Denver LP Propaganda Update #4

The last of my artistic attempts to get Restore04 supporters to defend the most extremist parts of the 2004 Platform.

Child Prostitution

Flood

Zombie

38 Responses to “Denver LP Propaganda Update #4”

  1. Ralph Says:

    Mildred Loving, early LP’er.

    They used misogyny against her then, and now the Platform Secretary and his right wing cronies want to use government regulation of young romance now. Same motivation, different method.

  2. Stefan Says:

    Personally I think the best solution for this moral problem is: announce a legal ban
    of puberty/child pronography and rape WITH exceptions, e.g. you look at the specific situation to see if you can make an exception. For instance, if it is a 16 year old boy with a 16 year old girl and they want to marry etc., they (or the boy) should be allowed to continue and NO legal action taken.

    The problem is not with the law as such, but with how it is understood and executed. The law is not absolutistic and will not mean the end of child pornography, but send a message to society about the minimum normal standards (and liberty of the child), while being flexible at the same time with exceptional cases, like the one described above.

    Liberty for the individual is not infringed by the law as such, how how the law is applied.

    This way Mary Ruwart would stay on a 100% principled liberty basis, yet acceptable to social conservatives as well. If you look into each case specifically, it does not mean a relativizing of the law, but rather the true intent of it applied.

    I still stand with my Barr-Ruwart ideal ticket.

  3. Kenny Says:

    “The last of my artistic attempts to get Restore04 supporters to defend the most extremist parts of the 2004 Platform.”

    It is nothing of the sort. It is a blatant attempt by the new owner, and his conservative supporters in the Reform Caucus (sic), to ridicule their opponents and one Presidential candidate in particular.

    Ruwart should not stand as Barr’s VP. Rand called it the sanction of the victim.

  4. theCardinal Says:

    two things - 1. I don’t know why the LP would even want to invite the perception that it is the party of kiddie porn. 2. A libertarian invoking Rand to rip someone for not being libertarian enough is priceless. I’m probably going to vote Libertarian no matter what this election but truth be told I want the party to grow and I really don’t want to support someone whose principles are so extreme that he/she condones activities that fall well beyond acceptable behavior for 99.99% of the population.

  5. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    MrCardinal-

    So should armed thugs go after Billy Ray Cyrus for pimping his daughter out? The recent pictures in Vanity Fair are disturbing, to say the least. Where do you draw the line?

    *****

    The Snow White parody is funny.

    PEACE
    Steve

  6. Kenny Says:

    TheCardinal has fallen into the Reform Caucus trap. We could have over 95% of the 04 platform and ditch some of the sillier stuff. That, however, is not what the RC and its allies want. They want the LP to adopt their conservative platform and candidates.

    Since the last weekend, their has been a constant stream of propaganda targeted at the radical wing of the LP. It is like a hostile takeover of a listed corporation. If Holtz had adopted a more mature and intelligent argument, we might have engaged with him. Instead, he chose confrontation and, in those circumstances, I and others have refused to back down.

    It is time for the grassroots to reject the takeover and to tell Viguerie, Holtz, Cory and their cronies to fuck off back to the GOP. It’s not our fault that they let the neo-cons hijack their party.

  7. Kenny Says:

    TheCardinal has fallen into the Reform Caucus trap. We could have over 95% of the 04 platform and ditch some of the sillier stuff. That, however, is not what the RC and its allies want. They want the LP to adopt their conservative platform and candidates.

    Since the last weekend, their has been a constant stream of propaganda targeted at the radical wing of the LP. It is like a hostile takeover of a listed corporation. If Holtz had adopted a more mature and intelligent argument, we might have engaged with him. Instead, he chose confrontation and, in those circumstances, I and others have refused to back down.

    It is time for the grassroots to reject the takeover and to tell Viguerie, Holtz, Cory and their cronies to get lost. The LP is a LIBERTARIAN not conservative Party.

  8. Nexus Says:

    It seems to me that the reform caucus wants the LP to appeal to the small government conservatives that Ron Paul tapped into. This is an attempt to expand the party’s base, not a takeover. But your not going to get anywhere with anyone if you have child prostitution planks on your platform.

  9. Donny Ferguson Says:

    Kenny,

    What exactly is “conservative” about a Platform that condemns government discrimination based on sexual orientation and endorses the right to euthanasia, gay marriage and gay adoption, all of which were endorsed virtually unanimously by LRC members?

    What exactly is “neo con” about a Platform that condemns pre-emptive war and the neo con founding philosophy of spreading democracy by force? Do you even know what a neocon is?

    And where exactly is the jab against Ruwart? What was criticized is the oft-criticized childrens rights plank, which was an embarassment long before Ruwart ever made her statements. It sounds more like someone adopting the Barack Obama strategy of pretending to be the victim of comments that had nothing to do with him.

  10. CT Says:

    Wow. The maturity level of these TPW contributors have sung to a new low. This is tiresome. I might as well watch Chris Matthews cover his silly, superficial obsessions than to view this tripe. Let’s see some intelligent debate on issues and how third parties can address them. I suppose I’ve come to the wrong place. This kind of propaganda reeks of major party tactics.

  11. Eric Garris Says:

    Brian,

    What do you believe the government should not do?

  12. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. Holtz,

    I have officially lost all respect for you. I thought you were better than this. I thought you were one of the good Reformers. I thought it was your intention to work with radicals toward our common goals. Instead, all you want to do is spend time saying that one of the factions within the libertarian movement is stupid.

    If you wish to regain my respect, you can start by apologising for the straw-man factory you’re set up.

    To anyone who cares about truth, the Restore ‘04 movement has nothing to do with advocating a word-for-word return to the 2004 platform.

    As to the owners of this site, do you want this site to present news to the public about the various third parties in America, or do you want this site to be a vehicle for certain factions within one of those third parties to air his factional disputes using straw-men and other tactics? The presentation of factional disputes is fine, of course, if both sides are presented in a respectful manner by the contributors. This is clearly not what is happening here, and as a result, I fear the quality of this site is rapidly declining.

    Respectfully,
    Alex Peak

  13. Bill Woolsey Says:

    Kenny.. you don’t know what you are
    talking about.

    I joined the reform caucus several years
    ago. I have a couple of articles on the site.

    I am a centrist libertarian—neither left nor right.

    Right now, my key interest is opposition to the
    war in Iraq and possible war in Iran. I am
    especially opposed to the neoconservative foreign
    policy of preventative war and nation building.

    In general, however, I consider personal and economic
    liberty to be equally important aspects of libertarianism.

    In my view, mainstream conservative Republicans favor
    going in the wrong direction on personal liberties issues
    and foreign policy. Traditionally, they have supported
    positive moves on the “economic liberty” front. The
    Republican majority in Congress a few years back and
    the Bush administration, was terrible in practice on economic
    liberty, but they were even worse on personal liberties and
    foreign policy.

    I am also a “moderate” libertarian on all issues. I support
    much less foreign intervention than the U.S. undertakes today.
    I have no particular foreign interventions that I support at
    this time. Yet, I am not willing to accept as a hard and fast
    rule, “no foreign intervention ever.”

    I am a moderate on “economic policy.” I believe strongly
    support very large cuts in government spending and taxes,
    extensive deregulation and privatization—at all levels—federal, state, and local. In fact, there is no government
    activity that I feel strongly committed to. However,
    I recognize that the argument for privatizing or deregulating
    some things is much stronger than for other things. There are
    real difficulties in private provision for some things.

    While I am least inclined to “moderate” my views on the personal
    liberties issues, even here, I am not inclined to dogmatism. I
    think drug prohibition has been a disaster and oppose it. But,
    do I really think that no kind of drug should possibly be banned?
    Further, I have no problem at all with some government restrictions
    on the liberties of children. For example, child prostitution or
    pornography. I feel no need for mental gymnastics about burdens
    of proof. Further, while I am “pro-choice” on abortion, I think
    late term abortions should be subject to legal restriction by
    government.

    But to claim that I am a “conservative” on those counts is absurd.
    My foreign policy position is more “pro-peace” than pretty much
    every liberal Democrat public official. My views on personal liberty is pretty much more “pro-liberty” than nearly all liberal Democrats.
    While my economic views do entail restricting government more than
    nearly all elected Republicans, I think my ‘moderation” is pretty much
    balanced. Hence, a centrist.

    Some of the reformers are very “left” oriented. Concern
    about the environment, concern for the poor… things like
    that. Some are georgists, advocated taxation of site-values.

    Have you ever looked at the reformer site? Hunt about and
    you will see all of this “left-leaning” advocacy.

    And, many reformers still hold out the Clark campaign as
    being the best. And it clearly leaned left. Cut corporate welfare
    and the military to the bone. And only modest cuts in welfare.
    Cut income tax rates, yes. But not abolish them now.

    They were lambasted by Nolan and Rothbard for selling out to
    the left. Where were the attacks on the welfare queens?
    Abolish the income tax now, let the elderly eat dog food.

    There are some “reformers” who are prolife. There are
    some who are anti-immigrant. So, they would say
    things like, “the platform is fine, except for the pro-
    choice language.” Or, “the platform is fine, except
    for the open borders language.”

    But that notion never was the core of the reform
    movement.

    It isn’t conservative.

    The purpose is to have a Libertarian Party that is welcoming
    to all libertarians. The point isn’t to welcome those who
    lean more to the right or the left. It is to welcome all of
    them, left, right and center.

    The purpose is to encourage candidacies that appeal to
    everyone who favors more personal and economic liberty
    relative to the status quo. Hence, incrementalism.

    And, admittedly, it is against having a Libertarian Party whose
    purpose is to educate people about the common elements of
    two versions of libertarianism—those associated with Ayn Rand
    and Murray Rothbard. It is to avoid having a Libertarian Party
    that has a key purpose of promoting Rothbard’s version of
    libertarianism within the libertarian movement.

    You understand? Making sure that Rothbard’s version of
    libertarianism wins out over that of Milton Friedman? Or that in
    the debates about foreign policy between the neo-objectivists,
    the Rothbardian hard core noninverventionism prevails… within
    the libertarian movement?

    I support Bob Barr as the nominee.

    I think that just like the Clark effort to reach to the left was good
    for 1980, this is a time to reach to the right.

    It has to do with Ron Paul’s message. (I am the true conservative,
    Paul says.)

    And, it has to do with the utter failure of Republican governance.
    The out of control spending, and the disasterous consequences of
    the neocon foreign policy in Iraq.

    Of course, there are always dangers. But risks need to be taken
    if the Libertarian Party is going to acomplish anything.

  14. DrGonzo Says:

    But your not going to get anywhere with anyone if you have child prostitution planks on your platform.

    Are you trying to say the majority of Americans won’t support child prostitution? What kind of radical world do we live in when a 12 year old can’t sell herself for money?

  15. Craig Says:

    Here’s one for the other side:

    “Let’s keep forcible government forever. The 20th century death toll from government was probably a fluke.”

  16. Nexus Says:

    “The purpose is to have a Libertarian Party that is welcoming
    to all libertarians. The point isn’t to welcome those who
    lean more to the right or the left. It is to welcome all of
    them, left, right and center.”

    Excellent! This is exactly the attitude we all need to take if the LP is going to grow.

  17. Alex Peak Says:

    DrGonzo,

    If you want to oppose child sex, that’s perfectly fine. If you want to oppose having our platform say that child sex should not be illegal, that’s fine as well.

    But if you wish to imply that the only things we should include in our platform are things that the majority of Americans agree upon, then we would have to avoid mentioning that we want to end the war on drugs, we’d have to avoid mentioning that we want to privatise Social Security, and we’d have to avoid mentioning that we don’t want any government control whatsoever on firearms. Our platform would basically be limited to opposition to war and opposition to slavery.

    Now, again, I’m not saying you can’t oppose child sex. Rather, my point is simply that you should base your opposition either on natural law or utilitarian grounds, and not on democratic sympathies.

    Respectfully yours,
    Alex Peak

  18. Kenny Says:

    “And, admittedly, it is against having a Libertarian Party whose
    purpose is to educate people about the common elements of
    two versions of libertarianism—those associated with Ayn Rand
    and Murray Rothbard. It is to avoid having a Libertarian Party
    that has a key purpose of promoting Rothbard’s version of
    libertarianism within the libertarian movement.

    You understand? Making sure that Rothbard’s version of
    libertarianism wins out over that of Milton Friedman? Or that in
    the debates about foreign policy between the neo-objectivists,
    the Rothbardian hard core noninverventionism prevails… within
    the libertarian movement?”

    Bill, that’s roughly my position so you and I will have to agree to disagree on those points. I agree with you that children should be legally protected and I would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks, the point of “viability”.

    The LP was founded as and has been, mostly, a radical party. The Clark campaign benefited from the huge Koch investment. The platform has not been reformed, it has been largely destroyed. The 04 platform can be adapted to be acceptable to minarchists who would accept Objectivist or Nozickian criticism of anarchism. However it should not weakened to make it acceptable to conservatives like Barr and left liberal like Gravel.

    The centrists/moderates should campaign for their ideas in the two main parties. Barr and Viguerie should be working with Ron Paul and his allies in Congress to build up the Republican Liberty Caucus (or a new pressure group) as a major player in the GOP. Their presence in the LP is simply a reflection that the neo-cons and religious right destroyed the conservative movement and the GOP. The LP must not sell out its principles to give them a new home because they lost the ideological and power battles in the GOP.

  19. DrGonzo Says:

    But if you wish to imply that the only things we should include in our platform are things that the majority of Americans agree upon, then we would have to avoid mentioning that we want to end the war on drugs, we’d have to avoid mentioning that we want to privatise Social Security, and we’d have to avoid mentioning that we don’t want any government control whatsoever on firearms. Our platform would basically be limited to opposition to war and opposition to slavery.

    I wasn’t saying that at all. Only saying that anything that allows for child prostitution is a complete joke. I don’t know how anyone could even think that would be a good thing to put into the platform. No rational human could say it should be alright for children to have sex with adults if they want.

  20. Major Reformist Mocker Says:

    If Mr Holtz would just admit how much he graves a big hard one between his cheeks (both of them), he wouldn’t be taking his frustrations out on real libertarians. There are lots of closet libertarian republican reformers who will teach you how to cheat on your wife with boys without feeling guilty or getting caught. Join the republicans and be happy

  21. TROOFERS/NAMBLA for MARY '08 Says:

    IF THE MOTHERSHIP CAN FLY WITH ONE WING, SO CAN WE! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY!

  22. TROOFERS/NAMBLA for MARY '08 Says:

    Major Reformist Mocker Says:
    May 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    If Mr Holtz would just admit how much he graves a big hard one between his cheeks (both of them), he wouldn’t be taking his frustrations out on real libertarians. There are lots of closet libertarian republican reformers who will teach you how to cheat on your wife with boys without feeling guilty or getting caught. Join the republicans and be happy

    NAMBLA’S DOWN WITH THAT AND SO IS MARY! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY!

  23. redfish Says:

    theCarninal,

    haha , many people don’t realize Rand hated the Libertarian Party and thought they were infantile. She supported more mainstream Republican policy.

  24. titaniumgirl Says:

    This is just getting NASTY.

  25. timothy west Says:

    libertarians are extremely politically stupid.

    If you dont grow the parties base of support to where a Gravel guy and a Paul guy can support it at the same time, you have no base. No base = no money=no ballot access= contraction = epic fail. The LP is a triangle on it’s point down. It has to be a triangle with the fat part at the base, not up in the air.

    I will bet the delegates will opt for purity over political goals.

  26. DrGonzo Says:

    I will bet the delegates will opt for purity over political goals.

    Unfortunately, I think you are right. Why grow the party when we can continue getting under a million votes every year? Electing a purist has worked so well for the past 37 years.

  27. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    The Restore 04 debate means nothing. Here’s the Fringe Alliance Strategy again for you trogledytes. Go Barr/Gravel! Go Imperato! Go Obama!

    I have developed a strategy based on an alliance between the Green, libertarian
    and constitution parties, the various socialist movements and centrist independents, Kucinich Democrats, Ron Paul Republicans, and other smaller groups such as fascists, feudalists, monarchists and syndicalists, to initiate the following goals.

    1. The electoral college is abolished.
    2. The presidential election uses a national Majority Runoff system. This will change us from a republic to a democracy.
    3. Congress is elected through proportional representation.

    Third parties should spend most of their energies pushing for these constitutional amendments, using graphic protests in public locations. Otherwise, the
    efforts of all of them are doomed to do nothing more than push the major parties slightly in one direction, and ruin the chances of the parties that their
    candidates are most closely aligned with, while gaining such small failing numbers for themselves. The people who visit this site are by definitions on
    the fringes of society. It is important for the fringe to get together. This strategy is gaining the support of many political scientists across the nation,
    and I will continue to post it several times a week here until it is adopted. Fortunately, we have the Obama Revolution to save our country for now.
    The revolution will be televised.
    Please pray for the pope and please pray for Barack Obama. Amen.

  28. End the Empire Says:

    Ron Paul ‘88 a purist ?!
    Bednarik ‘04 a purist ?!

    libertarian-Constitutionalist perhaps, not purist…

  29. Hugh Jass Says:

    For the first one, it doesn’t even bother to debate to topic, but merely uses ‘child prostitution’ as a one-dimensional smear. Holtz doesn’t even bother to mention that children that desperate for money would otherwise beg or starve.

    For the second one, it presumes that nobody would buy flood insurance if it wasn’t mandated by government. This is completely absurd for obvious reasons.

    For the third one, it is again simply smearing purists for even suggesting private roads. It neglects to mention that roads would most likely be paid for by businesses who wish to have their store connected and/or businesses who wish to advertise with billboards.

    The fourth one is simply a straw man argument, and it defends to unlibertarian EPA. It makes it seem like individuals can’t defend their own property from pollution, so we must have a giant government bureaucracy do it for us.

    Holtz also seems to be a fan of managed trade and fiat currency. Out of curiosity, since you presume that the state is needed for money, trade, environmental protection, roads, insurance, sexual choice, land ownership, water, self-defense, arms control, sanitation, and invading foreign countries, what area so you think that government shouldn’t be involved?

    The sixth one is just plain ironic, given that the moderates are the ones trying to purge the purists from the party. Also, Holtz makes it seem like LP members have to agree with every word of the platform. I doubt most Republicans agree with the entire GOP platform, or that most Democrats agree with the entire Democratic platform, but for some reason Holtz thinks that everyone must agree with the entire LP platform to be a member. It sounds like Holtz if anybody is the one trying to purge people, all the while spewing straw man arguments and red herrings at those who disagree with him.

  30. titaniumgirl Says:

    Huge Jass—- You pretty much summed up what I feel better than I ever could. Thanks.

  31. DrGonzo Says:

    For the first one, it doesn’t even bother to debate to topic, but merely uses ‘child prostitution’ as a one-dimensional smear. Holtz doesn’t even bother to mention that children that desperate for money would otherwise beg or starve.

    It is unlikely a child who needs money would beg or starve. There are multiple organizations for children.

    But I can’t believe there is someone actually trying to justify the right of a child to prostitute themselves out.

  32. Hugh Jass Says:

    “Huge Jass—- You pretty much summed up what I feel better than I ever could. Thanks.”

    My pleasure.

  33. Brian Holtz Says:

    Eric, the fact that a longtime movement activist like you could have no clue as to what a principled minarchist thinks is the proper role of government is exactly the problem with the LP. Here: http://libertarianmajority.net/public-and-private-goods

    Alex, I’m getting bored of correcting your ignorance about Platform proposals. The Restore04-backed minority report includes 9 of the 13 most extremist positions of the 2004 platform. See the table at
    http://reformthelp.wikidot.com/local—files/start/PlatformTruth.pdf

    I deal in facts. My slides are grounded in textual facts about the 2004 platform. Meanwhile, David Nolan last night claimed that reformers want to legalize only medical marijuana and to only cut marginal tax rates. You probably don’t even know enough about the two competing platform drafts to know how wrong he was. Stop engaging in character assassination, and educate yourself.

  34. Karsten Says:

    Woohooo let’s BAN Dateline NBC!

  35. Ben Kalafut Says:

    While not as flamboyant as Starchild, I’m probably one of the last Libertarians anyone would accuse of being “conservative”: an ACLU card-carrying, environmentalist, low-tax liberal who feels no guilt doing NSF or NIH supported science and who (unlike Nolan, on whose last campaign I served…) has read libertarian thinkers respected outside the Party like Nozick and Epstein, who doesn’t fancy global warming to be a hoax and doesn’t consider gays as though they were hypotheticals.

    Having read the Platform Committee’s proposal several times over, I fail to see how this is a conservative platform, unless by conservative you mean “not stupid/Rothbardian” or “not anarchist.” Plat Comm has given us a unity platform in the true spirit of the Dallas Accord. Restore ‘04 gives us legal kiddie sex and natural rights anarcho-nihilism dressed up as Party doctrine.

    A clue for the likes of former Rothbard crony Eric Garris: The Rothbard/Evers platform, both in its pre 2004 form and after its infantile four-part-format dress-up, is not what libertarian candidates of any seriousness use as a basis for their campaigns. It’s a liability, as it gives the press and the general public the wrong idea about what thinking libertarians support. As it stands currently the public would be better off surfing to Cato, Reason, or Marginal Revolution instead of searching for “Libertarian Platform”, but that doesn’t happen and there’s no good way to make it happen.

    Oh, but the Reason folks or Tyler Cowen aren’t real libertarians. Real libertarians call for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come total end to taxation. Real libertarians believe that all rights are property rights and that ethical imperatives can be derived from the peculiar use of the possessive in the English language. Real libertarians believe in personal secession.

    Nolan says that the LP will not likely ever implement its agenda directly, but will instead induce others to come toward our position piecemeal. What he misses is that this will not happen unless people have reason to listen and other parties’ politicians see us as a credible threat. Becoming a credible threat isn’t done by whittling away the natural base to exclude the Ben Kalafuts—or the Tyler Cowens and Richard Epsteins—of the world until the Party is limited to says-he’s-a-minarchist Nolan talking to anarchist Garris and dippy Ruwart in an echo chamber.

    Does anyone else find it odd, by the way, that Nolan, who is now railing against the “conservative” Reform Caucus was one of the individuals willing to hand the nomination to known homophobic bigot Ron Paul?

  36. Hugh Jass Says:

    Ben: How is Ron Paul a homophobic bigot? Because he thinks that the government should be blind with regards to sexual orientation? Because he thinks that marriage should be a religious institution without state involvement? Because he refuses to accept the collectivist concept of placing straights and queers into groups?

    Brian Holtz: Every ounce of energy you spent attacking radicals could just as easily be spent trying to convert people to libertarianism. Though among the first people I’d reccomend converting is yourself, given that these attack pieces show that you need serious education with the iedology yourself.

  37. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. Holtz:

    Thank for the link. It reads as follows:

    “The page local-files you want to access does not exist.

    “create page”

    That was extremely helpful.

    Look, when you create these silly images, you are assassinating the character of every person who has ever signed the Restore ‘04 petition. I highly doubt that you are omniscient enough to know what every signer wishes to see as the end result of the platform changes.

    Since I was a signer of the petition, you have thereby assassinated my character as well with these silly images.

    Worse yet, the images are nothing but straw-men.

    1A) Who cares if “everyone in your town will donate to flood control” or not? It’s never justifiable to place a gun against some innocent person’s head and rob him or her.

    1B) Not every town is in need of flood control.

    1C) People don’t have to only donate to their own towns. When there is a flood, people from all over will donate. Private citizens donating and contributing man-power to New Orleans than the government could, and further the government only stood in the way of these efforts. If not for the fact that people considered it the government’s responsibility, even more private donations would have come in.

    1D) Even if no one donates, people should take the responsibility to ensure that they’re not in flood-prone areas. They shouldn’t be relying solely on our charity.

    2) That doesn’t say anything bad about the privatisation of roads.

    3) There is nothing wrong with homesteading asteroids if you actually have mixed your labour with the asteroid’s material. You have no ownership over an asteroid if you have not actually mixed your labour with its material or bought or received a title to it from someone who has. Merely claiming ownership does not create ownership.

    The other pictures you’ve posted in other threads have their problems as well.

    By accusing me of making a character assassination, you have assassinated my character again. How can I possibly be okay with your doing this?

    On a related note, the only people who seem to care about purity are minarchists. In the College Libertarians, I always witnessed various minarchists trying to out-libertarian each other, and to claim that those who deviated from either pro-choice or whatever else was “not real libertarians.” Despite my being the most radical member of the group, I was also the most accepting of deviation. I recall our vice president, Sarah, claiming that Jimmy was not a libertarian, despite Jimmy receiving a libertarian score on the WSPQ. Who stood up for Jimmy? Me, the most radical member of the group. And over time, Jimmy has become more libertarian, because people like I was willing to reach out.

    There’s probably not a person on the planet who is more annoyed at the purity-fight than I am. The main reason I prefer the 2004 platform over the Pure Principles platform is because I believe it does more to convince the average American that libertarian values are acceptable and reasonable. It is able to do this because it explains why libertarians want to end the war on drugs, why libertarians want to end this or that. Hence why I’ve repeatedly referred to myself as a pragmatic radical.

    Sincerely,
    Alex Peak

  38. Agorist1 Says:

    It is a crime to steal from people for flood protection. It is a crime to steal from people for any reason whatsoever.

    I’m called an “absolutist”. Why? I’m absolutely opposed to all crime. I don’t make exceptions.

    I don’t say it’s OK to commit crime if you get a majority of society to back you. I don’t say it’s OK to commit crime if you think it will promote the “public good.”

    Some say it’s impractical to oppose all crime. It might be impossible to punish all crimes (some criminals will inevitably get away), but that’s no reason to start supporting robbery. Nor is it any reason to support murder, or fraud, or slavery.

    I will strive for a society that does not institutionalize crime no matter what your platform says. The party does not define, and never will define, what is a libertarian. A libertarian is one who strives to diminish crime as much as possible.

    Support counter-economics. Support the black and gray markets. Smash the criminal institutions.

Leave a Reply