“Change” is just another word for thirty pieces of silver

“I’m asking you to believe,” states Barack Obama at the top of his website. “Not just in my ability to bring real change to Washington … I’m asking you to believe in yours.”

Change can be defined as “a flat metal piece (usually a disc) used as money.”

Atrios is calling Barack Obama the “Wanker of the Day” for selling the Fourth Amendment for thirty pieces of silver. Here’s what Obama once said about FISA:

The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

Here’s what Obama said yesterday:

Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.

Of course, Bob Barr has been outspoken on FISA for some time. Here’s what Barr told Congress (in testimony to the Judiciary Committee) last year:

The very title of this hearing is a tribute to your understanding - apparently lost on many in the administration - that electronic surveillance even in this post-911 world, is about much more than technology, and that consideration of the mechanisms and parameters of FISA cannot be considered in the sterile vacuum of technical amendments alone. Surveillance, whether for law-enforcement or foreign-intelligence purposes, does affect the fundamental privacy rights of American citizens, and this recognition must be the underpinning of any consideration of this inherently intrusive technique.

Here’s what Barr said the day before the bill passed in the House:

In asserting his power to conduct warrantless searches of Americans, President George W. Bush has expressed his clear contempt for the Fourth Amendment. So has Sen. John McCain, despite his reputation as a supposed maverick.

Here’s what Barr said today:

The House on Friday passed legislation that greatly expands the power of the government to surreptitiously surveil phone calls and e-mails of American citizens. If, as expected, this legislation is passed by the Senate and the President, as promised, signs it into law, it will represent the greatest expansion of the government’s ability to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans ever. While the Administration will tout this as a bill to “listen in to phone calls with al Qaeda” and other terrorist organizations (a power the government already possesses), the fact is, under this legislation, every phone call or email that takes place between a US citizen in the United States and any person “reasonably believed to be” overseas, can be surreptitiously surveilled by the government without ever going to a judge.

What American needs isn’t Obama’s version of “change”—but meaningful reform which restores all of our rights and liberties.

98 Responses to ““Change” is just another word for thirty pieces of silver”

  1. Eric Dondero Says:

    This is good. But it’s a bit of an obscure issue to be attacking Obama on.

    We should be slamming him on stuff that is more relevant to people’s lives like his support for keeping the Gas Tax, his support for Nanny State infringements on people’s lives like seat belt laws ans smoking bans, and for his support for affirmative action programs.

    FISA? Who in the hell knows what that means anyhow?

    We need to be reaching out to regular Joe Americans for the Barr Campaign; those who voted for Perot.

    You start talking FISA and they’ll just roll their eyes.

  2. Open Letter From Don Lake Says:

    Here, here! In political discussions in my own family [a big time rarity] we concluded months ago, while we HATE cold bloodied reptile Hillary -Under -Sniper -Fire, we found Obama to be Slick Willie Clinton II! Talking out of both sides of his mouth! So smooth that they graft skin samples for teflon! Bubba with a sun tan!

    What are the four things you do not talk about at a Lakey family reunion: sex, religion, politics and finance!

  3. Open Letter From Don Lake Says:

    Oh great, you put my thoughtful piece after Dumbero! I would not have even read it if I had not known it was there. Who knows how many folks have skipped the entire reply line with Eric’s usually insane illogical diatribe as the first ranting. Oh great!

  4. ElfNinosMom Says:

    Mr. Lake: The comments on TPW are undoubtedly posted in the order in which they are received, just like on any blog.

  5. disinter Says:

    “That the party of “liberty” would conscion an institutional statist like Bob Barr as a candidate for office ought to be a sign to anyone with a clue. While in office, Barr paid lip service to some of the causes of freedom, while gleefully trouncing the rest. Barr might find one or several dimensions of freedom acceptable, but when the distortions of the funhouse mirror are untangled one will find that a powerful urge to control and direct the affairs of his fellow human beings lies at the heart of his being.”

    http://www.nostate.com/71/libertarians-for-statism/

  6. End the Empire Says:

    Open up on Obama and his platform! He will effect all our lives much more than any third party candidate in this race. What is the benefit of posting “attack links” that are one month old? It’s time to move on.

    Obama is a slick willie, saying everything yet saying NOTHING! I again submit B.O. is the least qualified Democratic Presidential nominee in the 200+ year history of the Party! Disagree with me? Name ONE less qualified. Green candidate Cynthia McKinney is MUCH more qualified than B.O. She is not a “controlled” candidate, hence the media blackout of the more qualified FEMALE AFRICAN-AMERICAN candidate.

    KNOW your enemy. Your real ENEMY! It’s not Barr, BaldWIN or McKinney…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6LPW0P6Wl0&feature=related

  7. Jonathan Says:

    Obama is like HUgo Chavez. Let’s face it he is going to get elected and that sucks. Theone with the most money wins, no surprise there. I only ask you talk without insulting to every obama supporter out there on the dangers of voting for Obama. I’m from Venezuela and Hugo Chavez sounded just like Obama. Change Change Change, Income distribution, more taxes. Please talk to every Obama supporter and let them know that the Libertarian Party as a whole is socially liberal which appeals to Obama supporters but fiscally conservative and given the state of this country we need a fiscal conservative candidate and the only one is BOB BARR. please donate to www.bobbarr2008.com

  8. disinter Says:

    Meanwhile, news the barf squad doesn’t want you to know:

    “Some Libertarians are upset that Bob Barr’s PAC still supports neocon Republicans like Saxby Chambliss, Norm Coleman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jeff Sessions. But why? Surely Libertarians knew they were getting a smart, accomplished public spokesman for gun rights and civil liberties. But on a number of other issues, as everyone surely also knew, he does not agree with, say, the late Harry Browne.

    However, George Phillies, one of the former LP presidential candidates, sees financial support for Republicans with Libertarian challengers as a betrayal. Indeed, Phillies—who is on the New Hampshire ballot as a placeholder—is now trying to keep his name there for November, in opposition to Barr. Apparently Massaschusetts—Phillies’s home state—is next. Stay tuned.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021631.html

  9. joell Says:

    Eric Dondero on Obama’s ” support for Nanny State infringements on people’s lives”

    I know lots of libertarians, some personally, mostly thru the web. They want the government to get out of their lives; they are their own man/woman and can take care of themselves.

    Yet nearly all who disclose something about themselves personally reveals their independence and self reliance is an illusion. The likely presidential nominee is a good example. Barr recieved a generous taxpayer funded salary, medical insurance, pension benefits, etc., as a federal prosecutor and congressman. And he didn’t give up these taxpayer perks willingly; voters gave him the boot when his district was redrawn.

    Does anyone really doubt that Barr would drop the Libertarial party ,if he could get elected to a prominent perk filled job as a republician or even a democrat?

    Few libertarians I encounter are self employed or own a business; most have federal, state, local or private sector jobs; they’re dependent on a pay check and other benefits from some one else. Ask them if they would willing give up these “nanny state” perks (many private sector benefit packages are government subsidized in some form), and they would say absolutely not.

    Libertarians are just as hypocritical as the dem/reps. “Get government out of the way” as long as it doesn’t affect me.

    Do you fall into this category Eric Dondero?

  10. disinter Says:

    Barf still supports the war on drugs (no surprise here):

    “Mr. Barr said he still opposes…the legalization or decriminalization of drugs, just as he did as a federal prosecutor during the Reagan administration and as a Republican in the U.S. House.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/13/barr-to-woo-libertarian-base-for-funds/?page=2

  11. Steve Dasbach Says:

    Disinter,

    If you bothered to follow the links in the Lew Rockwell piece, you would find the contributions referred to are mostly from 2007—the most recent was in March 2008, prior to Barr forming his exploratory committee.

    These contributions were well known to the delegates in Denver and factored into their decision. The Rockwell article, and you, imply that Barr’s PAC is continuing to make such donations, which is not supported by the link.

    It is disingenuous to criticize something from Barr’s past while implying it has just occurred. If you want to criticize his past, fine, but please be honest about it.

  12. disinter Says:

    Dasbach - Barf made those contributions to neocons, some of which were running against Libertarians, in the current election cycle whilebarf was a member of the LNC. Your pathetic attempt to apologize for barf doesn’t cover-up the facts, no matter how much you want it to.

  13. DIAMON DAVE Says:

    Why bother Steve? Disinter is just a big negative ad, that’s all he is. He is a parasite that needs to be ignored so he goes away.

  14. Steve Says:

    Indeed, Obama talks about change only because that’s all that’s going to be left of your paycheck by the time he’s finished taxing you for all of the wild new spending he’s planning. America desperately needs a fiscal conservative at the helm. Obama isn’t. McCain isn’t. Barr seems the only realistic choice.

  15. disinter Says:

    “He doesn’t just support Republican candidates; he supports Republican candidates even when there is a Libertarian candidate for that same office. Worse, this has happened too many times for it to be simply explained away.

    Q: Why should Libertarians support Barr for President, when Barr doesn’t support Libertarian candidates?

    A: We should not. Libertarians should never support a presidential candidate who regularly stabs Libertarian candidates in the back by supporting their opponents.”

    http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/bob-barr-an-enemy-of-libertarians/

  16. disinter Says:

    America desperately needs a fiscal conservative at the helm. Obama isn’t. McCain isn’t. Barr seems the only realistic choice.

    You meant the same Barf that voted FOR illegal wars of conquest that are costing us over $1 trillion? Or the Barf that voted FOR the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Stupidity? I am sure that one saved us a fortune.

  17. David Tomlin Says:

    I haven’t gotten the impression that Barr really cares about fiscal conservatism. The only thing he really seems passionate about is his loathing for a black kid who got a blow job.

  18. fusion Says:

    I hope Bob Barr’s PAC gives money to Ventura2008 to balance out / atone for the Coleman thing.

  19. disinter Says:

    I hope Bob Barr’s PAC gives money to Ventura2008

    I don’t believe Ventura is a neocon Repug, which disqualifies him.

  20. Andy Says:

    Steve Dasbach Says:

    “June 21st, 2008 at 6:39 pm
    Disinter,

    If you bothered to follow the links in the Lew Rockwell piece, you would find the contributions referred to are mostly from 2007—the most recent was in March 2008, prior to Barr forming his exploratory committee.”

    2007 wasn’t that long ago, and March of 2008 has especially not that long ago. Bob Barr joined the Libertarian Party in December of 2006 and was immediately placed on the LNC.

    Why would any member of the Libertarian Party, much less a Libertarian National Committee member, make political donations to the campaigns of big government Republicans?

  21. Open Letter From Don Lake Says:

    End Of Empire: Bad [if not Evil] Democrats, Hill, the out and out liar!

  22. GREEN DAD Says:

    I commend Disinter for his obsession of loathing Barr but you can’t stop freedom from growing no matter how sour you are.

    Raise the Barr !

    $ 300,000 and counting

    We will beat last election by being on 49 ballots and we wil rake up votes. The new area has arrived
    The Libertarian era !

    www.bobbarr2008.com

    http://www.barrbomb.com/

  23. Gregg Jocoy Says:

    I am so grateful to have Cynthia McKinney as the likely Green Party nominee, and most everyone I know in the Green Party and even in the Nader camp agree that she is a very comfortable fit for the Green Party.

    I do not believe in poaching from other smaller parties. As someone wrote earlier, McKinney, Baldwin, Barr, Keyes, Moore and Nader are not the enemy, at least not here.

    I do feel for Libertarians who are unsure of how enthusiastic they want to be of their party’s nominee. I was right there four years ago, and it sucked. I did as I expect most of you will do, voted for my party’s nominee. As poor a choice as we made that year, Cobb was legally qualified, and a lawyer, which for many seem to be the keys to the kingdom.

    I do, however, understand why Libertarians are libertarians. It’s not just civil liberties, for in truth, whatever differences there are between where Greens are and where Libertarians are could be drawn closer still if libertarians in the party pushed us that way. It’s also not the “war on drugs”, for our positions there are most often closer to the more “radical” elements in the Libertarian Party. In short, I believe most Greens agree with Wavy Gravy…”It’s your trip man. Just be aware that there’s a notice out on that one, OK?” If you want to use drugs of any variety you should be able to do so as long as the rest of us are not impacted.

    But, the so called “nanny state” that so many Libertarians get upset about is not seen in the same way by Greens. We don’t believe, by and large, that social security is a bad idea. Greens almost uniformly believe in publicly funded education, roads, water systems, garbage collection, police and fire protection and other infrastructure. I must point out however that Democrats and Republicans alike in government seem to be happy to stand in line to sell the people’s assets to private interests, so in truth, that is an example of where libertarians have been able to move their agenda forward.

    What amazes me though is that Libertarians, as far as I can tell, see the capitalist and corporatist forces as either automatically positive or at least benign providers of goods and services for profit alone. I don’t understand that. If power corrupts government employees and law makers, what makes you believe that corporations will hesitate to put you on the virtual rack if they believe it may benefit them, or just for the hell of it?

    I want government to create and operate public goods and services for me at my and my fellow citizen’s direction. I don’t want to have to pay myself for the road or water pipe or police officer to make it to my home alone. I want to do that collectively, and I believe most Americans are closer to the Green position than the Libertarian one.

  24. Craig Says:

    What we need is a presidential debate that will include all candidates who have served at least 6 years in Congress.

    That would be McCain, Barr, and McKinney, if I’m not mistaken.

  25. timothy west Says:

    What amazes me though is that Libertarians, as far as I can tell, see the capitalist and corporatist forces as either automatically positive or at least benign providers of goods and services for profit alone. I don’t understand that. If power corrupts government employees and law makers, what makes you believe that corporations will hesitate to put you on the virtual rack if they believe it may benefit them, or just for the hell of it?

    yeah, I never did understand that either. As if there are no examples in recent years of private companies committing major league fraud and major league force. The biggest plunder in modern times has been private companies ‘contracting’ for the government, most notably the Defense Dept., sold to us as the best way to save taxpayer money, leading to the $600 hammer and other notable items.

    We’‘d be a lot better off if we scrapped the military industrial complex - pointing out that it didn’t save us from 9/11, and the trillions of billions it would save could be spent on something worthwhile - like, say…...brain cancer research?????????? :D

    and nothing undermines libertarians positions like libertarians.

  26. Stefan Says:

    Goood PR, Barr indeed earns his reputation as “Mr. Privacy”.

  27. Stefan Says:

    Disinter:
    if you read Lew Rockwell’s words well, he is saying that Barr’s record has been known to all before the convention, and that he is a prime defender of the 2nd Amendment and civil liberties. It read it more as a critique on Phillies, with double standards.
    BTW: On your website I see you promote several Republicans, including Dr. Paul Broun in GA, whom Barr’s PAC also contributed to. IMHO Barr’s PAC (not him personally) was required by the funders to contribute to a Republican and they contributed to people that can work to repeal the Patriot Act. Sen. John Sununu voted against the Patriot Act and other measures, for example. It does not mean Barr agrees with everything of the politician’s views. If you find a candidate you agree with 80%, you have about found the ideal candidate practical conceivable. Barr may perhaps only agree 40% of some of them now, for all that I know, but support the important 40% that involves repealing the Patriot Act.

  28. Stefan Says:

    The DP and RP do not need to find any blogger slamming the threat of Barr/LP, as disinter is already doing their work for them, for free, trying to sow the seeds of distrust and criticism, with NOTHING constructive whatsoever.

  29. Eric Dondero Says:

    Joell, yes I do fall into that category. I served 4 years in the US Navy, and thus qualify for VA Medical Treatment. I’ve even used it on occasion.

    Also, I benefited from VEAP: Veterans Educational Assistance Program. The Navy paid for a large portion of my college at Florida State University after I got out.

  30. Eric Dondero Says:

    Sizzle…..

    That’s the sound of Disinter’s skin, having been just burned by the facts from Stefan.

    Good one Stefan. Disinter supports Cong. Carl Broun, A REPUBLICAN, on his website, yet blasts Barr’s support for John Sununu in New Hampshire. What a hypocrite Disinter turns out to be.

    One wonders if Disinter also believes electing REPUBLICAN Tom McClintock to the US Congress is not a good idea?

  31. BanThePrick Says:

    “disinter is [...] trying to sow the seeds of distrust and criticism, with NOTHING constructive whatsoever.”

    I wish Stephen would ban the fucker already. Private property > annoying prick spewing nothing but negativity.

  32. Clark Says:

    ..methinks you greenies, Libertarian wienies, etcetercrats galore, ought to honestly learn even just a little about the origin, nature, REALITY, etc. of your unit of account (apparently what most/all you republicrat money ignoramusses refer to as “the dollar”) before you get to working your twinkie chutes about ‘corporation$,’ ‘government’ etc..

    ...but maybe that’s just me.. ;o)

    ...have a good day!..

  33. GO_MCBAMA Says:

    Disinter,

    Your check in the mail for your continue service to our campaigns to falsely smear the Libertarian candidate to make sure he doesn’t affect the outcome of the election.

    John McCain & Barack Obama

  34. Benj Says:

    “This is good. But it’s a bit of an obscure issue to be attacking Obama on.”

    I wouldn’t call giving amnesty and future immunity to private corporations for violating our 4th amendment rights an obscure issue. The Bill of Rights is all but gutted and you want to soften the debate with seat belt laws and smoking bans. Give me a break. People are not as DUMB as you might Eric.

  35. Marshall Says:

    In re: Disinter—yes, a blog is private property and I think TPW would have every right to ban him; however, I really think that each time he uses the word “barf” or points to flimsy or flat-out wrong facts and shows his borderline obssesion w/ Barr, he does more to help the moderate Libertarian movement than to hurt it.

    And to Gregg mentioning some of the similarites between Greens and Libertarians—that was well-written and thought out. It’s quite true that we do share some common beliefs. Ultimately, we’re both social liberals. But I would disagree on one point—Libertarians don’t believe in the benign forces of corporations. Quite the contrary. I personally have a huge disdain for corporations especially since many of them are making billions but still getting subdidised by my tax dollars. Most of us are on the Austrian economic tip—free markets, less government regulation, and letting people make a living without jumping through tons of hoops.

    You had also mentioned Libertarians wanting to do away with all of these essential services. That’s simply not the case and I don’t know of any evidence on an official Libertarian site or platform that would support that. Obviously, things like roads, police, infrastructure, etc. would have to be done on a collective basis. Of course, most of that is at the state and local level (for now). Of course, you still pay for those things—state income taxes, state sales tax, county sales tax, municipal sales tax, state, county, and municipal ad valorem taxes, property taxes, license fees, user fees, and dozens of others.

    As an aside, this particular Libertarian might suprise you—I recycle, help out “green” causes, and have voted for as many Democrats in local, state, and federal races as I have Republicans (when there is not a Libertarian).
    I’m as much a Sam Nunn/Zell Miller Democrat as I am a Goldwater/Reagan Republican.

    Finally, the moderate Libertarian movement that many of us have been fighting for is coming to fruition. It is a mix of social liberalism and economic conservatism that could go very far in this country and I think we are starting to see the beginnings of it.

  36. Gregg Jocoy Says:

    Marshall, I am sure you are right. Not being a Libertarian myself I have spent precious little time understanding the nuances of Libertarian Party beliefs. I was mainly going with what my local Libertarians write in the local monthly magazine in which the authors regularly claim that, if only “gubberment would git outta da way” we would all live in a land of milk and honey. They have absolutely condemned every governmental role except the use of what I consider the heavy hand of John Law. Reading what they write I get the impression that they believe in the following government services:

    Cops
    The Military
    Jails
    Courts

    They have explicitly called for an end to public schools, public hospitals, public parks, public libraries, public water systems etc, saying that they believe that the free market will provide all this to everyone on an equal basis simply because to do so would be in the best economic interests of the companies or people providing the services.

    I am sure that Marshall is quite right, and I am mis-understanding libertarian positions, but as a relatively engaged voter, if I am under such serious misimpressions it is clear that all of us have plenty to do just to explain to our fellow Americans what we do believe in.

  37. Stefan Says:

    Barr could do well by while insisting that the ban of hard drugs or not be handled at a state-level, as opposed to the federal level, state that MEDICAL marjiuana - e.g. used exclusively by medical partients with cancer etc. that are in deep cronic pain - be not only allowed at the state level, but also recommend that ALL states allow the use of it at hospitals upon prescription. This will show he has a sincere passion for medical patients all over the country, and not only in some states. In this way he can be a real “passionate” libertarian and also demonstrate the passion for the overall well-being of people and help so to squash the perception that libertarianism is “low-tax liberalism”, or only low taxes that benefit the rich especially (which is ultimately a wrong perception of the LP, but one that needs to be combatted).

  38. Marshall Says:

    Gregg,
    You’re absolutely right. We all have plenty to do to help advance our causes and ideals. And like many have said, yourself included, the enemy is not on this fine website. The enemy is the Republicratic Status Quo. I am a proud card-carrying Libertarian but I am proud of you, the Greens, and any other group fighting to break up the the two-party stranglehold.

    And yes, in regards to the first part of your post, those folks are the ones I call the “hardcores”. Some call them the “purists”, some the “radicals”, others have other names but they are out there. I think the term that may best fit them are “anarcho-capitalists” and they have held the majority of power w/in the LP for decades. I don’t hold any ill will towards any of them. In fact, a person I consider a good friend is a staunch proponet of that school of thought. But as the most recent LP convention has shown, the “moderates” now have a slight advantage in the balance of power w/in the party. Many of us are now reaching out to our purist brothers and sisters to help maintain a strong coalition. But truth be told, I have more in common with you (about 60%), or with a Constitution Party member (probably about 75%) than I do some of the extreme LP hardcores (around 50%). The one platform that I am almost 100% would be Dr. Paul and I think the new direction of the LP will be getting us closer to that philosophy.

    Good luck w/ your fight. I have been checking out your page.

    We’ll be doing our thing I think it’s going to be a banner year for freedom.

  39. Gregg Jocoy Says:

    Stefan,

    So…I can smoke pot only if I am deathly ill, and only in a hospital, and only with a government paid professional approving, and ecstasy, cocaine, speed, LSD and magic mushrooms are justification for arrest, trial, incarceration?

    That is the position you want the Libertarian nominee to take? Really?

  40. Gregg Jocoy Says:

    Stefan,

    In re-reading what you wrote I think I may have mis-interpreted what you said. Is it your position that states and local government should be allowed to limit my rights, just not the feds, again, unless I want to do the hard drugs I should be protected from by the power of the federal government?

    In other words, if a state wants to allow pot smoking in hospitals with a script, they should be allowed and encouraged by the federal authorities to do so, but if those same state governments want to arrest, try and incarcerate me for eating, drinking or smoking what I want, that would be OK because local government rights are more important than my individual rights…or did I miss your point again?

  41. Sean Scallon Says:

    The wire-tapping issue is a good one for Barr to exploit between Obama and McCain and may broaded his support beyond just disgruntled Republicans.

  42. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Gregg Jocoy Says:
    June 21st, 2008 at 10:54 pm

    What amazes me though is that Libertarians, as far as I can tell, see the capitalist and corporatist forces as either automatically positive or at least benign providers of goods and services for profit alone. I don’t understand that. If power corrupts government employees and law makers, what makes you believe that corporations will hesitate to put you on the virtual rack if they believe it may benefit them, or just for the hell of it?

    ####

    I don’t know of any Libertarians that see corporations as benign, even as a positive. Most Libertarians see corporations as creations of the state, and therefore suspect.

    It should be remembered that the Founding Fathers of the USA were anti-corporate, and knew what corporations could do. The Revolution was started, in large part, by the excesses of the British East Indies Corporation, which held monopoly license from the Crown to provide tea and other staples. Indeed, corporations were not even chartered by the state until the era of Jackson, some fifty + years after the revolution.

    ####

    I want government to create and operate public goods and services for me at my and my fellow citizen’s direction. I don’t want to have to pay myself for the road or water pipe or police officer to make it to my home alone. I want to do that collectively, and I believe most Americans are closer to the Green position than the Libertarian one.

    ####

    I don’t want the state to build new roads and other infrastructure, which only increases the likelyhood of urban sprawl. I don’t want the police to take several hours getting to my home, only to berate me and criticize me. I don’t want the police to then look for reasons to arrest me (for having a lawn that isn’t cut short enough, I am in Ohio :-) , or to look for a sign of what I might be smoking, etc.).

    I don’t want to force my Islamic or Jewish neighbor’s children to attend Christocentric government schools. Why should they be forced to attend during Ramadan or Hannakuh when they may start to get hungry during the school day, and yet are typically off several weeks during the Christmas and Easter holidays?

    ####

    I agree that Greens and Libertarians can and should work together. We really don’t have that much separating us, other than the way we articulate our positions. And I’ll stipulate that Libertarians have a lot to learn about how to communicate our ideas. But I’ll also maintain that Libertarians have thought out their position to their logical conclusions far better than Greens (or Constitutionites) have done.

    Regardless, we all agree that whatever the question is, the answer ain’t Obama or McCain.

    PEACE
    Steve

  43. disinter Says:

    Your check in the mail for your continue service to our campaigns to falsely smear the Libertarian candidate to make sure he doesn’t affect the outcome of the election.

    It’s about time I get paid to expose barf. :)

  44. disinter Says:

    That is the position you want the Libertarian nominee to take? Really?

    Stefan and the rest of the barfers are not libertarians The moron they worship should be enough evidence of that.

  45. disinter Says:

    The wire-tapping issue is a good one for Barr to exploit between Obama and McCain and may broaded his support beyond just disgruntled Republicans.

    And would expose Barf to be the hypocrite that he is, considering he voted FOR the patriot act.

  46. disinter Says:

    I don’t know of any Libertarians that see corporations as benign, even as a positive. Most Libertarians see corporations as creations of the state, and therefore suspect.

    Well, the party has now been infested with a swarm of disgruntled neocon Repugs (Barf and his barfers), so I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

  47. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Barr got another major league mention—several actually—on Meet the Press this AM. The polling in GA shows him at 6%, which could put GA in play for Obama. My take on the coverage is that Barr is a player, a serious one.

  48. GoNolzOhio Says:

    just out of curiosity, disinter, how would you propose we grow the libertarian party, if you reject all disgruntled __ (insert party here)?

    Wouldn’t that sort of individual be the most effective recruiter for the party? Rather than the “pure” libertarian who forces every voter into an
    all-or-nothing decision about the LP? Aren’t you discounting the possibility that voters could FIRST vote LP, then become more libertarian over time? Seems like a better way to grow the libertarian movement, as opposed to rejecting their vote until they become anarchists?

  49. Michael Seebeck Says:

    When I see Greens advocating individual responsibility and common-sense free-market solutions to environmental problems, instead of government intervention and more regulations that hurt the small business owner, then they’ll be a large step closer to the libertarian thought. Until then the chasm between them is very wide.

    As far as the thread title, is that referring to Obama or Barr???

  50. Stefan Says:

    Yes, Robert, I was also positively surprised about this first (?) mention in a serious TV discussion about Barr, which is positive. However, they have not only failed to mention him as the LP candidate (only third party), but also John Harwood’s dismissal of meaningful support for Barr in other states are unwarranted and unjustified and reveal a negative bias. Barr is polling in GA as he is relatively well known there, but Harwood fails to argue that Barr and the LP is not only know in other states, but also that the momentum in GA can over time translate to momentum in other states as well. Concrete, if you look at how much support Ron Paul has received in other GOP primaries such as Iowa (where Barr was born, 10%, which could translate perhaps 4-5% in a national election), PA - a swing state (16% thus ca. 8% in national state average), Indiana (24%), Montana (25% or more, thus say 12-13%) etc. etc. Of course note all Paul supporters would vote for Barr, some may vote for Baldwin - int he states where the CP has ballot access, and only a very minimum would vote for Obama, McCain, Nader. It should also be noted that after some primaries many GOP voters that say voted for Romney or Huckabee mentioned they would gave rather voted for Paul, if they knew more about his positions earlier or did buy into the media dismissal of him as being not a serious candidate. In short, if the primary race were to have held now, Paul would already receive considerable more votes from Republicans. There are also various Independents and Democrats that could not vote for him in closed primaries and/or registered to late Republican. Paul received some support from Democrats as well.

    Barr would do well to differentiate him further from not only McCain on the war, but also Obama, in terms of the wars that he would probably lead the US into (Pakistan, Iran etc.).

  51. Stefan Says:

    Disinter:
    My full support of platform, consistency and views are with Ron Paul. As you know some Libertarians do not consider him as a libertarian. So if you do not want to call me a libertarian, I am fine with that. I am a consequent principled freedom thinker. I was from the start against the war (like Paul and others) and thought it was the biggest absurdity that Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq or otherwise be invaded. I guess it is perhaps also easier to say, having the luxury as an independent, media-critic thinker and not being a member of a political party where it is expected you fall in line and where the media, not only the Bush-govt. pumped up the “immediate threat”/attack plans of Iraq, promoted the war/invasion (not only Fox, but also all the others, including MSNBC).

    I just LOVE how you responded to the facts I pointed out about Republican congressman from GA Dr. Paul Broun, whom you link on your website. Dr. Paul and Bob Barr’s PAC support him too, as do they both also support sen. Republican NH senator John Sununu. Of Sununu, Paul’s PAC writes:Senator

    “Sununu is a conservative Republican who will on occasion take a strong
    principled stand for liberty. For example, he is one of just a handful of Republicans that have voted against the Patriot Act. He also called out Fox News for their exclusion of Ron Paul in a planned televised forum.
    Senator Sununu is not a true constitutionalist nor does he stand strongly against the current interventionist foreign policy. Due to this and other matters, he is not rated highly by the Liberty Congress moderators. However he is clearly better than his Democratic opponent and enough of a friend of Liberty to earn Liberty Congress membership for the time being”.

    Does this make Dr. Paul and Barr a neocon? Nope. I would also argue that Sununu and many other GOP politicians that voted for the war are not really neocons, but they have been badly mislead by neocons: they mostly vote in line witht he party, as especially int he GOP family this is expected, otherwise the GOP officials may well work them out witht he next ellection. Bush 1&2, the NRA, Newt Gingrich etc. also tried to do this with Dr. Paul when he dissented, but I think apart from his trust, the fact that most of the people in his district know and trust him, and that he has delivered many babies in the district, gives him an edge, also his connection (picture) with Reagan. Other congressmen do not have such connections, but then also they are not stand so strong either. Dr. Paul is really one in a kind. Barr is now 90% plus along with Paul and he not only refers to Paul as his friend, but also as his adviser, various times. He has not once criticized Paul, whereas BS Root has criticized Paul on a few foreign policy issues and apparently still buy into the myth that the US was attacked because the US is rich and free! Sure, Barr does not have the record as Paul, but
    he has seen the light on more than one issue, whereas he can also build on his
    past libertarian record ON certain issues, like gun rights. His foreign policy adviser is a staunch antiwar libertarian: Doug Bandow, who is also one of Dr. Paul’s foreign policy advisers.

  52. Stefan Says:

    Disinter: Please explain what financial gain Barr would get from the Libertarian Party? I mean, I have listened to Steve Kubby’s show and interview with him and Kubby bring up the fact that Barr actually lost a whole of lot money/potential donors since he broke with the LP. Do you think the GOP establishment is going to be kind with him? No, they will try to ignore him and despise him for “breaking from the family” and bashing the Bush administration. For a CLinton impeacher to say Bush is worse than CLinton says a lot. It does take courage to say you are wrong. WOuld you ever admit or hear a neocon that he/she was wrong on a certain issue? (Hint: no, never).

    I thank you in advance for all the nice words you are going to write to me :-)

  53. disinter Says:

    just out of curiosity, disinter, how would you propose we grow the libertarian party, if you reject all disgruntled

    By not selling out our principles. Why do you think Ron Paul is so popular?

  54. disinter Says:

    Wouldn’t that sort of individual be the most effective recruiter for the party?

    Yes, someone like Ron Paul would most definitely be the most effective recruiter. He doesn’t flip-flop every month and he certainly hasn’t voted for the most un-libertarian legislation possible as Barf has.

  55. disinter Says:

    Barr would do well to differentiate him further from not only McCain on the war, but also Obama, in terms of the wars that he would probably lead the US into (Pakistan, Iran etc.).

    Barf voted FOR both illegal wars. There is nothing to “differentiate”.

  56. disinter Says:

    I am a consequent principled freedom thinker.

    Then why do you support barf?

  57. disinter Says:

    I just LOVE how you responded to the facts I pointed out about Republican congressman from GA Dr. Paul Broun, whom you link on your website. Dr. Paul and Bob Barr’s PAC support him too, as do they both also support sen. Republican NH senator John Sununu. Of Sununu, Paul’s PAC writes:Senator

    Earth to Stefan - Ron Paul isn’t on the LNC and he isn’t running as a Libertarian. Duh.

  58. disinter Says:

    For a CLinton impeacher to say Bush is worse than CLinton says a lot.

    Barf can barf words all day and they don’t mean squat, except to brain-dead barfers who believe anything the idiot says. Why hasn’t barf openly called for the impeachment of Bush? Why didn’t he do it a LONG time ago if he is soo sincere?

  59. Gregg Jocoy Says:

    If Libertarians believe that Greens want a powerful government, they really don’t understand where most of us come from. Big government means nuclear power plants. Unless the government takes your cash and gives it to the nuclear “industry” there is no way it would stand on it’s own. My problem is, I get the impression that if Bill Gates was willing to spend 8 billion of his own dollars to build a nuclear power plant you would say that we should all just get out of his way and count on his desire to protect his investment to protect us from the possible negative consequences.

    I don’t want the government to build sprawl machine roads, but again, I get the impression that if a few very rich people can get together and run the damn thing down my throat, I’d be better off looking to a Green to protect me than a Libertarian. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.

    I believe most Greens are pretty tolerant, but being told that we haven’t thought things through as deeply as Libertarians, or that we are “greenies” as if we are from another planet is not very welcoming.

    As to small business owners, I don’t care how large or small, no business owner should be permitted to pollute, and I shouldn’t have to hire a blood sucking lawyer to help me with the people more concerned with making money than protecting my health or their cash. Even so, one of the Green Party’s Ten Key Values is community based economics. Before you get all in a dander, that does not mean government subsidizes for local business, but instead means not giving subsidies to large business interests. Then, things like land use and road, sidewalk and traffic pattern efforts can augment the growth of environmentally sustainable local economies. Freedom is a stimulus to prosperity, but to fixate exclusively on that one value seems narrow. I hope that doesn’t offend, but that really is the sort of thing that puzzles me.

    OK…how about this one? A government sanctioned (with the assistance of loads of private cash and lawyers) corporation decides that they want to build a natural gas fired power station a few miles from my home. I live in a city with laws regulating this sort of business, but the business has located just outside the city limits, in the unincorporated part of the county. The county has been aware of this company’s interest for months or years, and has offered behind the door tax deals to encourage them to move here.

    I should just roll over and die? I shouldn’t have government regulators to push to force compliance with at least minimal standards? How then am I to protect my wife from the literally deadly choking air pollution when moving is not possible? Again, die so someone else can avoid reasonable regulation? I’m not talking about a freaking BBQ restaurant here!

  60. Stefan Says:

    “Then why do you support barf?”
    Easy, I do not support Barf at all, who is the guy/girl?

    I support Barr as the second best option after Paul :-)

  61. Stefan Says:

    “Barf voted FOR both illegal wars. There is nothing to “differentiate”.

    Wchih two illegal war did this Barf guy support? I do not know of any US war with Iran or Pakistan (yet).
    I do know that Paul and Barr are vehemently opposed to any war with Iran and actively campaigning against the idea through concrete action.
    I do know both Paul and Barr voted for Afghanistan action to go after Al Qaeda, which was 100% justified constitutionally and they both voted against the illegal Kosovo war under Clinton.

  62. John Lowell Says:

    My, it certainly hasn’t taken long for Barak Obama to demonstrate what an absolute phoney he is. Once a day we get news of some new sell-out or other. First it was the AIPAC grovel, next the NAFTA business, then the breaking of the campaign finance promise and now this FISA obscenity. For months Obama traded on the idea of offering “change” and a new paradigm for American politics and was accused of lacking substance. Since sewing-up the nomination, he’s shown us the substance but it has absolutely nothing to do with change. Honest progressive voters need to pull the chain on this liar and vote for Nader.

  63. Stefan Says:

    “Why hasn’t Barr openly called for the impeachment of Bush?”
    Paul has also not called on that, as far as I know… Barr is not a prosecutor currently and given that he will get so little media coverage, he needs to make liberty, smaller govt., more freedom, balancing the budget, pulling out of Iraq and worldwide etc. the main themes, and not impeaching Bush. The campaign is looking to the future. Nader and McKinney for the impeachment, so how is Barr going to differentiate himself from Obama, McCain, Nader and McKinney as candidate where two are already for impeachment. Do you want to impeach Bush and not Cheney??? Bush/Cheney deserve something worse than prelimenary retirement from office… Are you familiar with Vincent Bugliosi and his new book “Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder”?
    http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/05/29/vincent-bugliosi

  64. Stefan Says:

    John: indeed! I think Obama and McCain’s race have extended now to see who can change his position the most. They have already smashed Romney’s record for flip-flopping. They are indeed both candidates of change (in positions), and changing very little.

  65. disinter Says:

    Wchih two illegal war did this Barf guy support?

    The two we are currently in. Do you always play stupid?

  66. disinter Says:

    My, it certainly hasn’t taken long for Barak Obama to demonstrate what an absolute phoney he is. Once a day we get news of some new sell-out or other.

    I agree. He is no different than barf.

  67. disinter Says:

    Paul has also not called on that, as far as I know…

    Paul didn’t lead the fight to impeach Clinton for far less serious crimes.

  68. GREEN DAD Says:

    ignore Disinter and he’ll go away

  69. David Tomlin Says:

    Ron Paul on impeachment.

    http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=606

  70. John Lowell Says:

    Stefan,

    While I’ve always made sure that I was at a comfortable distance from this cretin emotionally, others, notably Justin Raimondo, haven’t. Until roughly 10 days ago, Raimondo, proving that hope is an enduring virtue, hung on for dear life to the notion that Obama was credible. As I say, until about 10 days ago, not since. Now, any serious person who bought the lie of a new paradigm, that this clown represented something authentically fresh in American politics, has a bottle of 91% alcohol on hand, ready to swab the television set after each of his appearances. The lie that seems to have had the biggest impact on commentators was the the campaign finance shuffle. I’ve heard no one defend him. But I’d known the man was vacuous after Scott McConnell disclosed last Winter that Lobby pressure on him had him running like a scarred rabbit when it was learned that a campaign ad of his inadvertently had appeared on an amazon.com webpage advertizing the Walt & Meershimer book. It was removed within minutes of his receiving the complain together with a statement disowning the book. That alone should have been predictive of his recent AIPAC grovel. And after a several months denouncing our present trade policy, here he is allowing that NAFTA can work after all! But the killer is FICA. People with the political sympathies often on display at sites like The Nation are doing a lot of head shaking after that one. Clearly, he feels cocky enough to thumb his nose at them, though, and I suspect he’ll get away with it. The talk of a “new politics” will continue, no thought will be given to the claims, and he’ll get elected. But there will be those who will no longer be able to bear the odour and Nadar will be the beneficiary. While I could never support Nadar because of his abortion proclivities, I’d rather see him get the support of “progressive” voters than Obama.

  71. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    disinter:

    Back in ‘87. Ron Paul was my 3rd choice for the nomination, after Russell Means and Jim Lewis. I thought Russell Means was far more Libertarian, and would bring a more diverse following. In ‘91, I thought Dick Boddie would be a much better LP standard bearer than Marrou.

    But, a majority of the assembled Libertarians didn’t agree with my prognosis, and nominated people that turned out to be fairly decent standard bearers. Obviously not as good as my own choices, but libertarian enough.

    I’ll go out on a limb, and say that Barr will probably be at least as libertarian as Ron Paul or Andre Marrou turned out to be. Barr does have history, but I’ll believe him when he says he has changed his stance to a more libertarian outlook.

    Now is the time to stop all this whining and gnashing of teeth and general disruptive behavior. The majority of Libertarians disagreed with you and me. Now we have to make our lemonade (when life gives you lemons…).

    But, if you are much of a Libertarian activist, you are probably on a list put together by your state LP of “Electoral College Electors”. If the candidate does not live up to our Libertarian ideals, we can always send out a news release telling potential voters that in the case that Barr wins your state, you will cast your Electoral College vote for the Boston Tea Party candidate or the USMJ party candidate or even for Ron Paul.

    In the meantime, I am going to campaign as much as possible for the Barr-Root ticket. I might have to hold my nose (again) while voting, but I am not going to be the one to bring disharmony to the party. I’ll let Barr or Root do that.

    PEACE
    Steve

  72. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Gregg Jocoy Says:
    June 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    I believe most Greens are pretty tolerant, but being told that we haven’t thought things through as deeply as Libertarians, or that we are “greenies” as if we are from another planet is not very welcoming.

    I apologise. I’m not trying to offend anybody here. But it just comes natural. And, admittedly, it is not the way to win friends and influence people.

    But you said: “If Libertarians believe that Greens want a powerful government, they really don’t understand where most of us come from.”
    And then said:” I shouldn’t have government regulators to push to force compliance with at least minimal standards?

    Greg, there are a plethora of ways to have minimal standards. Underwriters Laboratories and the Consumer Reports tests products without a government mandate. My Islamic friends can get good Hallal meats and my Jewish friends can get good Kosher meats and products, both of which have extremely stringent standards without any government mandate. There are literally hundreds of different testing and certification organizations out there.

    But when I go to my co-op, I want to be assured that my food is organically grown. When the government does the certification, organic doesn’t neccessarily mean organic.

    PEACE
    Steve

  73. GoNolzOhio Says:

    Disinter,

    Not only is there no evidence that sticking to principle gets Libertarians elected, the evidence, namely, zero elected federal officials, almost no elected state officials, and stagnant presidential election results flatly and in a totally obvious manner reject your theory that sticking to principle works. Ron Paul, if anything, is the exception that proves the rule.

    Furthermore, as you may know, there were Libertarians early on in the R3VOLution who were unhappy with Ron Paul, who said they would never support a man with RP’s position on, say, immigration. This is the point that many of us moderates make, that this insistence on purity is ultimately self-defeating, that we end up letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    It may surprise you, but philosophically, I am a free market anarchist. When I have discussions in coffee houses or bars with liberals and/or conservatives, I argue from a free market anarchist position. HOWEVER, I understand that those are ivory tower discussions that have no place on the political playing field, where compromise is the name of the game.

    We are talking two different universes here. What you consider a weakness, Bob Barr’s flip-flopping on certain issues, ON THE POLITICAL PLAYING FIELD, is a strength. Bringing up the fact that he originally voted for the Patriot Act, but now is against it, makes moderates like myself MORE convinced, not less, that he is a good candidate. This is because many of us surmise that it might make him more attractive to the average voter, and that might get them to vote Libertarian, and then they might consider the libertarian philosophy, and then perhaps, if we are lucky, they might actually become Libertarians. On the other hand, the whole thing could blow up in our face and destroy this incarnation of the Libertarian Party.

    If you find such an analysis distasteful, then I would argue to you that the disgusting, vomit-inducing business of libertarian politics is not for you. This is not to say there is not a place for you in libertarianism. Look at Ayn Rand, a woman who may have brought more people to the Libertarian Party than anyone, who openly ridiculed us and called us a greater threat to freedom than liberals or conservatives.

    There are doctors who can not handle the triage conditions of a battlefield, who would not be able to make the decision to allow certain soliders to die in an effort to save resources and focus on the savable soldiers. That is fine, it doesn’t mean they are bad doctors, it just means the battlefield is not for them.

    Likewise, on the battlefield of politics, the Libertarian Party is going to have to make some difficult, gut-wrenching decisions at times, get in bed with some dastardly creatures, nominate politicians of questionable character. If, for example, the country is not ready for total drug legalization, then the Libertarian Party is going to have to change its position, IN OTHER WORDS SACRIFICE ITS PRINCIPLES, in an effort to gain more votes. Take an incremental position like legalizing medical marijuana only. There is no difficult decision here; on the field of politics, we have no choice. The principle must be sacrificed. Again, if you find that unacceptable, then I would tell you that Libertarian politics is not for you.

  74. Andy Says:

    “One wonders if Disinter also believes electing REPUBLICAN Tom McClintock to the US Congress is not a good idea?”

    My opinion of Tom McClintock went down after he endorsed Fred Thompson for President and did not support Ron Paul.

  75. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Not only is there no evidence that sticking to principle gets Libertarians elected, the evidence, namely, zero elected federal officials, almost no elected state officials, and stagnant presidential election results flatly and in a totally obvious manner reject your theory that sticking to principle works.

    Do you have evidence that not sticking to principle gets Libertarians elected?

  76. Open Letter From Don Lake Says:

    Andy: more [deeply personal] anti McClintock details.

    [email protected]

    619.420.0209

  77. disinter Says:

    I’ll go out on a limb, and say that Barr will probably be at least as libertarian as Ron Paul or Andre Marrou turned out to be.

    Too late. Paul didn’t vote for the Patriot Act, barf did. Paul didn’t vote for illegal wars of conquest, barf did. Paul didn’t vote for the creation of Homeland Stupidity, barf did. Paul didn’t work for the CIA for nearly 10 years, barf did. Paul wasn’t a drug war prosecutor, barf was. Paul doesn’t support the war on drugs, barf still does.

  78. disinter Says:

    Do you have evidence that not sticking to principle gets Libertarians elected?

    I would like to see this evidence as well.

  79. timothy west Says:

    Do you have evidence that not sticking to principle gets Libertarians elected?

    there’s 35 years worth of history that proves something needed to change. In any measurement you want to use, the LP over it’s life-span hasn’t made anyone freer. Do you have evidence that the LP is responsible for any gain in freedom? After 35 years of researchable documented history, I think the burden
    lies with those people to prove their case over that time period. We are not talking about subjective things, these people left behind a printed paper trail of their activities and motivations. Do we live in a more free or a less free country today than we did in 1971?

    Clark in 1980 proposed politically possible yet solidly libertarian positions, and got the highest vote total ever - and would have gotten 3~4X as many if Anderson had not run taking the majority of the Independent vote.

    What he got for it was being attacked by anarchists in the party as getting his votes because he sold out libertarian “principles”. What these principles are exactly are never stated, because it’s all bullshit.

    It’s important for those here to know just how long this BS has been going on in the LP. 1980 was 28 years ago

    if Bob Barr wins the LP 3 or 4 million votes, he will not be rewarded, he will be attacked just like Clark was. Watch and wait for it.

  80. GoNolzOhio Says:

    Susan,

    No, we do not have any evidence that not sticking to principles gets Libertarians elected. But that’s because Libertarian running for office have this nasty habit of sticking to principles on a playing field that demands you compromise.

    We do, HOWEVER, have ample evidence that NOT sticking to principles gets POLITICIANS elected. Hey, that’s what the best politicians do, is it not? They compromise. They compromise, and they keep on compromising, and the best ones do it with a style and flair that looks good on t.v., and they make it look so easy and effortless, that, to the average voter, it appears like they are NOT compromising. Oh, but they are! They do it because they have no principles, save being elected. Look at this very thread, Obama’s incredible about-face on FISA! I mean, for pete’s sake, he made the initial quote against FISA only early this year. Now look at him! Now he’s o.k. with the compromise

    And what I am saying is, as Libertarian Party members, our problem should not be with Obama compromising, but only with the position that he compromised to.

    The irony of the situation is that, on the field of politics, its very easy to take Ron Paul’s position on, say, the Patriot Act, to just stand there and say “No!” Now, to do what Bob Barr did, to realize that this thing, this monstrosity, this affront to liberty and the Constitution called the Patriot Act was going to pass, and there was nothing you could do about that, but that you had to do SOMETHING, anything to try and blunt its power, and so you agree to it, only on the condition that sunset provisions were included. Well, to me, on the field of politics, THAT is true warrior. The man who goes into the belly of the beast when the cause is totally hopeless, just to save a sliver of liberty. Anyone can stand there on the sidelines and just say no to everything.

    Anyone can join the Libertarian Party and fight for the glory of the day when social security is privatized. That’s easy. How many can get in there and fight…even if it means you must compromise…for the day when we get to invest, say 10% of what you know is 100% yours anyway? That takes real guts.

    You compromise, and, so long as it means a little bit more liberty, then you keep on compromising. As a Libertarian, some of what Bob Barr has said, up to and including very recently, makes my stomach turn. But, like the battlefield doctor, we have triage conditions here, we must realize the American voter will not accept a more “libertarian” candidate. So we compromise, and hopefully, it gets us a few more votes. Because, on the field of politics, standing on principle will get you nowhere fast.

  81. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Tim, the LP has not run a single campaign that was actually funded. Ed Clark spent approx 1% of the total spent on the POTUS race that year, and received a predictable 1% of the vote.

    The rest of the candidates spent far less, with the predictable result.

    Pundits are saying that this years campaign will spend nearly one billion dollars.If the Barr-Root campaign raises less than one per cent of that, they can expect to get less than one per cent of the total vote.

    Unprincipled or principled, no candidate will get elected, nor will be a major vote getter without money, and lots of it.

    Personally, I would rather be principled and lose than to be unprincipled and lose. It helps me to sleep nights.

    PEACE
    Steve

  82. disinter Says:

    Do you have evidence that the LP is responsible for any gain in freedom?

    Yes, the LP was key in ensuring Barf wasn’t re-elected to the House. Thank god.

  83. disinter Says:

    Personally, I would rather be principled and lose than to be unprincipled and lose. It helps me to sleep nights.

    I agree.

  84. Andy Says:

    “Clark in 1980 proposed politically possible yet solidly libertarian positions, and got the highest vote total ever - and would have gotten 3~4X as many if Anderson had not run taking the majority of the Independent vote.”

    Ed Clark’s vote total probably had more to do with having had a mega-rich Vice Presidential candidate in David Koch, who threw a few million dollars of his own money into the race.

  85. DrGonzo Says:

    Personally, I would rather be principled and lose than to be unprincipled and lose. It helps me to sleep nights.

    Then you will always be a failure in politics and never come close to accomplishing your goal. Succeeding in politics means you often have to sacrifice some principles. Thats just the nature of politics.

    If you aren’t willing to do that participate in a debating club instead. A political party exists for one reason: to win elections

  86. Open Letter From Don Lake Says:

    Susan and GoNolzOhio: The rebounding silence on privatizing Social Security is like the lack of effort to close down veterans home [smaller government]. It makes the Libs look like they are 7-24 whiners whom are not serious about programs and results! BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT!

    Perfection is the enemy of progress!

  87. Stefan Says:

    “The two we are currently in. Do you always play stupid?”
    So you - disinter - would disagree with Paul’s vote to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan! I thought the LP was not a pacifist party…. (BTW: Paul & Barr support pulling out of all non-US countries militarily as soon as possible).

  88. Stefan Says:

    “Do you have evidence that the LP is responsible for any gain in freedom?
    Yes, the LP was key in ensuring Barf wasn’t re-elected to the House. Thank god.”

    So you think the congressman that was voted in the place of Barr was/is more libertarian than him (or in your words, not as unlibertarian)? Give me a break
    Quit acting like a fool. If you reject this notion, please proof how the replacement of Barr is more libertarian than 1) he was and 2) Barr currently is.

  89. Stefan Says:

    One should be principled indeed to be honest and to be elected on that. The question is which principles are sacrosanct, and are a common denomenator among Libertarians…. One has to be political savvy and realise that you would not be able to implement all principals immediately, which one’s can be incremental and which ones immediate? This is the real issue.

  90. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    DrGonzo Says:
    June 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 pm

    Then you will always be a failure in politics and never come close to accomplishing your goal. Succeeding in politics means you often have to sacrifice some principles. Thats just the nature of politics.

    Mr Gonzo, my point is that the LP has by far the best product in the political world, Barr none. ;-) sorry, couldn’t resist! The LP’s problem is that we expect voters to buy the best product without our trying to market the idea(s). Then we blame the voter for not buying our product.

    I don’t care what product you are selling, it is inane to change the product when it isn’t bought if you haven’t tried to market it.

    A political party exists for one reason: to win elections

    WRONG democrats and republicans exist only for the power. Libertarians don’t want power, but rather want to change the “power structure” so that our children can live peaceful, productive lives.

    If a person only wanted power, why would they be trying to attain it through a tiny, unfunded party? That is illogical. And why I think I can trust Barr.

    PEACE
    Steve

  91. Robert Capozzi Says:

    On the issue that Clark got 1% BECAUSE it was well-funded:

    • Yes, that’s probably partially true, but funding does not cause votes. Advertising doesn’t cause buying, but it does influence it.
    • Did Ed Thompson spend 10% to get 10% of the vote for WI governor? I suspect not.
    • The secondary effect of the Clark campaign is that the LP membership swelled. Party building is an important consideration.
    • The only way to “change the power structure” is to get a seat at the table. Voters only “buy” one candidate per office. Sorry, Steve, but your analogy doesn’t hold.
  92. disinter Says:

    (BTW: Paul & Barr support pulling out of all non-US countries militarily as soon as possible).

    Barf is no non-interventionist. He still wants to mingle in the affairs of many countries such as Columbia.

  93. disinter Says:

    So you think the congressman that was voted in the place of Barr was/is more libertarian than him (or in your words, not as unlibertarian)?

    I think any defeat of an institutional fascist like Barf is a victory for liberty.

  94. disinter Says:

    I don’t care what product you are selling, it is inane to change the product when it isn’t bought if you haven’t tried to market it.

    Bingo.

  95. Clark Says:

    (yikes, faux ‘Libertarians’ and greenie wienies working their cheescake tunnels about ‘the economy’ ..themselves not knowing so much as the origin, nature, etc.. of even one fucking ‘dollar!’...face it, you republicrats bring worse than NOTHING to ‘the table’ in any of the myriad discussions involving ‘money,’ ‘eCONomics’ etc….) but have a good day anyway..maybe read a little and enjoy..

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hickory.html

    “It was known in 1833 that corporations threatened the welfare of the nation.
    William M. Gouge: A Short History of Paper Money and Banking in the United States (Philadelphia, 1833) Pp. 41-44, 84-90, 123-140

    Against Corporations of every kind, the objection may be brought that whatever power is given to them is so much taken from either the government or the people. As the object of charters is to give to members of companies powers which they would not possess in their individual capacity, the very existence of monied corporations is incompatible with equality of rights.

    Corporations are unfavorable to the progress of national wealth. As the Argus eyes of private interest do not watch over their concerns, their affairs are much more carelessly and much more expensively conducted than those of individuals. What would be the condition of the merchant who should trust everything to his clerks, or of the farmer who should trust everything to his laborers? Corporations are obliged to trust everything to stipendiaries, who are oftentimes less trustworthy than the clerks of the merchant or the laborers of the farmer.

    Such are the inherent defects of corporations that they never can succeed, except when the laws or circumstances give them a monopoly or advantages partaking of the nature of a monopoly. Sometimes they are protected by direct inhibitions to individuals to engage in the same business. Sometimes they are protected by an exemption from liabilities to which individuals are subjected. Sometimes the extent of their capital or of their credit gives them a control of the market. They cannot, even then, work as cheap as the individual trader, but they can afford to throw away enough money in the contest to ruin the individual trader, and then they have the market to themselves.

    If a poor man suffers aggression from a rich man, the disproportion of power is such that it may be difficult for him to obtain redress; but if a man is aggrieved by a corporation, he may have all its stockholders, all its clerks, and all its protégés for parties against him. Corporations are so powerful as frequently to bid defiance to government.

    If a man is unjust or an extortioner, society is, sooner or later, relieved from the burden by his death. But corporations never die. What is worst of all (if worse than what has already been stated be possible) is that want of moral feeling and responsibility which characterizes corporations. A celebrated English writer expressed the truth, with some roughness, but with great force, when he declared that “corporations have neither bodies to be kicked , nor souls to be damned.”

    All these objections apply to our American banks. They are protected, in most of the states, by directed inhibitions on individuals engaging in the same business. They are exempted from liabilities to which individuals are subjected. If a poor man cannot pay his debts, his bed is, in some of the states, taken from under him. If that will not satisfy his creditors, his body is imprisoned. The shareholders in a bank are entitled to all the gain they can make by banking operations; but if the undertaking chances to be unsuccessful, the loss falls on those who have trusted them. They are responsible only for the amount of stock they may have subscribed.

    For the old standard of value, they substitute the new standard of bank credit. Would government be willing to trust to corporations the fixing of our standards and measures of length, weight, and capacity? Or are our standards and measures of value of less importance than our standards and measures of other things?

    They coin money out of paper. What has always been considered one of the most important prerogatives of government has been surrendered to the banks.

    In addition to their own funds, they have the whole of the spare cash of the community to work upon. The credit of every businessman depends on their not. They have it in their power to ruin any merchant to whom they may become inimical.

    We have laws against usury; but if it was the intention of the legislature to encourage usurious dealings, what more efficient means could be devised than that of establishing incorporated paper money banks? Government extends the credit of these institutions by receiving their paper as an equivalent of specie, and exerts its whole power to protect and cherish them. Whoever infringes any of the chartered privileges of the banks is visited with the severest penalties.

    Supposing banking to be a thing good in itself, why should bankers be exempted from liabilities to which farmers, manufacturers, and merchants are subjected? It will not surely be contended that banking is more conducive than agriculture, manufactures, and commerce to the progress of national wealth.

    Supposing the subscribers to banks be substantial capitalists, why should artificial power be conferred on them by granting them a charter? Does not wealth of itself confer sufficient advantages on the rich man? Why should the competition among capitalists be diminished by forming them into companies and uniting their wealth in one mass?

    Supposing the subscribers to banks to be speculators without capital, what is there so praiseworthy in their design of growing rich without labor that government should exert all its powers to favor the undertaking?

    Why should corporations have greater privileges than simple copartnerships? On what principle is it that , in a professedly republican government, immunities are conferred on individuals in a collective capacity that are refused to individuals in their separate capacity> . . .

    If two individuals should trade with one another, on the same principle that the banks trade with the community, it would soon be seen on which side the advantage lay. If A should pay interest on all the notes he gave and finally pay the notes himself with his own wealth, and if B should receive interest on all the notes he issued and finally pay the notes themselves with A’s wealth, A’s loss and B’s gain would be in proportion to the amount of transactions between them.

    This is the exact principle of American banking operations; but, owing to the multitude of persons concerned, the nature of the transaction is not discovered by the public. Regard the whole banking interest as one body corporate and the whole of the rest of the community as one body politic, and it will be seen that the body politic, pays interest to the body corporate for the whole amount of notes received, while the body corporate finally satisfied the demands of the body politic by transferring the body politic’s own property to its credit.

    In private credit, there is a reciprocity of burdens and of benefits. Substantial wealth is given when goods are sold, and substantial wealth is received when payment is made, and an equivalent is allowed for the time during which payment is deferred. If A took a note from B, endorsed by the richest man in the country, he would require interest for the time for which payment was postponed. But the banking system reverses this natural order. The interest which is due to the productive classes that receive the bank notes is paid to the banks that issue them.

    If the superior credit the banks enjoy grew out of the natural order of things, it would not be a subject of complaint. But the banks owe their credit to their charters - to special acts of legislation in their favor, and to their notes being made receivable in payment of dues to government. The kind of credit which is created for them by law, being equalpollent with cash in the market, enables them to transfer an equal amount of substantial wealth from the productive classes to themselves, giving the productive classes only representatives of credit or evidences of debt in return for the substantial wealth which they part with. . .

    To infer that because a system produces great evil it must soon give way would be to argue in opposition to all experience. If mere suffering could produce reformation, there would be little misery in the world. Too many individuals have an interest in incorporated paper money banks to suffer the truth in relation to such institutions to have free progress. Too many prejudices remain in the minds of a multitude who have no such interests to permit the truth to have its proper effect….”

    ....AND NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED, REPUBLICRATS!...

  96. Stefan Says:

    “I think any defeat of an institutional fascist like Barf is a victory for liberty”.

    Wow, strong words.
    Well, for argument’s sake, let us say Barr was an “institutional fascist”.I think any defeat of an institutional fascist and replacing him/her with an even much worse institutional fascist, most definitely no victory for liberty; it is rather a step or several steps further away from liberty!

    There seem to be some weakness in disinter’s rational argumentation. It seems he has a weakness and reacting out of pure emotional distortion. Sorry, with that you will not convince anyone to become a Libertarian.

  97. timothy west Says:

    its amazing how libertarian posts get 100+ comments and turn into flame wars and posts about any other parties like the greens are lucky to get 2 or 3.

    debate society, indeed. crazy shit going on round here. :D

  98. Dr.Gonzo Says:

    Steven,

    I don’t disagree the LP is the best product in the political world. However, if you don’t have a professional politician to market that product you are accomplishing nothing. We have tried to market the same tired ideas for 30 years with no real gain. How much longer do you continue to try a failed message?

    There is no other reason for a political party to exist besides winning elections. Otherwise, we are a debating society. You change the current power structure through winning elections. There is no other way to do it.

    When I say “sacrifice principles” I don’t mean we all of a sudden become big government interventionists. I mean we sacrifice small things like legalizing all drugs. Maybe we start with marijuana and try to work our way up. That is a sacrifice that will help you win favor among voters who still have a negative stigma of drugs.

    Again, if you aren’t trying to win elections there is no purpose for this party to exist. We can sit around and talk about what is wrong and what we would change for another 30 years, or we can put out a legitimate candidate who can actually make a dent while spreading the Libertarian message.

Leave a Reply