impeachment language. Always good to throw that in.
Seriously, you show disdain (if not outright contempt) for Jefferson, Washington (but willing to crib his ideas), Americans in the armed forces, and the current President. Why would anyone who has not already reached this level of cynicism support this resolution?
Personally I think that the resolution should call for Bush’s arrest and that he be charged with violating his command responsibilities.
How’s that?
MHW
” We further resolve to raise millions to run candidates who will make this resolution unnecessary. Then our ‘demands’ can be put to proper use. ”
The point was to ascribe the principle of non-entangling alliances and intervention to Washington. If only he read Ayn Rand, he’d be more libertarian now . . .
A neutered platform ought to fix these things. Ugh.
MHW,
Good idea.
I also think he should be charged with numerous counts of murder, criminal racketeering and conspiracy, and crimes against humanity. After being convicted and prior to being hung by the neck til dead, he should be thrown in general prison population with no protections.
Mr. X,
We’re not cribbing anyone’s ideas, and would any decent human being not show disdain for the current white house resident?
Eric,
Please elaborate?
i’m not sure that the president should be tried for any war crimes or anything else. as far as i know, he hasn’t hurt anyone. it’s the cops, agents and soldiers who are the aggressors.
i might be convinced otherwise.
The short version, by Angela Keaton, was the version the LNC failed to consider at the last meeting. The compromise solution was to remove the “Iraq Exit Strategy” from the LP website without comment.
zrated,
Leaders bear responsibility for the actions of those who follow their orders.
Your petition for the release of Charles Manson from prison is duly noted.
I like Angela’s language. A lot. it’s simple and straightforward and addresses one issue at a time. Today, Iraq. Yesterday, Afghanistan. Tomorrow, Iran.
It distresses me that having the LNC -say nothing- on such an important current issue could be considered the compromise position to having the staff dream up and introduce non-platform-compliant ‘positions’ and hawk them under the auspices of the LP.
Bring back the Advertising / Publications Review Committee!!!
Two topics should have two resolutions. The impeachment resolution, and the end the war resolution. I would focus the end the war resolution entirely on Iraq.
The impeachment resolution missed the Nuremberg charges relating to conspiring to launch an unprovoked war on Iraq.
The end the war resolution missed might emphasize more that the Iraqi governments we attacked have long since ceased to exist.
Paulie,
The “avoiding entangling alliances” idea is lifted straight from Washington’s farewell address.
The question is not whether one should have disdain for President Bush, but rather whether you want to clutter up your anti-war resolution with gratuitous sniping at him.
Feel free to write a resolution that makes the Radical Caucus members happy. When it fails by an overwhelming majority because the rest of the convention doesn’t want to adopt your overly strident language or be seen as not supporting the troops, don’t say you weren’t warned.
To all,
We have a few friends on the LNC right now. Angela Keaton, Tony Ryan, Julie Fox and Chuck Moulton are the ones most receptive to my concerns prior to my announcement for the VP Nomination. We need to get rid of the Republitarians on the LNC…I believe you all know who they are. If we are that unhappy with what is going on, has anyone complied a list of those willing to run? As for the anti-war resolution: I support most of the language yet I think that “supporting the troops” doesn’t make you for the war either. I have been against Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning and I would like our troops out TODAY! Yes our brave men and women signed up for the military and they knew they might be sent to battle one day BUT don’t blame them for what is going on in these foreign countries. The CON-gress and Bush Administration is to BLAME not the soldier who is acting on orders. We need to impeach Cheney then Bush because Cheney is the man who is Bush’s backbone. Without Cheney, Bush is an amoeba.
I have to say, I come in on the “Support the Troops” side — if for no other reason than I know first-hand how many people go into the military because they feel they have no other choice, if they are to have anything resembling a decent, non debt-riddled, life.
Though this takes that logic to extremes, one does not blame the slave when the slave is ordered to beat you. One blames the master, who gives the orders.
What is the target audience for this Resolution? Whom do we hope to convince or persuade? Or is this posturing (ooh, look at us) by an insignificant and easily-dismissed group with little political clout?
Where is the Libertarian white paper on foreign policy – what principles inform this resolution?
paulie, i understand why you would say that leaders are responsible, i just want real, logical reasoning behind it. tell me why. i haven’t made up my mind on the issue, yet. and yes, if manson has not violated the person or property of anyone, then yes, he should be released.
Guys–as much as I would love to take credit for that, Wes and maybe Art D. wrote it. I merely said “Hell, Yes!”
Chris–call me before 12/09. After that date, all you will get is me being way too easy on everyone. Libertarian Lent demands that I avoid gossip or referring to fellow libertarians as “dickhead,” “ne’er do well with mommy issues,” and “F*ckin’ idiot.’ Besides, I want you to talk about the VP role on LibSpace.
Paulie–Don’t totally dismiss Kid X’s point about the language. We want it to be short, sweet and to the point. I can hate Bush on my own time.
For Susan, I am going to make it a damn point to get on Advertising / Publications Review Co.
For those of you who believe Jesus has sucked the funny out, believe me, I will be back to the same old asshole you all know and loathe on May 26, 2008.
Previously I proposed a resolution as posted here:
http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2007/06/iraq-withdrawal-proposed-lnc-resolution.html
I believe Angela Keaton, Pat Dixon, and myself were the only three who clearly expressed support for it.
Chuck Moulton and M Carling were strongly against it (plus some others).
I won’t submit a resolution with a laundry list of grievances, however, I’d re-consider submitting the resolution in the form I presented before if you all can find two other LNC members (not just alternates) who will publicly declare in advance their support for the resolution.
Just to be clear, I withdrew the resolution for various reasons. Again, visit my blog for more.
Wes–I’m in.
Chris–I’m not implying the LNC is full of jerk offs. Nearly everyone is actually very cool. We just have one or two misguided souls who need moral correction.
Folks–pls take a look at the LP Bylaw Committee blog. Think through the recommendations well in advance of Denver.
http://lpbylaws.blogspot.com/
My detailed analysis of why I do not think the LNC is authorized under the bylaws to issue policy resolutions in the name of the Libertarian Party is too long to post here, but I will email it to anyone who is interested.
Chuck please mail it to michael.h.wilson (at) att.net
Thank you,
MHW
I already told Chuck and others I would change “Libertarian Party” to “Libertarian National Committee” where appropriate in the resolution.
And for the record the idea of “Command Responsibility” was something that came up when I was in the service. There were officers from Japan and I believe Germany who were held accountable for the actions of the troops under their command during WWII at the war crimes trials after the war. The concept goes back some 2000 years as far as Rome.
Under our government the officers of corporation have higher standards of accountablity than does the President of the country. Especially since Sarbanes-Oxley was passed.
Other nations have had the courage to hold their officials accountable for their actions, but so far the U.S. seems to be reluctant to do so.
However this is finally written. Let’s lead the way.
MHW
Angela, I have always known you for not holding back punches when necessary and maybe I need to get to know some more folks on the LNC better but the four I mentioned earlier included yourself are the ones I personally have trusted when I needed answers on various things over the years. As a 16 year veteran of LP activism over the years I have seen some really decent people come and go in this party and it’s a shame that the retention rate amongst party members is very weak.
Leave in the references to Washington and Thomas Jefferson. You are not deifying them by referencing them — you’re merely pointing out that non-interventionist foreign policy is a founding principle. I agree that both of these men are overrated, but that’s not the point. You can endorse Martin Luther King’s opposition to racism without supporting his support for the initiation of force to those ends. Saying you share non-interventionist traits with GW and TJ does not mean you endorse slavery or the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, etc.
I agree with GE, there’s a difference between referencing those with legitimate points of view and endorsing all they stand for. The ‘founding fathers’ are a great authority to rely on to strengthen one’s case in these matters. Such a reliance is not tantamount to endorsing their slaveholding or whatever other un-libertarian activities they might have engaged in.
Personally, I like the short version.
The only touble with this resolution is that it comes about 4 years late.
Four horrible fucking years too late.
And for all the posturing, hand wringing, strategizing, pandering, conservative outreach, in-fighting, equivicating, praising the troops, apologizing for bigots, and quoting the founding fathers by big “L” libertarians for the last four horrible fucking years, the LP has accomplished absolutely fucking nothing except proving itself to be totally and completely irrelevant in a time of national crisis.
Oh yeah, it did establish street cred with Republicans on the issue of estate taxes. Wow!
Tom, don’t hold back.
(1) I agree with GE – I like the references to Washington and Jefferson. While they were not Libertarians in the aggregate of their beliefs, Washington’s words on non-interventionism is applicable.
(2) A support the troops statement is preferable because it gives us credibility among middle America…it doesn’t have to be a cheesy, Republican support the troops at all costs statement, just something to say that while we do not support war crimes, we understand that the individual soldier isn’t making policy. pauliecannoli was right on in the first comment.
(3) Tom Blanton — I could not have said that better myself. Keep it up!
I don’t understand the “support the troops” business. Why? We are forced to literally support them via taxation and inflation. We have to like it? What does not “supporting” them mean? That we want them to die? I don’t want them to die; I don’t want them to get hurt. But I don’t support them or even respect them. The respectful thing to do is go AWOL. I thought the Nazis proved that “following orders” was no excuse. Every non-resisting military man and woman is acting in defiance of the Constitution, to which they swore an oath. Knowingly or not, they are committing treason, and while I may not wish for them to face the Constitutional penalty for their crimes, they aren’t worthy of any “support” being wishing them home, off the welfare dole, and into productive roles in the private economy. Fuck the pussyfooting. I agree with Susan on that count.
hey aren’t worthy of any “support” BEYOND wishing them home, off the welfare dole, and into productive roles in the private economy.
Like I said, I’m not talking about everyone buying American flag lapel pins and watching “Patton” everyday — just a comment that while we hate the war and GWB, we understand that the average troops do not make policy.
Pauliecannoli said it best — “I think we should find some way of expressing our support for the average, non-piece of shit troop, while making clear that this does not mean we support the actions of those of them who are willingly engaged in war crimes.”
Maybe I should rephrase my comment — I’m not calling for a “support the troops” clause. I’m calling for a “We understand most troops aren’t war mongers like GWB” clause. Or not. I think it’s a good idea, but not a necessary idea.
Tom Blanton is on the right page.
It would be nice, even if it is late, to buy an full page ad in U.S.A. Today and print the resolution there if it is ever approved.
Wishful thinking I know!
MHW
Buying an ad, even in a small county newspaper, would require fiscal responsibility by many party leaders. If what I am hearing is correct, for the first time in years, the Libertarian Party may not have our Presidential candidate on the ballot it at least 45 states. That doesn’t matter when some party leaders are giving their money and volunteer time to Republican and perhaps Democratic candidates. I can almost guarantee that if a private business found that one of their workers went and worked for the competition their ass would be fired.
Blanton:
While you are on a roll, what do you think of this baby?
http://lpbylaws.blogspot.com/2007/10/draft-proposal-national-committee.html
posted by Joe Knight at LP Radicals yahoo group
Why only Iraq?
He single handedly invented the idea of non-interventionism?
What’s gratuitous about it? Feel free to offer counter-arguments point by point if you wish.
What’s overly strident about it, and why would any self-styled libertarians – much less an “overwhelming majority” – vote against it?
I agree.
Also agree with this…
State and local LPs, the LNC if they decide that it falls within their authority (which they have decided it doesn’t), and the convention if (when) it’s not adopted by the current LNC.
Once state and local LPs adopt it, they can publicize it to their local media.
Libertarian arguments against interventionism abound. Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com are good places to start. I cann recommend numerous other sites, to.
I don’t agree that the average soldier is not a warmonger. How many have you known? There are exceptions, but the average soldier — and I know plenty — joins with a desire to kill, at least based on my experience. They want the welfare too, and most of all, they want the unearned respect and fawning that everyone throws their way. But the killing is, at worst, a fringe benefit, if not the prized goal.
Secondly, every active member of the U.S. armed forces is a criminal. This is not politically correct to say, and it is offensive to most ears (a resolution this effect would be pointless), but it’s true. And if they’re too dumb to understand they’re violating the Constitution on numerous counts, then they deserve my pity, but not my respect nor my support.
The “support the troops” element of the resolution is feel-good B.S., which cedes ground to the Fascist Right by conflating “support for the troops” with patriotism. Real patriotism, in the George Washington / Thomas Jefferson vein, is against standing armies and for the Constitution, and it doesn’t lend its support to people who violate it either out of malicious intent or extreme ignorance bordering on retardation.
I think many people, including Ian and Chris, have said why. The Bush-Cheney crime family issues the orders and rakes in the money. The (mostly) poor and working class youth of this country enlist, because the regime has colluded with big corporations to hamstring the economy to the benefit of an elite few, and remaining economic opportunities are few for many.
Then it’s follow orders or go to jail, and be left with a life of problems in getting jobs and education opportunities. Don’t get me wrong, I admire those who refuse to follow immoral orders out of principle greatly, but it’s a higher standard than I can hold the average person to.
I don’t see how it can possibly be fair or just that those who issued the orders and benefited from the war can escape the responsibility.
Can we have you do a show interviewing yourself, and dishing all the dirt? It would be awesome. If you don’t feel comfortable interviewing yourself, i can interview you
Fair enough. I have nothing against making the impeachment issue a separate resolution. In fact taking the previously offered resolution (which I thought Wes said you wrote, but now you say Wes wrote), and replacing LP with LNC where appropriate, sounds good to me.
You (or I) can post it here. As far as I know, storage space is not an issue.
I consider that support.
Lots and lots.
BTW, surveys have been done, and a majority of troops oppose the war.
Why would you want to alienate those who understand the reality and enormity of the war crime that has been committed best, because they were there?
Why would you want to alienate so many who are their family, friends and neighbors?
“I don’t see how it can possibly be fair or just that those who issued the orders and benefited from the war can escape the responsibility.”
Paulie–Thanks for inserting an existentialist crisis over breakfast. The next time we our in each other’s company we should watch Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors. It is neither fair nor just but those who issued the orders can and will escape responsibility.
Thanks, Paulie, for the info on libertarian foreign policy. All seems pretty contradictory if you read Rockwell, Richman, Hornberger, Liberty magainzes various contributors. Even here, I see no consensus on whether libertarians should view soldiers as valiant defenders of liberty who have been placed in an illegal or misbegotten war or are they lusting to kill, welfare leeches, who ignore the Constitution. Most of today’s military has joined since 9/11 and the Iraq invasion – so are they dupes or
complicit fascist imperialists? How we answer (and the audience for this resolution is the voting public, not ourselves) will determine what influence, if any, the LP has in America.
“the average soldier — and I know plenty — joins with a desire to kill,”
That’s ridiculous. I have known people from every branch of the military and Eric Dondero was the only warmongerer who wanted to kill people that I have ever encountered. Many people join the military for many reasons, including wanting to fly jets, wanting to work on big ships, wanting to defend their country, wanting to travel as part of work, wanting to defend the Constitution, wanting to serve their country, wanting to follow in their father’s footsteps, etc. None of those are immoral reasons. I’ve known army seargants who had to lead men to simply gather and bury dead bodies. They took no joy in it. I know good people in the military that want to end our foreign interventions.
When they sign up, they know they might be sent to a war or “conflict.” What they don’t expect is that they will be pawns in unjust wars or conflicts. While many wars and conflicts are unjustified in our views, they don’t necessarily know that going in. Think about it. Most are 18 when they enlist. They know what they are taught just like everyone else. If they are not exposed to OUR way of thinking, that doesn’t mean they want to kill people. They know they might kill people, but that doesn’t mean they want to. They know there are bad people out there that kill others, so saying they joined for a lust to go kill is unfair. Maybe they joined so they could stop that bad person from killing others. It just so happens the politicians make them the bad guys. The higher up officers on the other hand, need to stand up against the president who is in violation of the Constitution. They haven’t done that so they are just as guilty.
A link to Chuck Moulton’s take on the LNC issuing resolutions is posted here:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd7jxqpw_120k2ghpf
paulie – I wouldn’t want to alienate anyone if I were speaking on behalf of any group that sought to reach out to people. But ultimately, this becomes a politics game where popular opinion becomes more important than objective reality. “Support the troops” rhetoric alienates me, but I’m in the extreme minority. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong. But politics is not about wrong or right, it’s about numbers. Hence, I don’t think it’s possible to be a party of principle, even within a “Radical” caucus.
Someone correct me where I’m wrong: Soldiers swear an oath to defend the Constitution, right? Who can seriously argue that this war is constitutional? No one really believes that. Even its supporters, when push comes to shove, admit that the war is undeclared and unconstitutional, but that the Constitution is outdated and impractical (“not a death pact”). So either these soldiers willfully disregard their oath to defend the Constitution, or they’re too stupid to understand that they’re violating it — in which case, they should have never taken such an oath. What is the name of the crime for government officials who actively violate the Constitution after taking an oath to uphold it? Every soldier is just as guilty as Bush or Cheney of treason. If I’m wrong, tell me how.
Nick – If you want to believe that they don’t want to kill, then so be it. It’s just not the truth. As for your other reasons not being immoral — whatever! Wanting to fly jets paid for by money stolen from me through taxation and inflation, in violation of the Constitution, is immoral! Wanting to follow in your father’s footsteps in itself is immoral, but it is 1000 times moreso when your daddy was a murderous thug of the state. Wanting to defend the Constitution? Are you insane? The average soldier hasn’t even read it, and if he had, then he would know his very employment is in violation of the original intent, and the way he has been used for the past 60 years is 100% unconstitutional.
Enough of the B.S. puffery. Soldiers are welfare leeches at best, sociopathic murderers at worst, and usually both. Just like every other government bureaucrat, they make their living through theft, and they vote for more and more of it. They are mercenaries; hired killers for a corrupt government. They may have a lot of reasons for joining the military, but ultimately, it is in the quest for the unearned. Unearned respect, unearned money, unearned preferential treatment, and unearned licensed to take human life.
Mr. Smith’s “objective reality” may be true but it insults and alienates virtually everyone in America, including most Libertarians. If you use the mail, use the highways, have a deed to land stolen from native Americans, work for a company whose antecedents may have used slave labor, etc. etc. then you are a dupe or corrupt. Rothbard used to squirm when it was pointed out he lived in a rent-controlled apartment in NY.
WE NEED TO ASSERT OUR VISION FOR AMERICA GOING FORWARD NOT
CRIMINALIZE OR MORONIZE THOSE WHOSE VOTES AND GOODWILL WE NEED TO MAKE THAT VISION A REALITY.
The truth is insulting and alienating.
I have not taken an oath to defend the Constitution and I do not receive my weekly paycheck from the government. If I lived in a rent-controlled apartment and used the USPS 100 times a day, there would still be no comparison. Furthermore, rent-controlled apartments (so long as they are controlled at the state level) are not unconstitutional. The USPS and, arguably, the interstate highway system are not unconstitutional. Very little land was “stolen” from native Americans, and slavery was legal and constitutional, although incomprehensibly immoral.
Your point does not stand.
By “supporting the troops,” you are supporting people who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, but are doing the opposite. You are supporting a class of individuals who cheer for more and more welfare payouts and bigger and bigger government.
My vision for America going forward is the abolition of standing federal armies. This just so happens to be a vision that Thomas Jefferson held dear. And certainly, my vision is that individuals who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and receive payment for doing so should be made to READ and UNDERSTAND it.
Very little land was stolen from the Native Americans? GE, have you ever heard of the “Trail of Tears”? The 5 Tribes of the Southeast were FORCED off their land and “re-located” to Eastern Oklahoma. But of course, that is just a minor nuisance in “American History.”
GE,
Just because someone works for the government, does not make them recipients of welfare.
no, but it does make them an accomplice to crime by accepting stolen money and using that money to hurt society (since virtually everything the government does is a net negative).
As someone said way up this thread, the LP is supposed to be a political party. Politics is the art of the possible. Truths are frequently inconvenient but should a POLITICAL party use them when the short term effect is to insult virtually everyone who has grown up thinking differently?
This is the problem militant atheists have, too. This is the problem Jesus had. But they weren’t running or building political parties. So does the LP want to be a political party or, in the words of Michael Cloud, “macho flash” everyone with the nastiest spins we can put on our unyielding principles?
Old Guard – I don’t disagree with you. I’m just pointing out that the LP, even the Radicals, have to resort to putting politics over principle. Maybe for some greater good. Maybe not.
Chris Bennett – The government cheated and abused Native Americans just like every other group. Big surprise. But the early, pre-state Europeans acquired their lands through trade. Natives had an abundance of land and not an abundance of Euro trinkets. But even the Trail of Tears, etc., were the result of treaties with financial compensation to tribal leaders (although the treaties were often signed with figurative guns to the tribal leaders’ heads). POINT BEING: The government has screwed everybody. If I own land that was once stolen from an Indian, I don’t feel guilty. Every inch of land on the face of the earth can be traced back to some act of violence. There is a moral statute of limitations on this kind of thing. The people who profitted from the force have long since died. I bought my land from a guy who bought it from another guy, etc., stretching way back to some jerk who was buddy-buddy with the government and profitted unfairly. That has nothing to do with me.
Jeff – If someone works for the government, they are on welfare. They are not being paid a market wage. They are part of the growing leviathan welfare state. To the few (far less than 1%) of government workers, state and local, who provide legitimate, constitutional and policing roles, they’re still not a part of the private economy, and by definition, part of the welfare state. Or do you think it would be legitimate for the government to provide all of us with jobs?
Angela – on that resolution, I tend to agree with Mr. Montoni (he’s a friend although he’s pissed at me for quitting the LPVA State Central Committee).
I think that LP members should expect the LNC Chair to make grand proclamations from time to time on important events. The LNC Chair should be expected to maintain adherence to LP principles and planks as written in the platform. It would not be unreasonable for the last person nominated as the LP presidential candidate to act as a spokesperson emeritus to make statements on occasion.
Regardless of what the by-laws say, assholes and shitheads will always break the rules, twist the rules, or invent some bizarre reality to justify whatever mess they make. That is why it is important who LP members put in these positions.
Let us not forget that it was the clowns at LPHQ that put out the Iraq Exit Strategy and not the LNC. With the exception of Joe S., the clowns remain. WTF is the LNC thinking?
TB,
Montoni has one of the best bullshit detectors when it comes to kooky proposals.
That particular recommendation is just highly comedic. When I was the third wheel to Messrs. Starr and Carling, they bludgeoned me with some of their classic Lucy and Ethel schemes for creating a ‘real party.’ After about three months of being forced to follow them (think Elizabeth Smart,) it occurred to me that they had never actually seen so much as a news report about the DNC/RNC. There was also the Vitameatavegamin incident and some egg smuggling but it’s always a crap shoot when you deal with volunteers.
P.S., In fairness to the staff, they pulled IES off the web site and Shane Cory explains his experience with the IES on my show. That was a really good show to which no one listened. Now, the Veronica Monet show, many of you heard. Should I combine a sex work show with an interview of LPHQ? That’s probably the only way any of you will take an interest in prospecting. Prospecting. Prostitution.
It’s all about finding the right clients.
GE,
You’re building a straw man. Nearly everything you said bears no relation to my original post.
Secondly, I don’t know where you get off questioning my libertarian credentials — I am just as anti-war as you are. I am against big government as much (or possibly more so) than you. We are on the same side, buddy.
I was just making a point that never even referenced the United States — just because someone is employed by a government doesn’t necessarily mean, by definition, they are welfare babies. I would agree most government employees in this country are welfare queens.
Remind me never to make a vague philosophical point around you so that you can take it overboard.
Jeff – I wasn’t questioning your credentials. I don’t know where you got that. You assert that someone who draws his check from the government isn’t on “welfare.” I disagree. Government jobs are part of the welfare state. What do you think, in a fully welfare statist economy, no one would work? People would work in government-provided job. The private economy is shrinking as the leviathan grows, and the VFW and their ilk are cheering it on. They’re on a sinking ship and they hope that they get their spoils and kick the bucket before it goes down. My generation and my children’s generation are going to be left holding the bag. The “Greatest Generation” is a generation of welfare scum who put us where we are. Shame on them.
The “do you think it would be legitimate for the government to provide all of us with jobs?” was a rhetorical question, designed to underline my point that people who receive checks from the government are part of the welfare state.
“Government jobs are part of the welfare state. What do you think, in a fully welfare statist economy, no one would work?”
Of course this is true GE, but again you’re building a straw man and not seeing my point.
In a just, free society, we have an absolute minimal and limited government. However, even in that minimal government society, there is still a need for a small amount of people to actually work for that limited government. Those people are working, regardless. Government, to function justly, needs people to be in their employ. There is no way to get around that.
I agree with your assertions on bloated government. But in the end, it doesn’t mean that government doesn’t need (albeit minimal) employees.
That was my point. Nothing more.
Jeff,
Didn’t you get the memo when you became a Libertarian, that libertarians don’t give two shits about anyone else except what is in it for ME! To be blunt many are without compassion to those who aren’t in their circle. You were at the Illinois State LP Convention, how many African-Americans, besides myself did you see in attendance? Now how many computer geeks did you run into? The big problem with the Libertarian Party is that it is so right-leaning that if we talk about left-leaning issues we are accused of being un-libertarian. If we don’t bring in new blood into the party, in 20 years we will be extinct. Now as a VP candidate I will give fair time to both left and right leaning issues and hopefully as an African-American on the National ticket, I can bring in more minorities into the movement if not the party. This nonsense has to STOP today! We tend to eat our own activists and members over stupid little nuances within the movement. Any idea that moves us in the direction of more freedom and liberty should be cherished not picked apart. If you didn’t notice we don’t have LP Senators, Governors, Congressmen, state legislators…..
“We tend to eat our own activists and members over stupid little nuances within the movement.”
Chris, I agree completely. That was I was trying to get at with GE above when I said: “We are on the same side, buddy.”
We tend to eat our own and it’s one of the things that hurts us.
I’ll get the DVD or tape if you bring something to play it on.
Mostly the first one. The trouble with libertarians is lack of diversity, including economic. Troops come disproportionately from poor and working class families. Libertarians come disproportionately from an upper middle class/white collar background. Furthermore, they tend to be asocial
or antisocial, and don’t have understanding of economic realities for those who did not grow up with the same opportunities they did. Not that every troop is from a poor family, or every libertarian from a well off one, those are just averages.
Many people have argued that the Congressional resolution authorizing use of force is a de facto declaration of war. I’m not one of them, but why are we expecting 18 year old government school graduates to all be constitutional scholars? The natural presumption is that the government is following the constitution. To realize otherwise is an extraordinary step.
Elizabeth Smart (December 27, 1913 – March 4, 1986) was a Canadian poet and novelist. Her book, By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept, detailed her romance with the poet George Barker
You went out with the guy from The Price Is Right? Was that Starr, or Carling?
Oh, sorry…
On July 19, 2006, CNN’s Nancy Grace interviewed Elizabeth Smart, who appeared on behalf of a bill requiring sex offenders to register with their state of residence. Despite Smart’s objection, Grace asked Smart a long series of questions about her abduction, relenting only when Smart, clearly upset, said “I really—I really—to be frankly honest, I really don’t appreciate you bringing all this up.” Grace then apologized and continued with the show.
We really do need a tell-all rent. What kind of drugs should I bring to help break the dam?
Bingo!
Posted on yahoogroups (Dan Sullivan)
Posted on yahoogroup (Wes)
LNC Directory
http://www.lp.org/
organization/
lncdirectory2.shtml
Chair
Bill Redpath was elected chair in July of 2006 at the party’s national convention in Portland, Oregon. Bill is the Vice President of a financial consulting firm and holds an MBA from the University of Chicago. Bill and his wife Melinda live in Leesburg, Virginia.
Bill Redpath
Chair@LP.org
703-864-2132
Leesburg, VA
Vice Chair
Chuck Moulton was elected Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party in July of 2006. Chuck holds a Juris Doctor from Villanova University School of Law and a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from Rochester Institute of Technology. Chuck is a lifelong resident of Blue Bell, Pennsylvania.
Vice-Chair@lp.org
Blue Bell, PA
Secretary
Bob Sullentrup, 53, of St. Louis, is a computer specialist. He was first elected to the LNC in 2002. He received an MBA from the University of Chicago in 1977 and earned a BA in mathematics from the university in 1974. In 2005, the Missouri LP awarded Sullentrup its highest honor, the Karl Wetzel Volunteer Award, and in 2001 he was elected state chair.
Bob Sullentrup
rwsully@charter.net
St. Charles, MO
Treasurer
Aaron Starr holds degrees in finance and accounting from California State University at Northridge. He is the Controller of a $700 million per year manufacturing company. He also serves as Chair of the Libertarian Party of California. He is a lifelong resident of Simi Valley, California.
Aaron Starr
starrcpa@pacbell.net
Simi Valley, CA
At-Large Representatives
Angela Keaton
angela@liberatedspace.com
West Hollywood, CA
Patrick Dixon
chair@lptexas.org
Lago Vista, Texas
Michael C. Colley
narwhal3@gulftel.com
Gulf Shores, AL
Jeremy Keil
jeremykeil@gmail.com
New Berlin, WI
Dan Karlan
dankarlan@earthlink.net
Waldwick, NJ
Region 1
Representative
Tony Ryan
Brhtr@aol.com
Sioux Falls, SD
Alternate
Julia Fox
jfox1214@sbcglobal.net
West Dundee, IL
Region 2
Representative
M Carling
m@idiom.com
Palo Alto, CA
Representative
Aaron Starr
starrcpa@pacbell.net
Simi Valley, CA
First Alternate
Scott Lieberman
scott73@earthlink.net
San Jose, CA
Region 3
Representative
Emily Salvette
salvette@ameritech.net
Ann Arbor, MI
Alternate
Rebecca Sink-Burris
rebecca.sinkburris@gmail.com
Bloomington, IN
Region 4
Representative
Bob Barr
770-836-1776
region4@lp.org
Atlanta, GA
Alternate
Stewart Flood
sff@ivo.net
Charleston, SC
Region 5
Representative
Jim Lark
jwlark@dellmail.com
Free Union, VA
Alternate
Steve Damerell
stevedamerell@gmail.com
Reston, VA
Region 6
Representative
Wes Benedict
wesliberty@aol.com
Austin, Texas
Alternate
Nancy Neale
torchess@austin.rr.com
Bee Cave, TX
Region 7
Representative
Hardy Machia
hardy@freevermont.org
Grand Isle, VT
Alternate
Eric Sundwall
eric_sundwall@hotmail.com
Niverville, NY
Chris Bennet – I hereby revoke my support for your candidacy, pending the emergence of alternatives. You are a collectivist. Who cares who color of skin the nominee has? You view people as “African Americans” and derogatorily as “computer geeks.” You look at someone an sum them up as a “geek,” which is a slur. And yet you have often boasted that you like to initiate force if a slur against your ethnicity is uttered.
If that’s what “reaching out to the ‘left’” means — socialistic collectivist PCism, then count me out. I did not accuse Mr. Wartman of not being a libertarian. And I’m certainly not a representative of the “right.” I do not question your libertarian credentials, in terms of the work you’ve done and will continue to do. But I do question the philosophical basis of your libertarianism when you continually utter collectivist and anti-individualist rhetoric.
The basis for progress in society is everyone asking “WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME?” and acting accordingly without violating the rights of others. Or did you miss Wealth of Nations? I’m demonized for “selfishly” having the audacity to question the welfare state?
Paulie said:
I find that to be very elitist and patronizing on both counts.
For one, while it is demonstrably true that most soldiers come from poor families, what does this speak of their intelligence? Of their patriotism? Do we admit that they join for financial reasons, and if so, they are mercenaries. They still take an oath to defend the Constitution, and while they “may not be constitutional scholars” (translation: poor people are dumb), how many of them do you think have even read the document? How many of them do you think could give me a brief synopsis of the 9th amendment? I’m guessing very, very few. So if I’m right, this means they’re taking an oath to something that they didn’t even read, and certainly don’t understand. How can this be excused when the result is mass murder and furtherance of totalitarian rule at home? They are not innocent.
Secondly, you allege that libertarians come from well-to-do backgrounds. This has not been my observation, and I don’t think there’s any hard data, but even if you’re right: So what? I come from a very poor background. I was the only white member of the Ronald McNair program at my college. My family qualified for welfare, food stamps, free lunch, etc., but refused it. I don’t take pride in that, nor do am I ashamed of the massive government subsidies I received for going to school (including a $50 a week cash stipend for spending money). This isn’t macho flash, it is to prove a point: I come from a poor background, and it has nothing to do with my perspective on liberty. You’re assuming that someone from my background can’t comprehend life without the welfare state, or that someone from the upper crust could not possibly understand what it’s like to be dependent on it. The welfare state creates these class distinctions and antagonizes them — libertarians need to reject them entirely.
Oh gee I lost a VIP endorsement. Ah well, time to move on! I’m still a libertarian no matter what you may claim.
GE,
While some people (particularly those who arrive at libertarianism via the works of Ayn Rand) derive a libertarian political position from the conflict between individualism and collectivism, that is not the conflict upon which libertarianism turns. The conflict upon which libertarianism turns is freedom versus coercion … and while the two conflicts may be interrelated in important ways, they are not the same conflict. It is entirely possible to be a collectivist libertarian (some anarchists manage it quite well), and it is entirely possible to be an individualist authoritarian (see Nietszche, or better yet Stirner).
It is often observed among religious groups that converts tend to rank not only among the most zealous, but among the most punctilious with respect to the dogma that first attracted them. The same is true of politics. Not to belabor the point, but … easy, fella.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Chris – WTF? I did not claim otherwise. I specifically said I was not questioning your credentials. My endorsement is worth little, I admit. It is especially worth little from the perspective of someone who does not value individuality. I’m sure losing the endorsement of the Computer Geek Collective would be more damaging, but you can take this group for granted, as none wants to admit they’re a part of it. From the collectivist perspective, people only have value in the aggregate.
Tom – I’m at ease. While I concede the point that libertarianism is about freedom vs. coercion (which is why I specifically did not challenge Mr. Bennet’s libertarianism when calling his collectivism to attention), I reject collectivism, whether libertarian or authoritarian, as an insult to human dignity. I believe our individuality is the basis of all our rights. While it may be possible to be an “authoritarian individualist” in the philosophical realm, practically speaking, one cannot be an authoritarian if one respects the individuality and rights of each person as an individual. Individualism presupposes that no one has all the answers, and therefore, each person must be in charge of their own life. Collectivists like Mr. Bennet deride this as “right wing” or “not caring about anyone but yourself,” but the fact of the matter is that this is the only humane manner in which to live, with the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people, and the rights of none violated.
The Bennett/GES/Wartman discussion is one of the most interesting I have read in a long time. Glad I have had some serious writer’s block or I would have missed this.
25 days..
GES Wrote (regarding the backgrounds of our troops and our libertarian ideologue-mates):
And how. Unfortunately, the facts back it up. Which means that in this case, it is reality which is elitist and patronizing.
Angela Keaton writes:”TB,
Montoni has one of the best bullshit detectors when it comes to kooky proposals.
That particular recommendation is just highly comedic. When I was the third wheel to Messrs. Starr and Carling, they bludgeoned me with some of their classic Lucy and Ethel schemes for creating a ‘real party.’ After about three months of being forced to follow them (think Elizabeth Smart,) it occurred to me that they had never actually seen so much as a news report about the DNC/RNC. There was also the Vitameatavegamin incident and some egg smuggling but it’s always a crap shoot when you deal with volunteers.”
Angela how about a bit more detail here. I have talked to someone who has said they were at a meeting with the guys when it was mentioned that the reason for the offshore convention in Calif was to keep the riff-raff out. And I have been in a room with both of them and you have to be pushy to get them to shake your hand, but they both seem to want to lead us around. They may have money, but they don’t have personality. And I doubt that either one know much beyond what is in front of their noses.
Btw I understand Calif has 30,000 registered Libs. I would think one would want to have 500 to 1000 show up at a convention in that state. Ones gotta have goals and balls in this business.
So clue me in just a bit. In the meantime I’ll be spending four hours listening to government speak this evening and how they intend to save us.
MHW; aka Mr. Riff-Raff
and proud of it
Riff:
1.) There are 80,000 registered libs in California.
2.) I live for goals and balls… which in my case would explain a lot.
3.) No, they don’t know beyond what is in front of their noses but how much awareness does an accountant need. Who wants an aware accountant? That’s like a hot chick with a degree in metaphysics.
4.) Rich? Nah. Not by the Keaton Sugar Daddy test.
5.) How many libertarians have social skills? You are asking quite a bit there.
6.) What happened when they tried to keep the riff raff out? I got elected to the EC as a write in and nine months later I became ED. They need to think pretty hard if they are going to keep me out.
7.) The LNC’s attorney asked me not to discuss the details only to say that Aaron’s trunk had an internal lock. I was a bit shaken but the walk back from Studio City to Hollywood only took two hours. Not a big deal. It was all a silly misunderstanding.
The not so well thought out proposals are these three:
http://lpbylaws.blogspot.com/2007/10/draft-proposal-national-committee.html
http://lpbylaws.blogspot.com/2007/10/draft-proposal-platform-debate.html
http://lpbylaws.blogspot.com/2007/09/libertarian-party-purpose.html
Is that a euphemism?
Hardly. I was raised in a second world country housing project, and since then have lived in a wide variety of places including US housing projects, welfare hotels, squats, ghetto walkups, crack houses, trailers, tents, cars, and even abandoned subway and sewer tunnels.
I’ve had tons of blue collar jobs such as furniture moving, assembly line, warehouse, garbage pickup, construction, etc.
For me to be elitist would be very silly.
It’s got nothing to do with them being poor, most rich kids don’t know the government is not following the constitution either.
The average IQ is 100, and regardless of what you think of the IQ test, roughly speaking this is true of rich kids as well as poor kids.
Most haven’t. It’s not taught. Where did you get the “poor people are dumb” from what I wrote? You must be carrying around a boulder, where some people have a chip on their shoulder.
Which is more critical to the conduct of war, those who give the orders or those who carry them out? I’m thinking they would find someone to take the place of anyone who refuses to carry out the orders. Therefore, I think those at the top of the system bear the lion’s share of the responsibility.
I’m not assuming any such thing, nor did I make any presumptions about you and where you come from. You are the one who characterized me as an elitist, not vice versa. I did say that a lot of libertarians offer up uninformed opinions about economic circumstances they have never personally had to experience. I stand by that. It doesn’t mean you are one of those, though. Never said it or implied it.
Hmmm… 80,000 registered Libs in CA. That’s gotta be wonderful. I just hope they set a goal of 1 percent showing up at every state convention, reaching out to recruit 10% to be $10 a month contributors. While that is a bit off topic it seems to fall within the rules of action. Frankly I wish the LP D.C. office would rate the different state parties on their success and share some ideas. That might help the smaller ones grow.
Be that as it may, the LPNC should be able to create and send out resolutions that reflect the LP’s ideas and goals on a regular basis. WE should also look at keeping it simple, direct, and consistent.
MHW
MHW–That is a great goal. However, I am no longer in the employ of the LPC. As for national information, regional 4 alt Stewart Flood has been keeping track of numbers that you might find helpful. He is also working on new ways for states to measure growth through his baby, Ballot Base. His email is above.
Paulie–I too make light of that dark time. The Smarts had “Bringing Elizabeth Home: A Journey of Faith and Hope.” Recently, I published an essay, “The LPC touched my heart and other things.”
Alas, my Fat Commenting celebration as come to an end. Thanks to Stuart, Paulie and the other fine folks of LFV for allowing HOT to continue in spirit.
paulie – And I never said you were an “elitist,” which is an absurd notion. I merely said your comment was/sounded elitist.
The great E.D.
I know what you said, but you read things into what I wrote which were not at all implied.
The not so great ED goes on to write
Are you fucking kidding me? Eric was shitting his pants over that?
Has he ever had a bullet whiz an inch from his ear? Has he ever stood next to a friend as his friend was shot dead? Has he ever had loaded guns pointed in his face? Has he ever seen kids playing soccer with human skulls in a Central American shanty with dirt streets and open sewers?
He does not know anything about real combat.
When I was a young pre-teen I wanted combat “action” too. I never officially joined the military, but I did have a military import-export contract in a war zone. When you see people get shot in front of you and have bullets miss you at a close range it is not exhilirating. It’s fucked up and scary and the senselessness of it all is baffling and infuriating. When you are up close it’s chaos and death and horrible, revolting waste. The lives that are damaged or destroyed forever become much more important than whatever horseshit politics is used to justify the latest slaughter, and the romance wears off quickly.
So, yes, some kids are naive and go off to war thinking it will be a great adventure, serving their country, or both. A lot of them realize how badly they got duped pretty fast, though. And then they get plenty of opportunity to learn it over, and over, and over again.
If they are lucky enough to survive it more or less intact and don’t go into
damage control mode, justifying the war to assuage their guilt, they can become very powerful allies of liberty and spokesmen against war later in life. And one day you may want them on our side, if peaceful means of change fail.
Alienating potential allies who have military experience is a bad idea. And no, by that I do NOT mean that warmongers are potential allies.
Paulie,
I suspect the reaction to being shot at is a highly individualized thing. Personally, I find that being shot at forces me into a higher mode of operational efficiency and makes me more assertive by way of taking charge of situations … and I rather enjoy it.
I’ve thought about hiring someone to follow me around at LP events, randomly firing an AK-47 over my head. It would do wonders for me. But I suspect that some of the fru-fru “propriety and respectability types,” as well as those in the line of fire, might object.
Cheezus Tom last time someone shot at me I had to apologize to my underwear.
MHW
G.E I don’t intend to pile on as they say, but I do feel it is important to add to the comments of others. I grew up as a navy brat and spent four years in the U.S. Coast Guard. It took a war and a lot of reading on my part to grow, and I mean grow, out of the environment I had lived in for may years.
There are a lot of good people in the government. Some are even Libertarians who are activist. There are also a lot of bad people in the government. And there are a lot who inhabit that gray area in between. But most of them do not make policy decisions. They are often just doing the best they can to carry out those decisions. I have actually talked to military personnel who thought their job in war was to protect the troops they were responsible for and to keep the harm to others down.
May I suggest that the criticism of those on the front lines be kept to a minimum and that the focus be placed on those who make the policies, even in the drug war. And I think you will find with a little research, that members of the U.S. Coast Guard actually do significant good. They were the ones called out to pick up the bodies and body parts after flight 800 went down in the Atlantic a few years ago. Certainly a grisly task for many just out of high school. And they also ran rescue missions in the aftermath of Katrina, rescusing something like 30,000 people, if my recall of the information is correct. And in that case the base at Lake Ponchatrain had been destroyed along with much of their own housing. And those with families in distress stayed on the job for the most part.
Let’s remember that we get more flies with honey than vinegar.
MHW
In a way I do too, kind of. Having bloody pieces of someone I know splattered all over me as they are dying in a painful and unexpected way, on the other hand, is truly fucked up. Actually it just kind of makes me feel numb and empty. I’m not sure if that makes me a sociopath, but I did score as one in several online tests. For example, I got this one instantly on the first try.
A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a man whom she did not know. She thought this guy was amazing, her dream guy, and she fell in love with him right there, but she never asked for his number and then could not find him. A few days later she killed her sister.
Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?
MHW – I am not the recruitment director for the LP or the libertarian movement. I do not advocate that we intentionally alienate any type of person on the basis of profession or lack thereof. However, I also do not advocate falsifying the facts, or adopting a new sort of “libertarian PCness.” Soldiers take an oath to the Constitution (fact), and their actions are in violation of it (fact, not an opinion from my perspective). Thus, they are not blameless. I do not advocate they face the Constitutional penalty for treason, and I would not lead my conversation with a serviceman or woman by saying, “I think you’re committing treason,” but I would argue, in time, that they’ve taken an oath to the Constitution and that their actions are in direct opposition to it (in many ways). I would also argue that the founders feared a standing army, the government is way too big from a constitutionalist perspective, and that as employees of that government, they are part of the problem. These may not be “facts” in a scholarly sense, but they are certainly TRUE and irrefutable from a libertarian perspective. The truth may be presented in the most palatable manner possible, and the dispension of that truth may be delayed — but it may not be suspended or denied, long term.
On that, we agree.
But in what way do we benefit from blaming the rank and file and making them feel we are against them for participating in policies they did not create?
The USSR fell when the troops refused to follow orders and joined the demonstrations. Would the troops have ever done so if the demonstrators were hostile to them, and shouting that they were just as guilty – or more so – than those who issued those orders?
Perhaps one day something like that will happen in the USSA. But not if we make the troops, and those who have been caught up in the gears of the war machine in the past, believe that we are not on their side, and that we hold them personally accountable for the actions of the war machine.
In that case, they most likely will see us as the enemy, and will carry out the war machine’s orders to round us up and kill us out of self-preservation as much – or more – than loyalty to their commanders.
How would you envision this playing out? Have you given it any thought? What result would you like in such a scenario, do you consider it likely, and why?