Ruwart on The Steve Kubby Show, 04/28

Mary Ruwart, candidate for the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential nomination, will appear on Steve Kubby’s Blog Talk Radio program. Monday, April 28th, at 6pm Pacific.

Likely topic of discussion: Exactly what you’d expect.

103 Responses to “Ruwart on The Steve Kubby Show, 04/28”

  1. Stefan Says:

    Thomas, she has already been on radio on Friday and been asked on the same topic, not so much in detail through.You can download it from this site http://nvp.mypodcast.com It would be interesting to compare the two radio interviews, especially with the LP HQ statement in between them. I thought her answers to many of the others questions were really very well.

  2. Fred C. Says:

    6 Pacific? I thought Kubby was on earlier. What’s the usual turnover on old broadcasts getting put up?

  3. Jeremy Young Says:

    And she gave a terrible, terrible answer on the NVP show—one consistent with Libertarian principles, surely, but one that will dog her all the way through November if she wins the nomination. “And now, our guest, Mary Ruwart, the child-porn advocate!” I think the LP just got a worse soundbite than Root’s Islamofascism crap.

  4. Alex Says:

    Has she ever been on Angela Keaton’s show?

  5. disinter Says:

    Shane Corey should be fired immediately. What a disgrace.

  6. disinter Says:

    http://www.politechbot.com/p-03690.html

  7. disinter Says:

    This whole child porn red herring was designed to purge the party of purists, led by Gordon, Barr, the LNC and its staff.

  8. Alex Peak Says:

    I’m currently listening to the Ruwart interview posted by Stephen. This woman is so, so great! Just listen to her completely destroy any argument for government involvement in healthcare! She has statistics, she has passion, she has answers!

    Ruwart 2008!

    [Back to the interview…]

  9. disinter Says:

    Fuck this, I am donating a shit load of money to Ruwart because of this retard attempt by the LP to smear (and purge) her.

  10. Alex Peak Says:

    disinter:

    I reject conspiracy theories, as you know. I haven’t seen Gordon do a single thing wrong, Barr doesn’t seem to be the least bit involved, and how can we blame the LNC?

    Sorry, I don’t see the evidence.

    Alex

  11. disinter Says:

    Alex, it will all come out in coming days.

  12. Jerry Baner Says:

    Disinter,

    This is clearly a conspiracy initiated by the Gravel campaign. Can’t you tell?

    What really happened here was stupidity. Stupidity on the part of Ruwart for NOT commenting sooner, Root for commenting as he did, and the LNC for scapegoating Mary.

    I’ve lost all respect for Root. I’m glad that Gravel, Phillies, Jingozian, and the others did not comment on this. It’s not really a story. I think no less of Mary because of it, though she didn’t have my support before.

  13. disinter Says:

    It’s not really a story.

    No shit. It is a red herring (false one at that) designed to destroy her. It may work because idiots like you and Alex fall for this shit without thinking it through.

  14. Jerry Baner Says:

    @disinter

    Wait a second, you seriously think that this was a conspiracy to get rid of Mary?

    You’re crazy.

  15. disinter Says:

    you seriously think that this was a conspiracy to get rid of Mary?

    And other purists.

  16. Joseph Marzullo Says:

    I am against age o consent laws myself but I know better than to say something like that when running for POTUS lol.

  17. Joseph Marzullo Says:

    I am against age of consent laws myself but I know better than to say something like that when running for POTUS lol.

  18. disinter Says:

    Transaction Summary

    Order Number: 0842621572154631
    Authorization Code: 868595
    Transaction Number: 4812bdb3-e9ed-3000-0063-0003bac0f0a1

    $1000.00

  19. G.E. Says:

    disinter - I don’t buy “conspiracy” theories so easily either, and I’m not sure there was one here. . . But the wannabe Friedmanite efficiency jesters for the state at the LNC, who are in the pocket of the knuckle-dragging neocon homophobe Bob Barr, are certainly taking this and running with it. I don’t think they have the capacity to plan even a simply conspiracy—which is why it’s doubly sad they wish to emulate their heroes at Cato as “capitalist” planners for the central state.

  20. Fred C. Says:

    “But the wannabe Friedmanite efficiency jesters for the state at the LNC, who are in the pocket of the knuckle-dragging neocon homophobe Bob Barr, are certainly taking this and running with it.”

    Better to ignore a potential problem than cover one’s own ass? The statement was lame and obviously produced on the fly. I cheer them for making it clear libertarianism isn’t about legalizing child pornography, but jeers for not being able to come up with anything better than support for the FBI on a day’s notice.

  21. disinter Says:

    I don’t buy “conspiracy” theories so easily either

    Most people don’t unless the conspiracy is in their favor or it fits what they have been brainwashed to believe. For example, most people “don’t buy” the conspiracy theory that an organization other than “Al Qaeda” was involved in 9/11, however they DO believe the conspiracy that “Al Qaeda” was responsible.

  22. disinter Says:

    I don’t think they have the capacity to plan even a simply conspiracy—

    This one isn’t rocket science.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    I don’t think Gordon was behind this one … too poorly executed, too predictable that it would backfire, and he’d have had to know it would knock Barr off the party’s internal “front page.”

    Holtz, probably. Or maybe Carling. Or maybe both.

  24. disinter Says:

    I reject conspiracy theories, as you know.

    Me too. No two (or more) people have ever planned anything. Including your parents.

  25. disinter Says:

    too predictable that it would backfire

    Hasn’t backfired at all. The lemmings are eat this shit up.

  26. disinter Says:

    and he’d have had to know it would knock Barr off the party’s internal “front page.”

    Knocking Ruwart out is to Barr’s benefit.

  27. Alex Peak Says:

    NVP interview over. Wow. It would be suicide for us to nominate anyone other than Dr. Ruwart. Go, Mary!

    disinter writes, “No shit. It is a red herring (false one at that) designed to destroy her. It may work because idiots like you and Alex fall for this shit without thinking it through.”

    I agree with your first two sentences. So how am I an idiot, and for what have I fallen?

    From what I’ve heard, Shane Cory sent out the press release without the consent of the LNC. From what I heard, he made a unilateral effort.

    People are innocent until proven guilty. I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that the LNC is trying to ouste purists until I see enough evidence that the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    When such evidence is presented, I’ll consider it.

    Respectfully,
    Alex Peak

  28. Andy Says:

    I don’t know who all “conspired” to put this press release out, but way to go disenter for putting your money where your mouth is in regaurds to your donation to the Ruwart campaign.

  29. Alex Peak Says:

    disinter writes, “Me too. No two (or more) people have ever planned anything. Including your parents.”

    I never said that I don’t believe that conspiracies take place. I mean that I do not jump to the conclusion, if X did something, that his brother must have also been involved. In other words, I require evidence. I see no evidence that Mr. Gordon has done a single thing wrong, and from what I’ve seen, he’s shown nothing but respect for the anarchists in the movement.

    “Knocking Ruwart out is to Barr’s benefit.”

    Nothing is going to nock out a candidate as great as Ruwart. There is no dirt. As for Barr, this could nock him out of the running (and I hope it does).

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  30. Steve LaBianca Says:
    1. Jeremy Young Says:
      April 26th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    And she gave a terrible, terrible answer on the NVP show—one consistent with Libertarian principles, surely, but one that will dog her all the way through November if she wins the nomination. “And now, our guest, Mary Ruwart, the child-porn advocate!” I think the LP just got a worse soundbite than Root’s Islamofascism crap.

    So Young, an answer consistent with Libertarian principles is terrible, terrible? So Libertarians are “child-porn advocate(s)”? Here’s another troll trying to weigh in on and spur a negative emotional response in Libertarians.

    Young, if you want to call into question the validity of libertarian principles, fine, and I’ll discuss it, but singling out Mary Ruwart is a sham. You’re just a troll.

  31. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    disinter,

    You’re right—it WOULD be to Barr’s benefit for Ruwart to be knocked out of the race. Thing is, this hasn’t knocked Ruwart out of the race, and it isn’t going to. Only an idiot would have expected it to, and Gordon isn’t an idiot.

  32. disinter Says:

    I don’t think Gordon was behind this one …

    He is the one that turned this non-issue into a “controversy” to begin with. Aided by the every so compromised “Reason” douche-bags:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020581.html
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020347.html

  33. disinter Says:

    Only an idiot would have expected it to, and Gordon isn’t an idiot.

    Only an idiot would expect this to increase her delegate votes.

  34. Peter Orvetti Says:

    I have just listened to the interview, and was very impressed, except for the answer on the child pornography matter. Equating something that is by nature abusive to voluntarily entering into prostitution is just unsatisfactory to me. Others may disagree, of course.

    As I have said before, I do pretend to be a philosophical libertarian; I am an LP member because I am closer to the LP than to any other party. Unlike Dr. Ruwart and some others, I see roles for government, and in this case, the “black market” argument is not persuasive to me. I believe in the right to own and carry a gun, for example (though I choose not to exercise it myself), but I do not believe my 3 1/2 year old sons yet have that right. This is a value judgment on my part, pure and simple, and I will not deny it.

    I am a great advocate of children’s rights, and am an unschooling parent. I let my sons choose to do some things that leave other parents aghast, and I try to let them make their own decisions in as much as 3 1/2 year olds can. I’m a National Youth Rights Association member, so I’m coming from a fairly radical stance on these matters.

    In most cases, I say leave these things to the parents. I don’t like the idea of parents being prosecuted for choosing to let their teenagers drink at home in their presence rather than outside the home where they can harm themselves and others; I feel the voting age is much too high. I also feel children’s economic liberties are curtailed by well-intended regulations.

    But the case being debated here is outside of these considerations, in my view. A parent who thinks a young child is capable of making decisions on sexual matters is just plain deluded. Sure, current standards are nonsensical—and result in travesties like the racist prosecution of Genarlow Wilson in Georgia—but I just think some standards must exist.

    Again, others will disagree, and I concede this is not a philosophically libertarian argument. It’s just how I feel.

  35. Peter Orvetti Says:

    As for the LPHQ release… I’m not sure what the intention was, but it seems like it just casts a greater spotlight on the subject. I’m also confused by the process by which it was issued. During my brief and less-than-competent tenure at LPHQ myself, a couple of times releases were issued by the Communications team that expressed a “Libertarian Party” point of view without LNC members being consulted to my knowledge. Who gets to say what’s the “LP”’s view?

  36. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Disinter, I agree with you. However, I think that this conspiracy will do much to improve the world as it will give Barr the libertarian nomination and propel Obama into the White House through the conservative vote that Barr will steal. Or possibly Barr/Gravel, which will provide a good platform for the Fringe Alliance strategy. The conspiracy is against both Ruwart and Root, and is hoping to turn the Libertarian Party into a Socialist party. However, I hope that Ruwart and Root will forgive the conspirators so they can join the Fringe Alliance strategy.

  37. Wes Benedict Says:

    The ironic thing is that the moderates who wish the Libertarian Party would not be mentioned in associating with controversial topics like pornography and sex have now basically set up the Denver Convention to be a discussion about sexual boundaries and children.

    Sex, children, and the Libertarian Party. That will be the theme of discussion for the next several weeks.

    Rather than being for smaller government, for lower taxes, for civil liberties, the message will be “We’re not for child sex, we’re not for the right of individuals to own nuclear weapons, we’re not for heroin for children.”

    Of course, all the public will hear is Libertarian Party and child sex, pornography, heroin and homeowners with nukes.

  38. Wes Benedict Says:

    I think any claims of “conspiracy” within the Libertarian Party give too much credit to our planning and organizational ability. As a member of the LNC and one who serves in many other roles, I think Confederacy of Dunces is a more applicable term. And yes, I’m in that confederacy.

  39. disinter Says:

    The conspiracy is against both Ruwart and Root, and is hoping to turn the Libertarian Party into a Socialist party.

    Root is no purist, not even close. Other than that, I agree.

  40. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Peter Orvetti Says:
    April 26th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    “I have just listened to the interview, and was very impressed, except for the answer on the child pornography matter. Equating something that is by nature abusive to voluntarily entering into prostitution is just unsatisfactory to me. Others may disagree, of course.

    As I have said before, I do pretend to be a philosophical libertarian; I am an LP member because I am closer to the LP than to any other party. Unlike Dr. Ruwart and some others, I see roles for government, and in this case, the “black market” argument is not persuasive to me.”

    Mr. Orvetti, I can only assume that you ARE persuaded that bureaucrats, armed with laws and guns and ability to intrude on peaceful citizens is proper for government to do, with the new war just declared, the “War on Pornography and Sexual Depravity” will achieve the staterd goal. So government DECIDES in this case, not the parents, not the people who love and care for a child. After all, this is a SPECIAL SITUATION where we must have government decide, not the parents. This is a SPECIAL SITUATION where someone is coerced against their will. THIS is a SPECIAL SITUATION where the government has the best knowledge about a child and therefore makes the decisions for the child. And, this is a SPECIAL SITUATION where the law and bureaucracy will actually work to “save the children”.

    We could take out the words children, sex and pornography and substitute citizen, and firearms, into the statement above, and you would be totally against it. How dare they take my guns! How dare they tell me what is a proper defense from criminals, for me and my family!

    The principle is the same Orvetti, the government is the same; only the topic is different.

    I guess we all have our one or two things we feel it is proper to tell others what to do and how to live, at the point of a gun. Well, I guess all non-libertarians do.

  41. Peter Orvetti Says:

    As I said, “Others will disagree, and I concede this is not a philosophically libertarian argument. It’s just how I feel.”

    Do I think there’s a difference between child pornography and gun ownership? Yes, I do. I’m not trying to get you to agree with me.

  42. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Like I said, there are those of us who hold to libertarianism, and those of us who hold only to exceptionalism.

    Certainly “child pornography” and “gun ownership” are different. Gun ownership and illegal drugs are different too. There is much evidence that drug abuse is detrimental to long term health and survival. Is this justification to sweep aside someone’s right to self ownership? Certainly, sexual abuse for a child is likely to be detrimental to the long term mental health of that child. Is this justification for the state, through laws, sweeping aside parents, to essentially have responsibility for children?

    Orvetti, you may plead ignorance by not being a philosophical Libertarian,
    but that just severely weakens the validity of your position. You are however, free to be as ignorant as you like.

  43. Alex Peak Says:

    I feel stupid. I wrote “nock” instead of “knock.” I think I was thinking of Albert Jay Nock or something. :)

    Mr. Orvetti writes, “I believe in the right to own and carry a gun, for example (though I choose not to exercise it myself), but I do not believe my 3 1/2 year old sons yet have that right.”

    I would say they have a negative right to own guns, but not a positive right. Thus, you’re free to tell them, “Not while you’re living under my roof.”

    Yours,
    Alex Peak

  44. Peter Orvetti Says:

    I respectfully disagree with the notion that libertarianism and ignorance are the only two available options.

  45. Stefan Says:

    disinter: This whole thing was started by the “Ruwarchy” poster and I am (almost) sure one of Root’s online promoters is behind it. Root would stand the most to gain by a smear attempt on Ruwart. Behind the LNC HQ one should not necessary read too much, with regard to Ruwart. Gordon has always referred positively to Ruwart and I am sure Barr also. She knows Barr much longer than Root, and would probably be the closest to Kubby. She is a smart woman and will prevail, I am sure. The issue may be discussed, but it should not derail from the main issues against the GOP and Dems. Within the LP there should also be an 11th commandment: you may not speak ill of a fellow LP member, and allowed to debate the issues. I am glad you contributed to Ruwart. So you do not tend towards Root anymore, or was that only kidding?

    All in all, I think David Nolan, the founder of the party, would have the full right to give an indication during the LNC of which policies should be followed, with or without naming names, just like Phillips has done with the CP. It should all be in a kind and nice way, and not confronting people. Personally, I would formulate it differently than Ruwart, but also think this issue is really blown out of proportion, as if she would promote child prostitution: how insane!

  46. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Despite this kerfuffle, and despite the fact that I’m not in the “purist” camp, Dr. Ruwart remains my favored candidate.

  47. miche Says:

    LOL @ Stefan…disinter would never—-EVER fund Root…He did fund-to the max- Ron Paul and though Ron Paul ran loosely on LP ideals, it seems that the grave undiigger would rather a “RADical!”

    Kudos Babe! I’m trying to buy adspace to support a Ruwart/Kubby ticket- I told Gorden that I’d forgo my comission…

  48. Fred C. Says:

    “Mr. Orvetti, I can only assume that you ARE persuaded that bureaucrats, armed with laws and guns and ability to intrude on peaceful citizens is proper for government to do, with the new war just declared, the “War on Pornography and Sexual Depravity” will achieve the staterd goal. So government DECIDES in this case, not the parents, not the people who love and care for a child. After all, this is a SPECIAL SITUATION where we must have government decide, not the parents. This is a SPECIAL SITUATION where someone is coerced against their will. THIS is a SPECIAL SITUATION where the government has the best knowledge about a child and therefore makes the decisions for the child. And, this is a SPECIAL SITUATION where the law and bureaucracy will actually work to “save the children”.”

    Ruwart seems to think there are SPECIAL SITUATIONS where the government has the best knowledge about a child and therefore makes the decisions for the child. “In the case of an abused infant, a concerned neighbor or relative could assume temporary guardianship and, if necessary, petition the court on the child’s behalf.” I guess it’s not a government court that’s going to be deciding the facts of such a case?

    “LOL @ Stefan…disinter would never—-EVER fund Root…He did fund-to the max- Ron Paul and though Ron Paul ran loosely on LP ideals, it seems that the grave undiigger would rather a “RADical!””

    This may have been a drug hallucination of mine, or maybe some Root supporter in disguise like the one that pretended to be George Phillies to start the anti-purist purge.

  49. Bill Woolsey Says:

    I don’t believe that Barr, Gordon, Corey, and the LNC had a meeting and made a plan to publicize one of Ruwart’s most converversial statements in order to expel all the purists from the LP. (Or defeat Ruwart.)

    But it wouldn’t surprise me at all if more than one member of the realist faction discussed using this line of attack among themselves and chose to publicize her views in an effort to convince more delegates that the LP should not be educatinng people about Rand/Rothbard libertarianism, but instead should follow the realist approach of focusing on incrementalist reform and appealing to people who generally support more personal and economic freedom. And, of course, derailing the Ruwart nomination would fit in well with that agenda.

    In general, realists don’t want to expel purists from the LP. In general, they want their support. But those who feel called to use postions in the LP to educate people on their version of libertarianism, and especially, to identify libertarianism with that version.. realists want to keep them out of positions of authority. Personally, I think describing this as a “purge” is overblown.

    I don’t remember ever finishing “Healing Our World.” I really didn’t remember to what degree she sought to defend the Rothbardian plumbline with rhetoric that rightwing libertarians believe will appeal to “leftists.” I know I wasn’t terribly impressed.

    Anyway, I think a “conspiracy” is quite possible. I just don’t think that you should assume that Gordon, Barr, Corey, or any member, much less the entire LNC, were part of it.

    I think that Root and Corey acted to separate themselves from Ruwart’s position that child porn should be legally tolerated. It wasn’t part of a conspiracy. Corey, of course, acted to separate the LP from that position. Perhaps he has a better idea of what the National Chair thinks than many here do. (I think having the Federal government serve as a conduit for communication between state law enforcement is pretty sensible. And, of course, much of child pornography is very much interstate commerce, which can be regulated, to the point of prohibition, by Congress. And those regulations are enforceable.)

    Knapp’s argument that Gordon is too smart to believe that this would help Barr (or something) may be correct. It is certainly a go for broke strategy from a realist perspective. What happens if the “hold high the banner of principle of legal toleration of child porn,” wins? I know that it will turn me away from the LP for another four years.

    The Ron Paul campaign was very sucessful. I have been skeptical of working in a major party and have been pretty much a Libertarian partisan. The impact of Paul’s campaign is making me reassess my position.

    I have always been opposed to choosing the least bad candidate in a major party and then working for him or her. (Guiliani, Thompson, etc..) And while Paul was highly imperfect in my view, I do count him as a libertarian. And I have always been open to libertarians running in a major party primary. I never thought Paul had a chance to win, but the results of the campaign were quite good.

    Should I now return to the LP? If the LP commits again to educating people about the noninitiation of force, and chooses a nominee who feels that principle requires that libertarians support the legal toleration of child porn (and prostitution) and who received kudos for her great skill in defending that position.. well count me out.

    I support Barr from the LP nomination. I must admit, that it is risky. I can easly imagine Barr taking some conservative position on the campaign trail between now and November that would be a deal breaker for me. I have no problem with his anti-libertarian votes in Congress as long as he repudiates or explains each one in a tolerable way. If he runs against the Iraq war, future preventative wars (as in Iran,) and against the unitary executive, torture, and for the bill of rights… I would be happy.

    If he runs on cutting back government spending (reversing the spending binge of the Republicans,) so much the better. And I want a candidate who reaches out to the Fair Tax movement.

    I am a critic of the Fair Tax proposal. I am not much in favor of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax either. But I want a LP candidate who reaches out to the Fair Tax movement. Basically, the rank-and-filers here who feel they must say “fraud tax,” and some of the things said by candidates (like Kubby) are deal breakers for me.

    As a critic of the Fair Tax, I see some of the attacks to be just over the top.

    I don’t need for Barr to explain how he converted to the noninitiation of force religion. I hope he didn’t. He will have to explain how he converted ot the Ron Paul version of federalism on social issues, turned more strongly away from the post 9-11 assault on personal liberties, and, most importantly, against neo-conservative foreign policy.

    An ex-Republican who will attack McCain as Bush 2 and the Bush administration on those issues would be great. I think he would get great media from liberal reporters who will love Barr’s attack on the other Republicans on the torture and Iraq war issues. I think even the “big spending Republican” line will play well with the liberal press. Here is an ex- “big name” Republican calling them on the fact that they are big spenders.

    The downside will be the attacks from the right, the need to defend the federalist position on social issues against the “LP wants to legalize child porn” attacks. I prefer a candidate for President to deflect most of those issues, saying that they are state issues. I don’t require that a Presidential candidate give a lesson on the libertarian postiion on state and local issues. But I would rather they not take anti libertarian positions. (I wouldn’t mind a candidate who went with the “try legalizing marijuana” and see. No, I am not calling for legalizing cocaine or heroin” approach, anyway.)

  50. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Very well said. I am beginning to feel a bit better about Barr, though I doubt he will be the nominee.

  51. Chris Bennett Says:

    The problem is that we have been infiltrated by these Republicans who think the LP is another wing of the “Torture Party”. We have these so-called libertarians promoting the “Fraud Tax” and flipflopping on the police action in Iraq. And since I am no longer a candidate anymore,I can now say that Root will destroy what is left of the LP if he is nominated because I don’t trust his stance on Iraq and afraid he’ll promote his IslamoFascist view as our nominee. Bob Barr would be a better candidate only if he would drop his support for the “Fraud Tax”. I’d rather have 1000 new members Mary Ruwart brings in and actually stay for the long haul than 10000 new members Root brings in, effectively destroys the LP and then they leave less than a year later. The survival of the LP is up to our delegates-choose wisely!

  52. disinter Says:

    Stefan…disinter would never—-EVER fund Root…

    I did donate to Root, but only to spite Knapp and his retarded attacks on him.

  53. disinter Says:

    What happens if the “hold high the banner of principle of legal toleration of child porn,” wins?

    Nobody is even suggesting it be an issue besides you, Gordon, select members of the LNC and Shane Corey. If you, and others, are dumb enough to fall for this lame attempt to turn a non-issue into vehicle for purge, then your threats for leaving the LP are really quite laughable.

  54. paulie Says:

    This whole child porn red herring was designed to purge the party of purists, led by Gordon, Barr, the LNC and its staff.

    If so, they should be careful of what they wish for, they just might get it.

  55. paulie Says:

    Fuck this, I am donating a shit load of money to Ruwart because of this retard attempt by the LP to smear (and purge) her.

    Awesome! If I had a shitload of money, I would too.

  56. paulie Says:

    # Alex Peak Says:
    April 26th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

    disinter:

    I reject conspiracy theories, as you know. I haven’t seen Gordon do a single thing wrong, Barr doesn’t seem to be the least bit involved, and how can we blame the LNC?

    Sorry, I don’t see the evidence.

    Alex

    1. disinter Says:
      April 26th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Alex, it will all come out in coming days.

    Looking forward to it.

    As far as I know, the info came from George Phillies.

  57. paulie Says:

    I reject conspiracy theories, as you know.

    Me too. No two (or more) people have ever planned anything. Including your parents.

    LOL

  58. paulie Says:

    In other words, I require evidence. I see no evidence that Mr. Gordon has done a single thing wrong, and from what I’ve seen, he’s shown nothing but respect for the anarchists in the movement.

    And has even described himself as one.

  59. disinter Says:

    And has even described himself as one.

    He might prefer new cars, while being a used-car salesman at the same time. Big deal.

  60. Brian Holtz Says:

    Woolsey has it exactly right.

    Wes, it’s not that we reformers wish for the LP magically never “to be mentioned in association” with legalized private WMD or legalized child prostitution. That’s not an achievable goal for a big-tent libertarian party. What we want is for the LP to no longer be formally on record as supporting those positions. The latter goal is quite achievable, as it only takes 34% of the delegates to block restoration of the extremist 2004 Platform.

    Tom, I’m honored that you imagine me under every bed these days. I can joke about it, because I’m sure you cannot fathom how extensive the Reform Caucus conspiracy really is. No matter how big you think we are, we’re actually much bigger. Who do you think sabotaged the sound card on your computer? That was us. Steve’s travel snafu on the way to Vegas? Ditto. That gum that got under your shoe a couple years back? Check the dental patterns in it.

  61. paulie Says:

    As for the LPHQ release… I’m not sure what the intention was, but it seems like it just casts a greater spotlight on the subject. I’m also confused by the process by which it was issued. During my brief and less-than-competent tenure at LPHQ myself, a couple of times releases were issued by the Communications team that expressed a “Libertarian Party” point of view without LNC members being consulted to my knowledge. Who gets to say what’s the “LP”’s view?

    Staff, since the LNC (which is a non-ideological administrative body according to some) has once again eliminated the Advertising and Publications Review Committee once again last year.

  62. paulie Says:


    “We’re not for child sex, we’re not for the right of individuals to own nuclear weapons, we’re not for heroin for children.”

    Speak for yourself :-)

  63. paulie Says:

    LOL @ Stefan…disinter would never—-EVER fund Root…He did fund-to the max- Ron Paul

    I’m pretty sure he did contribute to Root, to spite Tom Knapp. Check the archives. Glad he is contributing to Ruwart now.

    and though Ron Paul ran loosely on LP ideals, it seems that the grave undiigger would rather a “RADical!”

    Huh? I can’t make that out. If you’re drunk, please call me. You’re so adorable when you are sauced :-)


    Kudos Babe! I’m trying to buy adspace to support a Ruwart/Kubby ticket- I told Gorden that I’d forgo my comission…

    I’m down with that one. I’ll even chip in a small amount.

  64. paulie Says:

    the realist faction

    LOL

  65. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Brian,

    You write:

    “Tom, I’m honored that you imagine me under every bed these days.”

    No, not under every bed—just as an author or co-author of this particular poorly-conducted attack on Ruwart. And I notice that although you went on about it for an entire paragraph, the one thing you didn’t do was DENY it.

  66. paulie Says:

    The downside will be the attacks from the right, the need to defend the federalist position on social issues against the “LP wants to legalize child porn” attacks. I prefer a candidate for President to deflect most of those issues, saying that they are state issues.

    Then perhaps you should join the Constitution Party.

  67. paulie Says:

    As a critic of the Fair Tax, I see some of the attacks to be just over the top.

    How so? And why should I call a fraudulent tax “fair”?

  68. paulie Says:

    Very well said. I am beginning to feel a bit better about Barr, though I doubt he will be the nominee.

    Who do you think will be the nominee, and why?

    Although I am a Kubby/Ruwart supporter, I’m betting it will be Barr.

  69. paulie Says:

    The problem is that we have been infiltrated by these Republicans who think the LP is another wing of the “Torture Party”. We have these so-called libertarians promoting the “Fraud Tax” and flipflopping on the police action in Iraq.

    True!

  70. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Paulie,

    This little flap over Ruwart did her minor damage—but it ended any chance whatsoever that Barr will be the nominee. Barr is publicly on record, in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, no less, as supporting public dissemination of child pornography.

  71. disinter Says:

    But the wannabe Friedmanite efficiency jesters for the state at the LNC, who are in the pocket of the knuckle-dragging neocon homophobe Bob Barr, are certainly taking this and running with it.

    Yes, they are:

    http://disinter.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/lnc-further-marginalizes-itself/

  72. paulie Says:

    Tom,

    Good find

    :-)

  73. disinter Says:

    and how can we blame the LNC?

    http://disinter.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/lnc-further-marginalizes-itself/

  74. disinter Says:

    Tom - that find of your deserves a post on TPW, does it not?

  75. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    disinter,

    I’m still working on connecting the dots before I go headlining it.

    All I really have so far is that Barr is okay with handing out ten-year prison sentences to black male teenagers who have sex, especially if it means he can get copies of the video.

    What I don’t have yet is his motivation.

    At first, based on Barr’s connections with the racist Conservative Citizens Council and his commentary on Marcus Dixon, I assumed he was just a Kloset Kluxer.

    The Genarlow Wilson deal, however, throws a new twist into it and implies that there may be a different kind of closet involved.

  76. Brian Holtz Says:

    Tom, as Denver approaches, I for now want to reserve the option of maintaining a general policy of neither confirming nor denying my involvement in PsyOps and black bag jobs. (Is it a PsyOp to thus nurture this spark of paranoia in you? I’m not sayin’.)

    However, as a TPW moderator you apparently have access to IP address info about this Ruwarchy amateur, and yet I haven’t seen you post an analysis of it. And as for me being able to pull Shane Cory’s strings, well, consider that it took me five weeks and multiple emails to pry from him—an admittedly very busy guy—a few numbers about pageviews on the platform page at lp.org.

    Of course, as a Yahoo engineer I just might know how to use open proxies, and my story above is just what you’d expect to hear from a Shane Cory puppet master who in fact can command a custom press release in just a couple days flat…

  77. G.E. Says:

    Chris Bennet - Why/when did you drop out? I’ve had my differences with you in the past, but your statement above is right on the money.

  78. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Brian,

    If your IP address matched that of “Ruwarchy” and “Life Member,” I’d have already said so.

    I neither said nor implied that you posted the attack on Ruwart (although I suspect that a seven-figure-a-year software engineer could find a way to hide or alter his IP —or for that matter dial into a POP dialup in Chicago and be able to afford the long-distance bill). What I stated was that I believe you either authored or co-authored the attack.

    Although collusion by Corey is a possibility, it’s one I discount. His response seemed driven more by blind panic or insufficiently informed opportunism than by prior planning.

  79. Bill Woolsey Says:

    I read Barr’s article.

    Knapp’s “summary” is a disgrace.

  80. Feudal Lord Says:
    1. disinter Says:
      April 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    Transaction Summary

    Order Number: 0842621572154631
    Authorization Code: 868595
    Transaction Number: 4812bdb3-e9ed-3000-0063-0003bac0f0a1

    $1000.00

    Simply a vote for child pornography.

  81. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Welcome to the NEW LP of Feudal Lord . . . John McCain lite!

    That’s right, “Simply a vote for child pornography.” And I suppose that support for the right to keep and bear arms is a “Vote for Murder”, and support for ending drug prohibition is a “Vote for Drug abuse”, and I suppose support for ending government welfare is a “Vote for poverty”, and I suppose support for ending government control of education is a “Vote for ignorance”, and support for abolishing the FDA is a “Vote for disease”, and I suppose support for ending laws prohibiting restaurants from allowing smoking is “Support for lung cancer”.

    How can anybody not see right through this sham of an argument from the troll Feudal Lord?

  82. miche Says:

    Paulie,
    Yes, I was pretty sauced last night but I didn’t see your note until today.

    Back to subject matter, this issue is not about kiddie porn. It’s about our party sticking to principle. Once you say government is needed to “protect” us from this really, really big non-issue of kiddie porn (as a comedian buddy would say, I’ve NEVER seen kiddie porn), you negate every other argument you’ve ever proffered in defense of personal autonomy.

  83. disinter Says:

    I just don’t think that you should assume that Gordon, Barr, Corey, or any member, much less the entire LNC, were part of it.

    Corey and the LNC here:

    http://disinter.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/leaked-shane-corey-admits-smear-campaign-against-mary-ruwart/
    http://disinter.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/lnc-further-marginalizes-itself/

  84. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Hopefully, at some presidential election in the future, Feudal Lord and I will be running as candidates against each other on each of the two major parties.

  85. Paulie Says:

    Paulie,
    Yes, I was pretty sauced last night but I didn’t see your note until today.

    That’s OK, you can call me when you’re sober too :-)

  86. Paulie Says:

    Steve LaBianca Says:

    April 27th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
    Welcome to the NEW LP of Feudal Lord . . . John McCain lite!

    That’s right, “Simply a vote for child pornography.” And I suppose that support for the right to keep and bear arms is a “Vote for Murder”, and support for ending drug prohibition is a “Vote for Drug abuse”, and I suppose support for ending government welfare is a “Vote for poverty”, and I suppose support for ending government control of education is a “Vote for ignorance”, and support for abolishing the FDA is a “Vote for disease”, and I suppose support for ending laws prohibiting restaurants from allowing smoking is “Support for lung cancer”.

    How can anybody not see right through this sham of an argument from the troll Feudal Lord?

    miche Says:

    April 27th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
    Paulie,
    Yes, I was pretty sauced last night but I didn’t see your note until today.

    Back to subject matter, this issue is not about kiddie porn. It’s about our party sticking to principle. Once you say government is needed to “protect” us from this really, really big non-issue of kiddie porn (as a comedian buddy would say, I’ve NEVER seen kiddie porn), you negate every other argument you’ve ever proffered in defense of personal autonomy.

    You are both correct

  87. Justin Grover Says:

    A belief that children should not have sex with adults is not a belief in big government.

    A belief that “having a presidential candidate who wrote that children should have the same access to sexual activities as an adult is a bad thing” is not about big government.

    I hate this “You believe as I do, or you aren’t a libertarian, or a purist or whatever” attitude. You all play into the hands of failure when you treat each other that way.

    Many people have said they support Dr. Ruwart’s position, but if anyone touched their child, they would exercise deadly force on the toucher. If you believe in what she wrote, then you very well may be threatening force on someone who has done ‘nothing wrong.’ As written, she asserts that sex between a child and another individual, if ‘consensual,’ is not infringing on any right. If a child can consent, then you cannot ‘punish’ (inflict force/harm on) anyone they consent to touching, or to being touched by, without violating that person’s rights.

    If children have the full power of consent, regardless of a contractual obligations between you and the child, you cannot, in good faith to our shared beliefs, inflict harm on a third party for participating in that consensual activity.

    If, however, you believe that a child cannot consent, or fully consent, to such activity, then you are within your ‘parental rights’ to inflict equivocal harm(restitution? whatever your version of ‘justice’ is) for the right being trampled upon. You are also at least partially at odds with what Dr. Ruwart wrote.

    You can believe the above without believing in any way, shape or form that government intervention or sanction is required.

    I would go a step further and say that consent cannot exist in a situation where one party feels the other has total control based on outside influences, such as a child and an adult, or an unarmed woman and a rapist with a gun.

    Most of what I have said could also be applied to all persons of diminished capacity, etc. I am not arguing in favor of age of consent laws, or any other law.

    Some of us, I believe, are discouraged by her continued candidacy because current position seems to refuse all parental (guardianship) rights/obligations in favor of speaking ‘simply’ on a complicated issue.

    I, personally would go further and say that her wording, not the principles of libertarianism, will cost us time, energy and votes in the upcoming election.

  88. Fred C. Says:

    “This little flap over Ruwart did her minor damage—but it ended any chance whatsoever that Barr will be the nominee. Barr is publicly on record, in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, no less, as supporting public dissemination of child pornography.”

    Took you long enough to find a way to deflect this to Barr. What did it take, 4 days? Your finger was a bit more attractive while it waved at Root, but I’m still wondering why George Phillies’ name isn’t coming up more. Surely the good Doctor must have known he was a pawn in the Holtz/Gordon/Cory/McCain cabal’s plot to clear anarchism out of the LP, if not a co-conspirator.

    How is it that LPHQ goes on blast for suggesting an expanding role for the federal government in child porn laws, and Barr goes on blast for opposing it? But the article itself does make me more uncomfortable with Barr now, and the federalism and openness issues leave me pretty conflicted too on the particulars. It’s looking more and more like I’m going to be left with no candidate I can actually support, and just the lesser of 6 or 7 evils, yet again.

  89. Brian Holtz Says:

    Fred, no “cabal” that I’m in wants to “clear anarchism out of the LP”. We just want to make the LP Platform and Pledge tolerant of other schools of libertarianism besides crypto-anarchism—i.e. individual secession, privatize all streets/pipes, no government laws protecting children from their guardians, private WMDs, no right of the accused to subpoena witnesses, etc. We just want the LP Platform to include all and only the principles that unite the LP’s [major schools of libertarianism](http://libertarianmajority.net/major-schools-of-libertarianism). If the recycled language in the proposed 2008 platform says anything against anarchism, it must be something that a previous LP platform has already said: http://libertarianmajority.net/pure-principles-platform.

    I personally like having ecumenical anarchists in the LP, because they undercut the voluntaryist canard that any participation in the democratic process is a moral endorsement of whatever the majority decides. Also, it’s a lot easier to teach an anarchist about [the theory of market imperfection](http://libertarianmajority.net/do-markets-under-produce-public-goods), than to teach a leftist why markets work so well, or to teach a rightist to be tolerant.

  90. Alex Peak Says:

    Paulie writes, “And [Mr. Gordon] has even described himself as [an anarchist].”

    Really? He said to Krist Novoselic that protecting the environment from polluters was a proper function of government, so I thought he was a minarchist.

    (DISCLAIMER FOR READERS: This is not to imply that anarchists support pollution. Anarchists consider the pollution of someone else’s property to be nothing less than theft, and support various mechanisms to prosecute such these. Anarchists simply don’t believe governmental monopolies are effective toward this noble end.)

    Curiously yours,
    Alex Peak

  91. swift kick in the ass Says:

    Thanks Brian for the link.

    “Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest,”

    child porn is not honest, is it ruwart?

  92. paulie Says:

    Paulie writes, “And [Mr. Gordon] has even described himself as [an anarchist].”

    Really? He said to Krist Novoselic that protecting the environment from polluters was a proper function of government, so I thought he was a minarchist.

    Steve has personally told me he is an anarchist. He’s also an incrementalist. Perhaps he meant proper within the present system. Maybe he has reverted to minarchism. Maybe he was blowing smoke up my ass when he said he is an anarchist. You could ask him where he stands now, but he’s pretty busy and I think his general outlook is that we have more pressing matters than the minarchy vs. anarchy debate.

  93. Alex Peak Says:

    Actually, it’s not a big concern of mine either way. He seems genuinely concerned about Liberty, even if I think he’s making a personal mistake in backing Mr. Barr. If Mr. Gordon were to himself run, I would have no difficulty voting for him.

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  94. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Holtz says:

    What we want is for the LP to no longer be formally on record as supporting those positions.

    Are you comfortable with the LP being ‘formally on record’ as supporting “increased coordination and communication between federal and state law enforcement agencies”?

  95. Brian Holtz Says:

    I emailed to Steve these five questions for tonight’s show:
    http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/04/5-questions-for-dr-ruwart.html

    No, Susan, the only part of the press release that I liked is where it said “protecting individual rights is a core function of government”. Every other clause included some kind of ideological mistake, in my opinion. By the way, I love how so many of our anarchist/radical libertarians are fair-weather constitutionalists, using that tainted foundational document of the vile State to bash their opponents when it’s convenient. When I (or a Ron Paul) recommends that we use constitutionalism as a way to promote radical decentralism and divide-and-conquer the nanny state, many radicals complain that doing so might give more power to state governments.

    The draft LNC resolution posted by George is far better than the LNC press release, but still not flawless, because it needlessly gets into the grey area of the “distribution” of child pornography. Here it is again:
    “WHEREAS government has a proper role defending the rights of individuals, including those who cannot help themselves; and

    WHEREAS government has a proper role in pursuing, prosecuting and punishing criminals who violate the rights of others; and

    WHEREAS such punishment tends to serve as a deterrent against these criminal acts; and

    WHEREAS young children are not capable of informed consent and require protection from those who will act as predators toward them; and

    WHEREAS sex between adults and young children is a particularly heinous crime and pornography using children is inherently abusive; and

    WHEREAS the government’s focus on victimless crimes diverts attention and valuable resources from crimes against young children;

    THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee calls on state governments to divert resources from victimless crimes and vigorously enforce laws that prohibit the production and distribution of pornography involving young children and pursue adults who sexually exploit children.”

  96. Alex Peak Says:

    I would love to give all of the power currently held by the federal government to the states. That would be such a great step in the right direction. Local, decentralised government is always a lesser evil than distant, centralised government.

    My Facebook profile picture currently depicts me holding a signed copy of The Revolution: A Manifesto while Ron Paul is shaking someone’s hand in the background.

  97. Brian Holtz Says:

    Well, Tom, so much for your prediction about the topic of the show. Except for George’s excellent prepared statement, there was effectively nothing of substance said by Ruwart or Kubby or Nolan on the substantive content of Ruwart’s controversial positions. Apparently they don’t need to be discussed if we don’t like how they came to our attention and how a few people reacted to them. Kubby and Nolan clearly steered the conversation away from actual discussion of the actual Libertarian principles that are in serious dispute here. This delegate is more interested in the principles of our presidential candidate than in our candidate’s opinion about who at the national office should be fired. I look to our officers and officer candidates to explain that.

    Except for some quibbling about the newsworthiness of former Senators and congressmen announcing Libertarian candidacies, Phillies’ performance was flawless. My opinion of Ruwart, Kubby, Nolan, and the absent Root declined somewhat during the course of this show.

    Bruce, you should know better than to disrespect Paulie’s privacy, and thus to give Steve an excuse to disconnect you. Not smart.

  98. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Brian,

    Since I don’t regard Ruwart’s positions as particularly controversial, I’m not surprised.

    From the beginning the more interesting story has been the poorly planned and executed attempt to make her positions controversial, presumably in order to benefit some other candidate.

    If you’re interested in “the principles of our presidential candidate(s),” you’re hardly lacking source material. Of the declared candidates, at least five of them (Phillies, Kubby, Ruwart, Root, Gravel) have published political books, web availability of reasonably detailed position papers, etc.

    Compared to 2004, we are literally drowning in available information on our prospective candidates.

  99. Brian Holtz Says:

    Tom, if Ruwart’s views on legalizing childhood consent to pornography and prostitution weren’t “particularly controversial”, she would have jumped at the chance to re-affirm them. Instead, she offered no perceptibly substantive response to Phillies’ critique of them, except to point out how long ago she wrote the words in question.

    I’m not too worried about the positions of Root and Gravel, as they have no apparent aspirations to influence the LP Platform. For the other three (Ruwart, Kubby, Phillies), I’m most interested in the Platform issues of 1) personal secession, 2) immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws, 3) policing of pollution by dispersed cumulative polluters, 4) right of the accused to subpoena witnesses, 5) privatization of all streets and pipes, 6) legalized child prostitution, and 7) private WMD. I’ve talked to Steve about #3, and I got him to apparently support #2. I doubt Ruwart has a written record on 1, 2, or 4, and when I looked for her discussion of 3 I couldn’t find it.

  100. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Brian you write:

    “I’m not too worried about the positions of Root and Gravel, as they have no apparent aspirations to influence the LP Platform. For the other three (Ruwart, Kubby, Phillies), I’m most interested in [a bunch of stuff that’s not in any way at issue in this year’s presidential election].

    For years, the “pragmatist” and “reformer” factions have claimed that what drags the party down is running around talking about stuff like personal secession, immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws, legalized child prostitution, private WMD, etc. So? Stop fucking talking about that stuff already. It ain’t the “purists” quacking about it, it’s YOU.

  101. Brian Holtz Says:

    Earth to Tom: of the 7 items on my list, 5 are things that “purists” are advocating be put back in the Platform, and a sixth is something that “purists” defend from PlatCom’s proposal to remove it. Try dealing in facts, instead of tough-guy expletives.

  102. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Earth to Brian: Of the 7 items on your list, 0 of them figure prominently in any “purist” presidential campaign. They’re being discussed vis a vis presidential politics at the instigation of, and almost entirely by. the same “reformers” who claim that discussing them damages the party. Those are the facts, tough expletive boy.

  103. Brian Holtz Says:

    Yes, it was in fact precisely my point that our 3 candidates (self-)promoted as “radical”—Ruwart, Kubby, and Smith—are deafeningly silent on these 6 very real pieces of platform language that here on Earth radicals—not moderates—are proposing that the LP include in Denver in its 2008 platform. Thank you for suggesting that these three campaigns score a collective 0 for 18 on defending the most controversial parts of the platform they claim to want to “restore”, but my case is in fact not quite that strong. As I told you above, Kubby is arguably on record about two of the issues, one of which (pollution) he even brought up unprompted in his show with Alex Peak. And as I suggested above, Ruwart is on record for 3 of the 6, but as far as I know you’re right that she’s not trying to defend that record at all.

    The only controversy of these 7 that we reformers can take credit for creating is the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to subpoena witnesses. I’ve been on a one-man crusade to confront zero-aggression absolutists with this issue ever since I was on the 2005 LPCA Platform Committee. It’s a cool issue—a big glowing chunk of kryptonite that makes radicals trip over their capes trying to run away. Radicals, and their 2004 platform, claim to support the entire Bill of Rights, but trying to get them on the record on this issue is like pulling teeth. Susan Hogarth even banned my post that tried to ask about it on the LPradicals forum. This is an area of libertarian theory for which these allegedly “principled/radical” candidates apparently just don’t want people to know where they stand.

    I’m not at all suggesting that any of these candidates emphasize any of these seven issues. I just want to know where they stand. If you think you know, then quote them. For each of these three candidates, I’ll donate $25 to their Liberty Decides account for each issue on which you (or anyone else) can quote their campaign web site taking a clear written stand. I’ll also count quotes from any past publication of theirs if its something that their campaign site says accurately reflects their current positions.

    I’m just trying to find out about the current libertarian principles of the candidates who have taken a strong stand on what the LP Platform should say. (I suspect you’ll agree that Phillies’ waffling about the merits of the 2004 platform arguably don’t meet this standard.) By contrast, it’s very likely that you’re preparing another eleventh-hour fact-filled hit piece on Root (and maybe Barr) about their past positions and past associations, just as you did with Gary Nolan a week before the 2004 convention. I want to go on record now as pre-emptively defending you if you confine yourself to verifiable facts. But please dispense with this notion that it’s OK for our “principled/pure/radical” candidates to hide their positions from the delegates if those positions are too embarrassingly radical to figure “prominently” in their campaign strategy. Why should the delegates vote for a “principled/pure/radical” candidate who won’t stand up to the reformers who criticize their precious 2004 platform as extremist? Don’t any of these candidates have the “spine” that Susan Hogarth says the LP needs?

Leave a Reply