Asymmetrical Information

I thought Megan was going to be blogging on Instapundit today? (Not that I don't like AI!) What's up, Megan?

Jane Galt wrote:

This is how he does when he's being interviewed by a libertarian. As Mr Balko says, "Given how close this election is, even if Badnarik does worse than Harry Browne did in 2000, there's a small chance that the LP could draw enough votes in a few states to tilt the outcome one way or the other. Should that happen, both Badnarik and the LP could get more media exposure than the LP's gotten in years. I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced that either Badnarik or the LP speaking on behalf of libertarianism to a national audience with limited exposure to the ideology would ultimately be good for libertarianism, the philosophy."

I agree that as far as putting forth a positive view of libertarian philosophy, the LP as of late does more harm than good (at least nationally, locally the MN LP is generally pretty sane and prefers to work on more substantive issues rather than seek publicity with cheap stunts). Running a tax dodger or an imprisoned drug offender or anyone who writes for the increasingly ironically-named Reason magazine as your standard-bearer may placate those who want a protest vote, but it does nothing to advance the cause and arguably sets it back by relegating you to the political fringe.

I agree

How am I liable? Show me the law that says I am liable for these taxes.

Sheesh. It took me about 10 seconds to find the relevant bits of USC Title 26 online. And I don't run seminars about the IRS.

I've tried to read the laws and the tax-nullifiers arguments, and I think there's plenty of bafflegab on both sides. If you hunt hard enough, you can (or at least could, several revisions back) find places in the IRS regulations that seem to say filling out the income tax forms is voluntary. So the nullifiers say, you don't really have to fill out the forms... But not filling them out seems to be a crime, unless you really didn't make more than $X, and then they'll want to know how the heck you are managing to survive on $X. Except that, for some reason, the IRS seems to have trouble coming up with an actual law passed by Congress that clearly says everyone whose Form 1040 calculations show they owe income tax is actually liable for that tax. (The excise tax laws, covering cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, etc., all have a quite clear statement as to who is liable for the tax. This might be the missing "Mother may I" - but if they ever do prevail on that point, Congress will rectify it in an instant.)

Then, there are issues as to whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. I'm not enough of a historian to comment on that.

Finally, there's an argument about the definition of "income", for the purposes of the 16th Amendment. The nullifiers aren't at all convincing to me on this point. I think they are ripping a specialized definition out of context, and I'd think that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived..." gives Congress considerable latitude in deciding which sources of money are income. OTOH, the government definition of taxable income is an incredible mess that ought to be tossed out for vagueness alone. I mean, if the IRS's own help line gets it wrong quite often...

I'd love to have one of their arguments actually hold up in court - it would mean that most of the government would have to shut down, and Congress would probably have to enact the Jane Galt tax plan, because there's no constitutional limits to a sales tax. But I don't expect it.

VOTE REPUBLICAN, VOTE DEMOCRAT, DO NOT THINK FOR YOURSELF.

You get the government you deserve, bitch. Don't complain when that shit collapses on your head.

Yeah, I'm becoming a broken record. As I always say, the reason the LP is on the political fringe is because plurality forces them there. Any sane politician who actually wants to effect change is going to do it in the two major parties. Any moderate voter is going to vote for one of the the two major parties rather than waste their vote. So the LP will never be a moderate voice for libertarianism as long as we use plurality, regardless of whether or not you vote for them.

You've got a much better bet influencing the Republican Party anyway. And a vote for Badnarik does double duty. It puts Republicans on notice that they need to listen to libertarians more, and it also calls more attention to the spoiler effect in plurality. Indeed, perhaps getting some Republicans on board along with the disgruntled Gore/Nader voters. And then maybe more voters will be willing to learn about alternate voting methods, like Condorcet, IRV, and Approval.

I'm an independent small "l" libertarian who does not agree with the LP or Mr. Badnarik. Yet I see both Kerry and Bush (in that order for national security reasons only) as really terrible choices for President.

If it weren't for the fact that I live in California where Kerry, without a doubt, will take the electoral vote with a projected 18% lead, I would be really hard-pressed to make a decision. But given that circumstance in my State, my sole vote will be meaningless, except to the political scientists who study the count in detail later.

So, which column to put that single vote for future academic bean counters? Libertarian, of course. It conveys the political philosophy I want to see prevail in the long run.

I knew Dave Kopel quite well, "back in the day." I can just hear him asking these questions -- laugh out loud funny.

It's a shame that the LP can't get more momentum going and become a real alternative. So many people say they are "libertarian-leaning" or "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" -- you'd think the libertarians would be growing like crazy. But then there seems to be at least one deal-killer about the libertarians for any given person. Like Badnarik and his "I don't actually owe any income tax" idea. Or (for me) "open borders".

Couldn't some "reasonable" libertarian-like party come into existence that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative without wigging people out with extreme stuff?

Not until we have a voting system that handles more than two choices gracefully.

to provide context, I also avoided the LP for a number of years (and avoided voting) due to concern about the fringe element but eventually discovered that overall the makeup of the party was changing and simply needs more reasonable people to decide to give it a chance vs. building simply giving in to the Demopublicsns. I'll mention a bit of whats happened in Colorado where we have had to deal with some moonbatish types but despite that have begun to develop more voter awareness of non moonbatish libertarian ideas in a way that wouldn't have happened without the LP.
I'm currently not taking time to be active in it other than kibitzing a bit, but had in the past.
Is it better to let the party of libertarianism drift towars the fringe or for reasonable voices to take it over?

btw, one thing that has happened is that in some states where the LP has been the spoiler, the GOP has come calling (behind the scenes, not something the media is in on) to try to make deals with the local LP groups so it can have an impact.

Even if the LP gets enough votes this time to swing things
its doubtful the media will give Badnarik in particular more coverage, that has never happend when the LP has potentially spoiled Senate and House races, etc., so there is not precedent for this *candidate* receiving much coverage.What is more likely and seems to happen is more coverage of *future* (and people seem to be able to forget a past bad candidate, especially if there are others for other offices to balance it), presumably better candidates (given that the vast majority of the LP cringes at stupid comments like Badnarik they will be on better guard in the future). Regardless, due to little media coverage people mostly know of the LP as being the party of smaller government as opposed to knowing of Badnarik's quirks.

btw Kopel is a Democrat despite being a libertarian mostly, and was likely focusing on this one stupid thing Badnarik is into because of likely supporting Kerry (even if there were some loophole like Barnarik claims, obviousy if it were ever acknowledged it'd be closed quickly). The point however is for non-moonbatish libertarians to turn the LP into something better, most LP candidates are non-moonbatish and more mainstream, it has been changing over the years at different paces in different parts of the country. Obviously
Stern trashed the LP out there for a while. There are some glitches still, obviously some candidates are still a bit off the wall. Weird circumstances caused the LP candidate to be so this time unfortunately, and people are working to figure out way's to prevent these bogus candidates in the future after being bitten by it . Don't simply give in and keep supporting big government. In places like Colorado the LP has slowly been gaining more respectability despite some moonbatish types thanks to the hard work of reasonable Libertarians
who don't simply abandon libertarianism to go support big government. We've had some folks elected at lower level offices in Colorado and some of the media respect Libertarian views even if they aren't covered as much (but the ideas seep into columns since they pay attention to us) and demopublican legislators at the state level listen to LP folks and respect the views even if they can't go that far. The LP has helped succesfully lobby for libertarian bills at the state level.

If the media talks about political proposals vs. his personal actions re: current laws, then even Badnarik is not a bad spokesperson. Again, the answer is for intelligent libertarians to take over the LP then rather than having this fantasy (which i think is just as "moonbat"ish as Badnarik's idea) that the major parties will listen when you always vote for those candidates and encourage them. The point is to drown out the moonbats and turn the LP into something useful.

In Colorado there was an LP Senate candidate last time who some folks were fooled into thinking was reasonable who turned into a *real* moonbat, turning quickly from a seeming like a mainstream succesful businessman and new moderate libertarian into a conspiracy buff (re: the fed, etc), wack militia connections, etc. type
He got attention for that, and many in the LP were scared of that, but in the end
the more reasonable candidates have slowly made progress getting attention and causing the media to turn to them for libertarian viewpoints at times, covering them, and even endorsed some last time around despite that. (this time just not endorsing in some races but saying that the Libertarian candidate X deserves a look with interesting ideas about..., unofficially endorsing) Also using the word libertarian in a more positive light even eg in a recent Boulder Daily Camera editorial (Boulder btw is often refered to as the "People's Republic", akin to Berkeley,CA), starting out that "Libertarians often talk about the unintended consequences of well intentioned laws.. this may be an example..."

David Kopel works for the Independence Institute, a Colorado think tank which is run by small-l libertarian Republican John Caldera who wound up there due to serving on the Denver metro area transit board and shaking things up. It was a non-partisan race so Libertarians helped out (moreso than Republicans) and got him elected. The reason he was able to do this was that there were a few Libertarians elected also (non-partisan office) whose more extreme views (but cogent, no moonbats) made his proposals seem more like moderate compromises in comparison. So John made progress, got exposure, and was chosen to head the Independence Institute which very easily could have gone in a more conservative non-libertarian direction given its past director.
John also now has a column in the Boulder Daily Camera. For a while the former communications director of the LP in Boulder had a column in the Boulder Weekly and due to that, and the relationship the LP built up there, now a different libertarian has a column (was LP when that started, seems to be just small-l at the moment).
There is a major tax limitation amendment to the constitution that was passed by initiative a few years back, sponsored by 2 small-l libertarians but with much of the work done behind the scenes by Libertarians. These libertarians wouldn't have been around to bring on board without the LP, the LP provides what could/should become a focal point for libertarians to meet and strategize, even the ones that go off and work within the Demopublicans.

Dont even consider what Badnarek stands for. Kerry or jr is going to win, if you live in a battleground state make a choice between the two or dont bother voting.

sorry again for typos, groggy today from being up too late but wanted to post. Isn't the Libertarian party closer to the direction you wish to head than the Demopublicans? What issues don't you agree with heading in the direction of the Libertarians on? What positions do you agree with the Demopublican candidates on? Most Libertarians here are into Cato&Reason&Independence Institute type policies, though wishing to see things eventually go a bit further in some cases. If reasonable spokespeople for the libertarian cause wish to run for office the odds are they would be accepted by the LP. Its difficult to find people willing to make that effort and hence the party needs to grow in order for there to be a large enough pool of people to find decent candidates. Picture the level of sacrifice needed to run for president on a minor party ticket without much funding. As the LP gets more support and funding to help it'll be more able to attract better candidates who aren't willing to make the sacrifice to run at the current minimal level of support. The only way to do that is to vote LP now, contribute money, give some hope to future better candidates that they will be rewarded for their effort. Build for the future or build up the
Demopublican mandate for big government.

I still think Kerry's denial of major problems in social security, and Bush's implications recently of being guided by God are more moonbatish than Badnarik. If you consider all the other positions of Libertarians even if you lump in the quirks that Badnarik has he is still speaking more sense than the major parties and again the vote is for libertarianism at the moment really, thats the way the media and demopublican's will take it, not really for Badnarik or even for specifics of the LP platform vs. general libertarianism. If anything its more likely to get Cato and Reason, etc, covered more in the future.

If Badnarik gets enough votes to break the difference in North Carolina, it will be without my vote. I hadn't even realized he was one of the anti-IRS salesmen. All I knew was that he was pushing anti-american rhetoric that I saw as supporting our enemies in a time of war.

Perhaps in 4 years time, the LP will once again give me a candidate I can feel comfortable voting for.

I voted today. Yep, I blogged it. Hit the link.

Re: Mr. Badnarik's tax claims, if you want to know why you have to pay income tax:

26 USC Sec. 1.
26 USC Sec. 61.

For all the details: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

I wish what he said were true. I'd get one wealthy client out of taxes in exchange for a lifetime annuity, and spend my days in the hammock.

His schtick would be funny, except some people buy Mr. Badnarik's disingenuous nonsense and end up broken by back taxes, penalties and legal bills.

"I still think Kerry's denial of major problems in social security, and Bush's implications recently of being guided by God are more moonbatish than Badnarik." Yep. In politics there is acceptable moonbattiness (such as believing that God will guide you, or that government social programs are cost effective) and there is unacceptable moonbattiness - but if the moonbattiness is politically incorrect, it's far more likely that it's believers have actually done some thinking.

However, Badnarik's dished up one big heap of the stupidest PC moonbattiness - pacifism/isolationism. He wants to pull our troops out of Iraq in 90 days. Whatever you think of the original decision to invade, leaving now would be to let Iraq become another Lebanon at best, and another Taliban Afghanistan at worst. (Either way, a breeding ground for terrorists.) And it would encourage the other wackos in the middle east. Syria and Libya could go back to contracting out terrorism, because Badnarik wouldn't go after them without absolute proof, if then. Iran could get back to trying to build nukes without worrying about a preemptive strike. The Saudis would continue selling us oil and resume sending a tithe to their terrorist cousins...

Badnarik has made this a centerpiece of his platform, as in "a vote for me is a vote for peace." If the Repubs do see a significant percentage of their votes going to the libertarians, what will they think they need to do to get them back - respect civil liberties, or just act more like peaceniks?

So, vote for Bush! Or is there a fourth choice to the right of Nader that isn't for peacenik moonbattery or wholesale rights violations? Anyone looked at the Constitutional Party lately?

I guess my point is basically that if you have problems with a Libertarian voice, then *become* the voice of the vast majority of Libertarians who wish to find reasonable non-moonbats to win. It just happens that some of the more, er, extreme types are the ones more motivated to put in the effort to become candidates. You needn't agree with every single plank of the platform, most don't, just as Demopublicans don't. (though obviously we don't wish to lose focus and become like the sell out "small govt." republicans)

Even most people out there who vote LP even will likely never have heard of Badnarik's quirks vs. just knowing what the LP is. Give the LP support to make it a more attractive vehicle for good candidates and they will be welcomed. Most of the influence of LP votes for president will be getting credibility at least as potential spoilers to help build local and state LPs that don't yet have spoilers or other things to get the media to pay more attention.

Stop thinking short term in general since that approach obviously hasn't been working given the Demopublican candidates this time, and without the help of more folks like you we wind up with Badnarik as a candidate (though it sounds like that was more an accident of him being 2nd choice to a couple of better known candidates and peopel not knowing enough about him). Build the LP for the future and a better candidate 4 years from now, 8 years, whatever.

re: the war.
I suspect that the Republicans aren't likely to change their view on the war due to seeing votes going to Libertarians, more likely view them as votes for small government.

I find it interesting that those that don't want to control the lives of others in this country want to go and control the lives of Iraqi's after having already made a mess over there. Last I read Bush's pet candidate wasn't in the lead over there. We are *creating* terrorists. Do we wish to go and spend $X essentially as a socialist entity remaking Iraq in our view? Perhaps we have the ability to, and some people the selfish desire to, but perhaps its more appropriate to leave it in their hands and attempt to show terrorists that we've decided to stop playing games over there so they have no need to target us. As far as I know, although the Japanese did send some token effort to Iraq, terrorists aren't targeting them. They are busy building their economy vs. making war (albeit there are rumblings of desire for more military there). In the past we helped armed Iraq, we need to be careful we keep them as a friend when we do so again. We can peacefully find ways to try to turn other countries to our way of thinking but need to be careful about imposing our
will through war on countries not ready for democracy.

If you back some side in a conflict elsewhere in the world, then send them money or go volunteer yourself or send your kids. We should focus on defending our own borders (and this next is a common libertarian thought even if its a bit more than the LP perhaps officially goes for) with a military that no one will have any doubts can squash a country that actually does make a move against us. Instead of playing guilty till proven innocent and squashing other countries and rebuild ing them, lets mind our own business and give them no reason at all to send terrorists over here.
Find ways to encrouage terrorist to turn over the criminals among them, like large bounty's (being careful to deal with the problem of then motivating terrorism for bounty rather than teaching them that if you think about going after the US others will turn you in but if you are friendly with us we'll be friendly with you vs. going over and mucking around in other countries business. Granted I'm glossing over details of how to work that but then I've already been typing too much already, sorry, when i'm groggy i don't write as clearly :-)

What is it that makes Mr. Badnarik believe that the IRS is required to answer his questions? It is not the job of government employees to waste time fielding stupid questions from uninformed fools. Government employees can and should help people who have serious questions, but they should not waste valuable taxpayer funded time responding to moonbats. Moreover, the law is clear that one accepts advice from a government employee at one's own risk.

I am an attorney who represents a lot of municipal clients. If I were representing the IRS, I would tell Mr. Badnarik that it is not the job of the IRS to provide legal advice to him and that he should seek counsel on the matter. Any competent attorney will inform Mr. Badnarik that he is required to pay taxes, but I suspect that Mr. Badnarik is the type of person who will not credit any answer that is at odds with his preconceived notions.

For the record, the Internal Revenue Code identifies what is income ("any accession to wealth"), sets the rate at which it is to be taxed, and commands that taxes at that rate be paid. Mr. Badnarik is leading people down a primrose path which leads to disaster. He is either a knave or a charlatan.

I hate to say it, but soon the two major parties will be the Libertarian Republicans and the Rockerfeller Republicans. The Democrats and the Greenies can fight it out for third.

Anyone know where I can get a detailed recap of the Libertarian Convention that was written right after Badnarik was nominated? The one I have in mind had all this info on how little Browne & Co. had spent on advertising despite raising quite a bit of cash. I thought that Balko had blogged on it but can't find it. Thanks...

OT, but, Noemie Emery would like to call our attention to the difference between a mistake and a tragedy...a must read for anyone having trouble with war deaths in Iraq.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/emery200410250750.asp

"So many people say they are... 'fiscally conservative, socially liberal' -- you'd think the libertarians would be growing like crazy."

As one of those who are fiscally conservative, I would like to point out that there is a difference between that position and "small government." My hot button is balancing the federal budget most of the time -- a fiscally conservative goal. Is 22% of GDP too much for the federal government to be spending? Maybe yes, maybe no, but if we're going to spend that much, then we need to raise that much through our tax system. Is Social Security a reasonable function for the federal government? Perhaps yes, but only if we're willing to pay for it.

I may, or may not, want a smaller government. I'd certainly like to have a simpler one, though. There's no excuse for a tax code that runs to thousands, or tens of thousands, of pages.

Damn, you guys get your panties in a bunch because the guy has principles and isn't afraid to tell the world about them. It's not like he's a lying flip-flopper... or a lying flip-flopper.

It's true, decent men can't get elected. We should probably just flip a coin and go with on of the two guys who have bought the most favorable media. That's democratic.

Walter E. Wallis: From your lips to God's ears.

If only there was a God, and he had ears.

BTW, the interview you quote from (hadn't looked before to see the rest since i got the point)
was written by a fellow that was actually in the LP until recently, and writes a column for the Boulder Weekly. He stayed in past our true nutcase Senate candidate he mentions that slipped in (most of us didn't think there was any serious chance the guy would be nominated so didn't worry about going to the convention). Whats interesting is what seems to have soured him on the LP was actually a candidate who was not quite pure libertarian enough on gun issues for him, not the moonbat candidates which I think are simply growing pains the party needs to pass through.
Badnarik is a bit more moonbatish (not really phrase i'd use but since you did) than I realized but i'd still rather hold my nose and vote for him to support libertarianism and moreso the reasonable LP activists within the party out there trying to make an effor. Helping them see progress so they don't burn out as is easy to do amidst media blackouts, moonbats, libertarians chosing to back big government, etc. and they will keep doing the work to try to spread libertarian ideas since to all the people who would never hear
about them otherwise. Many would not write letters to the editor or help with ballot initiatives that get passed if there hadn't been an LP since they wouldn't have gotten involved in politics with the Demopublicans to be around to help with the ballot initiatives.
The LP has also served as a stepping stone for some who do then choose to defect and try to work within the Demopublicans, albeit some compromising their views (eg, for better or worse, former Colorado Attorney General and current US Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton was involved with the Colorado LP long ago apparently).

er, or rather the author of the story containing the interview clip, Ari Armstrong. Sorry, no more posts,
if any, till after caught up on sleep (3am here).

ok, one more. Obviously the point about $1billion
bounty for say bin Laden, etc, may not work among
fanatics or may have unintended consequences.
The point was that although that was simplistic,
to stress creative more crime oriented approaches
rather than military approaches which make us
even more of a target amd is letting the terrorists win by inciting more hatred over there for the US
as well as here. ok, too groggy to follow through on incomplete thoughts, but the Bush/Kerry approach isn't headed the right direction. ( I remember telling people months before the war Bush would go for it whether there were WMDs or not that was just an excuse, but I'm sure Kerry would have been lead by the intelligence folks in that direction).

Friggin' marvelous. This bozo has been filing frivolous 'questionnaires' since 1997 and the IRS hasn't batted an eye. Meanwhile, I've been in an audit battle over a completely legitimate and fully documented return since 2001.

Jesus wept. I don't know what else to say.

I'd call myself "fiscally conservative (or perhaps moderate), socially liberal." But there's no way I'd be voting for the current Libertarian platform. The "socially liberal" side of the description has been all but abandoned by the Libertarians (to court conservative voters?), and the fiscally conservative side has become unworkably extremist.

Give me a party that is actually socially liberal and fiscally *sane* (i.e., one that recognizes the difference between using redistribution of wealth to achieve a social benefit and robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote), and I'll vote for them every time.

Re: Michael Cain's comment...

Likewise, people say 'socially liberal' when, I hope, they mean 'socially tolerant'. Socially liberal includes things like the anti-smoking crusade, affirmative action, the suppression of school choice, restrictions on violence in media, university speech codes, etc. All kinds of nanny-statism that is really very socially intolerant.

Given a mild member of one camp and a moderate member of the other, I'll choose moderate over mild without regard to liberal vs. conservative. Other than, I don't think I care much, systematically.

Of course, they all oppose drug legalization. Statist bastards.

P.S.

Did the Libertarian party *ever* champion the "redistribution of wealth to acheive social benefit" ? I find it hard to believe it did.

Likewise, people say 'socially liberal' when, I hope, they mean 'socially tolerant'.

Yes, if you like that terminology better. The "nanny-statism" stuff you mention is extreme fringe, and rarely seen outside of talk-radio straw men. (Though it's always interesting to me what issues people pick as "social issues." In the libertarian circles I've seen, issues like abortion and gay marriage get very little attention in comparison to firearms, drug legalization, school vouchers, etc.)

Did the Libertarian party *ever* champion the "redistribution of wealth to acheive social benefit" ? I find it hard to believe it did.

They emphatically don't, as far as I've seen. That bit of the comment was more aimed at the other two parties, who pretend like things like industry subsidies are actually good for the country as a whole. Though I do support a very limited set of redistributionist goals that I'm not sure the Libertarian Party would agree with.

Jane-

how about you run as the LP candidate. maybe it's too late for this cycle, but clearly there is a growing internet support for reasonable, libertarian minded people like yourself, which as you correctly point out is grossly missing in the current LP candidate.

This is the sort of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" set of policies that I would like to see a political party advocate, and which I think a solid plurality (if not majority) of Americans would buy into:

* Whenever possible, look for ways to privatize government operations (with reasonable oversight) or eliminate government operations altogether, because the private sector always accomplishes things more efficiently than the government. Included are areas like education, health care, and social security.

* Defend our borders and do not become entangled in foreign affairs. Do not buy off foreign governments or establish bases in foreign countries. If attacked, strike with overwhelming force and settle for nothing less than totally vanquishing the enemy. Maintain a defense force that is the world leader technologically.

* Prevent border incursions by illegals and actively search out, fine, and deport those who are here illegally. Establish strict identification requirements for voting so that we can trust the results of elections.

* No censorship, no intrusion into personal life. The home is your castle. Government should have nothing to do with defining marriage; leave that up to the church you belong to (if any). Government enforces contracts, period.

* Move towards experiments in decriminalizing drug use, gambling, prostitution, and anything else organized crime and gangs use to fund their operations. Try different approaches and see if decriminalization reduces these activites or not.

* Abortion is repugnant and an ugly choice often regretted by the woman, but government makes it worse by outlawing it. Do not fund abortions with public money. Have no government involvement in this matter.

* No more limitations on gun rights. They infringe on the second amendment.

* Get rid of campaign finance laws. They infringe on the first amendment.

* Move towards eliminating all government-sanctioned discrimination such as affirmative action. Aim for a situation where everyone competes based on merit in a free market, without government interference or nannying.

I would vote for a party advocating these positions. Why isn't there one?

We would have gotten a lot more press. Positive press.

But with 2 out of 3 leading candidates looking like long lost cousins, if not clones, it was all but guaranteed.

Way back in the '70's-'80's there was an LP Radical Caucus.

Maybe it's time for an LP Rational Caucus.

Tom
(website moribund, don't bother)

I didn't know anything about the LP candidate untilI read this interview, and now I don't need to know anything more. "Moonbat" is putting it charitably. I feel most sorry for the poor people who pay him good money so that they can end up in debt and in jail after not paying their taxes.

I think the main reason the LP has never done as well as Republicans or Democrats is nature. Authoritarianism is not in the nature of the LP. They don't like others telling them what to do and, conversely, don't care too much for telling others what they should do either. The Rs and Ds, on the other hand, revel in power. As a result, you just don't get the same level of dynamism and enthusiasm at the upper levels. "Let's get together everyone and not force anyone to do do anything!" is just not a resounding cry to arms.

Mark J: Are you serious? You say you want to eliminate all gun control laws? I wonder if you really mean that? Which, if any, of the following weapons do you believe that you should be able to own: (1) medium (.30) caliber automatic rifles; (2) heavy caliber (.50) automatic rifles; (3) RPGs; (4) Stinger antiaircraft missiles; (5) Abrams tanks; (6) 200 mm howitzers; (7) Vulcan machine guns. If you would limit the Second Amendment to handguns and small caliber rifles, why?

DBL: I said "no MORE gun controls laws", meaning no ADDITIONAL gun control laws.

submandave:

The main reason libertarianism has never done particularly well is the same reason that communism ultimately failed. Both ignore basic human nature.

Either of these political philosophies might work among a community composed of saints truly motivated to work towards the common good in spite of significant personal cost. However, that doesn't describe humanity in general.

Saints compose maybe 5% of the population at best. The rest of us are greedy, self-centered SOBs looking out to further our and our family's good.

That's just basic human nature. Only a small percentage of people are primarily motivated by altruism. The vast majority are primarily motivated by self-interest.

Any political philosophy that does not recognize that fact is doomed to failure. Human nature has been fairly constant throughout recorded history and across all cultures.

Communism failed as it provided no little or no opportunity for the average person to improve their position in life through their own efforts. It thus ignored the fact that the vast majority of people are motivated primarily by self interest.

IMO, liberalism gets little traction as the average person is smart enough to realize that there is such thing as the "common good" - but also realizes that most people won't actively work for the common good against their own interests. Most people intuitively realize that the absence of laws/rules/norms and allowing people to do whatever they wanted (yes, that's a gross oversimplification of the liberalist position) would lead to anarchy and societal collapse. They see liberalism as a potential path to such anarchy and collapse.

Noah: The problem I have with Badnarik's "prinicples" is that they reek of paranoid-style thinking, and a lack of connection to the real world which is deadly in a President.

Fling: Your faith in Alternative Parties and greater representation for them is touching. Perhaps, given that many nations in the West (dozens?) have such systems with many parties, you could point out to us how Libertarian ideas became strong in any of them?

I am personally very disinclined to give up a system that has a giant moderating effect on its results for one that gives fringe parties (even ones I might generally agree with) significantly more power (because I disagree with all the other fringe parties, often vehemently, and in any case their likely influence in most modified systems looks, in my investigation, to outweigh their actual support).

Hondo, you've explained why socialism doesn't work with real humans, but not libertarianism. Libertarianism is in fact designed to work very well with greedy humans - the only way a business can succeed and satisfy its owners greed in a free market is to keep its customers, suppliers, and employees satisfied with their parts of the deal.

This does require enough law enforcement to discourage theft (and I consider the libertarian/anarchists who think this can be done without a government to be barking moonbats), but it certainly does not require allowing power-hungry officials to poke their noses into everyone's business.

Yes, it's true, everyone here concedes it- Badnarik is, indeed, nuts. It goes beyond just this latest IRS insanity (YES, they DO have the legal authority to tax, if he was *serious* about stopping them he'd just say that they do have the authority now, but he'll try to take it away if he's President). He wants to attach the dollar to the gold standard again. HEY DIPSHIT: Gold prices aren't stable!! I'll let you guys do the mental imagery of people running on the banks, which actually happened in this nation's history. He has very little regard to the actual consequences of what would happen if his reforms were enacted in real life. Same with the driver's licenses. Some people don't have licenses for a REASON, folks. Driver's licenses keep the nutcases off the fucking road! (Not all the nutcases, as everyone who has driven anywhere knows. But it'd be much, much worse without them.)

On most issues, though, Badnarik makes eminent sense. He's the only one who makes a firm stand for a balanced budget, the only one who makes a stand on ending the completely ineffectual War on Drugs (which is much more insane than he is!), and the only one who actually comes out and says that hey, maybe we should stop the freedom rhetoric and start promoting real freedom.

Here's the thing- even if Badnarik was TOTALLY insane, I mean 100% absolutely looney-tune mental-institution nuts, I'd still vote for him- which I already did, this being Oregon mail-in voting and all. More votes help the LP. Period. More people take the LP seriously with more votes, more people are attracted to the LP as a serious party (as they did with Perot in '92.. man I wish he would have won), and the increasing party size improves the candidates.

What Libertarians need to do is pull their heads out of their asses, stop the defeatist rhetoric, and get serious about what the law actually says and what they can do to change it.

Otherwise it's just a piss in the wind.

Libertarians should vote for the only libertarian currently running for President. Namely, George W. Bush.

Founding LP Presidential candidate John Hospers agrees.

OK, I'll run for the LP nomination in 2008. My motto, "Freedom to be a nutjob doesn't mean you have to elect one!"

For a refreshing contrast to Mr. Badnarik, check out John Hospers, the LP's very first presidential candidate's open letter to libertarians everywhere. http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1004/1004openletter.htm courtesy Ace of Spades and Enter Stage Right.

I've never been a big L Libertarian, but Hospers sure has, and he's a hell of a lot more clearheaded and sober than many of the mindless, Bushbashing, big or small l libertarians I've read in blogland. Or the editors at Reason for example. Since Jane is wrestling with her choice for prez, this should be required reading.

Sigivald: Your faith in Alternative Parties and greater representation for them is touching.

What I have is not faith in Alternative Parties. It's lack of faith in our two-party system and knowing Duverger's Law prevents any third parties from having any relevance in a plurality voting system.

This isn't too controversial a point. Plurality does not gracefully handle more than two choices. More than two, and all you get is a spoiler effect, or a splitting of the vote. I illustrate that here. But it's not that foreign or complicated a concept. Nader voters demonstrated that in 2000, and this is why the Dems are trying to force him off the ballot in this election. Should Badnarik spoil the race for Bush, you can be sure that the Republicans will try to do the same to the LP in the next election.

It's also why we have primaries. After all, why doesn't McCain run against both Bush and Kerry? Shouldn't two Republican choices increase the chances of a Republican win?

Sigivald: Perhaps, given that many nations in the West (dozens?) have such systems with many parties, you could point out to us how Libertarian ideas became strong in any of them?

I am not claiming that electoral reform will bring about a renaissance in libertarian thinking. I am claiming that getting rid of plurality is a prerequisite for any third party (libertarian or otherwise) to gain relevance. If you are arguing that libertarian ideals can prevail without electoral reform, perhaps you'd like to point out to me any single country in the world which uses plurality voting and has more than two viable parties?

Jeff:
My point was that 'socially liberal' often means 'left-wing social authoritarian'. I guess I assumed that people think 'socially conservative' means 'right-wing social authoritarian'. Essentially, I see leftists wanting to paternalize us for our bodily health, rightists wanting to paternalize us for our spiritual health. Either way, paternalism is hard to justify.

Presumably, a libertarian's opposition to a policy is proportional to both the quantity and severity of the rights violations it entails. And presumably libertarians are more likely to get worked up about rights in danger of restriction, rather than dangers that the current system does a decent job of preventing.

Presumably, because abortion is not too restricted right now, libs don't spend too much time on it.
Presumably, because gay marriage bans violate the rights of a fairly small number of people (though fairly severely), libs don't spend much time on it.

Unjust drug laws result in, what, millions being imprisoned? Surely a larger injustice than being blocked from marriage. Lack of school vouchers result in millions of parents being disincented from raising their children as they prefer. Less severe than being forced to carry a baby to term, but larger numbers. Don't ask me about guns -- not something I get worked up about, except in a theoretical kind of way: what if the government gets really really tyrannical, and we have to resort to right of rebellion?

White straight males are the second largest demographic, right behind white straight females. I suspect WSMs are the group most likely to be libertarian. Thus, human lack of empathy being what it is, libs are probably most likely to get worked up about issues that are of concern to WSMs.

I suspect that WSM libs would probably say (as I'm saying here)
"Yes, yes, gay marriage bans, bans on abortion, immigration quotas that favor white nations over non-white nations... those are all anti-libertarian and wrong. Of course."
even if they don't make them their talking points.

MarkJ,

I like your ideas! Although the one about no foreign involvement but hit hard if attacked ("strike with overwhelming force") is next to impossible if you don't have any foreign bases. We physically don't have the shipping to move large pieces of equipment in a timely fashion to every point on the globe.

And I think you ought to add the idea of a national sales tax in lieu of income taxes, which has the benefit of not only being simpler, but one which captures the underground economy of illegal activity. All that unreported income will now be taxed when it is spent!

btw, there are over 600 elected Libertarians around the country who likely aren't "moonbats" since they've been elected. It is difficult to get past the moonbats, that Senate candidate in Colorado, Stanley,
appeared to most to be a reform party refugee becoming libertarian at first even though some of us saw the warning signs, but the other candidates that year were fine. Most libertarians who know about Badnarik's quirks are cringing fearing they'll get publicized but at the same time hoping to not be hit with a one-two punch of lower vote totals despite that, so it helps keep the reasonable ones motivated we'll get past this candidate and keep growing. I suspect you may underestimate the extent of the media blackout and the level of coverage even if Badnarik does "spoil" swing a state, they don't want to cover the ideas and would likely at most talk about the horse race issue. Apparently on friday NBC had a story about nader, then at the end mentioned that there is a candidate that might make more of a difference but little is heard about, Badnarik. And of course they went on to say nothing more. They like Nader and he has "celebrity".
Most of the stuff I'd seen on Badnarik quirks actually comes from small-l libertarians. They tend to spread word more about candidates with quirks than the lower level ones that make progress. (I almost punted when just before the election Stanley ran a nutcase conspiracy ad, but fortunately appears to have not been noticed (I was hunting for venture capital at the time and known to be a Libertarian (my biz partner was a candidate, a rational one :-), cato type leanings,
experience with budgets managed $100 million budgets and 800 people in his last exec post), so I worried it was a risk to stick with the party but I have, and most folks I talked to didn't write is off for one bad candidate. also most of the public doesn't tend to pay much attention and likely doesn't know details about Badnarik). It is btw moonbat'ish to think
that Badnarik will be elected this time. So obviously the analysis would be bogus to be done in the same way it is for a major party candidate since he personally is not going to be elected.

Hondo: I wasn't addressing the faiure of Libertarianism, but the failure of the LP. Although you do have sound points concerning human nature, you can't really cite those as the failure of Libertarians, because the system has never been tried on the same scale as Communism or Socialism. And again, that's because libertarians aren't really interested in power or control. The fact is that all governments tend toward authoritarianism because those are the sort of people, generally, who are willing to put so much effort into it and work so hard to be elected.

I like many of the ideas presented here, I dont believe their should be laws on vice, and I dont believe in military intervention unless we have a vital interest at stake.

But the real question is do the Libertarian views have a broad enough appeal to ever make them a legitimate voting option? This is the most important election in my lifetime, and imo there are enough differences between Kerry and Bush to make any vote not cast for one of them, a wasted vote. Low voter turn out favors the reps, Im surprised that Nader hasn't been given topic space here, because one things for sure, on election day none of the reps here will be voting Badnarek or Nader.

First, let me say how much better Instapundit has been in the last day or so.

You've risen on my bookmarks list.

Second, Badnarik isn't a serious libertarian, and his party will never be a force in politics because he's a conspiracy theorist who confuses liberty with criminal behavior.

btw, almost every presidential election for quite a while has been viewed at the time as being "the most important election" for whatever reason. There are always scare stories as to why there is a need to vote against one candidate or the other and the elections have been staying close.
It seems doubtful that trend will stop. And it won't change if people keep voting for it and voting for either mahor candidate sends *no* msg for small government.

btw, the key to third parties is that they needn't be elected to have an influence if the ideas get enough public exposure and cause the major parties
to gradually (it is slow) adopt them. In part it can serve the function that Libetarians did on the RTD board here for a libertarian Republican, shifting the perceived "moderate" position more in our direction even if we don't get there completely. Its also in part a matter of the public gradually getting used to the idea of a "libertarian" so it isn't dismissed reflexively, knee-jerk, without even hearing about it, as being bad because its different, hasn't been heard of before, etc. Or due to the waste vote idea (the LP would likely be much larger with better candidates by now if small-l libertarian voters hadn't either
not voted or voted Demopublican because the Demopublican candidate had a chance to win and enlarge govt. (er, so how then did those libertarian voters win?)). Again, why the heck, rationally, self-interest wise, should Demopublicans listen to those who vote for them anyway? aside from of course the fine work places like Cato & Reason do in spreading the ideas and making them more acceptible, as well as blogs like this one. However once people hear about the ideas there isn't a way to vote for them except the LP.

We still don't get much coverage here, but for instance a Denver PBS station is broadcsting debates including the LP congressional candidates (and a seperate third party senate debate). I think only one of them will cause me to cringe a bit from what I've heard, but re: having some mainstream non-libertarian views (vs. Badnarik style moonbatishness) re: "losing jobs to China, India". grr. Things like this allow libertarians to get (temporarily) coverage at a level out of proportion to the current % of libertarians within the general population. btw, I don't mean to overstate the progress here in breaking into the media which still does downplay candidates or ignore them in most articles, the Colorado LP has had burnout in part from that Senate candidate last time.

btw, what I heard about the convention was that those who voted for Badnarik had no idea about his moonbat tendencies, they didn't know enough about him or they
wouldn't have voted for him and were kicking themselves later when they found out. I may be wrong, just speculating, that perhaps his peddlign of his own course was likely added motivation to become the candidate and likely people assumed blindly that if he taught about the constition he likely was rational. Everyone had expected one of 2 other frontrunning nominees to get it. I'd heard the guy had some quirks but hadn't felt like looking into them I guess knowing i'd vote for the LP anyway (sort of like Demopublican's going into denial about their candidates flaws except that that in this case I know they are there and didn't need to hear all the depressing details). Its true that small-l libertarians can work in the major parties, however many folks would never stomach it and
I suspect the number of true libertarians (vs. those that use the rhetoric but don't vote that way) elected even within the Demopublicans is smaller even than the tiny number elected within the LP. Most of the so called Libertarian Republicans for instance tend to be so in rhetoric only (Ron Paul being one exception, though he has a bit of the religious right

Although you do have sound points concerning human nature, you can't really cite those as the failure of Libertarians, because the system has never been tried on the same scale as Communism or Socialism. And again, that's because libertarians aren't really interested in power or control. The fact is that all governments tend toward authoritarianism because those are the sort of people, generally, who are willing to put so much effort into it and work so hard to be elected.

True enough, but I think what he is driving at is that those same people don't go away in a true Libertarian system, instead, the Great Tyranny of One is traded for a Plurality of Somewhat Lesser Tyrannies.

State-sponsored communism assumes people will put in their maximum capabilities for the common good (rather than tending toward the lowest common denominator); state-sponsored libertarianism assumes people will govern their excesses to personal damage only (rather than tending to trample everyone else if convenience demands).

In short, a regulatory state modeled by the strongest libertarian views would quite possibly not be strong enough to actually maintain civil order once the power seekers discovered just how far they could push the invisible line. Either you would end up with a situation somewhat like The Jungle, or somewhat like the organized crime syndicates of the '20s and '30s, or somewhat a mixture of those -- power seekers still present, and still rising to power, just in different ways.

I use to favor just about any third party. The two party system we have sucks imo. But Ive heard the grow slow by effecting an election for twenty five years, yet the two people(rather than real parties) that have accomplished that goal, Perot and Nader, have been squashed rather then elevated for their success. The fact is our system is protected by both parties because neither the reps or dems want to cut another party into the split, and your vote for a third party will not in anyway make that party anything more then they are right now. If you want to work to attempt to bring a third party into the process as a viable choice with a chance to win, thats a noble pursuit, but a vote for anyone other than Kerry or Bush in this election is a waste of the gas it takes to get you to the polling booths.

The obligation to pay taxes is enshrined in our Constitution, right next to the right to privacy.

Actally, its enshrined in the 16th amendment.

Well, the LP could be viable if Schwarzeneger switches to LP and runs for re-election and wins. It needs good media. And NOT LP purity -- accept all "fellow travelers" of current gov't is too big, we need to be moving to make it smaller. Not sure what the endpoint is (minarchy, etc.), but certainly a LOT less than now.

And the IRS battle is a fringe battle. In fact, most taxes are fringe -- the culture needs to be changed to be against gov't spending (ya know, the voters DO know that TANSTAAFL), and tax cuts come easy after that.

A Theory of Just Taxation, or even a hierarchy (eg Georgist Land Value Tax as least bad; pollution taxes; limited liable corporate size taxes?; consumption taxes; progressive passive income rates; flat income taxes). It would be nice to be moving to much more User Fees, too.

Oh well, Marginal Revolution notes that believers in Democracy shouldn't mind much either Bush or Kerry outcome. Kinda good, in theory -- but no emotional connection.

Bush is a big spender; Kerry wants to be worse (but we all know he's just bragging/ lying).

Who's more likely to stop Iran from getting nukes in the next 4 years?

"Who's more likely to stop Iran from getting nukes in the next 4 years?"

hmm. Seems odd to create more terrorists in an effort to prevent a government from acquiring a weapon realistically unlikely to ever be used by that government within the borders of America.
Are we being used by other countries to perform and pay for their defense (if some country justifies it that way) rather than ours?

The key to deailng with these countries is of course more trade and interdependence to demotivate them and have them view our country in a more positive light and acquire more modern media and awareness of us and our culture, so they see the benefits of it and are drawn to modernization and learn about and yearn for democracy, etc. Seems like we make enemies and make ourselves less safe with trade sanctions, too easily resorting to war, etc. (and Kerry hints of preemption in places even more than Bush).

Terrorists may be that irrational but unless we succeed in pushing them over the brink, governments, despite rhetoric, are unlikely to be that stupid knowing the response. Of course we do need to try to incent countries to keep control of their weapons. Presumably they realize its in their own best interest since weapons that are stolen could be used against them or a country that might hold them responsible.

Seems like people, especially Bush/Kerry need to be a bit more creative and thoughtful in coming up with approaches to handle these things vs.
simply taking simplistic "no brainer" approaches
which may turn out to have shown "no brain" due
to unintended consequences of policies which
seem entirely predictable.

There may be occasions to preempt risk/threat of
force, but we need to be careful to avoid using
that excuse too easily and perhps wrongly. ie, it is true that if someone points a gun at you intending to shoot hasn't yet fired, or fires and misses, hasn't technically used force against you yet but you can start shooting to defend yourself.
an example, er, misfire :-) in that case would be if you assume too quickly the gun is pointed at you vs. being mistake and the fellow is defending himself from another attacker or rationally simply being prepared to do so.

In this country there are those whose fear of others is so great that they don't wish to let others have guns to exercise their own right of self defense. libertarians usually object to that.
Similarly we need to be cautious about how we
decide when its appropriate to fear other countries enough that we decide we have a right
to preemptively attack them and be the ones
initiating violence and killing others for the sake of calming possibly questionable fear fanned by those in power, inspiring more hatred and terrorism, etc.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0410m.asp
> These remarks were delivered on October 22, 2004, at the Cato
> Institute’s conference Lessons from the Iraq War: Reconciling Liberty
> and Security.
> ...
> The invasion has taken the lives of tens of thousands of innocent
> Iraqis, including ordinary Iraqi soldiers, innocent in the sense that
> they had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

> What is fascinating about U.S. officials is that they cannot fathom
> the notion that people in Iraq and surrounding countries become just
> as angry when their loved ones, relatives, friends, and countrymen are
> killed as Americans and others around the world become when innocent
> Americans are killed. It’s a blind spot that afflicts the minds of
> U.S. officials.

> Even worse is the callous indifference to the deaths and maiming of
> Iraqis. As everyone knows, the Pentagon doesn’t even keep count of
> Iraqi deaths and injuries. After all, they are only Iraqis, the
> reasoning goes.
> ...
> "60 Minutes" asked Albright whether the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi
> children from the sanctions was worth regime change the policy of
> trying to oust a non-friendly U.S. regime and replace it with a
> U.S.-friendly regime. Albright did not bother to challenge the number
> of Iraqi dead or the brutal consequences of the embargo. Instead, she
> said: Well, yes, it’s hard, but we do believe that it is worth it.

> No federal official criticized or condemned her statement for the
> precise reason that it reflected the official federal mindset of
> indifference toward the lives of the Iraqi people and still does.
> ...
> If there is a terrorist attack in the United States arising out the
> anger associated with the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of
> innocent Iraqis, make no mistake about it: U.S. officials will
> immediately announce that the attacks are motivated by hatred for
> America’s "freedom and values", the First Amendment, Madonna, and
> Coca-Cola. They will say that the attack has absolutely nothing to do
> with the killing and maiming of tens of thousands of innocent
> Iraqis. Just as they said after the attacks on 9/11.

> How has all this made Americans safer from terrorism?

The US also has to be careful not to be so worried about
the weapons another country might aquire that it creates
enough more enemies in the process that its less safe than
it was if it stayed out of it and only responded if there
were every a more real threat of force against America itself
vs. worrying too much in advance and going off to expend
lives in a "preempting" a country which may never have had
a conflict with us othewise. We need to be careful what
fear motivates us to do. Allowing ourselves to be controlled
by fear is what terrorists wish to accomplish to begin with.
Bush/Kerry are helping do the job for them by helping build
up fear in order to get support for their own legacies (or
attempted ones).

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=2579
> May 15, 2004
> Don't Start a War With Iran
> by Rep. Ron Paul
> .....
> Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter
> sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose
> sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move
> toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is
> made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and
> blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran
> should especially reject sanctions just look at how our Cuba policy
> has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for
> decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most
> recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among
> the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not
> go hungry when sanctions are imposed.

> It is somewhat ironic that we are again meddling in Iranian
> affairs. Students of history will recall that the US government's
> ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and
> its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to
> intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical
> Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations
> would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that
> country's internal affairs. We likely would not be considering
> resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties
> created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to always be yet
> more meddling. Will Congress ever learn?

> I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with Iran, to
> reject the failed policies of regime-change and nation-building, and
> to return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in
> the affairs of other sovereign nations.

dubious: Call it "civil libertarianism" or "social libertarianism" if you like. It really has nothing to do with paternalism.

As for the idea that libertarians ignore social issues because they're I'm dubious (so to speak). You say gay marriage is ignored because it affects a small number of people, albeit severely. Then why is there so much emphasis put on the PATRIOT Act, which also affects a small number of people, albeit severely? Why, when guns aren't too severely restricted now, is access to them an integral part of the Libertarian Party platform while they're silent on access to abortion?

To have a social policy platform in 2004 that includes affirmative action, drug legalization and school vouchers but leaves out abortion and gay marriage is just plain odd. I can't figure out if it's because the Libertarians are deliberately ommitting those issues to court conservatives, or if it's because they're really social conservatives trying to court libertarian and liberal votes.

2nd clip shows one explanation of how Badnarik somehow wound up as the candidate despite not one
of the 2 candidates people knew more about and proving to be "moonbatish". Also, someone else
noting what I did re: not voting LP sends no clear
message that you are disaproving of Badnarik,
rather than simply being in favor of big governemnt candidates and desiring to make americans less safe from terrorism. Its better to vote None of the Above for president than to vote
for either Demopublican. Especially if you are flip flopping back and forth between them and then
may see a reason right after the election you
should have voted the other way and regret your
choice.

http://inclinedtocriticize.blogdrive.com/archive/242.html
> One thing I can be sure of, even if my vote doesn't count, is that it
> will be counted. Counted, cosseted, cherished and loved by the
> Libertarian Party. I can check off a box that identifies me as a
> potential future Libertarian voter. While it might seem to send a
> message to the LP that "this potential voter is disgruntled with your
> awful choice and is therefore voting Bush or Kerry" to vote otherwise,
> they'll never, ever know that's what you were.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006158.html

> The Libertarian National Convention may have reminded a few observers
> of Sartre's "No Exit" - each faction selected the candidate that would
> deny their rival faction victory, producing a nominee with little
> broad-based support. Or maybe it was more like the 1969 blaxploitation
> classic Putney Swope, in which a wildly unlikely darkhorse emerges out
> of similar circumstances at an advertising agency's board meeting. At
> any rate, the Convention certainly produced an unlikely candidate,
> Texas-based computer guru Michael Badnarik.

> Badnarik entered the convention as a distant challenger to two
> better-financed candidates, Hollywood producer Aaron Russo and
> Ohio-based talk show host Gary Nolan. But acrimony between Russo's and
> Nolan's camps led Nolan, who fell behind in early balloting, to
> withdraw and endorse Badnarik, with the intention of tilting the
> election away from Russo. Badnarik finally carried a majority on the
> third ballot and became the LP's unlikely nominee.

an article link on instapundit shows why this
is in fact the best time to make politicians
aware that there are those in favor of libertarian
government (assuming we grow the vote totals, which
is self reinforcing, more people vote this time
the more seriously othes take the LP in the future
at least prior to elections)
The influence of the internet has just begun, we've
only seen the tip of the iceberg of whats coming
re: changes in the nature of media and people's access to information.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3735-2004Oct27?language=printer

> The researchers tracked Americans' views on a range of political
> issues and compared them with the relevant legislation that Congress
> eventually approved. Twenty years ago, lawmakers did what a majority
> of Americans wanted about two-thirds of the time, they found. Today,
> Congress is on the same page with the public only about 40 percent of
> the time.

> The same is true for presidents. President Bush and Congress are
> cutting taxes at a time that a majority of Americans prefer the money
> be spent reducing the deficit or on social programs, polling
> consistently has shown. Shapiro cites Clinton's failed health care
> plan in 1993 as an example of a policy that reflected the president's
> and not the public's priorities.

> "Polls were not used to put together the plan, polls were used to put
> together a strategy to sell the plan," Shapiro says.

> He said the only time politicians pay much attention to the public's
> priorities is around Election Day. Shapiro noted that in 1996,
> "Clinton signed off on welfare reform, a bill he would have otherwise
> rejected. The Republicans agreed to vote for a minimum wage bill."

> But so what? "These are electoral pressures. That is what elections
> are for," Shapiro says. "This is the one shot the public gets to
> influence the process. Between elections, politicians don't respond to
> polls in that way. They collect information to lead or manipulate
> public opinion to achieve their own political or ideological goals."

> After Election Day, the heat's off and politicians go back to pressing
> their own agendas -- which is exactly what Clinton did in 1996 after
> he had won reelection.

Bryan, how about limiting yourself to one 5000-word essay every few hours or so? You don't have to cut and paste large swaths of text from every link you include. After all, "brevity is the soul of wit."

I agree with the criticism re: length, not spending enough time on this to pair things down to be more
concise, sorry (though often the clips require
that much to make the point or inspire reading
full article)
I should remember their are Demopublican's
out there who are used to soundbite thinking and who don't read very fast :-) (kidding, no flames please)
think i made most of the points for now.

Can I just say one more time that, if you're going to name-call, Republicrats is a helluva lot more catchier than Demopublican?

Libertarians who use words like Demopublicans to describe America's mainstream political parties just don't get it. It's like making up the word hetomosexual to describe sexual orientation. How far out do libertarians have to be not to appreciate the difference? What part of kill the terrorists vs. arrest the terrorists don't libertarians understand? Are tax cuts the same thing as tax hikes? Is pro-abortion the same as pro-choice? [bad example -ed.] Where in the history of the world is there a successful libertarian country to serve as an example of the result libertarians want? Is libertarianism (libertarity?) only theory? Why should any American want our country used for another radical political experiment? Can't libertarians start with someplace else for a proof of the concept? How about Greenland? If the name means anything it must be really, really green...

The word Demopublicans wasn't "name calling" but
simply an expression commonly used among libertarians
(and this is a libertarian blog) when used in a
context in which we don't think the two major parties
are very different. (I do apologize btw for kidding
about reading speed, usually more tactful, and for any other lapses. In part I'm assuming a
mostly small-l libertarian audience is who is reading comments here in a thread like this and is
used to such things. It just seemed funny given the comment on post length. stressed
this week about a non-politics thing, and too late nights on the computer).

"How far out do libertarians have to be not to appreciate the difference?"

I suspect you likely don't have much background
in what libertarian views are beyond the soundbite level.

"How far out do libertarians have to be not to appreciate the difference?"

er, we sometimes see differences but often to
us they are too minor to matter. pay attention
to what the politicians from the parties actually
do and not the rhetoric they spout. see george
Bush expand government programs, regulation,
etc.

Both major parties have been growing the
size of the federal government rather than
shrinking it. There are differences between
the parties but they are minor compared to
the differences between each of them and
libertarian viewpoints.

its the small level of differences between
the two that leave some libertarians undecided
which major party candidate is the lesser of two evils.

This blog likely has a mostly libertarian audience
so I won't go into basics about libertarianism
much here. Check out the Cato Institute for
scholarly discussion of various libertarian topics
and evidence for them. www.cato.org and books
like "Libertarianism" by David Boaz, the reason foundation, reason.org, and Reason mag, reason.com for discussion of real world policies and history.

"What part of kill the terrorists vs. arrest the terrorists don't libertarians understand?"

er, which of the candidates is saying which? they both seem to be saying almost the same things about terrorists. Mostly Kerry is saying "I can do what
Bush is proposing only I can do it better, and
believe that this is true because I tell you it
is even though I've contradicted myself and lied
about various things at times,
and done typical political distortions, etc"

"Are tax cuts the same thing as tax hikes?"

er, no, both candidates will likely need to
raise taxes to cover their massive spending
since neither one proposes to shrink it (or
see the deficit continue to grow affecting
interest rates for other capital, etc. ) and
both are likely to sneak in tax cuts for their
preferred special interest groups in the midst
of huge tax bills.

"Where in the history of the world is there a successful libertarian country to serve as an example of the result libertarians want?"

er, this one was much closer to it in the past,
(i know there were obvious exceptions at its
founding like slavery), most of the Founders would be shocked at what the fed. govt. has turned into.
It mostly began growing a decade or so after
the start of the last century when the income
tax was instituted and when direct election of Senators removed a check on the size of the
federal government which had been provided by
them being chosen by the state governments prior to that.

various libertarian policies individually have at times worked in this country or other ones
(such as privatized social security bailouts in
Chile, etc). Are non-libertarian solutions working
anyplace? It seems the government approachs
to many problems have proven themselves not
to work in other countries. The power of market
based approaches and freedom has proven itself
while trusting things to a monopolistic government
has proven to be wishful thinking. check out
Public Choice economics, proposed by Nobel Laureate economists and the theory of
government failure:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoiceTheory.html

It may seem silly to suggest, but if you haven't
been exposed to the problems of government
bureacracy, read the Dilbert
cartoons and realize that much of whats made
fun of there goes on in government bureacracies
just like any others and in fact moreso since there aren't usually checks and balances to prevent problems from growing out of hand. no
competition. And doing things at the federal
level rather than the state level prevents
states experimenting and learning from each
other and having points of comparison to provide
some level of accountability and in a sense competition.

"Why should any American want our country used for another radical political experiment? "

er, its not "another one", its in part a return
to the experiment we started when this country was
founded. should we instead follow the failed
socialist/communist/fascist "experiments" from
around the world? We are are trying to avoid
repeating their failures. We are trying to
adapt lessons learned in the market place about
dealing with the realities of human nature such
as self interest, the utility of competition,
etc. and stop assuming that when the government
fails at something that the best approach is to
hand it more money.

sorry, got drawn into typing a bit but this isn't
really the thread/place to address basic questions of libertarianism. It seems better to focus on
those that have some libertarian leanings but
for some reason aren't voting for the LP candidate. To address their concerns about
their version of small-l libertarian thoughts vs. Libertarian thoughts if anyone had any. and to
wonder why they think there
is any positive libertarian good to come from
supporting either Demopublican.

sorry, I know the clips below are long but they
illustrates the point that the choice of
Badnarik was a weird fluke and the LP was just
as taken aback by the moonbat stuff as those
here, without wading through the rest of the article. Yes, the LP goofed big time but just
didn't suspect the stuff. (though the other
candidates had other minor quirks like misconceptions about the federal reserve, etc,
then again Kerry doesn't understand minimum
wage economics, lots of stuff Bush doesn't understand).

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/bradford-dark_horse.html

> By now, most libertarians know that the Libertarian Party chose as its
> presidential nominee Michael Badnarik, the darkest of dark horses, and
> a figure hardly known within the party and virtually unknown to non-LP
> libertarians.
> ...
> these opinions were removed from the website shortly after he won the
> nomination, and they didn't come up when he visited state party
> conventions. Nor did his refusal to file tax returns, thereby risking
> federal indictment and felony arrest. While many of his closest
> supporters were aware of these issues, they were unknown to most LP
> members.
> ...
> Shortly after Badnarik made his acceptance speech, Larry Fullmer, an
> Idaho delegate and Russo supporter, learned from an Oregon delegate
> that Badnarik hadn't been filing his income tax returns. Fullmer, he
> later recalled, "freaked" at the news. "From early afternoon until
> 5:00 a.m. Monday, I spent every second telling folks about Badnarik
> and the IRS." Fullmer spoke to more than a hundred delegates, and
> didn't find a single delegate who knew that Badnarik hadn't been
> filing returns. Most were "shocked" at the news.

> Among others, Fullmer spoke with Mary Ruwart, who responded, "Larry,
> ya gotta get the election reconsidered," and proceeded to tell him
> that Robert's Rules required that a motion to reconsider the
> nomination was in order only if it was made by someone who had voted
> for the nominee. Fullmer also approached Judge Jim Gray, the LP senate
> candidate in California, and told him about Badnarik's not filing his
> tax returns. "You are running on a ticket headed up by a
> constitutional nutcase who has refused to pay his taxes for
> years. What do you think about that?" Gray responded, according to
> Fullmer, in these words: "Larry, if what you say is true . . . you
> already know what I think."

> Fullmer argued that Badnarik had committed fraud when, in response to
> a question at a candidates' debate at the Florida LP convention, he
> said that there was nothing in his background that could embarrass the
> party. When I asked Badnarik about this, he responded that he wasn't
> ashamed of his refusal to file tax returns. I reminded him the
> question (from Janet Hawkins, secretary of the Florida LP) was "Is
> there anything in your background that would embarrass you or the LP?"
> He responded that he had misunderstood the question.

> Fullmer is an abrasive and intemperate person, and some of those whom
> Fullmer talked with did not take him seriously. One person whom he
> spoke with described him as a "nutcase," and simply didn't believe
> him.
> ...
> Fullmer had, at Mary Ruwart's suggestion, found a delegate
> who had voted for Badnarik and was willing to make a motion for
> reconsideration. To Fullmer's extreme disappointment, the person
> failed to make the motion.

> After the convention elected a new National Committee, Fred Collins
> was given an opportunity to address the convention. He explained that,
> yes, Badnarik had some "minor" issues regarding his tax returns, and
> that these would be corrected, and that Badnarik did not have a
> driver's license, but that he hadn't been driving lately. The
> announcement was so low-key that many delegates hardly noticed it. In
> the half dozen other detailed reports on the convention I've read, it
> was not even mentioned.

> Later, at the first meeting of the newly elected National Committee,
> Collins said, regarding Badnarik's refusal to file tax returns, "I
> will fix this or I will walk away from the campaign. . . . If Michael
> Badnarik refuses to follow my directions about this problem, and you
> know what it is, I will walk away."
> ...
> He confirmed that he had agreed to settle with the IRS with all due
> speed to avoid the possible embarrassment of a federal indictment and
> arrest, and no longer to drive without a license.

> But this convention did have a certain similarity to a certain kind of
> sex. Thanks to the odd concatenation of events that I have described
> here, the LP had metaphorically gone to bed with someone it barely
> knew, and it had awakened in the morning with troubling second
> thoughts. Some members wanted to end the relationship right then, but
> most were probably too embarrassed to make such a public confession,
> and a few were pretty happy about the relationship.
> ...
> It wouldn't have happened if Russo and Nolan hadn't hated each other
> so much. It wouldn't have happened if everyone ­ including Badnarik
> himself ­ hadn't dismissed Badnarik as a fringe candidate with no
> chance. It wouldn't have happened if Nolan hadn't hated Russo so much
> that he preferred to endorse a man he feared might be under indictment
> rather than allow Russo to win the nomination. Most importantly, it
> wouldn't have happened if party members had bothered to read
> Badnarik's website or his book on the Constitution.
> ...
> Michael Badnarik seemed to most in the party a right-wing sideshow. He
> campaigned tirelessly, and was a sincere and attractive spokesman for
> his interpretation of the Constitution, but that was all.
> ...
> But a major reason that so many thought he had won the debate was
> that so many delegates were unhappy with both Nolan and Russo: Nolan
> seemed like a martinet, and many delegates were unhappy with the
> prospects of another Harry Browne campaign. Russo's emotionalism
> didn't resonate with Libertarians who came from a rationalist
> background. And while the Nolan campaign's attacks on Russo's
> character and health were not necessarily considered credible, they
> did raise questions about Russo and left Nolan looking, well, a little
> like a dirty politician. And here was Michael Badnarik, to whom most
> delegates had paid little or no attention, articulating their beliefs
> and using the time for his concluding speech, not to boost his own
> candidacy, but to boost the LP.
> ...
> It seems apparent that the party leadership has decided against that
> course. Instead, it seems to be striving to remake Badnarik into a
> conventional LP nominee, a gray man of the moderate right.

to keep this short :-), here is one article pointing out the similiarties between the candidates
titled perhaps a bit too strongly "Socialist Hawk vs. Warmongering Commie"

http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory39.html

I suspect you likely don't have much background in what libertarian views are beyond the soundbite level.

Yep. But I don't have to have read Karl Marx in the original German to be able to notice the breakup of the Soviet Union, now do I? I'm not looking for nuance, today.

pay attention to what the politicians from the parties actually do

which of the candidates is saying which? they both seem to be saying almost the same things about terrorists. Mostly Kerry is saying "I can do what Bush is proposing only I can do it better, and believe that this is true because I tell you it is even though I've contradicted myself and lied about various things at times, and done typical political distortions, etc"

You are fisking yourself, Bryan. Is truth just another lie? Can you really not see any difference?

read the Dilbert cartoons and realize that much of what’s made fun of there goes on in government bureaucracies

Dilbert works at a private company. I am a Dilbert. How dare you twist Dilbert into your libertarian world view.

"Where in the history of the world is there a successful libertarian country to serve as an example of the result libertarians want?"

America, according to you, Bryan. And no where else.

Don't screw it up!

this isn't really the thread/place to address basic questions of libertarianism

I apologize for sullying your pristine thread Bryan. I'll leave now. Sorry about the Greenland insult, too. I'm sorry you didn't get it.

'if you live in a battleground state make a choice between the two or dont bother voting.'

Libertarians vote on principles not personalities and nobody needs your consent, dumbass.

J Tanner if you vote Libertarian in this election the only principle involved is if the semi retarded should be allowed to vote. Like it or not, there are only two choices that can win on election day, Kerry or Bush, to vote otherwise is to cast a vote that will change nothing. In fact, noone will report the number of "third party" votes much, if at all, your vote will only be counted as part of the overall number of voters, further strengthening the two party system you disdain.

Like I said before nobody needs your advice or consent. If you choose to vote for the D flavored media package or the R flavored media package that's your business - I can and will vote for a third party candidate and that's my choice.

J Tanner I never said anyone needed my consent to vote. I likely would have ignored you if not for the "dumb ass" remark. But since you chose to call me a damn ass, I felt the need to point out that not voting for Kerry or Bush is an act of political masturbation, i.e. meaningless for anyone but yourself.

Most of your rationale is equal to the most hapless neocon rubbish - i.e. worthless, especially relative to the times we live in (assuming one applies even a smidgen of analytical depth), and the times we're about to live in. What's even worse is that it's wrapped in linguistic fish wrap that disguised to look like it came from the Upper East Side - it still stinks though.

What I see here is xenophobia writ large, and an inability to realize that America for the first time since WWII is on an even playing field economically (or worse) with at least one other region (and heading fast for two), and a pure ignorance about what we're going to have to do - going forward - to deal with that.

Kerry is far from god, but Bush and his cronies are the anti-Christ trying to fast fulfill their own vision of Armageddon. They unconsciously want a Rapture of the kind that most of us don't want to even begin to contemplate.

Bottom line: your rationales prove that Neamderthals did not go extinct some many thousands of millenia ago - they just lost the low forebrows.

You know that the issues re: who owes taxes has come before a number of juries. There is an Illinois case (I don't have the refrence in front of me) where the questions that Mr. B asks was put on trial.

The government had no answer (in fact they refused to answer) to the questions so the taxpayer was acquited of fraud.

In fact whenever the points that Mr. B makes were allowed to be judged in a trial the government has lost.

The government cannot show how following from the Income Tax Amdmt. through Supreme Court rulings, to the actual tax code where most Americans owe the tax.

Mr. B. is merely saying that the government and the people must follow the actual law.

I do not see how that undermines the Libertarian case.

I am no longer a Libertarian (stupid war policy) but the tax issue is not the reason. Mr. B. is on solid ground. The government is not.

Look up Larkin Rose if you want more details that are relatively understandable.

The income tax amdmt according to the first Supreme Court ruling on the issue did not change the fundamental tax law as outlined in the Constitution.

Mr. B's case follows from that ruling. Income taxes on an individual can only arise if the income recieved causes real or potential costs to the Federal Government. i.e. foreign commerce - which requires commercial attaches and military protection of trade. Other wise income taxes can only be levied on states which then must decide how to raise the revenues.

The whole system got screwed when Senators no longer represented State Governments but now representindividuals in States. The States now have no representation in Congress weakening Federalism. But that is a whole 'nuther question.

I do think that in light of the original Supreme Court decision on income taxes Mr. B's position is correct.

That view is strengthened by the fact that the government will not address the issues involved.

The system we have forces politicians who want to get elected to the center.

This is a good thing.

What the libs fail to see is the fundamental principle of marketing:

Why does Pepsi taste a lot like Coke? Because that is where the biggest share of the market is.

The Libs are very good at getting their ideas out and this is no small service. However the real action will continue to be in the two parties.

This in my opinion is a good thing. Radical changes happen slowly in our system. Coalitions are still formed. They just form before the election instead of after. This has a moderating effect.

Let me see if I get this. We have government offices to help people fill out their tax forms and determine the correct amount to be paid but the government need not answer Mr. B's or the tax honesty movement's questions?

So which is it the government must help people follow the law or it is up to the individual to determine what the law is and ten act accordingly.

If the individual must decide then the tax law fails on its own merits because it is difficult to understand and even government officials are not in agreement on the meaning.

How can individuals be expected to follow a law whose meaning is not plain?

Even Einstein complianed that the Federal tax law was harder to understand than the Theory of Relativity.

If Einstein couldn't get it how does the average citizen stand a chance?

Here is the Larkin Rose site for those that want to look into the issues further.

http://www.taxableincome.net/

I am voting for Badnarik and the LP and I really am a big booster for the LP, but I have to be honest: if the election were closer and Badnarik had a chance of winning, I'd have to really examine the vote more closely.

I think this is a much larger problem than just weirdness and kooky statements. The LP is unready to be a major party and many Libertarians are uninterested in being palatable, even if they can hold onto their principles while doing so. Too many hold the mindset of protest-only, with no real desire to win or affect policy.

This is exemplified by the LP's mass abstention to foreign policy. The Libertarian Party basically just abstains from having a foreign policy and throws up isolationism to mask the lack of a choice. There is no real doctrine and very poor ideological backing. The maxim "national defense, not national offense" is poorly thought out, especially with regard to the war on terror, but it's also not very good in light of the Cold War. The centrists will never accept this wholesale cop-out from having a foreign policy and the other two parties would berate us mercilessly for it.

And all the weird pseudo-conspiracy theories about taxes are just a more obvious symptom of the problem. The majority of the LP is more concerned with a) being distinct, b) being principled and c) being pure. The way they can most assure themselves of these things is not being elected too much. It's like the cynics of Greece who criticized society and lived as dogs, abstaining from societal conventions (the name cynic derives from the word for dog, because they lived as dogs). Too many Libertarians want to abstain from politics by picking people that won't win. They view not winning as a necessary prerequisite for a good candidate.

I think this is changing, I think after Mike will come a more reasonable candidate, somebody who emphasizes issues that matter, offers policies that could realistically happen, and doesn't make weird statements like 'there is no income tax' or 'I don't use driver's licenses or zip codes.'

We need to have more plausible positions and nix the weirdo stuff, because every election cycle it only takes a few comments for everybody to completely dismiss the entire party. We need to eliminate the stuff that makes us easy to dismiss so they can't wave a couple embarrassing quotes and turn back to the big two candidates.

> > read the Dilbert cartoons and realize that much of what’s made fun of
> > there goes on in government bureaucracies

> Dilbert works at a private company. I am a Dilbert. How dare you twist
> Dilbert into your libertarian world view.

This is why the Dilbert comment wasn't entirely silly since that comment
illustrates a major problem simply (expect that reaction).
People seem to somehow assume human
nature somehow magically changes when people work for the government
vs. a private entity. In the private sector competition eventually
catches up with companies with too many pointy-haired managers and
forces changes. The governemnt is a monopoly and is more likely to
get off track with nothing to hold it in check.

> > this isn't really the thread/place to address basic questions of libertarianism

> I apologize for sullying your pristine thread Bryan. I'll leave
> now.

I would have addressed the issue of libertarianism in general
more if the post hadn't been a troll I decided to respond to
a little bit anyway.

Solely based on his comments in this thread: I kinda like this Bryan character.

I hope I'm not the only person to notice this... but "War on Terror" seems to remind me of the phrase "War is Peace" in a certain book by a certain author that gets credited for many a prophetic vision of a bastardized version of the future we're a part of at this very moment.

Comments are Closed.