Pro-WAR

Wayne Allyn Root should be the Libertarian nominee in 2008. He’s now on MySpace. Add him.

And I’ll be hosting Libertarian Politics Live tonight - filling in for Eric Dondero—so listen in on that one (9:30 p.m. CST).

219 Responses to “Pro-WAR”

  1. Seth Says:

    Giving Wayne Root into the nomination would be a mistake (IMHO).
    His long ties to the Bush/Rove/etc crowd would only be embarrasing to the LP amid claims of it being only Republican-lite, and his ‘conversion to Libertarianism’ smacks of bad politics of the worst sort.

    Pictures worth a 1000 words: http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/photos.php

    But don’t take my word for it…

    If Dondero and Joey endorse him, you know something is screwy.

  2. matt Says:

    Joey doesn’t deserve to be lumped in with Dondero or anything, but I am entirely disinterested in becoming one of WAR’s myspace friends. The other 8 might get jealous.

    Root lacks Badnarik’s constitutional background, he’s recently been a Bushie, and his business is on questionable financial ground. No real positives, negligible name recognition, and all the negatives I just mentioned.

    For all I care WAR and Corsi could run on the same ticket. They could call it the Weathervane Party.

  3. Wes Pinchot Says:

    Anything run by Dondero isn’t really libertarian.

    How did he choose Wayne Allyn Root? His qualifications don’t sound impressive. Maybe he did go looking for somebody whose initials are WAR. He loves it so.

  4. globalist_elitist Says:

    I actually like WAR’s positions on most issues, but I find him personally repulsive and his business is a sham. I can’t support him.

  5. Eric Dondero Says:

    I’m actually supporting Rudy Giuliani for President, and have been quite public and open about my backing of him.

    Wayne Root would certainly be the best for the LP. He’d bring the LP probably 3 to 5 million votes. But I’m not so sure the LP is smart enough, certainly not politically savvy enough to nominate him.

    But still, I hope he does get it, and wish him the best.

    That said, for the record, Wayne’s two biggest supporters for his Presidential campaign are Jake Witmer of Chicago - a Radical hardcore LPer and the LP’s all-time top petitioner, and Bruce Cohen, Libertarian Party of Orange County, CA Chairman.

  6. KenH Says:

    I don’t see how anyone who claims to be a libertarian can support an authoritarian such as Giuliani.

  7. [email protected] Says:

    Hey Eric,

    If Root wins the nomination, wanna do another steak dinner bet? You say 3-5 million, I say 1/10th that at both ends—300,000 to 500,000. We could put the win/loss line somewhere in between ... I’d be happy to give you the benefit of the spread.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  8. Tom Gellhaus Says:

    I just realized why Eric supports Rudy Giuliani - because Rudy “Phantom of the Opera” Giuliani’s secret name is “Erik” !
    yeah thats a cheap shot - but he deserves it.

    That incident where the journalist got arrested recently - perhaps his behavior was not PURE, but wow - the response from the Giuliani team is definitely excessive. All these little things add up, Eric.
    Giuliani wouldn’t know a libertarian thought if it was pounded into his head by the ghost of Barry Goldwater. (no disrespect to Barry’s ghost intended)

  9. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    June 7th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
    I’m actually supporting Rudy Giuliani for President, and have been quite public and open about my backing of him.”

    Here’s an example of what the fascist Giuliani Mafia thinks of the 1st amendment….

    http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/giuliani_reporter_arrested_on_orders_of_giuliani_press_sec.htm

  10. globalist_elitist Says:

    Will you also be “filling in” for Eric Dondero in a Swing with Ms. Rittberg? What is WAR’s position on Swingers’ Rights?

    “Giuliani Mafia” = racist characterization.

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    Andy,

    Infowars is not credible.

  12. Carl Says:

    If Guliani gets the nod, I’ll probably vote Democrat—even if it’s Hillary. Get this Eric: a vote for Guliani is a vote for Hillary.

    Frankly, anyone interested in reducing terrorism in the U.S. should vote for Ron Paul—for two reasons:
    1. Paul is for getting out of the Middle East.
    2. Paul is anti-immigration.

    Europe has a problem because of massive Islamic immigration.
    —-
    Libertarian reasons to vote for Hillary over Guliani:

    • Hillary has a proven record of losing on the socialized medicine issue. George Bush did more to socialize medicine than Hillary.
    • Hillary has a proven record of electing libertarian-leaning Republicans in Congress.
    • Republicans are more prone to acting conservative/libertarian when there is a Democrat in office.
      ——As for WAR, who cares. The best way to promote the LP is to send money now to the Ron Paul campaign. Paul is generating L-word buzz in the hinterland. Libertarians should focus LP efforts down-ticket to catch the coattails.
  13. scott Says:

    Seth Says “His long ties to the Bush/Rove/etc crowd would only be embarrasing to the LP amid claims of it being only Republican-lite, and his ‘conversion to Libertarianism’ smacks of bad politics of the worst sort.”

    What is a lot more embarrassing to the Libertarian Party is to continually run Presidential nominees who get less than 1% of the vote.

    I know that Wayne Root “only” scored 90% libertarian on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz. For rational LP members, that is more than good enough. For Losertarians who need to keep the LP small so that they can continue to hold onto their tiny little Libertarian Party county and state Chair positions, being 90% Libertarian really means that you are a socialist.

    Wayne Root has the best chance of any Libertarian Presidential candidate since Ed Clark of getting more than 1% of the vote. Wayne Root is very libertarian, but he is smart enough to campaign on a libertarian platform, not an anarchist platoform. If you anarchists are so politically savvy, then get some anarchists elected to Congress and State Legislatures, and then use them to shame us mere “Libertarians” into being more “pure”.

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    “2. Paul is anti-immigration.”

    Carl. This is inaccurate. He is anti-ILLEGAL Immigration. He is pro-immigration.

  15. Tom Gellhaus Says:

    If anyone other than Ron Paul gets the GOP nod (which is quite likely, I admit) I will vote for the Libertarian nominee - who I HOPE is Steve Kubby.

  16. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 8th, 2007 at 9:20 am
    Will you also be “filling in” for Eric Dondero in a Swing with Ms. Rittberg? What is WAR’s position on Swingers’ Rights?

    ‘Giuliani Mafia’ = racist characterization”

    How is that racist? Italian is not a race dumb ass! Also, Giuliani’s father was in the Mafia. While the sins of a father should not necessarily be held against a son, Giuliani certainly has what I’d call a Mafia mentality.

    “Trent Hill Says:

    June 8th, 2007 at 9:51 am
    Andy,

    Infowars is not credible.”

    Says who? I’ve been following that site for years and I consider them to be one of the best out there. Furthermore, whether you consider the site to be “credible” or not is not the issue here, the issue is free speech and freedom of the press. A reporter asked Giuliani’s press secretary a question and got arrested. This is an example of the Giuliani campaign’s disregaurd for the 1st amendment.

  17. Andy Says:

    I’d say that Giuliani Mafia is an accurate description…

    Rudy’s Kin Tied to Mob
    Father, uncle and cousin surface in new biography
    By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
    Daily News City Hall Bureau Chief

    Mayor Giuliani — a former federal prosecutor who won notice for pursuing the Mafia — had relatives linked to organized crime, including a mobbed-up cousin who was gunned down by FBI agents in 1977, a new book says.

    Lewis D’Avanzo, a son of the mayor’s uncle and a guest at Giuliani’s first wedding in 1968, was a “ruthless and widely feared mob associate” who headed a massive stolen car ring, according to FBI documents and interviews detailed in “Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani,” by Village Voice senior editor Wayne Barrett.

    Due in stores next week, the book sketches a largely unflattering portrait of the clan, depicting his father, Harold, as a hothead and the “muscle” behind a brother-in-law’s loansharking operation, run out of a Brooklyn bar.

    Along with cracking heads, it says the mayor’s father served time in state prison for a stickup, rarely held an on-the-books job and once was a gunman in a mob shootout in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn.

    The book never makes clear how much of the family’s alleged dark side is known to the mayor, who has talked lovingly of his father, who died in 1981 of prostate cancer — the same disease that the mayor is fighting.

    The mayor’s spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, said yesterday that Giuliani “hadn’t seen the book and had no comment.” On Tuesday, Giuliani defended his father as “a complete man” who taught him the value of honesty, but the mayor refused to address questions about his father’s alleged criminal past.

    “The details of his life died with him,” the mayor said.

    And they almost stayed that way.

    Barrett said a source told him the elder Giuliani had spent time behind bars, but the author couldn’t find city court records documenting it.

    Barrett eventually looked in the 1934 state prison archives in Albany and discovered a single sheet — a Sing Sing Prison receiving blotter — that listed Harold Giuliani at the top of the page. On the next line, Barrett found the key to the story: Harold Giuliani’s alias, Joseph Starrett.

    Barrett then found all the New York court records under the name Starrett. Initial excerpts of the book appeared in Talk magazine and in this week’s Voice; another excerpt was released yesterday.

    According to the book, Giuliani’s cousin Lewis D’Avanzo was known as “Steve the Blond” and listed as armed and dangerous in FBI bulletins. His criminal record included a 10-year federal sentence for the armed hijacking of a truck loaded with $240,000 worth of mercury. The book alleges that he was suspected of taking part in several murders.

    D’Avanzo was gunned down by the FBI in October 1977, when he tried to run down an agent after being stopped on a warrant that accused him and two associates of transporting 100 stolen luxury cars.

    Quoting an unnamed friend of D’Avanzo, the book describes a 1962 shootout pitting a local mobster against the mayor’s father and Leo D’Avanzo, Lewis D’Avanzo’s father.

    The book says Leo was later sanctioned by mob bosses for shooting at a Mafia member.

    Born two years apart, Giuliani and his cousin attended the same elementary and high schools, but Giuliani’s father forbade the two from spending much time together. Giuliani met D’Avanzo’s wife, Lois, only once — at the mayor’s first wedding, to Regina Peruggi, the book says.

    The book says Leo D’Avanzo, who was known in family circles as a black sheep, ran loansharking and gambling operations out of a Brooklyn bar where Giuliani’s father worked as a bartender.

    In his role as debt collector, his father “broke legs, smashed kneecaps, crunched noses,” the book says.

    Leo D’Avanzo left town after the shootout, and gave the bar to Harold Giuliani, the book said.

    Based on interviews with family members, the book also claims that Joan Ellen D’Avanzo, a cousin who at one time lived with Giuliani when he was a youngster, became a drug addict who was beaten to death in 1973 at age 34. Her cause of death was listed as undetermined, but several family members said she was murdered.

  18. globalist_elitist Says:

    Italian is just as much of a race as “black” is.

    Race is a myth. But regardless, it was an ethnicity-based smear; a primative, collectivist insult on par with Dondero’s constant “Husseining” of Obama. These candidates are bad enough on their own grounds without bringing right-wing tribalism into the mix, thereby undermining arguments against them.

    scott- I am not an anarchist and I still think Root is a tool. He has no chance of getting more than 1% of the vote - neither do these other guys. But the guy is a fraud. No one has ever answered the obvious fraud of WNED yet.

  19. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Guiliani’s the worst. Stands to reason Dondero would like him.
    So Bootlick Dondero Rittberg likes this Root guy? Root’s THAT bad, eh? Well the smiling photos with Rove n all . . . yup.

    Why must the LP be so trite? Just endorse Paul today.
    Say the same for CP.

    Contribute to Ron Paul.

  20. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 8th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
    Italian is just as much of a race as ‘black’ is.”

    No, Italians are considered to be white Europeans.

    “it was an ethnicity-based smear; a primative, collectivist insult on par with Dondero’s constant “Husseining” of Obama.”

    No, it was an accurate statement, or did you miss the article that I posted above about Giuliani’s family connections to the Mafia? It is a fact that Rudy Giuliani’s father was in the Mafia and your “politically correct” bullshit does not erase this fact. Given Giuliani’s behaviour it looks like the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree.

  21. globalist_elitist Says:

    “White” is not a race either. There is no biological basis for race, and therefore, if I say “Italian” is a race, it is just as valid as “Asian” being a race.

    More collectivism from Andy. Who cares if Giuliani’s father was in the mob? Are we the sum of our parents’ DNA or are we individuals? Racism is the crudest form of collectivism. That’s not “PC bullshit.”

    And I don’t want to get in the game of “defending” Giuliani, but he is far from the worst in the Repub/Democratic fields. I’d put only Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson ahead of him on the GOP side; Bill Richardson and maybe Hillary (sad as that is) on the Democratic side. That is not to say he (or any of the others mentioned) are “good,” it is to say how truly bad the rest of the field is.

  22. Sean Scallon Says:

    Well its Friday, so that means wanker Eric supports Guliani. Tomorrow he’ll be back pimping Root to the LP.

    Hey, I’ve got a great slogan for Eric and other Guliani “libertarians.”

    “Vote for Guliani and Jail the Jaywalkers!

    or how about…

    “Vote for Guliani. Street vendors must be dealt with!”

    and even better

    “Vote for Guiliani and die of 9-11 illneses because he insisted you work in a toxic zone.”

    or you could go with this one…

    “Vote for Guliani. Lincoln suspended habeous corpus but he’ll suspend the First Amendment.”

    Yep, a real libertarian.

  23. matt Says:

    “More collectivism from Andy. Who cares if Giuliani’s father was in the mob? Are we the sum of our parents’ DNA or are we individuals? Racism is the crudest form of collectivism. That’s not “PC bullshit.””

    We aren’t the sum of our parent’s DNA, but the mafia is a family-based criminal organization. That’s not genetics, it’s criminology.

  24. [email protected] Says:

    Prediction: “Racist characterization” or not, it will eventually come out that the reason Giuliani went into law and became a prosecutor was precisely because of his family’s connections—and his own—to organized crime.

    Giuliani had a reputation as a prosecutor for going after mafiosi. Who wants to bet on how many of his own family’s criminals he prosecuted … versus how many of their COMPETITORS found themselves in court?

    Giuliani’s entire career has been a big, steaming pile of corruption and graft. Is there some particular reason to believe he is just a freelance criminal as opposed to a loyal member of an organized crime family (his own)?

  25. [email protected] Says:

    FYI,

    Wayne Allyn Root and Steve Kubby to debate! June 14th, 2007, 4:30 Pacific Time on The Liberated Space:

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=26918

    (Right now the schedule just shows Root as a guest on the show—Kubby confirmed his availability this morning, so that listing should change soon)

    Angela Keaton, host of The Liberated Space, previously hosted a debate between Kubby and George Phillies, and the debate series will probably continue with various combinations of candidates. She’s also had a number of the candidates on as individual guests.

  26. Eric Dondero Says:

    No Tom, I decline your offer. Not because I don’t think I can win the bet. But rather, if memory serves me, I’m already in hoc to you for one steak dinner. Don’t want to risk another one.

    BTW, you may be able to collect soon. I may be up in Missouri, or at least passing through your State in the coming weeks. Will certainly stop by to own up to that Steak Dinner I owe you.

    Our usual place? Downtown at that St. Louis Center?

  27. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wow. This is amazine. Half you guys attack Giuliani for being “Italian Mafioso slime,” and the other half of you attack him for being “too hard on the Mafia/Rico, and all”.

    You can’t have it both ways. Either Giuliani is a friend of the Mafia, or he is a foe.

    BTW, latest poll numbers have him still way out ahead, and actually climbing a bit.

    Oh, and Ron Paul?

    He’s back down to 0% in the latest Zogby, down from 3% in March.

  28. Eric Dondero Says:

    Question for all of you who say Giuliani is “not a libertarian.”

    How do you explain the fact that the unbiased non-partisan ontheissues.com rates Giuliani at 60/60 (2nd highest out of 22), as a “Moderate Libertarian”?

    Another question?

    How do you explain all the major media who have called Giuliani a “libertarian” or a “libertarian conservative” in the last few months, including:

    London Times Herald
    NY Sun
    Washington Post
    Washington Times
    LA Times
    Chicago Tribune
    National Review
    American Spectator
    and numerous major political websites and blogs

  29. Trent Hill Says:

    Um, Im not sure where you got those numbers from Dondero.
    Ron Paul’s numbers have done nothing but climb.
    http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1302

    May 17th is the last poll numbers that zogby released and they have Paul at 3%. Beeyotch.

  30. globalist_elitist Says:

    So now the MSM defines who’s a libertarian? What the hell does the NY Times or National Review know about libertarianism?

  31. Trent Hill Says:

    Oh, and today’s newest poll (which is national, not just in NH). Is from the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll:
    http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

    He is polling at 2% nationally.
    Factor out Tancredo (who will drop soon) and Thompson (who will drop soon) as well a Gringrich (who wont enter th race) and you’ve got an increase coming to Paul.

  32. matt Says:

    “You can’t have it both ways. Either Giuliani is a friend of the Mafia, or he is a foe.”

    The Mafia isn’t a monolith, genuis. You know how people talk about FAMILIES of mafia? They do so because of this plurality. The best way to befriend a mafia family is to thin out it’s competition. But of course you know this and were merely stretching to make a rhetorical point. Rudy gets loads of comparisons to Benito Mussolini, but maybe on some level, comparisons to Boss Tweed would be more accurate. Matt Taibbi wrote an excellent article on Rudy that I think bears relinking.

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060407O.shtml

  33. George Phillies Says:

    For really thorough collections of polls

    http://www.pollster.com

    and they even do metaanalysis, meaning aggregating multiple polls.

    They also have a link to people who poll with or without Gingrich and the most successful of the several Thompsons.

  34. [email protected] Says:

    Eric,

    Let me know when you’re coming through.

    Actually, I have another place in mind. It’s cheaper than the place I took you, and I like it better. That place I took you—I think it was Houlihan’s, wasn’t it?—was kind of fru-fru. I like a manly steak.

    This place I’m thinking of is called “Best Steak House,” and it’s down on Grand across from the old Fox Theatre and up from St. Louis University. You stand in line and yell your order at them. Sort of a very, very busy mom and pop place. I think their big ribeyes or their New York Strips are something like $12.95 for the dinner, baked potato, Texast toast, the whole nine yards. Not sure if they sell beer, though. If they do, it’s probably in cans.But I’m sure there’s a place nearby to grab a pitcher if not.

  35. [email protected] Says:

    As far as Giuliani and the Mafia go, Matt has it right. The crime families for the most part try to maintain a congenial relationship—they split up various rackets and territories, etc., and they fight each other only when they think it’s necessary and try to keep such fights at the fringes of their activities. Everyday in mob life is not an installment of The Godfather.

    Thing is, they DO jockey for advantage … and if a family had a scion who was a federal prosecutor, that would definitely be an advantage. If they didn’t get what they wanted, they wouldn’t have to leave a horse’s head in someone’s bed … their adversaries would just suddenly learn that they were being investigated, wiretapped, indicted, etc.

    Not to mention said scion eventually running the city of New York, including its police force, the disposition of its contracting, etc.

  36. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
    ‘White’ is not a race either. There is no biological basis for race, and therefore, if I say ‘Italian’ is a race, it is just as valid as ‘Asian’ being a race.”

    So by your own definition you are full of shit every time you cry racism.

    “More collectivism from Andy. Who cares if Giuliani’s father was in the mob?”

    I’d say that it is quite relavent that Rudy Giuliani’s father was in the mob. Involvement in the Mafia is passed down through family lines. I don’t know for a fact whether or not Giuliani himself is involved in the Mafia (unless one considers the governmenet which is the biggest mob that there is), however, I will say that it is a fact that Giuliani displays Mafia-like behaviour. I will also say that his actions as a government official and a candidate for office were and are mobster like.

    I’d say that it is relavent that George W. Bush’s father and grandfather were members of The Order Of Skull And Bones and Bohemian Grove as is George W. Bush. I’d also say that it is relavent that George HW Bush was a former head of the CIA, and was a member of the Council On Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, and was on the board of the Carlyle Group. This all relates to George W. Bush’s actions while in office.

    I’d say that it is relavent that Arnold Schwarzenegger’s father was a Nazi (as was his stepfather I believe) and that Arnold was friends with former Nazi and UN Secretary Kurt Waldheim. Schwarzenegger certainly displays Nazi-like behaviour.

    I’d say that it is relavent that Joe Kennedy was the head of the Irish Mafia in Boston and that he made his fortune running bootleg alchohol during Prohibition and that he was instramental in launching the political careers of his sons.

    And so on and so forth….

    “Racism is the crudest form of collectivism. That’s not ‘PC bullshit.’”

    Yes, it is “politically correct” bullshit when you cry “racism” over pointing out that Giuliani comes from a family of criminals and that he displays the same criminal behaviours himself.

    “And I don’t want to get in the game of ‘defending’ Giuliani, but he is far from the worst in the Repub/Democratic fields. I’d put only Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson ahead of him on the GOP side;”

    I think that Giuliani may very well be the worst of the bunch. If he’s not the worst then he is probably tied for worst along with Mitt Romney and John McCain.

  37. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    June 8th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
    Question for all of you who say Giuliani is ‘not a libertarian.’

    How do you explain the fact that the unbiased non-partisan ontheissues.com rates Giuliani at 60/60 (2nd highest out of 22), as a ‘Moderate Libertarian’?

    Another question?

    How do you explain all the major media who have called Giuliani a ‘libertarian’ or a ‘libertarian conservative’ in the last few months, including:

    London Times Herald
    NY Sun
    Washington Post
    Washington Times
    LA Times
    Chicago Tribune
    National Review
    American Spectator
    and numerous major political websites and blogs”

    Anyone who says that Rudy Giuliani is a libertarian is completely full of shit and doesn’t know what they are talking about.

    In Jiu Jitsu and other fighting arts that have a belt system only black belts can say who is a black belt and who isn’t. If other high level black belts say that you are a black belt in Jiu Jitsu, then you are a black belt in Jiu Jitsu. If they say that you are not, then you are not.

    A comparison could be made among libertarians. The sources that you cited who claim that Rudy Giuliani is a libertarian are NOT qualified to comment on who is a libertarian and who isn’t because they are not libertarians themselves. They are either ignorant or they are intentionally lying. Them calling Rudy Giuliani a libertarian is like a bunch of white belts or people who don’t know anything about Jiu Jitsu judging that somebody is a black belt. If there a Council of Libertarians were to judge whether or not Rudy Giuliani was a libertarian there is NO WAY IN HELL that he’d even come close to earning the libertarian label.

    You named a bunch of publications that called Rudy Giuliani a libertarian, but I notice that there is not even one libertarian organization on there. How about contacting some libertarian organizations and asking them if Rudy Giuliani is a libertarian? Organizations such as:

    The Libertarian Party

    International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL)

    The Future for Freedom Foundation

    The Advocates for Self Government

    Liberty Magazine

    The Mises Institute

    The Cato Institute

    Reason

    I’m not particularly wild about Cato and Reason but I don’t think that even they would try to pass Rudy Giuliani off as a libertarian. Funny how there are no libertarian organizations on your list of publications. Funny, but not suprising.

  38. KenH Says:

    Andy, you are certainly correct about the Cato Institute:

    www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8264

  39. Sean Scallon Says:

    Gee, Eric I guess all that money Paul is raising must be counterfit then. According to Free Market News.com, since the South Carolina GOP debate the Paul camapign has brought in nearly $5 million dollars. I guess all those You Tube, Meetup.com, My Space and other internet numbers are all spam right?

    And your “boy” is pulling out of Iowa because he can’t compete there and doesn’t want to try. What does that tell us? Perhaps he has feet of clay? Perhaps his so-called lead is more name recognition than anything else?

    Oops, its Saturday. I guess you’re back to supporting Wayne Allyn Root.

  40. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Some dago’s runnin for president? That’s nice.
    What IS an “Asian”? I can’t figure what kind o noggin to put on that. . . dot, rag, ... eyes round, slant . . . dunno if I should give em chopsticks or put em on a camel or what . . . . can’t picture it. I know you’re knowledgable in things generally, g_e, including geography, so why the vague “Asian” talk?

    Me, I’m a yank, mostly kraut by bloodline. How bout y’all?

    I don’t go by lineage when considering candidates. I go by their deeds and words and what their words’re worth. Rudy 911-Bumblefuck They-Hate-Us-Cuz-R-Freedom Guiliani’s words, like the words of Dandero, are worth dogshit.

  41. Andy Says:

    “I go by their deeds and words and what their words’re worth. Rudy 911-Bumblefuck They-Hate-Us-Cuz-R-Freedom Guiliani’s words, like the words of Dandero, are worth dogshit.”

    I agree with this!

  42. Trent Hill Says:

    Devin,

    TELL ME you aren’t a CP supporter.

  43. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    I’m LP. I think of myself as just unaffliated these days though, because the party’s got to get far more inclusive, n right quick too, for me to contribute to it again. See what the Denver Convention brings … it’s either full on big tent or never mind. Politicly, I’m just happy as a lizard on a hot rock what with Paul’s forthrightness of late. You, Trent?

  44. globalist_elitist Says:

    “Asian” was purposely vague to show the idiocy and myth of “race.”

  45. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Spot on, g_e. We’re all mongrels. I reckon I’ll be Eurasian . . . n go around with a Eurasia t-shirt on . . . that’d be cool.

  46. #1 Giuliani/Root Hater Says:

    “That said, for the record, Wayne’s two biggest supporters for his Presidential campaign are Jake Witmer of Chicago - a Radical hardcore LPer and the LP’s all-time top petitioner”,

    All-time top petitioner? LOL. Jake is a decent petitioner when he wants to be, but come on…he wasn’t around that long, and he had quite a few campaigns he slacked off on. Not that he was unique in that or anything. Jake’s reasons for supporting Root are largely based on extremely poor Machiavellian calculation.

    “and Bruce Cohen, Libertarian Party of Orange County, CA Chairman”.

    Not any more. The California LP finally and belatedly did the right thing and removed the reprehensible Cohen from all leadership positions.

    Regarding Giuliani’s mafia family connections and admiration for Adolf Hitler: being Italian is the least of it. The Bush and Clinton mafia families are not Italian, but are crime families very much in the sicilian sense - only wealthier and more sophisticated in their scams.

    Scwarzenegger is not a nazi JUST because he is Austrian, Giuliani is not a mobster fascist JUST because he is Italian, and Clinton is not trash JUST because he is from Arkansas. Also, W is not an elitist JUST because he is a rich WASP. But, nevertheless, that is exactly what they are.

  47. globalist_elitist Says:

    What do you want to bet that the people throwing around these “Nazi,” “mobster,” “trash” and “elitist” slurs are in fact unemployed/ minimum-wage-earning losers? Degenerates always have to tear others down to make themselves feel noble. There is no nobility in poverty. Poverty is failure.

    Why are “libertarians” unable to keep to the facts? Critique Giuliani for his blatant disregard for the Constitution, not for being Italian or being a supposed “mobster.” Grow up. Get a job. Pay taxes. Then maybe you’ll have something to complain about.

  48. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 11:53 am
    What do you want to bet that the people throwing around these ‘Nazi,’ ‘mobster,’ ‘trash’and ‘elitist’slurs are in fact unemployed/ minimum-wage-earning losers? Degenerates always have to tear others down to make themselves feel noble. There is no nobility in poverty. Poverty is failure.”

    With the amount of name calling that you do, going by this “logic” you must be an unemployed burger flipper.

    “Why are ‘libertarians’unable to keep to the facts? Critique Giuliani for his blatant disregard for the Constitution, not for being Italian or being a supposed ‘mobster.’”

    We are being critical of Giuliani because of his blatant disregarud for the Constitution, nobody is attacking him just because he’s Italian. However, the fact is the Giuliani DOES have family ties to the Mafia, including a very close family tie in his father. Growing up with a mobster as a father obviously had an effect on Rudy Giuliani as he displays the characteristics of a mobster. I consider it to be fair game to point this out and as a cause for further investigation of Rudy Giuliani.

    “Grow up. Get a job. Pay taxes. Then maybe you’ll have something to complain about.”

    You criticize people for pointing out FACTS about Giuliani but then you make stuff up about other people whom you’ve never met. Yeah, this makes sense.

    Also, you make it sound like payment of taxes should decided whether or not people have a right to free speech.

  49. globalist_elitist Says:

    If you don’t pay taxes, you have the right to be in a jail cell.

    Anarchism = Socialism.

  50. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
    If you don’t pay taxes, you have the right to be in a jail cell.”

    First of all, I don’t think that there is anybody who doesn’t pay any taxes. There are some taxes that are impossible to avoid, such as sales tax.

    Second of all, why should a person be put in jail for not paying extortion money? This is like saying that people who refuse to pay “protection money” to the Mafia deserve to get beaten up or killed.

    “Anarchism = Socialism.”

    This is an absurd statement.

  51. Eric Dondero Says:

    Two major media outlets have called Giuliani a “libertarian” in the last couple days: US News & World Report, and the Chicago Sun-Times. The US News article is even headlined with the word “Libertarian.”

    For more info: www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

  52. Eric Dondero Says:

    Using this logic, we libertarians are no longer qualified to judge others’ authoritarianism. Since we are not authoritarians, or liberals or conservatives, what right do we have to call others by those labels?

    If a media outlet that is not libertarian is no longer allowed to call someone a libertarian, than what right do we have to judge others by their political labels?

  53. Jackcjackson Says:

    Someone fill me in on the Arnold= Nazi talk. Not saying I agree with him politically, but I never thought he acted like a “nazi”’..The Rudy stuff, i understand.

  54. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
    Two major media outlets have called Giuliani a “libertarian” in the last couple days: US News & World Report, and the Chicago Sun-Times. The US News article is even headlined with the word “Libertarian.”

    For more info: www.mainstreamlibertarian.com”

    On what basis did they call him a libertarian? Was it Rudy’s strong defense of gun rights? Was it Rudy’s strong defense of free speech? Was it Rudy’s strong defense of property rights? Oh, wait a minute, Rudy doesn’t actually believe in any of those things, therefore he’s automatically DISQUALIFIED from being a libertarian!

  55. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
    Using this logic, we libertarians are no longer qualified to judge others’ authoritarianism. Since we are not authoritarians, or liberals or conservatives, what right do we have to call others by those labels?”

    An authoritarian is the complete opposite of a libertarian. So a person who is a libertarian can call somebody an authoritarian if they have opposite views. I suppose that an authoritarian could do the same if they are being honest, however, I’d be more likely to question the honesty of an authoritarian since authoritarians are known to lie.

    “If a media outlet that is not libertarian is no longer allowed to call someone a libertarian, than what right do we have to judge others by their political labels?”

    A media outlet can say whatever they want to say, but this does not automatically mean that everything that they say is true. The people who are calling Rudy Giuliani a libertarian are either ignorant about the political spectrum and about Rudy’s views and actions as a government official, or they are intentionally lying.

  56. Andy Says:

    “Jackcjackson Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
    Someone fill me in on the Arnold= Nazi talk. Not saying I agree with him politically, but I never thought he acted like a “nazi”’..The Rudy stuff, i understand.”

    http://www.arnoldexposed.com/

  57. Andy Says:

    Here’s the World’s Smallest Political Quiz from the Advocates for Self Government. This quiz is not comprehensive, but it does give one at least a general idea of where they fall on the political spectrum.

    Let’s see where Rudy falls on this quiz.

    Choose A if you agree, M for Maybe, D if you disagree.)

    A
    M
    D

    Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet.

    RUDY GIULIANI IS IN FAVOR OF CENSORSHIP. HE WAS HARD ON POLITICAL PROTESTORS, HIS STAFF JUST HAD A REPORTER ARRESTED FOR ASKING A QUESTION THEY DIDN’T LIKE (I POSTED A LINK ABOUT THIS ABOVE), HE SHUT DOWN A MIXED MARTIAL ARTS FIGHTING EVENT AND BANNED THE SPORT IN NYC, AND HE WENT AFTER PORN SHOPS.

    Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.

    I CAN’T SAY FOR SURE WHETHER OR NOT RUDY SUPPORTS THE DRAFT, BUT I DO KNOW THAT HE SUPPORTS A BIG MILITARY AND AN INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY THAT COULD LEAD TO THE DRAFT BEING REINSTATED.

    There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.

    RUDY CRACKED DOWN ON PROSTITUTES AND PORN SHOPS IN NYC.

    Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.

    RUDY IS A BIG SUPPORTER OF THE WAR ON DRUGS.

    There should be no National ID card.

    RUDY SUPPORTS THE NATIONAL ID CARD.

    Economic Issues

    (Choose A if you agree, M for Maybe, D if you disagree.)

    A
    M
    D

    End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business.

    RUDY IS IN FAVOR OF CORPORATE WELFARE AND USING EMINENT DOMAIN TO GIVE LAND TO CORPORATIONS. HE ALSO FAVORS BIG PORK BARREL SPENDING PROJECTS THAT FAVOR POLITICALLY CONNECTED CORPORATIONS.

    End government barriers to international free trade.

    I’M NOT SURE WHERE HE STANDS ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE, BUT I’D BE WILLING TO BET THAT HE’S FOR GOVERNMENT MANAGED TRADE RATHER THAN REAL FREE TRADE.

    Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.

    I DON’T KNOW WHERE RUDY STANDS HERE BUT I’D BE WILLING TO BET THAT HE DOES NOT SUPPORT GETTING GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

    Replace government welfare with private charity.

    I HAVEN’T SEEN MUCH EVIDENCE THAT HE’D ELIMINATE THE WELFARE STATE.

    Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.

    I’VE SEEN ZERO EVIDENCE THAT HE’D MAKE ANY LARGE CUTS IN GOVERNMENT. I’VE HEARD THAT HE “KEPT TAXES AND SPENDING UNDER CONTROLAS MAYOR OF NYC BUT THERE WERE NO BIG CUTS IN GOVERNMENT.

    RUDY FAILS TO MAKE THE CUT AS A LIBERTARIAN EVEN ON THIS BASIC QUIZ.

  58. Andy Says:

    Here’s a more comprehensive test to find out how much of a libertarian one is. I gave Globalist_Elite some shit recently for only scoring a 37 on this test, but I’d be willing to bet that his score is a lot higher than Giuliani’s here!

    The Libertarian Purity Test
    http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

  59. Andy Says:

    One of the most important libertarian issues - some would say THE most important libertarian issue - is the right to keep & bear arms. It is a fact that Rudy Giuliani is in favor of gun control. This ALONE should disqualify him from being called a libertarian.

    Why Did it Have to be … Guns?
    by L. Neil Smith
    [email protected]

    Over the past 30 years, I’ve been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I’ve thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

    People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

    Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

    If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.

    If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

    What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

    If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

    If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

    If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like “Constitutionalist”—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?

    Sure, these are all leading questions. They’re the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

    He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn’t have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn’t you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn’t it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

    And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

    Try it yourself: if a politician won’t trust you, why should you trust him? If he’s a man—and you’re not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If “he” happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she’s eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn’t want you to have?

    On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

    Makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

    And that’s why I’m accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

    But it isn’t true, is it?

  60. matt Says:

    That test was interesting, Andy. I got a 116, but I don’t read very much into that fact because some of the questions were rather ambiguous. Rudy might get a 15 on his best day.

  61. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy - There wasn’t a single person in the history of the world who considered himself an anarchist and did NOT consider himself part of the worldwide socialist revolution prior to your racist hero Murray Rothbard - a mentally ill hate monger and right-wing utopian daydreamer. Anarchists want no corporations, for one, but it goes beyond that. How could there be any property rights beyond what could be individually enforced? How could I, for example, own a 200-unit apartment building and expect my tenants to pay the rent in an “anarchist” world? I couldn’t. Early anarchist thinkers - who informed Rothbard - knew that I couldn’t, and they celebrated that. Socialists don’t want to abolish personal property, they want to limit ownership to use. This is what anarchists would do if they realize it or not.

  62. globalist_elitist Says:

    That lame test (which says I’m a libertarian despite my 37 score): My score would be a lot higher if the second tier of questions said maybe 30% instead of 50%. It is an unscientific model. How can I get zero points for 30% but a shitload for 50%? What if I wanted to cut the size of government by 49.5%? Zero points.

    What can be expected by a bunch of math-hating Miseans.

  63. globalist_elitist Says:

    If you paid attention to the business press, (which no anarchist does since they are divorced from productive reality), you would know that Giuliani is in favor of global trade, tax cuts, and spending cuts… At least that’s what he says. I’ll believe the first two.

  64. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
    Andy - There wasn’t a single person in the history of the world who considered himself an anarchist and did NOT consider himself part of the worldwide socialist revolution prior to your racist hero Murray Rothbard - a mentally ill hate monger and right-wing utopian daydreamer. Anarchists want no corporations, for one, but it goes beyond that.”

    The people that you are refering to were not and are not real anarchist. That’s why Murray Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalist.

    Also, I’ve NEVER said that one has to be an anarchist to be a libertarian. I’ve always maintained that one can be an anarchist or a minarchist (which I define as a hardcore, strict constitutionalist) and be a libertarian. The anarchy vs. minarchy debate is old and is not worth getting sidetracked on because we are currently far from having either.

  65. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
    If you paid attention to the business press, (which no anarchist does since they are divorced from productive reality), you would know that Giuliani is in favor of global trade, tax cuts, and spending cuts… At least that’s what he says. I’ll believe the first two.”

    I’m aware of this, but I believe his versions of these things are a scam. When he speaks of global trade, is he talking about real free trade (that is abscense of government in trade, or at the very least as little government as possible in trade) or is he talking about government managed trade for the benifit of politically connected corporations backed up by tax subsidies? When he talks about tax cuts and spending cuts does he really mean it? Just how much does he want to cut taxes? What spending cuts does he want to make and are these cuts going to be offset by any increasing in spending in other areas?

  66. Andy Says:

    Rudy Giuliani & Handgun Control Inc.
    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=104552

  67. globalist_elitist Says:

    The media calls Rudy a “libertarian” because he is seen as being fiscally conservative / socially liberal.

    His fiscal policy talking points are excellent. In this one area, he stands above any and all other candidates in any and all other areas. Unfortunately, his social “liberalism” is defined by being pro-choice (good), tacidly pro-gay (not good enough), and strongly pro-gun control (not liberal, but statist). On most other social issues, he is conservative (i.e. banning porn), and his militaristic and foreign policy outlooks are based in irrationality on the level of 9/11 conspiracy kooks.

    He’s not a libertarian. But you guys are being a little too hard on him. Look at Tancredo, or Duncan Hunter, or Brownback, Romney, etc. These guys are 100 times worse. Not to mention the Democrats, of whom I would rate only two as being “better” than Giuliani (the clear choice being Richardson).

    If we have a Republican president and it’s not Ron Paul, he is going to be a warmonger. I’d rather have him be a pro-growth, fiscally conservative, pro-choice, pro-gay warmonger than one who is just wrong on EVERY issue.

  68. globalist_elitist Says:

    18th century anarchists believed in the abolition of the state. 20th and 21st century anarchists believe the same. The 18th century ones were just more prescient on what statelessness would mean. Rothbard was a racist hack and a utopian idiot. He WANTED people to be different than they are - to “respect” property rights beyond possession and use without a state to back them up. It wouldn’t happen. Let’s say I own 10 200-tennant apartment buildings. Who is going to make sure my tennants pay their rent? Anarchism = socialism.

    I do not believe that anarchists and minarchists can work together, even in the name of reducing government. Why? Because minarchists are capitalists and anarchists are luddites at bests, socialists at worst, and regardless, their world would be one of socialist reality.

  69. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
    The media calls Rudy a ‘libertarian’ because he is seen as being fiscally conservative / socially liberal.”

    Appearances can be deceptive, especially when they are based on superficial thinking by people who don’t know what they are talking about.

    “His fiscal policy talking points are excellent.”

    Ronald Reagan had a lot of good fiscal policy talking points. Too bad it turned out that he was full of shit. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.

    “Unfortunately, his social ‘liberalism’ is defined by being pro-choice (good), tacidly pro-gay (not good enough), and strongly pro-gun control (not liberal, but statist). On most other social issues, he is conservative (i.e. banning porn), and his militaristic and foreign policy outlooks are based in irrationality on the level of 9/11 conspiracy kooks.”

    I think that it is important to weight the issues. Two of the biggest issues are gun rights and foreign policy. Rudy most definitely comes down on the anti-liberty side of these issues. These two issues should be weighted heavily.

    As I’ve said on numerous occasions, there are good pro-liberty arguements on both sides of the abortion issue so abortion should be off the table when definining whether or not somebody is a libertarian. I don’t really care where Rudy stands on abortion.

    If by “pro-gay” one means that gays should have the Bill of Rights should apply to gays as it applies to everyone else, this is good, however, often times when people talk about “rights” for certain groups what they really mean is special rights rather than equal rights. It appears that Rudy is decent on this issue, however, I wouldn’t say that advocating civil unions for gays is as important as gun rights of foreign policy, especially when one considers that government really shouldn’t be involved in this issue in the first place.

    Going after porn shops and prostitutes is anti-liberty, but I would also say that this is not as important as gun rights and foreign policy. I’d give less weight to questions about porn and prostitution than I’d give to guns and foreign policy.

    “He’s not a libertarian. But you guys are being a little too hard on him. Look at Tancredo, or Duncan Hunter, or Brownback, Romney, etc. These guys are 100 times worse. Not to mention the Democrats, of whom I would rate only two as being “better” than Giuliani (the clear choice being Richardson).”

    Tancredo is grossly overrated and Hunter & Brownback suck as well. Howerer, I doubt that any of them will win the nomination. I think that the establishment controllers want either Giuliani, Romney, or McCain, all of whom SUCK big time.

    “If we have a Republican president and it’s not Ron Paul, he is going to be a warmonger. I’d rather have him be a pro-growth, fiscally conservative, pro-choice, pro-gay warmonger than one who is just wrong on EVERY issue.”

    If Ron Paul doesn’t get the Republican nomination then I don’t really care who gets it after that because the rest of the nominees are horrible. I don’t see any silver lining if Giuliani gets the nomination. Giuliani is a big time warmonger and police state supporter so if he becomes the Republican nominee we’ll continue down the highway to hell.

  70. Andy Says:

    “Let’s say I own 10 200-tennant apartment buildings. Who is going to make sure my tennants pay their rent? Anarchism = socialism.”

    Under such a hypothetical situation, you could use some of your revenue or investment capital to pay a security agency to throw people out if they don’t live up to their rent agreement. Also, you could cut off their utilities.

    “I do not believe that anarchists and minarchists can work together, even in the name of reducing government.”

    Then you are in the wrong party. You don’t even seem to be much of a minarchist given some of the views that you’ve espoused. You sound like a guy who wants to make a few cuts in government here and there, but not much in the realm of major cuts. You certainly don’t come off as a strict constitutionalist.

  71. globalist_elitist Says:

    Where do the defense agency people live? What if half of them live in my apartment and therefore, they’re not going to do shit about it? Who “owns” the defense agency? What if the workers decide that they don’t need the absentee owner? The workers can do it themselves… Soviet style socialism.

    As minarchist isn’t even a real word, its meaning is certainly debatable. I am for less government and more freedom. If Hayek and Friedman were libertarians, then so am I. I prefer the term “liberal” in the classical sense (and classical liberals are NOT the same as modern libertarians), but regardless… This is a debate based on “natural rights” vs. utility. I’m a utilitarian. Most/all classical economists were. The LP is a marginalized fringe movement precisely because it rejects mathematics, science, and practical applications in favor of a kookish creed espoused by Mises, Rothbard, and Rand, who have virtually no respect in the real world.

  72. globalist_elitist Says:

    Here is what Rothbard said about abortion: “What humans have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly, no born humans have such a right, and therefore the fetus can have no such right either.” He also believed that parents owned their children and could starve them to death if they chose. And of course, he backed Strom Thurmond’s segregationist 1948 campaign and Pat Buchanan’s equally anti-liberty ‘92 effort. Some libertarian.

  73. matt Says:

    G_E, you are right to be skeptical about the anarcho-capitalist’s claims of spontaneous co-operation in a stateless society. The “defense agency” model is a load of pink smoke and a total failure if the majority of people are not subject to an internal moral order of some sort. In such a situation, however, I think it might be possible to maintain social cohesion and lawfulness through the influence of religious groups, fraternal societies, etc.

    Certainly people wouldn’t start “playing nice” simply because the state was gone, and no private mercenary band could handle the overflow. That being said, people can regulate themselves and each other in various ways and enforce a moral standard without ever bringing the state into it.

    You can have a secular society, or you can have a stateless society. Trying to combine the two would fill the streets with blood.

  74. matt Says:

    Rothbard, like Rand, would be 100% right if they had an understanding of man’s spiritual nature. They don’t, and they’re not, but they do better than most, and at least they stick to the idea of natural law.

  75. Andy Says:

    “matt Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
    G_E, you are right to be skeptical about the anarcho-capitalist’s claims of spontaneous co-operation in a stateless society. The ‘defense agency’ model is a load of pink smoke and a total failure if the majority of people are not subject to an internal moral order of some sort. In such a situation, however, I think it might be possible to maintain social cohesion and lawfulness through the influence of religious groups, fraternal societies, etc.

    Certainly people wouldn’t start ‘playing nice’ simply because the state was gone, and no private mercenary band could handle the overflow. That being said, people can regulate themselves and each other in various ways and enforce a moral standard without ever bringing the state into it.”

    The same thing can be said about a constitutional minarchy. A constitutional minarchy only works if the people - or at least a majority of the people - remain vigilant in protecting liberty. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The price for liberty is eternal vigilance.” The moment a majority of the people start going to sleep is the moment that the government starts to overstep its bounds which are set forth in the Constitution.

  76. matt Says:

    Going to sleep is only one potential problem. People who are consumed with cheating on their wives or whacking their pud to internet porn are rarely going to have the time or the interest to keep government honest.

    One of the catholic saints, and I forget which one since I’m not catholic and don’t keep track, had this to say:

    “A good man, even if he is a slave, is free. An evil man, even if he is a King, is a slave with as many masters as he has vices.”

    Don’t misunderstand, I’m not trying to say that politics don’t matter. They do, and people deserve to be free of government oppression. What I’m saying is that a certain level of morality is neccessary for society to work properly, and if we don’t have it, we’ll be in deep whether there is a state or not.

  77. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
    Here is what Rothbard said about abortion: ‘What humans have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly, no born humans have such a right, and therefore the fetus can have no such right either.’”

    This is no different than your view on abortion.

    “He also believed that parents owned their children and could starve them to death if they chose.”

    I’ve never heard of Murray Rothbard saying this but if he said this I don’t agree with him on this one.

    While I would cite Murray Rothbard as an influence, he is not my greatest influence nor is he the person who brought me into the the Libertarian Party. The person who inspired me to join the Libertarian Party was Harry Browne. He’s probably still my greatest influence.

    “And of course, he backed Strom Thurmond’s segregationist 1948 campaign and Pat Buchanan’s equally anti-liberty ‘92 effort. Some libertarian.”

    At the time he thought that Pat Buchanan was the best option out of the available choices who had a real shot of winning. This is no different than when other people may support a “lesser of avaible evils” candidate, as in the candidate that comes the closet to their views whom they may not always agree with but who are better than the other candidates who have a chance to win. I know that Murray later criticized Buchanan for his anti-free trade policies (although Murray correctly opposed NAFTA as well because it wasn’t real free trade).

    I sort of supported a non-libertarian for office one time. In 2004 I attended this event that was also a fundraiser for Cynthia McKinney for Congress (she was one of the speakers and a portion of the ticket fee went to her campaign fund). I didn’t live in Cynthia McKinney’s district nor do I even live in her state but I was glad that some of the money from the tickets went to her and I would have voted for her if I had lived in her district because I think that she was the best candidate on the ballot (her only opposition was a Republican warmonger) and I think that she had enough positives to merit me voting for her (I generally leave the ballot spaces for an office blank if there is only a Democrat or Republican on the ballot).

    I voted for a Constitution Party candidate one time when the available choices were Democrat, Republican, Constitution Party, and Green Party. I’ve even voted for Republicans candidates 4 times, although one of them I wish I could take back (it was a candidate for Congress who I later found out was an asshole).

    So Murray supported Pat Buchanan at one time, so what?

    “As minarchist isn’t even a real word, its meaning is certainly debatable.”

    If you don’t want to use the term minarchist, let’s say limited government constitutionalist instead.

    “I am for less government and more freedom.”

    Then the question arises of how much less government do you want?

    I remember back in the ‘90s Harry Browne made the comment about how Republicans say they are for less government, but what they really mean is that while Democrats want government to grow by say 38% a year, the Republicans “only” want it to grow by 36% per year and they call that wanting less government.

    I want to get rid of as much government as possible. At the very least I’d like to eliminate everything that is not specifically authorized in the Constitution. I realize that this couldn’t be done overnight, but I’d like to see a plan implemented to do it as quickly as realistically possible. Once we get to that point (if we ever get there) we can then talk about where to go from there.

  78. Andy Says:

    “matt Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
    Going to sleep is only one potential problem. People who are consumed with cheating on their wives or whacking their pud to internet porn are rarely going to have the time or the interest to keep government honest.”

    This is true. I would just add that I wish the people who advocate for more government were also so absorbed into whacking off on-line, watching TV, going to movies, doing chores around the house, trying to hook up with women or men, etc…, so that they wouldn’t have the time to push for more government.

    “Don’t misunderstand, I’m not trying to say that politics don’t matter. They do, and people deserve to be free of government oppression.”

    I see involvement in politics as self defense. I got involved in politics because I don’t like government infringing on my rights and screwing things up.

    “What I’m saying is that a certain level of morality is neccessary for society to work properly, and if we don’t have it, we’ll be in deep whether there is a state or not.”

    There is truth in this statement. A majority of people - or at least a critical mass of people - need to be decent and need to care about freedom, and they also need to be well informed. When many people have no problem with running to government to use it as a weapon to force their will on others it is a recipe for disater, and it is made even worse when most people are not well informed (many of whom are actually willfully ignorant). Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect of (I’m probably paraphrasing), “If a people are not well informed and expect to remain free they want something that is not meant to be.”

  79. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 9th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
    Where do the defense agency people live? What if half of them live in my apartment and therefore, they’re not going to do shit about it?”

    You could stop paying them and hire a different security agency. Or you could turn their utilities off. If you turn off their utilities they will eventually come out. Perhaps you could even have something installed in the apartment to drive out tenents who don’t pay, such as an obnoxious siren or blinking lights or something like that.

    “Who ‘owns’ the defense agency? What if the workers decide that they don’t need the absentee owner? The workers can do it themselves… Soviet style socialism.”

    Whether or not somebody owns the security agency or who owns the security agency is not relavent. Perhaps there wouldn’t even be an agency, there could just be various security people that the apartment owner could contract with on an individual basis.

    I don’t think that this would be as big a problem as you are making it out to be. There are millions of people who pay rent and who make payments for all kinds of things and who do so voluntarily. When you pay for a good or service do you only do it because you are afraid that you’ll be arrested if you don’t, or do you do it just because it is the right thing to do? Most people just do it because it is the right thing to do. Sure, some people will try to cheat, but this is no different than what we’ve got now. The question is, is the abuse that comes from the coercive power of the state greater than or less than any abuses that would occur in the absense of state power?

  80. Trent Hill Says:

    “Your score is…

    89”

    Does that make me libertarian? I still consider myself a conservative.

  81. globalist_elitist Says:

    Matt - I do not agree. Morality is subjective. And we have had hundreds of years of Christianity + government in which there was blood in the streets.

    Thomas Jefferson cheated on his wife and raped his slaves. If there was internet porn, I’m sure he would have indulged in that too.

    Andy - My point in quoting Rothbard was simply to show that, historically, there was never a “pro-life” contingent of libertarianism. My view is actually quite a bit different. I’m with the Supreme Court, that an absolute right to abort exists only to the point of viability.

    Property is a social and legal construct. This is what right-wing anarchists fail to understand. Property is what society says it is. As left-wing anarchist said, “Ask for work; if they give you no work, ask for bread. If they give you no bread, TAKE IT.”

    In the absence of the legal establsihment of property, what you would have is a might-makes-right society. The only way to collect rent from 1000 tennants would be to have at least 100 people with guns under your employ.

    Anarchism, in reality, would be the socialist vision, not the anarcho-capitalist one. No absentee ownership, no property rights beyond usage and possession and personal defense.

    Look, individual anarchists of the 18th and 19th century, libertarian influences, believed it was evil to own property that you did not use. Benjamin Tucker, etc. Like Hayek said, human beings are collectivists (tribalists) by nature. They do not respect property rights exepct wherein they are imposed on them by law.

  82. globalist_elitist Says:

    I stop paying the defence agency and it turns its guns on me.

    Your little system just doesn’t work. In the absence of law, might makes right.

    As for cutting spending and taxes; I am first and foremost for cutting taxes and bearing out the Laffer Curve. Combined with responsbile cuts in spending, this would produce the massive surplusses that would be needed to slowly phaze out or drastically reduce social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. Social Security in particular, due to its pyramidic setup, is troubling. But growth is the solution and a proper policy of growth would result in the abolition of the NEED for these programs.

  83. globalist_elitist Says:

    “All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another.” - Lysander Spooner.

    “Interest is theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder.” - Benjamin Tucker.

    These are the supposed fathers of the libertarian-anarchist movement. They considered themselves, however, to be socialists. They were. And so is anyone who advocates anarchy.

  84. [email protected] Says:

    global_elitist,

    You write:

    “Morality is subjective.”

    ... and …

    Property is a social and legal construct. ... Property is what society says it is.”

    Accepting those two statements at face value for the sake of argument, I can’t help but wonder at your pronouncement that:

    “In the absence of the legal establsihment of property, what you would have is a might-makes-right society.”

    ... since according to your own previous statements, the legal establishment of property IS a might-makes-right society. It’s just one particular subjective morality; it’s just society saying that property is what you happen to want it to be instead of something else; it just happens to be the kind of might that produces the kind of right you like instead of the kind of right someone else likes.

  85. matt Says:

    G_E,
    I think that morality is objective. I think it’s safe to say that certain points of morality/ethics are unclear, and we neccessarily approach them subjectively, but I think we’d all agree that there’s something fundamentally wrong with rape, murder, theft, etcetera. We all share a certain sense that if said things happened to us, we would feel wronged and so they ought not happen to other people either. Certain finer points of say, sexual ethics or economic relations cannot be approached with such clarity, but I don’t think that this ambiguity makes all ethics subjective.

    Many societies have had “Christianity plus Government” and had resultant blood in the streets. I am suggesting, based partly on behavioral patterns I have observed, that “Christianity minus Government” would be far less bloody.

  86. matt Says:

    “Government minus Christianity” would be a shitstorm, IMHO. Some secular people take natural law seriously (most of them are libertarians, actually), but they are in the minority. Most Christians muck ethics up woefully, but at least they have a mechanism for dealing with it and a clear motivation for doing so.

  87. matt Says:

    I know this whole line of thinking is risky, because it’s totally subjective, but maybe if Thomas Jefferson hadn’t been so interested in screwing his slaves, he would have had the strength to do what he knew was right, that is, stand up against slavery.

  88. globalist_elitist Says:

    Knappster - Not at all. We have a legally ordered society; not a pure “might makes right.” There is a clear difference. I can be an 81-year-old lady landlord and my tennants will pay me. In anarchy, they would only pay me if I paid a “defense agency,” which of course, could only operate if it were owned by its employees (Soviet style), and which may choose to refuse my business if it were more profitable for them to defend the squatter’s rights of the tennants. It takes about five minutes of thinking to deconstruct anarchism to what it is - tribal collectivism. Anything else would require the remaking of the human mind and spirit - i.e. religious brainwashing as Matt is prescribing. Of course, Christianity is a religion of socialism and suicide, so it would have to be another creed; i.e. Rothbardianism. Right-wing anarchism is a utopian pipe dream, far less practical than, say, Marxism.

    Matt - “We” do not all believe that rape, murder, and theft are wrong. “We” do not all agree exactly what they constitute. For example, the traditional marriage that your bigotted people so love long held that it was impossible for a man to rape his wife - that he could force her to have sex with him at any time and for any reason. That is tradtiional Christian marriage. Murder? God proscribed genocide in the Old Testament; some would define execution as murder; others would define any killing (even retalitory or self-defense) as murder. “Murder” is a loaded term and few people agree that all “killing” is necessarily immoral. Finally, theft. Well, in order for there to be theft, there has to be property, and property is a legal construct. In the absence of a legal system, I would guarantee that the majority of tennants would consider their rent payments to be theft at the hands of their landlord. Imagine 1000 employees working for a business owner, who “steals” profits and doesn’t work: Would these workers, in absence of a government protecting the owner’s property rights, uphold the relationship? NO ANARCHIST PRE-RACIST-ROTHBARD thought so. Rothbard is an intellectual midget of the lowest caliber. No one outside of the retarded little movement has ever even heard of him, and for good reason. Anarchism = Socialism.

    My point is that you say that people are too busy enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. having affairs and wacking off to porn) to stand up and defend them. That is a very elitist attitude. It is a very, VERY Christian attitude because it promotes self-sacrifice. Self sacrifice is the very essence of socialism. Christianity = Socialism.

  89. globalist_elitist Says:

    Interesting fact I just found: U.S. population is 8-16% atheist. The U.S. prison population is 0.2% atheist.

  90. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    June 10th, 2007 at 2:21 am
    “Your score is…

    89”

    Does that make me libertarian? I still consider myself a conservative.”

    Well, I suppose that this makes you more libertarian than Globalist_Elite!

  91. globalist_elitist Says:

    Yeah, because in Andy’s world, mercantlism = libertarianism; protectionism = good. Trent is an avowed protectionist and mercantalist; not a Radical for Capitalism, that’s for sure.

  92. matt Says:

    G_E,
    “We” might not be sure what does or does not constitute murder, rape, theft, etc, but we are all against being murdered, raped, stolen from, and those of us who are capable of empathy speak out when it happens to others.

    The historical abberations you mentioned prove the rule rather than disproving it. Without the moral teaching of Christianity, you would have no yardstick to judge it’s failings.

    Yes, “Christian marriage” has contained rape and battery at many points, but that degree has lessened at a rate unprecedented in any other religion. The Church led the outcry against rape and domestic violence in Europe during the Reformation and even earlier than that. Also, rape is a normal, but tragic part of almost all pre-Christian societies. The conversion of Europe to Christianity wasn’t perfect (since it was forced and aided by the government), but it did succeed in rooting out human sacrifice and many similar outrages.

    I’m a libertarian. I don’t think the state should prevent people from wacking off to porn or cheating on their wives or anything else of the like. What I do think is that certain patterns of behaviour aren’t conducive to liberty. Screwing your neighbor’s wife is the best possible way to spread distrust in your neighborhood, and a community of people who mistrust one another end up needing the state to come in and regulate their affairs. In that way, it is as negative as stealing, although it is a personal issue, rather than a public one like theft.

    Christian self-sacrifice is self-sacrifice performed with the individual’s future gains in mind. It is the essence of capitalism. I spend my moral capital in hopes of a future return on my investment, in this life and the next.

    Rothbard’s racism doesn’t concern me. I don’t even know that he was a racist, and I don’t care if he was a simpleton. All I know is that if the majority of people practiced Spiritual Capitalism (christianity) we could live together peacefully under his system.

  93. globalist_elitist Says:

    Christian marriage has become more humane the further it is removed from Christ and the Judeo traditions, by time. Secular, rational, post-elightenment thought is what has made Christian marriage more humane.

    Yes, Christianity rooted out human sacrifice and replaced it with self-sacrifice. Is that even a victory? Haha, you “spend your moral capital” - i.e. behaving in a moral manner - not out of reason or ethics, but because you hope to have a “capital gain” in heaven. Let me be your financial advisor and tell you to SELL, SELL! The gain you want isn’t forthcoming. I don’t consider “moral” behavior to be a sacrifice or an “investment” - it is a rational way of being. Religion is the willful abandonment of reason and the ultimate collectivist crime in history.

    So in order for anarchy to work, all we have to do is create a New Proliterian Man, err…, I mean a New Christian Man. Not all men. Just 51%. They can then tyranize the other 49%. Wow, that’s liberty!

    I have a better idea: How about we work to cut taxes, reduce spending, roll back regulations, reorganize foreign policy, and expand global trade and immigration? These are all possibilities, and if they were to be achieved (much easier than recreating man in your false God’s image), then there would be no need for collectivist creeds such as Islam and Christianity, and we would all live in peace and prosperity without having to redefine human nature.

  94. matt Says:

    From the top:

    A) Jews were by far more respectful of women than their 1st century contemporaries and the early Christians seperated themselves even from the Jews by treating women as equals from the start. When the roman emperors Constantine and Theodosious co-opted the Christian faith for the purpose of social control, of course the egalitarian spread was slowed, and the forced conversions of europeans that they engaged in further diluted the Christian spirit, a tide which the Reformers began to turn. Christianity as practiced isn’t perfect, but even in spite of the perversions, it’s the best human-rights game in town. Who really wants to live in an officcialy atheist state after seeing the 1st French Republic and the Soviet union? The line forms around the corner. No takers? My bad.

    B) The beauty of Christian moral teaching is that it, among other things, it combines the pragmatic and the ethical. If God is the creator, and if He intends for people to behave in certain ways, doing so will be both beneficial for them and logically explicable to them. In this way, nothing is really lost. The lifestyle most conducive to individual happiness is both internally consistent and beneficial to society as a whole. A perusal of Thomas Aquinas’ wikipedia entry will probably suffice for further reading on this point.

    C) How will the “New Christian Man” tyrranize anyone if he respects their rights to disagree and live as they please so long as they don’t use force or defraud their neighbors?

    D) We should do all of the things you suggested in your last paragraph, but doing these things alone wouldn’t solve the human problem. The human problem goes deeper than finances. If this were not the case, the very wealthy would all be perfectly happy and well-adjusted, which they are not.

  95. matt Says:

    On second thought, the wikipedia article on Aquinas isn’t really a good place to read up on Christian Natural law theory. I just looked at it and it’s a mess.

  96. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    June 10th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
    Yeah, because in Andy’s world, mercantlism = libertarianism; protectionism = good. Trent is an avowed protectionist and mercantalist; not a Radical for Capitalism, that’s for sure.”

    I NEVER said that I support mercantilism/protectionism. In fact, I’ve stated on numerous occassions that I oppose it.

    Yes, Trent has said that he supports protectionism and I disagree with him about this. However, this is NOT the only issue. Trent holds pro-liberty views on a lot of other issues which is apparent since he scored higher than you on that Libertarian Purity Test, and Trent doesn’t even claim to be a libertarian!

  97. Andy Says:

    “I’m a libertarian. I don’t think the state should prevent people from wacking off to porn or cheating on their wives or anything else of the like. What I do think is that certain patterns of behaviour aren’t conducive to liberty. Screwing your neighbor’s wife is the best possible way to spread distrust in your neighborhood, and a community of people who mistrust one another end up needing the state to come in and regulate their affairs. In that way, it is as negative as stealing, although it is a personal issue, rather than a public one like theft.”

    Yeah, everyone knows that politicians never screw around outside of marriage so we all need them to have power over us so they can keep us from misbehaving. (SARCASM)

  98. globalist_elitist Says:

    Matt - A) I don’t advocate an officially atheist state; I advocate an officially secular one - which we, “officially,” have right now. Women were not treated as equals in early Judaic history, and they are not now. Women were given more rights under Islam than in the pre-Islamic Arab world, but does that mean Islam is a religion of feminism? The best human rights game in town is capitalism. B) The only problem with what you’re saying is that God doesn’t exist. Your whole philosophy is based on a foundation of make-believe. C) The New Christian Man tyrannizes by his very existence. He himself was tyrannized in order to come into existence. Man cannot and should not be “remade.” D) Tell that to an Ethiopian living on a dollar a day. I’m sure he would love to have Paris Hilton’s problems.

    Andy - A better test would say, “by how much do you want to cut spending? 1-10%, 11-20%, etc.” I could not answer 50%+, and that’s why the test is inaccurate. I am clearly more “libertarian” than Trent, (although I agree with him on practical/non-religious matters more often than I agree with you). Doesn’t one necessarily have to be a capitalist (anarcho or otherwise) in order to be a libertarian? He is an admitted mercantalist. I don’t think that you’re a capitalist either, but you at least claim to be.

  99. matt Says:

    A) I think it’s fair to say that Islam is in some ways more humane than pre-Islamic Arab society, and by the same token, fair to say that Christianity is more humane than Islam. Human rights provides no epistemology for human rights. Self-interest in people who don’t have a moral foundation (almost always found in religion, otherwise in secular natural-law theory) isn’t sustainable on a large scale, because people take shortcuts like crime and force. These shortcuts are permissible inside the system, since the system’s only rule is “Make Money”, but they are impermissible under the systems that created society. I’m a capitalist too, but I don’t worship the idea.

    B) I can’t prove that He does, but I’m having a hell of a good time believing in Him, and that shouldn’t be the case since in my faith I eschew various things that have traditionally made me very happy.

    C) To be terrorized by the fact of someone else’s existence is indicative of imbalance. Christian thought says that non-Christians have their reason limited by the effects of evil in the world. They may be smarter, they may be more dilligen