A Two Party System of Slavery Governs Our Voting Choices

Retired sheriff Jim Schwiesow has a column at NewsWithViews.com concerning a recent WorldNetDaily poll on who the Constitution Party should nominate for President:

A list of names was presented, which included the following patriotic Americans:

1. Tom Tancredo
2. Ron Paul
3. Alan Keyes
4. Jim Gilchrist
5. Jerome Corsi
6. Howard Phillips
7. Chuck Baldwin

. . . Nearly forty percent of the poll participants expressed that they would cast their vote for the lesser of the two evils presented by the two national parties. . . Any of the above named potential third-party candidates would be infinitely superior to those who comprise the long list of prospects of the two national parties.

What I find odd about the list is that the first five are members of one of the two major parties. You can read the entire editorial here.

73 Responses to “A Two Party System of Slavery Governs Our Voting Choices”

  1. Timothy West Says:

    it is not the two party system of slavery that is the worst of the lot.

    the real problem is the almost perfect system of wage slavery and credit slavery that corruption by corruption was purchased over the last 40+ years in the Congress.

    The CP’s abortion fetish makes sure that they will never be a factor with anyone except anti abortion/born again christian types, and they have no use for the CP now, though I predict when the split occurs in the RP lots of them will go to the CP.

    The LP would do well to concentrate on building policy positions that can be sold to moderate left leaners and the “country club” moderate R’s with greater individual personal freedom locking the two together. Leave the jesus freaks and neo cons alone. They don’t have long before they immolate the RP in factional fighting that will split the RP 3 ways. Bush and his henchmen will make sure of it.

    The LP has to be for dismantling the defacto elite controlled system of corporate/government corruption of wage slavery and credit slavery for the middle class. And it has to do that in a politically advantageous manner so it can make some head way in the real world.

  2. Timothy West Says:

    and when I say “moderate”, I mean moderate by LP standards. The ones who support the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    No one thinks that every Republican or EVERY Democrat is evil. They simply agree, that the people in charge don’t have the best interests of the people in mind. (Nor the limited powers of the Constitution/Bill of Rights).
    Jerome Corsi, Gilchrist, Tancredo, Paul, and Keyes all have affiliation to the CP. Its not evil to have an affiliation to the republican party, its evil to blindly accept its corruption.

  4. torah Says:

    None of this stuff will matter of Bloomberg runs under the Unity08 banner. You guys can kiss all of the third and fourth and fifth parties goodbye, because Bloomberg will steal the show a la Ross Perot circa ‘92.

  5. Joe Says:

    Torah,

    Would you vote for Bloomberg? I wouldn’t.

    And I don’t see how a Bloomberg campaign, even a successful one, would mean an end to alternative parties. Assuming your comparison of Bloomberg and Perot makes sense, Perot has come and gone and the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green Parties are still with us, having been joined by his own Reform parties. If Bloomberg runs under the Unity 08 “banner” wouldn’t that make the Unity Party a sixth party?

  6. paulie cannoli Says:

    Joe:

    Exactly correct.

    Trent: what is this affiliation that you say Ron Paul has with the CP? I’m aware that he has both Republican (Congressman) and LP (past candidate, life member, speaker at conventions) affiliations.

    I’m aware that he often sounds like a CP member, except that he is not a protectionist on the trade issue. But what evidence do you have of any active participation, or intent to participate, in the CP that Ron Paul has?

  7. paulie cannoli Says:

    Tim,

    Mostly correct, except for the moderate and country club republican part.

  8. Timothy West Says:

    they have to come from somewhere. as long as they are not bible thumpers or war loving neo cons, I have no more problem having country club R’s coming into the LP than I do left wing classical liberals. Since no one is born out of their momma a libertarian, it’s a question of what points you in a liberty direction.

    the LP needs a coalition of many where the majority impulse is greater individual personal freedom, from the left and the right alike. We use new policy and ideas to attract them from where their natural impulses lie. As long as those things actually result in more measurable freedom, I don’t give a shit where they came from. They can be converted communist USA people for all I care.

    You wont get much by trying to sell open borders and “austrian economics” theory. It’s time for the LP to move beyond failure, trying to resell failure, trying to rename failure, and trying to repackage failure. Libertarianism as it has been
    attempted to be sold has failed, and it’s time to redirect the movement or create a new one.

  9. Travis Maddox Says:

    “What I find odd about the list is that the first five are members of one of the two major parties.”

    Way to be objective there Brad.

    Listen, of course the CP isn’t going to appeal to everyone but neither will the LP, too many conservative and christians won’t or feel they can’t support them. The CP though does appeal to a lot of the more moderate types too. It’s funny you talk about the CP being “religious freaks” yet I feel we have been doing a good job weeding out the zealot’s. Sure we’re going to have a few nut jobs here and there, we’re still a fairly young party. I find it pretty bad though to be hit the hardest from the some LP supporters. Just because you don’t vote for us doesn’t mean you can’t support our main cause at the moment, getting more choice in the ballot booth. I have personally talked to several LP’s that support us getting on the ballot and I would support them. I think we are stooping to the Republicrats level when we start slinging mud at each other. We share the same enemies so I see no reason why we can’t work together on some things.

  10. Trent Hill Says:

    Im going to have to agree with Travis Maddox here. Although some of us may be right wing or left wing, we are all for smaller government.
    We are all also fed up with the Party Duopoly.
    There wasn’t a Constitution Party candidate for Congress in my district, so I voted for a Libertarian. Fontessi.

    “Trent: what is this affiliation that you say Ron Paul has with the CP? I’m aware that he has both Republican (Congressman) and LP (past candidate, life member, speaker at conventions) affiliations.”

    Paulie, while Ron Paul has never made a formal tie to the CP, the CP is very fond of him and often cites his articles/speeches on websites and literature. CP supporters (such as myself) have been known to donate to his campaign in Texas, and are highly supportive of him. Ron Paul, as well as Tom Tancredo have both flirted with the CP Presidential Nomination for ‘08.

  11. torah Says:

    I am simply saying that with Bloomberg on the ballot, it will be McCain, Clinton and Bloomberg. There will be third party blackout, and thus, the third party races for president will mean nothing.

  12. matt Says:

    the LP needs a coalition of many where the majority impulse is greater individual personal freedom, from the left and the right alike.
    ======================== =======
    I agree in theory, but i fear that in practice what will be assembled is a group of people who want slightly more liberty than they have now but would panic at the prospect of a radically freer society. The good has always been the enemy of the best. Of course, I’ve got no room to talk, since I’d unite with all sorts of people if it would help stop the war.

  13. matt Says:

    I am simply saying that with Bloomberg on the ballot, it will be McCain, Clinton and Bloomberg. There will be third party blackout, and thus, the third party races for president will mean nothing.
    =================================
    Afraid you’re right. Expect a blackout of some sort unless there are major chages. I hope there are some. Maybe the much-vaunted GOP crackup will finally happen.

  14. paulie cannoli Says:

    Or, better yet, new media (internet blogs and internet video, for example) will be even more competitive with old media, and in some cases might force coverage out of the corporate media simply because they have to remain competitive.

  15. Timothy West Says:

    Bush has to go as far in IRaq as Johnson did in Vietnam against the popular will for the GOP split to happen, and I have no doubt he will succeed. He’s just like Johnson as a person.

  16. Tom Kovach Says:

    I try to post comments that are positive, not negative.

    But, I must start by a criticism of all the “predictor” type comments—such as, “There won’t ever be a…”, or “The ____ will fail in ‘08,” or, “There will be a third-party blackout…”, etc. How do any of you KNOW the future? People said that in ‘04, but the “mainstream” TV-news networks had the CP up on the charts with the Big Two, because the campaign of Michael Peroutka got such numbers that it FORCED the media to pay attention. Hard work wins over nay-saying.

    Second, even among smaller-party advocates, there still seems to exist an “either-or” mentality. In many states, a candidate may run on MULTIPLE parties—and, that is a formula for success. (The states that do not allow mulit-party candidates are ususally the same states that put extra hurdles in the way of forming a new party, etc. They are the lockstep, Duopoly-minded states. I live in one.)

    Third, even many people that are fed up with the Dems and the Reps still refer themselves as “THIRD” parties. Don’t you see? The very term “THIRD party” buys into the concept that there should be ONLY TWO, and that even a THIRD one is an aberration. The correct term should be “SMALLER party”, thus showing that we are of equal STATUS —even if we are not of equal STATURE. Stop selling yourselves short—along with the rest of us that are on your side.

    Gilchrist ran on the CP line in California. I do not know whether he is a “member” of the Republican Party (I don’t think he is), but he has already solidly showed his affiliation with the Constitution Party. And, again, it is not an “either-or” concept. He should be able to run on BOTH the Constitution AND Republican lines, if that is his stategy. The same applies to Tancredo, Paul, Keyes, etc. (A winning candidate would be one that 65% of Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists could support. If we could all stop bickering, learn to “share the treehouse”, and get to WORK to help SAVE our country, then it wouldn’t matter who the Left put up as a candidate. Not even Hillary—with all her dirty tricks, Hollywood connections, and wealthy Commie supporters—could beat a true Conservative COALITION.

    In the last election (I ran for Congress, TN-05), I tried to get the endorsement of the Libertarian Party. They invited me to speak at their state convention. But, the LP national by-laws PROHIBIT the LP from endorsing any non-LP candidates! (They want everyone else to endorse them, but they refuse to give a cross-party endorsement.) The other problem with the LP is that their national platform supports the Open Borders policy—even though many of their members reject it.

    Only when enough people stop throwing stones at the folks that agree with 80% of what they say, and start learning to work together, will the two-party logjam be broken. I support about 80% of the Libertarian platform, and would likely vote for the LP candidate over a Dem or a Rep—if there were no CP candidate. (I vote for the person, not the party. The party structure, however, gives the CANDIDATE an opportunity to show which platform he most closely aligns himself with.)

    There is a new outreach of the Constitution Party. It is called the National Veterans Coalition. The basic “platform” only has SIX points. And, those six points are considered the “survival issues” for this country. If you are a military member or veteran (or an immediate family member), then you are eligible to join the NVC. Membership in the NVC automatically includes “card-carrying” membership in the Constitution Party—and, it includes a military discount.

    Go to the Web site of the Constitution Party national HQ to learn more.
    http://www.constitutionparty.com

    And, please visit my Web site, and buy my new book, “Slingshot”.
    http://www.tomkovach.us

    Thank you.

  17. matt Says:

    Good points, Tom.

  18. RCAIP Says:

    Those 5 people are listed because they have ties to the CP, Ron Paul’s might be a little vague. But even when there isn’t a guarentee that they would stay CP once they cross over, we still need people like Alan Keyes or Tom Tancredo to run for our Party because they bring us publicity, money, and more people into the Party.

    And a CP candidate like Tancredo would be way more appealing and get more votes then Peroutka.

  19. RCAIP Says:

    I recall Bloomberg was going to run as a simple independent, not with a political party at all.

  20. paulie cannoli Says:

    Tom Kovach,

    But, I must start by a criticism of all the “predictor” type comments—such as, “There won’t ever be a…”, or “The will fail in ‘08,” or, “There will be a third-party blackout…”, etc. How do any of you KNOW the future?

    Paul) For the most part you are correct. A lot of people over-predict. Others under-predict, expecting some miraculous breakthrough without having any realistic idea of what it takes to achieve one, or what they are up against.

    Third, even many people that are fed up with the Dems and the Reps still refer themselves as “THIRD” parties. Don’t you see? The very term “THIRD party” buys into the concept that there should be ONLY TWO, and that even a THIRD one is an aberration. The correct term should be “SMALLER party”, thus showing that we are of equal STATUS —even if we are not of equal STATURE. Stop selling yourselves short—along with the rest of us that are on your side.

    P) Good point. I actually do say “smaller party” when I’m conscious of it, or sometimes “alternative party”. I should be more conscious of it.

    Another thing that saying “third” does is imply that there really are two completely separate and distinct larger parties. All too often, that’s just a smokescreen - there is only one party acting as two for public entertainment and confusion, also known as divide and conquer.

    The other problem with the LP is that their national platform supports the Open Borders policy—even though many of their members reject it.

    P) The problem is with those members, not with the platform. I freely admit that the LP has recruited far too many confused conservative/libertarians and has promoted an image that confuses the ideologies of conservatism and libertarianism (and many other parts of the libertarian movement have, too).

    I believe this has been a giant error in strategy and tactics, and should be corrected as quickly and strongly as possible.

    side note: Well, actually now there is a problem with the LP platform, because those members have succeeded in watering down our previous immigration plank, which was a lot stronger and held more true to libertarian principle. (end side note).

    I happen to think that immigration freedom is one of our most important issues, as I explain in some detail in the comment section of the LP Denver Convention 2008 post

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/12/29/2008-lp-convention-location-announced/

    And as can be seen in the draft pamphlet for Kubby on page 2

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/files/2006/12/kubbybrochure120506.pdf

    But, of course, there are many other important differences between our two parties.

    But, the LP national by-laws PROHIBIT the LP from endorsing any non-LP candidates!

    I know we endorsed Kevin Zeese of the Green Party for Senate in Maryland. Might those be state party laws, or do you mean nominate rather than endorse?

    A winning candidate would be one that 65% of Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists could support. If we could all stop bickering, learn to “share the treehouse”, and get to WORK to help SAVE our country, then it wouldn’t matter who the Left put up as a candidate. Not even Hillary—with all her dirty tricks, Hollywood connections, and wealthy Commie supporters—could beat a true Conservative COALITION.

    Has it occurred to you that a lot of libertarians are not interested in being a part of any conservative coalition? That’s because we’re not conservatives.

    We’re not conservatives, we’re nothing like conservatives, and we should never, ever be anything like conservatives.

    If you want to endorse Steve Kubby have at it.

    http://kubby.com/

    There’s no way in the world I would endorse Tancredo, Gilchrist, Keyes et al. though, so I wouldn’t really expect you to endorse a candidate I’m for either.

    Once again - my secondary choices besides Libertarian would be a Libertarian Green (Party) Caucus, which I may help start at some point, and Democratic Freedom Caucus, which already exists.

    Not CP and certainly not NSGOP.

    Of your six-point Veterans plan, only energy independence is the only one I fully agree with, although I would say there is a better than average chance we would not agree on the means of achieving it.

    Points 1-3, I am strongly against all of them

    (1. Secure Borders

    2. Strong National Defense

    3. Punish Employers of Illegal Aliens to the full extent of the law ).

    On point 4, I’m all for limiting taxes but I do not want to “replace” the current tax system - I want to cut it down and ultimately eliminate it. Monkeying around with it is liable to make things WORSE.

    and

    5. Eliminate Taxpayer Subsidies and Social Programs for Illegal Aliens

    paul) I would eliminate regime subsidies and regime social programs for everyone, starting with the ultra-wealthy and large corporations if we have to choose who to cut off first, and without regard for “legal” fictions.

  21. Jackcjackson Says:

    Most people are not members of “3rd parties.” Most WND readers are probably Republicans. Of course a large % of people would pick the “lesser of 2 evils.”

    Hell, I would vote for either of the 2 evils or just about anyone before I would vote CP.

  22. Trent Hill Says:

    Paulie,

    Even if you don’t like what the word has become, you ARE a Conservative. In the most basic meaning of the word, Conservatism advocates small government. Conservatism was born of Libertarianism. Quoth the Reagan.

  23. paulie cannoli Says:

    Trent

    Even if you don’t like what the word has become, you ARE a Conservative.

    No, I never liked what it was and I’m not.

    In the most basic meaning of the word, Conservatism advocates small government.

    Actually, it’s most basic meaning is conserving (protecting) tradition, power, and authority.

    Conservatism was born of Libertarianism. Quoth the Reagan.

    Well, if he said that, it would be par for the course…he said a lot of stupid things all the time. I was never a Reagan fan at all.

    Conservatism was most certainly NOT born of libertarianism, nor vice versa.

    Conservatism was born of authoritarianism, and libertarianism and liberalism branched from the same roots.

    There was some confusion and realignment over the last 50-100 years but now things are starting to come around back to where they started, and getting out ahead of that trend will make all the difference in putting together a successful liberty movement and party.

    Have you read this yet?

    http://mises.org/story/2099

    If you read and understand it, a lot of what I say will make much more sense to you., even if you still don’t agree with it.

  24. Timothy West Says:

    I would say that many in the LP are conservative. Conservatives want to keep things the way they are and are hostile to change.

  25. paulie cannoli Says:

    Change comes in many directions, some good, some bad.

    I guess that makes me a moderate, which is not what most people think of me.

  26. Trent Hill Says:

    No, original conservatives (in the history of the U.S. specifically) were the anti-federalists. Madison, Jefferson. Whom are also both Libertarians.

    You are right that Conservatism’s most basic meaning is to preserve, or conserve (duh). It is to Preserve to Constitution, or Conserve the TRADITIONAL powers. The Founding Fathers wanted lower taxes, and small government. Libertarians advocate returning to this. TRUE Conservatives advocate returning to these foundations.

    Im not talking about Neo-cons, or Hamiltonian Federalists. Im talking about traditional, Paleoconservatives.

  27. paulie cannoli Says:

    Trent, you really should read the link I posted…I wouldn’t have to explain this then.

    Conservatism did not originate in the US. Like libertarianism, it also existed long before the US did.

    Madison and Jefferson were not libertarians. They may have seemed relatively libertarian compared to the Brits or in some ways (but not in some others) to our modern politicians.

    They were constitutionalists, and at the time they were considered the more liberal faction, against the more conservative Hamiltonian Federalists. The real ultra-conservatives in their time were the loyalist monarchist Tories who opposed the revolution, seeking to preserve British colonialism.

    Anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution and prefered the Articles of Confederation were more libertarian (and more liberal, which at the time meant the same thing) than the Constitutionalists, and the Whiskey Rebels were even more libertarian than that.

    Many libertarians are not constitutionalists at all. In fact many fundamentalist libertarians do not consider constitutionalists to be libertarian at all, since they do not strictly adhere to the non-initiation of force philosophy.
    http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

    Lysander Spooner
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
    was a 19th century libertarian abolitionist who wrote The Constitution of No Authority, a powerful argument against constitutionalism.

    While some people who call themselves libertarians have a backward-looking philosophy and romanticize and fetishize the US regime founders, others correctly note the many ways freedom has advanced over the years (the rights of racial minority groups, women and gays are some examples) and prefer to look forward toward moving more completely to liberty than the American Founders ever dreamed possible or desirable.

    Some reactionary constitutionalist/libertarians dream about restoring the status quo ante, or some whitewashed version of the past that never was, while true progressive libertarians seek to let freedom grow and create a truly free society for the first time in the history of the world.

    The reason why you think I could be a conservative is that you don’t realize my type of libertarian exists or is even possible, but in fact we’ve been around a lot longer than the folks who have given you your misconception of what “libertarian” means.

    Please read that link, it really does make things a lot clearer. Plus it has more information you can follow to become more knowledgeable.

  28. paulie cannoli Says:

    Trent, you really should read the link I posted…I wouldn’t have to explain this then.

    Conservatism did not originate in the US. Like libertarianism, it also existed long before the US did.

    Madison and Jefferson were not libertarians. They may have seemed relatively libertarian compared to the Brits or in some ways (but not in some others) to our modern politicians.

    They were constitutionalists, and at the time they were considered the more liberal faction, against the more conservative Hamiltonian Federalists. The real ultra-conservatives in their time were the loyalist monarchist Tories who opposed the revolution, seeking to preserve British colonialism.

    Anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution and prefered the Articles of Confederation were more libertarian (and more liberal, which at the time meant the same thing) than the Constitutionalists, and the Whiskey Rebels were even more libertarian than that.

    Many libertarians are not constitutionalists at all. In fact many fundamentalist libertarians do not consider constitutionalists to be libertarian at all, since they do not strictly adhere to the non-initiation of force philosophy.
    http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

    Lysander Spooner
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
    was a 19th century libertarian abolitionist who wrote The Constitution of No Authority, a powerful argument against constitutionalism.

    While some people who call themselves libertarians have a backward-looking philosophy and romanticize and fetishize the US regime founders, others correctly note the many ways freedom has advanced over the years (the rights of racial minority groups, women and gays are some examples) and prefer to look forward toward moving more completely to liberty than the American Founders ever dreamed possible or desirable.

    Some reactionary constitutionalist/libertarians dream about restoring the status quo ante, or some whitewashed version of the past that never was, while true progressive libertarians seek to let freedom grow and create a truly free society for the first time in the history of the world.

    The reason why you think I could be a conservative is that you don’t realize my type of libertarian exists or is even possible, but in fact we’ve been around a lot longer than the folks who have given you your misconception of what “libertarian” means.

    Please read that link, it really does make things a lot clearer. Plus it has more information you can follow to become more knowledgeable.

  29. Nick Wilson Says:

    Yes, Paulie is very right, Trent. Libertarianism was basically extreme liberalism up until the point that Socialists co-opted the word “liberal” once “socialist” became widely unacceptable during the Cold War. The true classical application of the word “liberal” is still seen throughout much of Europe. Conservatives and classical liberals had superficial similarities but were relatively different. Conservatives were relatively pro-limited government tax-wise, but were also fiercely nationalistic, supported strong military might and social authoritarianism, resisted civil rights and social equality, etc. Liberals were progressives who supported more equality, more trade and constitutional democracy. Liberals in the 18th century seemingly were more like open-minded moderates. There were also the monopolists, who were really neither, but crafted a system of cronyism to their benefit. Really both liberals, monopolist centralists (i.e. cronyists) and populist conservatives all seemed to drive the 19th century politics. The monopolist centralists and more authoritarian conservatives eventually came together in response to the rise of socialism in the 20th century. The classical liberals and more anti-government conservatives were both pushed to the sidelines.

    At some point the progressivism of the liberals must have drifted away from the skepticism of big government of the philosophy’s founders - why the term became so easily adopable by the socialists. But libertarians do not have direct lineage from conservatives by any means. Radical liberals (in the classical sense) may have allied with true anti-government conservatives after the rise of socialism, Keynesianism, big government and all the bad things that go with it. But that was an alliance formed by political plate tectonics and necessity instead of one steeped in history together.

    If you asked libertarians whether they consider themselves “economically and socially progressive” or not, you will probably get quite a divide. Same with “do you like Ronald Reagan?” or “do you feel the Abraham Lincoln’s overriding the rights of states in the South for the emancipation of slaves was justified?” I am a progressive, I despise Reagan and am quite glad that the South lost the Civil War. Many libertarians would avidly disagree with me - which highlights that classically liberal-leaning libertarians and paleoconservative-leaning libertarians have a lot of serious internal disagreements that have long been glossed over under the easy banner of “limited government.”

    Neoconservatives and socialists both like big government, but don’t use the government for the same means or aim for the same ends necessarily. Likewise, both paleoconservatives and left-libertarians believe limited government will better serve their ideologies’ respective ends, but these are relatively different and require very different means through which they would implement the reduction, because they have different values. Both would be trying to shape their ideal society and thus would theoretically have major policy disagreements. The difference between those of us trying to pull the Libertarian Party towards progressivism/classical liberalism and the Constitution Party - as well as the LP members who find the Constitution Party’s policies acceptable/the Ron Paul wing - highlight this divide perfectly.

  30. Trent Hill Says:

    I get it, our miscommunication comes from the fact that I was referencing U.S. history only, whereas Paulie is viewing it as the World History of the movement. I suppose im looking at the “Ron Paul” wing of your party, not the “anarchist/Liberal” wing. Also, im simply viewing it in terms of small government.

    Point being, Libertarians and Constitutionalists both want to bring the government back down to Constitutional Boundaries (as for those who do not respect the Constitution, i’m not sure thier opinions should be listed here). The point is, regarding many issues, the CP and Libertarian Party are similar.
    Mainly these,
    -Ballot access.
    -More attention to border policy (in one form or another).
    -War on Drugs (both are opposed to the current War on Drugs in some form)
    -Gun Control (unrestricted, or less restricted)
    -Taxes (lower)

    Most importantly, we are both shut out of a system which is obviously not working. And we both want to fix it.

  31. Nick Wilson Says:

    Right, which is why the Constitution Party might be better for the paleoconservative Ron Paul wing of the LP and a new party needs to push the Left-leaning classical liberal wing and replace the LP. I strongly distinguish the Constitution Party from classical liberalism because classical liberalism was always infused by strong economic and social progressivism, something the CP does not emphasize at all.

    The quadrant is really divided into four subquadrants - by left or right and radical or moderate. I fall in the left moderate subquadrant. Paulie seems to fall in the left radical subquadrant. The Constitution Party lies on the line between the libertarian quadrant and the conservative quadrant. Ron Paul may fall on the radical side. If Dondero could be possibly considered a libertarian, he would probably fall in the right moderate quadrant.

    Those of us left-of-center mostly have little tolerance for the conservatism, anti-secularism and populism in the Constitution Party (even if we agree on a lot of policy issues and could make coalitions on the points where we agree). In fact, a lot of us loathe Ayn Randian Objectivism that infuses the right half of the libertarian quadrant, as a universal philosophy of selfishness would leave gaping, unsolved problems in a society preferring free market and charitable solutions over government ones. Communities should find solutions where markets fail, and governments should only be brought in as a last resort (in my moderate opinion - the radicals are bound to disagree). Community solutions are widely distrusted by the Objectivists in the right half, and the objectivist penchant for elitism, corporatism and social Darwinism is widely disliked by us progressives in the left half. Secularism is another area of major disagreement.

    Just make sure you understand that the libertarian quadrant is far more complicated than just “limited government” and “freedom.” These words make the spectrum easy to pigeonhole nicely when there is really a lot going on under the surface as far as differences of opinion are concerned, as any traipse through a libertarian blog will highlight. The libertarian movement cannot be identified as “conservative” or “liberal,” as the line on the Nolan chart between left and right obviously cuts right through the center, and the definitions of these words are obviously up for interpretation.

  32. Nick Wilson Says:

    One more area of disagreement - “national sovereignty.” The right side often prefers a “closed/regulated borders” approach and solid definitions of where the borders begin, including states rights. The idea is that this is a valid function of government and that the rights and freedoms of the citizens will be impeded and economic progress will be reduced or stopped by a massive influx of illegal immigrants.

    The left side prefers an “open immigration” approach, combined with the de-emphasis of borders as being extremely important, and finds the “closed borders” view a bit xenophobic and even occasionally racist. While I may be much more moderate than my friends Paulie and Undercover Anarchist (as I prefer border security and checkpoints to root out criminals, an actual immigration process and a reduction in quotas proportional to reductions in the welfare state) I agree wholeheartedly that borders, immigration and “national sovereignty” are over-emphasized, especially by the Constitution Party and the Republican base.

    Us progressive libertarians see all law-abiding people or any race or nationality as equal to Americans. Our immigration process has historically favored people of certain ethnic backgrounds, which is why many of us of European descent can say that our ancestors were probably “legal immigrants.” I find it hard to criticize otherwise law-abiding people who are forced by the conditions they live in to immigrate, and by the quotas set by our government to do so illegally. This seems to be the biggest sore point between the progressive libertarians and the Constitution Party.

  33. Trent Hill Says:

    I would agree that the largest difference is the Social Progressiveness of the Libertarian (classical-wing), and the Social Conservatism of the Constitution Party.
    Immigration, and soveriegnity is another, definetly. Because whereas I find Sovereignity VASTLY important, classical-wing Libertarians disavow borders.

    Here is my question. Could Paleolibertarians/Paleoconservatives like myself, ever expect help from Classical-wing Libertarians like you guys?

    For example, in local office for Congress recently, a Libertarian ran against a Republican and two Democrats. While I did not neccesarily agree with the Classical-leaning Libertarian (he seemed to be moderate), I voted for him. Would you guys do the same? Its simply a question, you won’t hurt my feelings at all,hehe. (Not that I think any of us are worried about that.)

  34. matt Says:

    Likewise, both paleoconservatives and left-libertarians believe limited government will better serve their ideologies’ respective ends, but these are relatively different and require very different means through which they would implement the reduction, because they have different values
    ======================================
    I think cooperation between the two groups makes a lot of sense on the national level. Both groups are committed to decentralization of power and a healthy shift back to county and state sovereignty. If both groups remain committed to this ideal we can iron out their differences later at the community level. Doing the ‘values’ debate at the federal level is counterproductive anyway.

    We can have our cake and eat it too, but only if we stop throwing it at each other.

  35. matt Says:

    Here’s how it might work for the hotly contested immigration issue:

    Change the question from “What does America think about Immigration and/or border fences?” to “What does the State of Texas think about border fences?” , or even “What do the counties or townships that border Mexico think about border fences?”

  36. Travis Maddox Says:

    I have been thinking about this all day at work. I guess really questioning myself and what a “Conservative” and “Libertarian” and “Liberal” mean. Also where I fit in. Now this is all my opinion but it is what I have come up with. To start off I believe the government on all levels has a very limited role in our lives, I think most if not all Libertarians and CPers would agree with that. I believe that the issues laid out in the Constitution are the only issues the Feds have power over, Military, Fed Courts, Post Office, Securing Borders… and I believe protecting innocent lives and a very few other things. I agree with many issues in the LP platform except for there platform on securing and protecting our sovereign nation and protecting the innocent. I feel ALL parties get too caught up with issues that aren’t political i.e. religious, morality, family issues, ethnic or racial issues etc. I really don’t think those should be on a political platform since I don’t think the Gov. at any level should legislate those issues. I guess I am socially Paleo-conservative and fiscally Libertarian. But those are personal, moral, religious areas. Politically I am a Constitutionalist, I believe that our founding fathers through their wisdom and yes God’s guidance created the best political system ever know on this planet. If our gov. stuck to those areas and those alone I believe we would all be happy. Let the individual decide the others and not let the government interfere even if a person feels discriminated for their weird belief. If an employer doen’t want to hire you for your religious belief, it’s his business so what. I’ll even upset some by this, I don’t think their should be prayer in public schools… because I don’t think there should be public (government for the Bortzers) schools. I will many times get so close to really liking the LP then I get scared of the anarchist side of it so because of that I must always first choose the CP then the LP second.

    P.S. But I do fully support helping the LP get on the ballot.

  37. Trent Hill Says:

    See,

    Travis, Matt, I commend your ability to look over the fence and realize we’re standing in the same yard.

    I would also support the LP getting on the ballot in ‘08, however they are already on in Louisiana. I am, however, leading a voting drive for the CP, and for those people whom really just do NOT fit with the CP, I push the LP angle.

  38. Nick Wilson Says:

    See, I think we could be allies, in the same way the LP can be allies with the Green Party. We have a lot of issues where we agree, and for those issues where we agree on, we can work together. But I don’t think the connections are close enough to fully mesh the two parties together realistically.

    We really need a big tent moderate party on the libertarian half of the spectrum, so down the road we may build coalitions with each other anyway, even if we have different values and ideologies. Republicans and Democrats in power often have serious ideological differences with the members of their own party, and vote accordingly. Likewise, a party united on basic principles of limited government could either work out such differences, or the individuals could agree to disagree and ally with members of the other major party closer to their ideology on that issue.

  39. Trent Hill Says:

    Exactly. I mean,no one was talking about merging the parties (realistically at least). But some basic cooperation IS in order, I mean, we both advocate ballot access, no gun control, limited government. We share alot of issues that the Reps and Dems ignore purposefully.

  40. matt Says:

    Not merging makes sense, but what about a limited non-compete agreement? In some races the LP would be well-served not to run anyone. For example, if a Green or a CP’er is basically Libertarian friendly, why run anyone unless there are ballot-access advantages? Strategic alliances would be better than paper candidacies. I say take the Kevin Zeese thing and run with it.

  41. Andy Says:

    “Conservatism was born of authoritarianism, and libertarianism and liberalism branched from the same roots.”

    What is called “liberalism” today has little or no connection with libertarianism. There is NO LINK between libertarians and mordern day “liberals” or “conservatives.” Libertarianism has NOTHING to do with either of them. The only historical link between liberalism and libertarianism is that they were the exact same thing up until when the term liberalism was hijacked by socialists in the early half of the 1900’s.

  42. Trent Hill Says:

    Andy,we’ve already had this disagreement.
    The truth is, Classical liberalism was a backlash on Monarchy-authoritarianism. And is completely different from the Liberalism of today (Authoritarianism, over-taxation, gun control,so forth)

    The Libertarian movement has certain traits of both the Republican Party AND the Democratic (think Gun control and low taxes for Reps, and Gay marriage and abortion for the Dems). The truth is, both parties are big-government (as the Reps no longer espouse low taxes,and advocate the Patriot Act).

    Matt,
    Im not sure i’d say there is NO point in running against each other, but I can certainly see your point. For example, in Utah, the CP does very well. A Senate Candidate polled for 3.75%, and Ed Mcgarr ran at 30% for a State House seat.
    On the Libertarian side of things, the Louisiana State affilliate can claim sometihng like 20,000 members. The Constitution Party can’t claim north of 50.

    So,should the CP of Louisiana run a candidate for U.S. Senate?
    Well….there is obviously a paradigm here. If we never run a candidate, we can never get the word out and build up the party. However, the Libertarian party (which leans more Paleo-libertarian in this region,at least thats what iv been led to believe) already has ballot-access,and I believe got 25,000 votes for the highest office in ‘06 (which was a House seat, so only 1/6th of the people even voted).

    Obviously the CP here doesn’t have much of a shot, without hurting the Libertarians or Republicans.
    Im willing to hurt the Republicans. Im aching to.
    The Libertarians however, I want to see succeed.

    So there is an obviously bad choice for me. Im not sure who the Libertarian Chair of Louisiana is, but i’d love to discuss it with him.
    However,seeing as im simply one of the 47 CP members in La. im not sure he’d see me,or respond to contact.
    For now, i will simply support local CP members,and attempt to boost registration (I will be running a major Registration Drive in the Baton Rouge area within a few months). If a Libertarian is runnning, I won’t be advocating that anyone run against him.

  43. Andy Says:

    “I happen to think that immigration freedom is one of our most important issues, as I explain in some detail in the comment section of the LP Denver Convention 2008 post”

    People should have a right to immigrate to places where they are wanted. However, most land in the USA is already claimed and most of the people there do not want unlimited immigration.

    In a REAL libertarian society all land would be owned by individuals or groups of individuals. Each land owner or group of land owners would come up with their own immigration policy. This is the REAL libertarian position.

    Today’s immigration situation has got NOTHING TO DO WITH liberty, it’s about creating one world communism, ie the New World Order. The big bankers and other global elites are using immigration as a WEAPON to destroy what remains of the constitutional repulic known as the united States of America. They are planning a merger with Mexico and Canada that’s going to be called the North American Union and they are going to replace the dollar with the Amero. This is being pushed by the groups like the Council On Foreign Relations and the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations (who are major donors to hispanic hate groups La Raza and MECHA).

    The global elites want a dumbed down population. They want more people on welfare (more dependency on the state). They want ethnic strife. They want people to be poor. They want more crime. They want a population that will accept global government. They are using immigration as a weapon to achieve these goals.

    I don’t consider catering to mass immigration to be a good issue for any Libertarian candidate to get behind. If I were the Libertarian candidate for President I’d say something like this, “Good immigrants can be a benifit to
    society. Unfortunately in this day and age we are cursed with a welfare state that attracks the wrong kind of people to this country. Even well intentioned immigrants can get sucked into the welfare system. I’m going to do everything I can to see that the welfare system gets shut down so this country no longer attracks the wrong kind of people. If elected President I’m also going to end the War On Drugs. This will greatly reduce the profitability of the drug trade and end the violence that is the result of criminal gangs smuggling drugs into the country. I know that there is a plan that is being hatched by the global elite that control the Republicans and the Democrats to destroy American sovereignty. As your President, I will resist any plan to create a North American Union.”

  44. Andy Says:

    “The Libertarian movement has certain traits of both the Republican Party AND the Democratic (think Gun control and low taxes for Reps, and Gay marriage and abortion for the Dems).”

    I do not consider abortion to be a definitional libertarian issue. If a person views a fetus as an individual, they can say that that individual has individual rights and therefore abortion is murder and is a violation of individual rights. Of course if a person views a fetus as a part of a women’s body they can say that a women should be able to do what she wants with her own body and therefore she’s got a right to abort the fetus. It comes down to a question of when do individual rights begin.

    I don’t like it when people push the libertarianism as being “pro-choice” on abortion because that is not necessarily true.

  45. Andy Says:

    “On the Libertarian side of things, the Louisiana State affilliate can claim sometihng like 20,000 members.”

    That’s got to be something like 20,000 people who are registered to vote under the Libertarian Party banner, not 20,000 members as members indicates people who pay dues to the party.

  46. Trent Hill Says:

    ME neither, but most of these guys are Classical-Libertarians.

  47. Andy Says:

    Good post Travis.

    I’ve been a member of the Libertarian Party since 1996. I’ve talked politics with a lot of people since then. Out of those who identify with a political party other than Libertarian I seem to have the most common ground with Constitution Party members.

    I like the fact that the Constitution Party is pro-gun, anti-income tax, anti-Federal Reserve, and anti-United Nations. I’m glad that they want to get the government out of Social Security, healthcare, education, and welfare. I also really like the fact that they oppose US military imperialism, the military draft, and domestic police state measures like the Patriot Act.

    My differences with the Constitution Party are as follows…

    1) The War On Drugs. In addition to the fact that the drug war has actually escalated drug abuse, I believe that people have a right to put whatever they want in their own bodies. The Drug War has also taken a great toll on our civil liberties and not to mention the enormous cost in taxes.

    I know that the Constitution Party says that the only role they see for the federal government in regaurds to drugs is to keep drugs out of the country. They would keep the drug war going at the state level.

    As long as drugs are illegal there will be a black market for them. It is impossible to fight the drug war without violating the Constitution. Drug abuse is stupid, but making it illegal does not solve the problem, it only makes things worse.

    2) Gambling. I believe that people should have a right to do what they want with their own money. If a person wants to risk their own money in a game of poker or blackjack, or a slot machine, or a horse race, or a even a risky investment, they should be free to do so. There are all kinds of “gambles” that people take in life. Taking a job can be a gamble. Getting married can be a gamble. Moving to a new location can be a gamble. There is no such thing as a risk free life. People should be able to decide for themselves what risks they take.

    3) Pornography, prostitution, and homosexuality. These activities should all be legal. If a person doesn’t like pornography then they shouldn’t look at it. They don’t have a right to tell other people what they can and can’t see. Prostitution is a voluntary activity. Homosexuality - unless of it is a case of rape - is a voluntary activity as well. One can disagree with these activities but they do not have the right to put others in jail for them. Anti-gay marriage amendments are absurd in addition to being anti-freedom. The government shouldn’t have the right to tell people who they can and can’t marry. The government shouldn’t even be involved in liscensing marriage in the first place! People should mind their own business!

    I remember hearing Constitution Party Presidential candidate Howard Philips say that the government should put a tax on entertainment that is “dirty” or violent. Why? This indicates that he’s got a right to dictate what other people can watch or they’ve got to pay an extortion fee. How is this constitutional? This is no better than leftists who want to attach punishment taxes to guns or cigarettes.

    4) Trade. I agree with the Constitution Party that NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, CAFTA, and the FTAA are all a big sham. Libertarians oppose these agreements (although there a few sell out and idiot “libertarians” who embarrassingly support these agreements) not because they are free trade but because they are actually not free trade but rather government managed trade for the benifit of politically connected corporations.

    Where I believe that the Constitution Party gets it wrong is that they are for protectionist tarriffs. Ideally, I do not believe in any tarriffs. Tarriffs just bring in more money for the government and the expense gets passed on to the people in the form of higher prices. High tarriffs also breed resentment from other countries and influence them to raise their tarriffs. If there are any tarriffs they should be kept low.

    I believe that Americans can compete on the international market but to do so we need to eliminate barriers that hold back production. Reduce or eliminate as many taxes as possible and get rid of idiotic regulations. Cut off foreign aid and take back all tax payer funded investment funds that are invested in other countries. Visit www.CAFR1.com and read about the massive amounts of money that US government agencies have invested in other countries. Shut down the Federal Reserve and end fiat currency. If we take these steps we can have real free trade and greater prosperity.

    5) The Constitution. I’m a constitutionalist from the stand point that as long as our government exsists I think that they it should obey the Constitution. However, I do not believe that the Constitution is the be all and end all of liberty. The libertarian philosophy runs deeper than the Constitution. Taking the libertarian philosophy to it’s logical conclusion there wouldn’t be any government. The ultimate goal is a voluntary society. Is this achievable? I don’t know. I do know that the Constitution only goes so far. For instance, do we REALLY need a government run Post Office?

    The Constitution Party is named after the Constitution but does it really strictly ahere to the Constitution all the time? I would say no. The Constitution says NOTHING about restricting drugs, gambling, pornography, prostitution, and homosexuality. I haven’t read all of the state constitutions but out of the ones that I have read I’ve never seen anything that gives the states authority over these issues either. Maybe the party should be called the Almost Constitutional Party or the Paleo-Conservative Party or something like that.

    6) Religion. The Constitution Party seems to intergrate religion into politics and pushes the myth of America being a Christian nation. Yes, a lot of this country’s founders were Christians but not all of them were. Some of them were actually deists. Most of them also understood the danger of mixing religion with politics and feared a theocracy. While there is nothing wrong with being a Christian (real Christians are good people, unfortunately many of them are phonies) it does not give one the right to force their views on everyone else. In fact, I would say that forcing your views on another person is actually anti-Christian. Here are a couple of articles that are on-line that I’d suggest that people read about Christianity and libertarianism…

    “Libertarian Christian vs. Statist Christian” by Jacob Hornberger

    “Jesus Was An Anarchist” (not sure who the author is)

    Also check out Libertarians For Life to see that one can be a libertarian and oppose abortion.

  48. Andy Says:

    “Right, which is why the Constitution Party might be better for the paleoconservative Ron Paul wing of the LP and a new party needs to push the Left-leaning classical liberal wing and replace the LP.”

    There is no such thing as “left-leaning classical liberal.” Classical liberal is the same damn thing as libertarian. Libertarian is not “left” or “right.” Remember the Nolan chart? www.self-gov.org

    Alinging with the left is just as great a mistake as aligning with the right. We should focus on DESTROYING the “left vs. right” paradigm, not playing into it. We should persuade people from the left, right, and center to become libertarians. We should also reach out to non-voters, many of whom are natural libertarians. Forget this “Are libertarians part of the left or part of the right?” nonsense and work on building the libertarian brand as its own thing.

    Ron Paul may have been elected as a Republican and he may have a conservative demeanor, but he’s still a libertarian. Ron is anti-war, pro-drug decriminalization, and he does not believe in censorship or anti-gay marriage amendments.

  49. Andy Says:

    “In the last election (I ran for Congress, TN-05), I tried to get the endorsement of the Libertarian Party. They invited me to speak at their state convention. But, the LP national by-laws PROHIBIT the LP from endorsing any non-LP candidates! (They want everyone else to endorse them, but they refuse to give a cross-party endorsement.)”

    This is odd. The Libertarian Party of Maryland endorsed Green Party member Kevin Zeese for US Senate.

  50. Nick Wilson Says:

    “There is no such thing as “left-leaning classical liberal.” Classical liberal is the same damn thing as libertarian. Libertarian is not “left” or “right.” Remember the Nolan chart?”

    Um…that’s not exactly true. Classical liberals were both moderate libertarians AND progressives. Even Adam Smith advocated minimal government regulation to protect workers and supported public schools as a way to give the poor a means to get out of the factories.

    Henry George argued for the abolition of all taxes save the land value tax because of the progressive and environmental ends. If you go to the wikipedia page about Georgism, you will see an impressive list of classical liberals who expressed support for the same basic idea before George, including JS Mill, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Paine, Smith and more. The progressivism of the classical liberals is probably the main reason why the socialists stole the word.

    Right-wingers and Objectivists may support some of the basic ideas of classical liberals, like limited government and personal freedom, but it is utterly false to say all libertarians are classical liberals. The Nolan Chart perfectly highlights the fact that there are libertarians on the economic left and libertarians on the economic right. If you draw a line down the center of the diamond, you can see this. The classical liberals populate the libertarian Left, while Objectivists populate the libertarian Right. Objectivism is blatantly and proudly elitist, generally not caring about the effect of economic systems on people beyond yourself. The classical liberals did care what happened to the poor and saw that limiting government is the best means to do this.

    However, the classical liberals were almost universally supportive of the existence of government as a necessary evil, and thus they don’t purely fit the libertarian ideology anyway, which sees government as the primary evil (a pretty ludicrous idea, as there are all sorts of other groups and individuals who would rob you of your rights if it benefitted them) and thus that it must be eliminated.

  51. Nick Wilson Says:

    “Alinging with the left is just as great a mistake as aligning with the right. We should focus on DESTROYING the “left vs. right” paradigm, not playing into it.”

    While I recognize a big tent party would have to appeal to both the Left and Right, as both sides are part of the libertarian quadrant, it has been my personal experience that the Left is more willing to listen to libertarianism than the Right. It’s easier to teach the Left basic economics than to teach the Right how to be openminded. The failure of the LP has been aligning itself too closely with the Right, and thus why there are only a few differences (immigration, abortion, tariffs and religion) between the LP and the Constitution Party. We’ve reached out to the Right pretty much as far as we can, but most people on the Right are not actually that passionate about limited government, if the Bush administration proves anything - they want more government when they have the power to use it for their own ends. The Left is merely misguided, which is why a basic primer on economics and a substantiated argument that limited government is more progressive than statism is a good way to massively expand the libertarian movement.

    But you can’t “destroy” the Left-Right paradigm per se. When people see politics as a straight Left-Right line, naturally the view is flawed. But, as I outlined in the previous post, economic Left and economic Right are two very distinct belief systems that can be authoritarian, moderate or libertarian in execution. Whether or not one is an economic progressive or not will make a difference in the policy decisions one advocates, so the Left-Right dichotomy can not be so easily ignored.

  52. paulie cannoli Says:


    Our immigration process has historically favored people of certain ethnic backgrounds, which is why many of us of European descent can say that our ancestors were probably “legal immigrants.”

    I suppose, in retrospect, many American Indians (and equivalently in the Old World, some of my ancestors, those who were Siberian Natives) would not see it that way.

  53. paulie cannoli Says:


    Change the question from “What does America think about Immigration and/or border fences?” to “What does the State of Texas think about border fences?” , or even “What do the counties or townships that border Mexico think about border fences?”

    http://reason.com/blog/show/115858.html

    Who Wants a Border Fence?

    David Weigel | October 3, 2006, 8:47am

    Not people on the American side of the border.

    Mexican shoppers are a major source of money for Texas border towns. Between 1978 and 2001, Mexican shoppers made 26 percent of all retail purchases in Brownsville, 35 percent in McAllen and 51 percent in Laredo, according to economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Local officials said more recent estimates are higher.

    “The fence is a knee-jerk reaction by Congress. No one really studied the economic impacts, the environmental impacts,” said Eddie Aldrete, senior vice president for the Laredo-based IBC Bank.

    To Mike Allen, a former Catholic priest who helped the poor in Texas’ Hidalgo County, then became a leading economic booster for the border region, the fence is a manifestation of politics at its ugliest.

    Not people on the Mexican side of the border.

    “The Mexican government strongly opposes the building of walls in the border area between Mexico and the United States,” President Vicente Fox’s spokesman Ruben Aguilar told reporters.

    “This decision hurts bilateral relations, goes against the spirit of cooperation needed to guarantee security on the common border, creates a climate of tension in border communities,” he said.

    Aguilar said Mexico would send a diplomatic note to Washington on Monday urging Bush to veto the bill, which requires the president’s signature to become law.

  54. paulie cannoli Says:

    What is called “liberalism” today has little or no connection with libertarianism. There is NO LINK between libertarians and mordern day “liberals” or “conservatives.” Libertarianism has NOTHING to do with either of them. The only historical link between liberalism and libertarianism is that they were the exact same thing up until when the term liberalism was hijacked by socialists in the early half of the 1900’s.

    Oversimplification.

    In addition to the the Roderick Long article I linked above, see:

    http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2007/01/03/liberallibertarian-alliance/

    http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/812

    And another one by Roderick Long:

    http://praxeology.net/blog/2006/11/24/greensleeves-was-all-my-joy/

    Also, there’s this, posted by Charles Johnson who currents blogs at

    http://radgeek.com/

    posted back in 2002 on the now-defunct LPalabama-discuss (AKA disgust) list:


    A lot of debate has focused lately on the issue of a potential alliance between Libertarians and Greens. Before wading through the morass that this debate has become, I wanted to start by trying to lay out some clear places in which Libertarians and Greens agree with each other, and how they can support each other.

    Where do we agree?

    1. Ballot reform

    Both Greens and Libertarians are all too familiar with the way that the Demopublicans have rigged the electoral game so that no-one outside of their established Good Ol’ Boy networks can get on the ballot and win. Greens and Libertarians both stand for drastic reductions in ballot access barriers, and alternative measures to plurality voting such as Instant Runoff Voting. We share a common concern with putting control of government back in the hands of ordinary citizens rather than an elite of self-appointed “expert” professional politicians.

    2. Anti-interventionist foreign policy

    Both Greens and Libertarians oppose U.S. militarism and the massive build-up of the national security Leviathan in the United States. Remember, kids, the sprawling U.S. military and the repayments on a national debt which was largely racked up through military spending, is the largest single element in the US general budget (Social Security is more costly, but administered through different accounts and different sources of tax money). It has also spent the past couple centuries being an agent of international mass murder and conquest, over and over and over again, and is at the bleeding edge of every sort of civil rights violation you can think of. Which leads us to:

    3. Staunch protection of civil liberties

    Both Greens and Libertarians have a strong commitment to maintaining civil liberties from the Executive’s assaults on due process, and in bringing the actions of the government under strict public scrutiny and accountability. With the increasing suppression of dissent in the US and the trial balloons of absolute Executive power over civilians, this is one of the single most important issues to liberty that there is. Most of the Republicans are on the wrong side; most of the Democrats are on the wrong side; and most of the Libertarians and the Greens are on the right side.

    4. The Drug War

    Both Libertarians and Greens see the need to end the out-of-control, racist, classist beast known as the War on Drugs. The massive increases in police power and the prison-industrial complex over the past 20 years have been inextricably tied to the government’s pursuit of drug prohibition. The mass incarceration of young Black men and women is nothing more than a return to Jim Crow American apartheid.

    5. Corporate welfare

    Libertarians and Greens both oppose the economically destructive, irresponsible theft of tax dollars from workers to line the pockets of corporate fat-cats. If there’s one place, in fact, where Libertarians have a GREAT opportunity to bring Leftists away from the neo-fascist economic planning model that the Democratic Party has tried to sell to them for years, it’s to point out that the destructive, inefficient, degrading and dehumanizing economic conditions which they rightly oppose, are primarily CAUSED by the colonization of the economy by the political-economic elite Good Ol’ Boys.

    6. Environment

    Libertarians need to work to sell Greens on a Libertarian program for addressing environmental concerns. One of the issues where I think we have the best chances is suburban sprawl, an out-of-control beast clearly created by a huge nexus of government controls on where and how we can build our houses and our businesses, massive subsidies to the auto industry and highway building, petrochemical prices kept low through military imperialism, etc. Both Libertarians and Greens can work on environmental campaigns that focus on how the government encourages or directly commits acts of wanton environmental destruction.

    7. Police state and prison-industrial complex

    Both Libertarians and Greens oppose the out-of-control growth of arbitrary police powers and the prison-industrial complex, mostly fueled by the War on Drugs (see above).

    8. Unions

    I really wish that more Libertarians would get their heads out of their asses about unions, because this is a great place where we can work together with Greens and the organized labor movement in the cause of liberty. Union-busting laws such as Taft-Hartley and so-called “Right to Work Laws” violate workers’ freedom of association. Business owners should have the right to refuse to deal with an organized union, but we need to stress that making unions illegal in certain industries, forcibly breaking strikes, banning closed-shop contracts, etc., are all violations of workers’ freedom to associate and bargain as they see fit.

    There’s a lot more that we could talk about, but I’m just going to stop the list here because I have schoolwork that I eventually need to get to. Now, with these points of agreement on the table, how can we work together with Greens?

    Support for local campaigns
    It is very rarely the case that there are both a Libertarian and a Green candidate running for the same office in Alabama. I advise everyone who is running without a Green opponent (which is to say, everyone who is running) to get in contact with the Alabama Green Party and ask if they have any contacts in your area. Talk to them and cite some of these points of agreement in order to try to enlist their support for your campaign. If they have strong objections to part of your platform, listen to what they’re saying and do what you can to fairly acknowledge their concerns (“I see what you’re saying, and I agree with you that such-and-such, BUT here’s why I think that our values would be better served by …”). It does not hurt you to talk to more potential voters, particularly those who are likely to agree with you on a lot of important points.

    Issue-based coalitions
    As part of your local Libertarian activism, get in touch with local Greens, labor unions, and whoever else to try to form coalitions around single issues, such as the Drug War or corporate welfare. These will multiply the strength of our grassroots activism and give many sympathetic people more exposure to Libertarian ideas.

  55. paulie cannoli Says:


    People should have a right to immigrate to places where they are wanted. However, most land in the USA is already claimed and most of the people there do not want unlimited immigration.

    As Charles Johnson responded on Hammer of Truth:

    reposted at

    http://radgeek.com/elsewhere/2006/04/09/closed_border_l_1


    Just what has this got to do with the debate over actually existing immigration policy? The government doesn’t just claim the authority to exclude or remove undocumented immigrants from government roads or schools. They claim the authority to exclude or remove them from anywhere in the United States, including private property, with or without the consent of the owner, and even to conscript employers to serve as immigration cops with their new hires. Whatever you think about the rightful ownership of government-controlled thoroughfares (and, frankly, I think that key aspects of the theory you suggest are frightfully silly), the government is currently reaching far over the boundaries that even your theory would allow for.

  56. paulie cannoli Says:

    Andy (repost from previous thread)

    I do want freedom of immigration unimpeded by the state. Whether it will be massive or not will be up to individual property owners - i.e., it will depend on the availability of jobs, mostly.

    Despite what you think, most people don’t go to the hassle of moving to a foreign country so they can end up on welfare. It’s true that some do, but the percentage that are productive is higher than the percentage of native born Americans who are productive. A larger percentage of immigrants work, and a larger percentage work hard, than of those born in America. Of the immigrants who end up using welfare, they don’t tend to stay on it for a long time, generally. Of course, as with everything, there are exceptions.

    Ideally, I want massive immigration, so long as it is not driven by coercion. That is because a country that is a good place to come to, with a vibrant economy and lots of social freedom, is the type of place that attracts immigrants, and causes masses of them to come over. On the other hand, a country that sucks has massive amounts of people trying to leave it, and sometimes will take violent measures to keep people from leaving, thus making that whole country technically one big jail.

    Did I mention that starting this month, there will be no country on earth that you can go to, including Canada or Mexico, without a passport issued by the US regime? That means you can no longer legally leave the country without permission from the government.

    This may not seem like a big deal right now; you might think that they will issue a passport to just about anyone, and that the wall will be used only to keep people from coming in (or, in your case you don’t think it will be used either to keep people from coming in or out).

    But I have a sneaky suspicion that, sooner than most Americans think possible, there will be a lot of people wanting to leave this country, and the regime will be taking violent and extreme measures to keep them from being able to.

    As you already know, I do want to erase the borders, although I’m speaking for myself - officially, I’m sure any serious candidate for office would leave a border in place, even if it will be largely unenforced. IE, we’re not actually going to run for office on a pure anarchist platform, I don’t think.

    However, I’m not in favor of global government. I’m in favor of decentralization and decrease in government in all aspects at all levels, including immigration control enforcement.

    Using the argument that a sinister government cabal is behind immigration to this country and that therefore “we” (meaning the regime, or volunteers acting on its behalf) should crack down on immigration - enforcing a dubious unclear collective part-title to all property in this part of North America - is like saying that the “government is bringing in the (illegal) drugs” and therefore we should crack down on drugs.

    Sure, you can get around this problem by saying that volunteer neighborhood patrols rather than regime police should be cracking down on drugs, beating up dealers and users, and you can even claim that “most of the people of this neighborhood don’t want drugs here.”

    But the fact is that if you do so, you are violating the individual rights of people to engage in commerce, and to use their own property as they see fit, including their own bodies.

    Similarly, if you crack down on immigration, even with your volunteer militia, you are enforcing a collective property title which you do not actually have and violating real personal property rights in the process.

    The immigration favored by Bush and his gang is no more free than the “free trade” of the WTO, NAFTA, etc. It is managed immigration, shepherded by fear and intimidation into indentured servitude to corporate
    regime partners. And opposition to this managed form of immigration should not take the form of immigration prohibitionism, any more than opposition to globally managed trade can only - or should - come in the form of tariffs, import quotas, or protectionism.

    See

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2006/12/30/lpa-repost-ii-loretta-and-phillies/

    By the way, the link I provided about the border wall contains several links within my post on the website. Have you read them? I think they go to the heart of understanding the issue.

    For example:

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2004/03/22/freedom_is

    and

    http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/07/04/
    rothbardians-cannot-consistently-support-increased-enforcement
    ofimmigration-restrictions/

    If
    Last link does not work here, you can go to my post referenced above it does work there.

  57. paulie cannoli Says:


    Good immigrants can be a benifit to
    society. Unfortunately in this day and age we are cursed with a welfare state that attracks the wrong kind of people to this country. Even well intentioned immigrants can get sucked into the welfare system. I’m going to do everything I can to see that the welfare system gets shut down so this country no longer attracks the wrong kind of people.

    Do we say that Social Security should be preserved forever, or made into an even bigger program?

    Do we say that we should round up all the guns - until we legalize drugs, after which we can restore individual gun ownership?

    Do we say that we should start allowing the police (or, if you prefer, Guardian Angels) to execute drug users and dealers on sight, until we get rid of the welfare state?

    Or, perhaps we should increase government welfare to the poor by 10,000% - until we get rid of all the taxes and regulations which make it hard for people to start a business. Then we can privatize charity again.

    But, wait, we need all those taxes to pay for all these programs we have to maintain in the meantime!

    Personally, I don’t put much stock in such arguments.

    Actually, I think they’re way off base.

    And, for exactly the same reasons, I don’t believe we should have increased border enforcement, a wall on the border, more deportations, or more crackdowns on employers of “illegal” workers “until we get rid of welfare.”

    Nor do I think that the current enforcement levels should be maintained.

    I’m fighting for “all our freedoms, all the time.”

    Not “some of our freedoms, but only after we get some of our other freedoms.”

    Let Freedom Grow!

  58. paulie cannoli Says:


    4) Trade. I agree with the Constitution Party that NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, CAFTA, and the FTAA are all a big sham. Libertarians oppose these agreements (although there a few sell out and idiot “libertarians” who embarrassingly support these agreements) not because they are free trade but because they are actually not free trade but rather government managed trade for the benifit of politically connected corporations.

    Where I believe that the Constitution Party gets it wrong is that they are for protectionist tarriffs. Ideally, I do not believe in any tarriffs. Tarriffs just bring in more money for the government and the expense gets passed on to the people in the form of higher prices. High tarriffs also breed resentment from other countries and influence them to raise their tarriffs. If there are any tarriffs they should be kept low.

    I believe that Americans can compete on the international market but to do so we need to eliminate barriers that hold back production. Reduce or eliminate as many taxes as possible and get rid of idiotic regulations. Cut off foreign aid and take back all tax payer funded investment funds that are invested in other countries. Visit www.CAFR1.com and read about the massive amounts of money that US government agencies have invested in other countries. Shut down the Federal Reserve and end fiat currency. If we take these steps we can have real free trade and greater prosperity.

    As I said earlier:

    The immigration favored by Bush and his gang is no more free than the “free trade” of the WTO, NAFTA, etc. It is managed immigration, shepherded by fear and intimidation into indentured servitude to corporate
    regime partners. And opposition to this managed form of immigration should not take the form of immigration prohibitionism, any more than opposition to globally managed trade can only - or should - come in the form of tariffs, import quotas, or protectionism.

  59. paulie cannoli Says:

    “Jesus Was An Anarchist” (not sure who the author is)

    James Redford

    http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

    Also check out Libertarians For Life to see that one can be a libertarian and oppose abortion.

    http://l4l.org/

  60. paulie cannoli Says:

    Libertarian is not “left” or “right.” Remember the Nolan chart? www.self-gov.org

    An improvement over mere left/right, but it too has its flaws.

    For starters, it de-epmphasizes the role of foreign policy and war to such an extent that a young Eric Dondero was convinced he’s a libertarian, and has not been disabused of this notion in a quarter-century.

  61. Andy Says:

    “it has been my personal experience that the Left is more willing to listen to libertarianism than the Right. It’s easier to teach the Left basic economics than to teach the Right how to be openminded.”

    I’ve talked about the Libertarian Party to literally thousands of people on the left, right, and center. I’ve found that there are just as many people who are willing to listen and consider the ideas on the right as there are on the left, and both sides have about an equal number of assholes.

    Given that we’ve had a Republican controlled government for the last few years I think that more emphasis should have been and should be put on reaching out to those on the left, but if (or when) a Democrat is (s)elected President in 2008 the pendulumn will swing back in the other direction.

    This is whey we shouldn’t play into the “left vs. right” game too much. The focus should be on exposing that paradigm as a fraud by letting people know that the political spectrum goes a lot further than that. Also, the biggest potential constituency for Libertarians is probably non-voters. The people who make comments like, “I’ve given up on voting. They’re all crooks!” If we could somehow reach out to these people we could really increase our numbers.

  62. Andy Says:

    “Do we say that Social Security should be preserved forever, or made into an even bigger program?”

    As I said on a previous thread, although I favor eliminating Social Security, to do so overnight would be a disaster. We should not leave people who are currently depending on Social Security - or will be depending on it in the near future - without it. It would be necessary to phase it out so either some taxes would have to be collected or government assets would have to be liquidated and transfered to those who are on Social Security or who will be on it soon.

    The same goes with immigration. Opening the flood gates overnight would be a disaster. A LOT of “fixes” would have to be made such as eliminating welfare programs and transfering government controlled lands back in the hands of individuals.

  63. Andy Says:

    “Libertarian is not “left” or “right.” Remember the Nolan chart? www.self-gov.org

    An improvement over mere left/right, but it too has its flaws.

    For starters, it de-epmphasizes the role of foreign policy and war to such an extent that a young Eric Dondero was convinced he’s a libertarian, and has not been disabused of this notion in a quarter-century.”

    The quiz that the advocates for self-government uses is simplified, but it does give people a general idea of where they fall. I’ve seen similiar quizes on-line that are a lot more detailed.

  64. paulie cannoli Says:

    I’ve talked about the Libertarian Party to literally thousands of people on the left, right, and center. I’ve found that there are just as many people who are willing to listen and consider the ideas on the right as there are on the left, and both sides have about an equal number of assholes.

    There’s more to it than that.

    Yes, there are plenty of people on the right willing to listen - especially since libertarianism has been oversold in a conservative direction for the last several decades.

    But are they the most effective audience?

    Conservatives are at the margin more likely to be temperamentally
    conservative
    as well - ie less inclined to change, including their party.
    Every factor that makes someone more likely to be conservative - whether its being older, male, white Anglo, or whatever - also makes that person more likely to be status quo/establishment invested, big on tradition, and disinclined to radicalism of any sort. Certainly this does not describe all self-defined conservatives, but it’s a definite tendency.

    Young people, recent immigrants, and everyone else more likely to be on the left is also more likely to either not have a political party affiliation, or to be more susceptible to changing it.

    A second reason why conservatives are overall a less effective audience is that the low hanging fruit has been picked. Because of the relentless rightward tilt of how libertarianism has been marketed, many libertarian-leaning conservatives have either already tried the LP and found it wanting, or investigated it and decided not to join, or know others who have. Meanwhile, libertarian-leaning liberals have most likely not even heard libertarianism presented in a left-leaning rhetorical direction.

    A third reason why the left can be a better market than the right is the multiplier effect. Since, as discussed above, those on the right are more likely to be older white men, etc., and since this is also how the LP is demographically biased as well, we don’t look diverse on TV or in our meetings. Like attracts like - most people prefer not to be the “only one”
    (black, woman, Hispanic, whatever) at a meeting; people in predominantly non-white communities are less likely to know any libertarians personally or be recruited.

    Also, the lack of diversity coupled with the slant that opponents of many of our positions like to paint our motivations with make that sort of negative paint job a great deal easier. It’s certainly easier to claim that our motive in opposing regime welfare for the poor is that we don’t care about the poor, if we look like a fairly well off bunch of almost all white people. It’s easier to claim that our opposition to “affirmative action” is motivated by a desire to preserve white privelege if we are a 95% white crowd. You can argue against these perceptions all day, and yet many people will still hold them and will not seriously consider libertarian arguments because of this.
    Adding more conservative-leaning libertarians only excacerbates this problem.

    Also, what kind of communicators will the new libertarians we want to bring into our movement and party be? Generally, and, again, this is only a marginal tendency, conservatives and most currently active libertarians alike tend to communicate in certain ways that only bring the message to a thus self-limiting audience.

    A lot of communication is not just substance, but style. Bringing in people from the left/libertarian border is more likely to get us more creative people, artists, musicians, educators - in short, people more capable of communicating the message to the majority of the population that is more interested in music radio than talk radio, graphically well designed layouts than dry text, and so on.

    Given that we’ve had a Republican controlled government for the last few years I think that more emphasis should have been and should be put on reaching out to those on the left, but if (or when) a Democrat is (s)elected President in 2008 the pendulumn will swing back in the other direction.

    It’s not just a matter of who is president. Libertarianism has been marketed predominantly to the right whether Democrats or Republicans have been in office for several decades now.

    Then there are the larger historical realignment factors addressed by Roderick Long in the articl linked above.

    This is whey we shouldn’t play into the “left vs. right” game too much. The focus should be on exposing that paradigm as a fraud by letting people know that the political spectrum goes a lot further than that. Also, the biggest potential constituency for Libertarians is probably non-voters. The people who make comments like, “I’ve given up on voting. They’re all crooks!” If we could somehow reach out to these people we could really increase our numbers.

    I’ll agree with that. But what reaches non-voters?

    Policy wonk arguments don’t. A viral video might.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1zqu9AhbLM

    In short, the multiplier/communicator effect I described above is at play.

  65. paulie cannoli Says:

    As I said on a previous thread, although I favor eliminating Social Security, to do so overnight would be a disaster. We should not leave people who are currently depending on Social Security - or will be depending on it in the near future - without it. It would be necessary to phase it out so either some taxes would have to be collected or government assets would have to be liquidated and transfered to those who are on Social Security or who will be on it soon.

    The same goes with immigration. Opening the flood gates overnight would be a disaster. A LOT of “fixes” would have to be made such as eliminating welfare programs and transfering government controlled lands back in the hands of individuals.

    SS a bad example for you? The point was not SS but the category of argument (we can only have one of our liberties if we first have another).

    Take SS out of the equation.

    Try the other questions then. As I said before….

    Do we say that we should round up all the guns - until we legalize drugs, after which we can restore individual gun ownership?

    Do we say that we should start allowing the police (or, if you prefer, Guardian Angels) to execute drug users and dealers on sight, until we get rid of the welfare state?

    Or, perhaps we should increase government welfare to the poor by 10,000% - until we get rid of all the taxes and regulations which make it hard for people to start a business. Then we can privatize charity again.

    But, wait, we need all those taxes to pay for all these programs we have to maintain in the meantime!

    Personally, I don’t put much stock in such arguments.

    Actually, I think they’re way off base.

    And, for exactly the same reasons, I don’t believe we should have increased border enforcement, a wall on the border, more deportations, or more crackdowns on employers of “illegal” workers “until we get rid of welfare.”

    Nor do I think that the current enforcement levels should be maintained.

    I’m fighting for “all our freedoms, all the time.”

    Not “some of our freedoms, but only after we get some of our other freedoms.”

    Let Freedom Grow!

  66. paulie cannoli Says:

    The quiz that the advocates for self-government uses is simplified, but it does give people a general idea of where they fall. I’ve seen similiar quizes on-line that are a lot more detailed.

    A good one is at

    http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

  67. Andy Says:

    “Young people, recent immigrants, and everyone else more likely to be on the left is also more likely to either not have a political party affiliation, or to be more susceptible to changing it.”

    A few years back I was took part in a Libertarian Party outreach activity to immigrants. We set up at naturalization events where thousands of immigrants were being sworn in as American citizens. We even had party members there who spoke Spainish. It turned out to be a total disaster as there were very few people there who were interested in the Libertarian Party.

  68. paulie cannoli Says:

    Well, yes, such activities don’t take place in a vacuum.

    The Libertarian party has a lot of work to do before it can do effective outreach there, but it is doable and worthwhile nevertheless.

  69. Andy Says:

    “January 7th, 2007 at 6:51 am
    Andy (repost from previous thread)

    I do want freedom of immigration unimpeded by the state. Whether it will be massive or not will be up to individual property owners - i.e., it will depend on the availability of jobs, mostly.”

    Since most of the “property owners” in this country are the government and/or big corporations (who in a lot of cases practically ARE the government) there would be mass immigration because the government and corporations want more slaves/peons/serfs.

  70. ringtones for samsung phone Says:

    descargar gratis juego de poker

    Cedoitêtrenoté free cell ringtones telecharger poker en ligne free mobile ringtones info personal phone remember ringtones tilt poker

  71. la ruleta de la fortuna Says:

    lotto zahlen

    Preview meilleur jeu poker telecharger poker 3d holdem poker regeln come giocare a poker jugar video poker online

  72. tornei di poker on line Says:

    poker sportivo online

    Esscheint poker descarga gratis roulette com trucos ganar casino black jack set de poker

  73. juego seguro web Says:

    regles poker texas holdem

    Exactementcomme foro casino online juegos casino ruleta strategia poker el poker jugar poker en internet

Leave a Reply

<form action="h