Richard Rider ran a good campaign. It's a shame that he did not publicize his Libertarian affiliation more (maybe he was afraid of being associated with our platform ;-))

Also, I'm very interested to know how much of the drive has been renewals and how many are new members?

Shane, according to your June 30th Blog posting, the goal was 5,000 NEW members:

"We're entering the first full week of our drive to gain 5,000 new members by July 31st."
http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000032.shtml

How many NEW members have been recruited since the campaign began, and what is the change in our total membership? Has total membership gone up, down, or stayed constant?

I appreciate the campaign Richard Rider ran. The San Diego chapter of the party is, by many estimates, one of the strongest in the country. Yet, he received only 1.55% of the vote.

I'm sorry, Stephen Bach, but getting only 1.55% of the vote has nothing to do with the party platform, especially in a race where, as you said, he did not publicize his Libertarian affiliation.

Nor does it have to do with not publicizing your candidate enough. By all estimates, the Rider campaign did that successfully in San Diego.

There is no stronger evidence than this election that the LP desperately needs to start implementing serious, grassroots get-out-the-vote (GOTV) strategies. Until we do, winning is not going to happen. We got the final proof in this election. This includes calculating the number of votes needed to make a serious challenge, identifying those voters willing to support the candidate on a precinct level, house-by-house basis over the course of months or even years, checking to make sure you have enough voters counted up, then making sure those voters get to the polls. That's what a serious GOTV effort is all about.

Again, I'm not criticizing the Rider campaign. I think their effort was tremendous. I'm just trying to point out the cold hard facts. The LP as a whole simply has not done what is needed to win elections, up to this point, except in a very small handful of competitive local elections.

If you look closely at the campaigns of the top three finishers in the San Diego race, effective GOTV is exactly what you'll find. It's what makes the difference, every time.

I congradulate Richard Rider on his campaign. He did not win the election he did a great job. The house may have renewed the Patriot Act, but it was a good week. A top ranking general have start talk about pulling out of Iraq and that is a start. This week was a good week overall

I don't have a problem that Rider didn't "publicize his Libertarian affiliation more". Frankly, the Libertarian party has had a problem of counting on its candidates for support and growth when the only way we're going to have electoral success is for the party to support the candidates. The comment that we don't have better "get out the vote" efforts was spot on. We need to be registering more Libertarians and getting them to vote. That's when we'll start being seen as the winning team.

I would also like to know how many are new members and how many are renewing members.

There should probably be a third category like "returning members," for members who were lapsed for over 6 months.

A state-by-state membership report would also help to create a friendly competition among the state parties.

Alright Richard didn't win as Mayor. But since he had already started can he try for something else. And if so, we need to market this better and anyone else running for candidate?

Hello,

I'm new here and just got the e-mail, so I figured that I would stop by and introduce myself.

First, I would like to commend Rider on his race. Little by little, the LP influence will be known, and we do have to start local.

Secondly, while I have followed the LP for about 3 years now, I am disappointed at the approach. While the LP is the largest 3rd party, we are not making the sort of gains a good 3rd party should. I believe this comes from the lack of compromise on some settled issues, namely that of entitlement.

Yes, I fully agree that we would be largely better off without entitlement programs. But being known as the party that wants to eliminate Social Security and Welfare is not going to make us friends. Perhaps it should be made clearer that we would phase it out, rather than simply switch it off completely.

Also, I would like to see more collaboration between the LP and other minor parties. I would much rather see one large 3rd party that could easily rival the two "major" parties in both wealth and numbers. I have sent e-mails to several of the larger 3rd parties asking for this sort of collaboration and have only received one response from the LP, and it came off as arrogant.

Arrogance will not win us electoral support...

Am I suggesting we completely abandon the LP ideals? Not at all. I am merely suggesting that beyond the unmoveable committment to the Constitution (which I continue to support) we have some wiggle room on other ideals.

It is my belief that by moderating our views and joining forces with other 3rd parties, we can finally affect some great changes in our government. Once in office we can divy the spoils.

I would invite you all to check out my website, it is a sample platform that I am slowly gaining support on. It has many libertarian ideals along with some populist ones. Such a unified collaborative message would be well received by the millions of voters who no longer feel they have a home in either major party and also do not feel comfortable supporting what they view as an extremist Libertarian Party.

Politics is like any business. In order to be successful, you have to find your niche. There is a HUGE gap between the Democrats and Republicans just waiting for a party to come along that they can support. A unified 3rd party would devestate the big two and destroy their stranglehold on our government once and for all.

One problem the LP does not address that will have to be addressed if you ever hope to enter this game is the role and responsibility of Corporations. They own our government, they own the machinary of the elections and of the political process. Without their consent, you are nothing. So we have one of two choices... whore ourselves out to the corporations like the big two, or destroy the power of corporations over our political process.

As long as Corporations remain in power, the LP and in fact any third party, stands little chance against the big two.

James,
I'm all for playing politics, but quite frankly, I think Libertarians are going to disagree with other 3rd parties as much as the major parties.

Heh. Can you imagine trying to ally the LP with say...the Greens? I appreciate the sentiment that the two-party duopoly needs to go, but I'm afraid that the enemy-of-my-enemy principle won't fly here.

To others, I'm not saying that the platform had anything to do with limiting Mr. Rider's success. I'm whimsically suggesting that he may have gotten as high as 1.6% *because* he downplayed his affiliation. Unfortunately, the Demopublican labels add huge credibility that's hard to compete with without your own equally credible label.

James,

I have been a fan of opening a second front against these bloated global corps for years, but many in the LP worship any from of private enterprise, no matter how corrupting and exploiting it is.

There's been little response - the LP is fixated on only government abuse of the people, and ignores corporate abuse that uses government as it's allies (see Kelo vs. New London for a great example) - but there's some here who agrees with you that a libertarian-populist direction is the way to go. Myself, for example.

From Rider's blog:

"The bad news is that we lost. Numerically I lost badly. But, as William Faulkner once wrote, “We may be kilt, but we ain’t whupped yet!” I’m going to put out a much longer, detailed summation of the campaign. You’ll be surprised at how much good you did supporting my campaign. And fear not — I’m not depressed or even discouraged. But let me give you just three quick things that recently happened as a result of this campaign:

1. I’ve been asked to sign a CA statewide ballot argument against the socialist labor union’s plan to screw up the cost and availability of pharmaceuticals. I have done so.

2. I’ve been asked to be a major supporter of major push concerning free market energy. I can’t discuss it yet, as I’m not sure if I’ll do it — they are sending me supporting materials.

3. Today all hell has broken loose concerning a new pension scandal, and I’m in the middle of it. On the good side. I’ve been asked by City Attorney Mike Aguirre to take a seat on the screwed up pension board, along with mayoral opponents Steve Francis and Pat Shea, plus whistleblower Diann Shippioni. There is some astonishing news that I’m not clear on, so I gotta go quick and find out. The press is calling and arranging interviews with me in two hours, and I gotta learn stuff quick so I sound as knowledgeable as usual. For a tax fighter, San Diego is a target rich environment. Since I wasn’t elected, I’m gonna be VERY busy in the next 18 months, battling the move to raise taxes, levy higher fees and issue billions of dollars of new bonds. Again, I’ll have more for you all shortly. Things have NOT slowed down one bit!"

Tim-
I think the focus on government is correct. The Kelo case shows us correctly that the problem is the abuse of power by government at local and federal levels. We remove that power the problem is corrected.Corporations will no longer throw the money at politicians or the process if free markets rule because in a true free market politicians won't have an effect on their bottom line. That said, I have no problem with LP calls for boycotts on companies that take advantage of the corrupt governments.

Rider got a LOT of excellent, respectful press, and much of it at least mentioned that he was a "Libertarian activist" or that he was a major player in the San Diego LP. He got the press he did because, for the past couple of decades, he got results in court and at the ballot box (on behalf or against propositions) as a tax fighter.

He emphasized his willingness -- indeed, the need -- to play hardball with all of the special interests (especially unions). He positioned himself as a fixit-man, not as any kind of long-term political figure. Ironically, both of those positions may have hurt him, in that perhaps voters thought that his brand of hardball might be too rough and uncompromising, and that he didn't seem to want to be an all-around mayor who might stay awhile and preside over the city's return to greatness. I would love to see the exit polls from this election. During the campaign, nobody patronized Rider, as far as I could see. Indeed, his opponents kept saying that they agreed with him, and that he had excellent ideas! This was music to my Libertarian ears! I am surprised and disappointed that he didn't do better on election day, but he has positioned himself as the chief critic of politics-as-usual, and as such, will continue to get press through the election cycle, I predict. Rider will be the guy who holds the winner's feet to the fire (or other critics or the media will invoke his name, when they seek to hold the new mayor accountable). If it looks like the new broom won't be able to sweep clean, I wouldn't be surprised to see the city voters give Rider a chance to clean things up, either via a spot on the Council or as Mayor. I think he emerged from this election cycle with a lot of credibility -- and the potential to earn a LOT more -- which may help him and the San Diego Libertarians in future elections.

We'll see what happens, but I must say that this has been the most interesting and rewarding LOSING campaign I have ever observed. Short of actually winning the race (or a slot in the runoff), it is hard for me to imagine how Rider could have done much better. There appears to be a great opportunity down the road, if he sees it and seizes it.

To James Johnson: I appreciate your approach, but I think it's doomed to fail. Why? Because the other 3rd parties are even worse at GOTV (Get Out The Vote) than we are. I agree with others here that trying to build alliances with other third parties won't endear you to libertarians. That's true. But that's not why your effort is doomed to fail. It's doomed to fail because of GOTV.

On the issue of corporate America, I'd like to throw in my two cents. I've said this before on the blogs, but I think it bears repeating. The problem isn't corporate America. The problem is government incorporation, copyright, and patent laws. Blaming corporate America for the structure that has been established by the US Gov't is misdirecting your anger. Corporation are doing exactly what they were designed by the government to do.

Just as it is foolish to give government "rights" that you wouldn't grant to individuals, so it is also foolish to give corporations "rights" that you wouldn't give to individuals. The biggest of these so-called "rights" are the benefits of incorporating.

The major, #1 benefit of incorporation is limitation on liability. This gives corporations a tremendous advantage over individuals. If an individual harms another individual, the victim can sue the perpetrator without limit. But there are numerous limits in place to protect corporations from liability.

Another huge advantage corporations get is from the bankruptcy laws. That's why companies like MCI are able to go deep into debt, then emerge from bankrupcty with a new, clean balance sheet. No individual facing bankrupcty can do that, because the laws don't protect individuals from bankruptcy the way they protect corporations.

But in my opinion the biggest reason corporations have unfair government support as opposed to individuals is the copyright and patent laws (C&Ps). These laws are based on a completely unjustified proposition...that copyrights and patent are property. They are not...or at least, they shouldn't be considered property.

Property by definition is scarce. It's finite and fixed. That scarcity is what makes privacy of property imperative. Ideas are not scarce, however. If I have a libertarian idea in my head, for instance, and I share it with you, we both have the same idea, and we both benefit from it, but neither of us is the worse for the other having the same idea.

The purpose behind C&Ps is to reward the first creators of those ideas documented in the C&Ps. OK, that's fine. But let me ask a question. If we're trying to reward the creators, why are we in fact rewarding the corporations instead? It's not the originators of the ideas who gather the lion's share of the rewards. It's the corporations. The whole concept of rewarding creators has been turned on its head by the government.

If we truly want to reward creators, then we should change the nature of C&Ps. We should first recognize that C&Ps are not property. Instead, they are a special category unrelated to property, all unto themselves. C&Ps should be nothing more than a requirement that anyone who wants to use the idea created by another must pay a royalty to that creator. C&Ps should not be something you can sell or transfer, like you can property. Thus, a creator cannot sell his idea to a corporation. Further, C&Ps should not be licenses to allow some corporations but prevent other corporations (or individuals) from using the idea to make money. That is counter-productive to a truly free market economy. Any corporation (or indeed any person) who wants to make money off the C&P should be allowed to do so, provided they pay the creator his/her royalty.

I suggest setting the royalty at 2% of the market value of an idea's share of the overall product. Thus, if someone or some company wants to use the idea, an estimate must be made as to how much of the final product uses the idea, then take that percentage, multiply it by 2%, then take that final percentage and multiply it by the gross sales of the product. That's the amount of the royalty due to the creator by the producer...any producer.

The biggest criticism my approach has received is from people who claim that no one would want to invest in things like mega-box-office films, since they couldn't expect to regain their investment without the monopoly that current C&Ps grant. I say that's rubbish.

Even if C&Ps are changed in the way I describe, people are going to make mega films. They might not invest as much as they do now, but there's no way the film industry is going to come screeching to a halt. Perhaps Tom Hanks won't be able to collect a cool $20 million per film anymore, but he'll do okay. Perhaps DreamWorks won't be able to insure that their projects won't bring in a cool quarter of a billion for each film they work on, but they'll do okay too.

The second biggest criticism I get is that there would be no way to track who owes what. This is also rubbish.

Even before the age of computers, C&P lawyers and accountants successfully tracked royalties for their customers. In the age of computers, the ability to track highly complex and widely diverse uses of ideas has gotten tremendously easier.

I hope this gives you enough of an idea of what I'm advocating, James.

Tim West says: "but there's some here who agrees with you that a libertarian-populist direction is the way to go. Myself, for example."

Tim: Previously you have supported the Iraq Exit Strategy and it's call for foreign aid for Iraq. However the Libertarian Party platform opposes foreign aid and most Americans oppose foreign aid (http://www.pollingreport.com/defense.htm#Foreign%20Aid).

You seem to be horribly confused.

Greg,

I've said on numerous posts that the foreign aid part of the plan was the worst part of the plan. I would have preferred something long the lines of a reparations payment to somebody like the Red Crescent ( the Red Cross of the Middle East ).

However, thats not enough badness to keep me from supporting the plan. I dont focuse on the 10% of the plan I didnt like, I focused on the 90% of the plan I did like, and the political focus of the outreach instead of having all the efforts dedicated to "membership" with no other references or political aims beyond that.

I think the current party platform, politically speaking, is junk, written by people who dont understand the nature of political involvement. They are probably better libertarians than I, but we have had the absolute BEST libertarians large and in charge for 25 years, and the LP has gotten nowhere. Maybe it's time to give the mongrel dogs that you've kept chained up in the back yard and thrown a bone to every few years a chance.

I dont see how we could do any worse. Even if we got government to shrink 2%, that would be 2% more than anything we've done so far.

Walt,

Corporations are not people, and they should not be treated as people, legally or otherwise. The ability of the corporation to do some of the things you mentioned could have only come about by bad legal decisions, and they did just that. Corporations used to have enumerated powers before about 1870, and thats the system we should go back to.

I'd love the LP to start opening a second front on the abuse and undue control over the individual by corps. Politically, it's a big winner - we could suck a lot of life out of the Greens and attract a fair amount of Democratic leaning folk, and I expect all the DFC people would come home to the LP as well. There's some common threads among all of them, and liberty of the individual is the key.

Here's a good starting point for those interested in the subject of Corporate Personhood:

http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/Coperson.htm

This is written from a leftist perspective, but the vast majority of the material is factual and informative.

Timothy...

I have a great deal of respect fot your positions and your ability to communicate them.

I do question though, your statement above about corporations. Understand, I do not disagree with you, some of the greatest threats to privacy come from the private sector, but I am wondering how you (we) square our desire to address such concerns with our position on the need for smaller government.

One of the problems I've had with the LP approach to pollution, for instance, is that the individual whose property (or health) is harmed by a huge corporation would have a very difficult go at trying to obtain any kind of justice. In such an instance, the legal playing field is not only not level, it most closely resembles a cliff, with the individual at the bottom. Large corporations have two things most individuals don't...an indefinite time horizon and unlimited funds.

So, in such cases, don't we actually need some help from government to 1) Protect us in the first place; and 2) Help us obtain reasonably quick and equitable relief, if justified, in the second?

John,

I think that rolling back the ability of corporations to operate as legally protected polluters would do a lot. I dont think government is the right way to help, becuase the words "quick" or "equitable" doesnt seem to be found in the government lexicon. :)

If you base a large part of your time thinking that government grows out of control the larger it gets, which most LP types would agree with, then it follows that corporations follow the same path.
There must be a reason why the vast majority of abuse comes from corporations that are above the small business level, say over 50 employees. I think that the reason is that once corporations reach a certain size, it becomes like a dog trying to chase it's tail.

The more the government attempts to regulates the business world, the more the business world fights back with legal tactics, including the writing and introduction of laws that specifically give the business artificial immunity and unfair exemptions to what they do. Most laws today are written and introduced on behalf of businesses, not people.

This causes much of the corruption, as lawmakers accept perks and contrabutions from business in exchange for introducing these bills. They also write the campaign finance law with enough loopholes so that this can continue forever and a day. Small businesses dont have the amounts of money needed to keep this game up.

As to the exact question, I honestly as this point dont know the best answer. I do believe that the government's ability to "protect" anyone is grossly overstated, as I havent seen too much evidence that they can protect anyone from anything before the fact. They havent been able to stop pollution so far, even with the massive size and power they possess.

I can state that I believe the fundemental problem
we have in our relationship with corporations is that we have equated the company with the person in the eyes of the law - and I dont believe that is truth. People are people, and paper entities granted special rights that people dont have by government fiat cannot be people just becuase the law says so.

I think that decision ranks right up there with the Dred Scott decision as one of the worst legal decisions in history.

If I am ever in a position to do something about it, I will call for a removal of corporate personhood, becuase I believe that is the basis for these types of problems and the never ending battle of control between government and private enterprise.

We used to be a nation of self employed people, who made things, grew crops, farmed, etc., but the
KEY was that we were all small business people.
I'd like to see the end of advantages that only big business can get, such as tax breaks for relocation, etc. that small business cant get. I dont understand how this stuff does not get challenged under the equal protection under the law stuff.

I think the LP should be the best friend the small businessperson ever had, but at the same time, we shouldnt be cheerleaders for global corps. ability to do wicked things.

Tim,

I agree with some of what you said and disagree with other parts. Corporations are groups of people. Saying that they are not people is misleading. I think what you were trying to say is that current corporation law gives them the legal status of "personhood," which is a fictional concept. Clearly, this concept is not reasonable so long as corporations have special protections and dispensations from government that individuals do not have. After all, if individuals don't have these protections like corporations do, corporations cannot reasonably be considered to have "personhood."

The ability of corporations to do what I described is certainly in part due to bad legal decisions, but it is also due to written laws. For instance, limited liability is a key portion of all current incorporation statutes. Blaming that on the courts is absurd.

I disagree that we should "go back to" early corporate law, because that law was the basis for what we have today. Yes, legal liability was unlimited, and there were strong limitations on duration of the charter, reach of the business, etc. But we must also remember why people wanted to create such corporations in the first place. They wanted government-granted monopoly privileges. That's why corporations were popular.

I believe corporations should have no greater legal standing than individuals do. They should essentially be joint-stock ventures with unlimited liability, just as individuals have unlimited liability. There should be no special restrictions of any kind and no special grants of power either.

I agree that the LP should be placing more emphasis on the corporation question, but I don't think we should be vilifying the corporations themselves. That's like villifying the New York Yankees for following Major League Baseball's rules regarding salaries, trades, marketing, etc. and being successful at it. If the rules are wrong, it's not the Yankees' fault...it's Major League Baseball's fault. Similarly, if the rules regarding corporations are bad, it's not the corporation's fault...it's the government's fault.

One thing the LP could do is responses to Bush's weekly (?) radio addresses. When Bush does one, the Democrats always have a "response" up relatively quickly. The LP needs to do this as well, it would be a good way of getting the word out. Not sure how much power the LP has over the airwaves, but I know we have some sympathizers.

Oh come on people. The government is not the solution it is the problem. Not very hard. The need to incorporate came out of increased meddling by the fedreal government. It is simply stupid not to incorporate these days with the bad tort laws and the amount of obstacles government puts in your way there is a very good chance of bankraputcy.This meant if the government wanted the economy to grow they had to offer special protections so people would continue to risk their equity. I don't think large corp. have a higher % of unethical companies then do small ones. I just think you only hear about the large ones because they effect more people and bashing large corp. is just the cool thing to do.

Well, I dont think removing the ability of global corps. to corrupt government is the same thing as vilifying them. The legitimate ability of the company to conduct it's business affairs is something we as libertarians should never oppose.

At the same time, simply saying that when corporations actually achive a state of being where they can actually write the laws that directly benefit themselves, as well as introduce those same bills using corrupted elected officals, and that this is the fault of the government doesnt sit well with me. Maybe a claim could made that they are acting in self defense against government regulation, but thats rings hollow with also. The reason why governments regulate is almost always becuase of some drastic wrong done by business somewhere.

There would be no government regulation of the food industry, for example, if the meatpackers were not caught red handed putting disgusting things in their product at the turn of the century.... there would have been no public outcry for government intervention. I think the debate about "who struck John" could go on forever, and it kinda has. We've escalated the battle so far that there is nowhere for either side to go. Business corrupts government which in turn passes new laws to "fix" the old ones, which never really worked in the first place. The reaction of business is to corrupt on a higher level.

We've reached the stage I think where the battle for supremacy between the government and the large corps. has become a no win situation for either, and we should expressly state this as libertarians, along with de-evolving the needs for business or government to fight the battle in the first place. Where to begin is the question.

Keep in mind that this is still a nation of small business, accounting for about 81% of all jobs in the country. This being a fact, it just shows how dominent these corps. are. I bet most poeple would say their share of the economy is far greater.

It's both of their faults, Walt. Which side has more fault is a open ended argument with no ending. I think the right way to go is removing corporate personhood, which by itself would remove many of the unfair advantages business has over the individual person.

We seem to agree that corporations should have no unfair advantages that people cannot possess for themselves, which I think is a winning argument in favor of liberty, no matter the proposed remedy.

Michael, what a great idea--responding to Bush's weekly radio address and the Democrat reply! We could post an audio file and transcript. Some staff would have to work on Saturday, but perhaps this could be done from homes. It might take a while for the mainstream media to pick up on it (if at all) but could potentially garner some publicity depending on content (of course it would have to sound reasoned and acceptable to the American public).

Not only that, but if we could outfit lp.org with enough horsepower, we could broadcast video of our presidential candidate "debating" the R and the D in real time on the same night and broadcast it to the world, along with a advertising campaign before the fact.

If I had my way, we would make lp.org the center of all our media outreach. The media gatekeepers cant control us that way, as the internet is the last medium they have been unable to totally co-opt.

In the same vein, Walt talked about getting some kind of TV thing going during the Badnarik Campaign. Well, lp.org could again make this a reality. All it takes is money and a willingness by libertarians to fund such activities.

Skys the limit. Ability to harness lp.org to act as the facilitator for all of our efforts in one way or another the key. They cant control us here.

Posted by: Timothy West at July 30, 2005 01:58 PM

Great idea all we need is more funding and the LP could do something like that. If we Libertarians put our minds to it we can do anything. we will make sure the FCC or any other government communications agency keeps their hands off of LP.org. The broadcast ideas would help us out alot. I would give more the LP staff to set up commericals and other outreach programs.

I sometimes wonder if our votes really count anymore. It would be interesting if we had a petition lets say, changing the tax laws regarding our primary residents so we don't get kick out of our home by the high cost of taxes if eminent domain doesn't get us. And we really kept track of the signatures votes, etc. Because what if the Govt doesn't count all our votes so they have in power who they want and their clicks cover their backs then what. My guess I believe 98% of the people are against eminent domain and would like to see property taxes change. There is no way I could believe that we couldn't win on this and I would say there would be something wrong with this picture if it didn't succeed. Then how do we handle this. This would create such a massive attention and other things if the proof was there and the Votes we had didn't match or was big different to what the govt had. And I doubt they could have any legitimate excuse except lies.

Streaming InterNet Mult-media 'on-demand'
is cheap and easy these days.

LIVE streaming of audio/video to LARGE audiences is now also getting cheap and easy.

AustinLibertyInterNet Radio/TV
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/links

This is FREE boys & girls! :)

PeerCast dot org was established in April 2002 as a non-profit site providing free P2P radio software. The aim of the project is to create an easy to use, simple and reliable software client that enables anyone to broadcast streaming media on the Internet without the need for expensive servers or bandwidth.

PeerCast offers considerable savings for broadcasters because they do not have to provide bandwidth for all of their listeners. A single 56K modem can be used to broadcast a radio station to the entire network.

PeerCast is a robust network because there is no central server, each user can be a client, server or broadcaster of streams. It offers anonymity for broadcasters because there is no easy way to trace back to the original stream, it is even possible to broadcast directly to a single client located in a different country and have that provide the source for the entire network.

PeerCast can also serve streams directly to any media player. This means that it can be used in place of a Shoutcast/Icecast server to provide both direct and P2P streaming at the same time.

It works in much the same way as other P2P fileshare clients except that instead of downloading files, the users download streams. These streams are then exchanged in real-time with other users. No data is stored locally on any machine connected to the network.

The client software has the ability to serve web pages to normal browsers such as Mozilla and Internet Explorer. This means that people on your LAN can search for and listen to channels without having to install the client software on their PC. Offices can have one PeerCast client providing audio streams to the entire LAN. Or you can set up a private network with your friends on the Internet to listen to music. Its your choice about whether you connect directly to the PeerCast network or not.

PeerCast runs on Windows?, Linux and Mac OSX.

find AustinLibertyInterNet streaming Radio & TV
via http://www.PeerCast.org

Rank Channel Status Bitrate
Type

1 AustinLibertyInterNetRadio
[Talk - Austin TX USA] 0 / 0
12 kb/s WMA
2 AustinLibertyInterNet TV
[TV - Austin TX USA] 0 / 0
105 kb/s WMV
3 AustinLibertyInterNetLoRez
[TV - Austin TX USA] 0 / 0
33 kb/s WMV

Disclaimer:
PeerCast.org is not responsible for the content of these channels. We advocate free speech so you have to be the censors. If you don`t like something - don`t play it.

http://yp.peercast.org/?find=AustinLibertyInterNet&Submit=Search

Can you just see it....

The ideal civilizing principle
that can be held in common
by virtually ALL persons...

But, it requires that to it,
ALL are consistent in all matters
and at all times!

It is a truce!

To the extent that there is a 'truce' on any person
initiating, or credibly threatening to initiate,
physical assault against the person or
justly held possessions of any other person,
there is 'Liberty & Justice for ALL'

AlsoSee- Aggressors Promote LIMITED 'Libertarianism'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/38717

I've seen the word "click" used in these posts time and time again, and each time the poster means to use the word "clique," a small group of people with similar interests.

I think a uber 733T geek squad of experts would do well to study the tech and advise the LNC on the costs and equipment needed. Shane surely knows a lot about this and I've been doing hardware building & repair and related tasks for 25 years.

When I mean streaming ability, I'm talking 30,000++ streams at the same time for use during on year elections by our candidate at special times like simulcasting the debates live at the same time the actual show is on TV, with a entire ad campaign backing it.

This is the only way we will get coverage in 2008. We have to bypass the gatekeepers.

OR, if we make the needed adjustments to the platform and deal with some other issues, we just might attract a first tier candidate this time around like Gary Johnson or Bob Barr. They would get 10X the media coverage of Badnarik becuase they are already "players" in the insider community, and they're held to a different standard.

I just had a discussion with my uber-conservative, ultra-christian, republican-loving mother about many principles of governemt, including: states rights, the PATRIOT Act, censorship, and gay marriage. Gay marriage is the one I'd like to discuss with you guys. She pulled out the usual conservative arguments like "the Constitution was based on the Bible and christian principles" and "every state that has had a proposal to ban gay marriage has, and it's the liberals who want to reverse those decisions despite popular interest." I believe this is one conservative principle that absolutely has to be overturned. See, during the 1800's half or more of the country favored slavery. Brave humanitarians fought slavery because they knew it was wrong, despite popular belief. During the Civil Rights Movement, it was the popular opinion that minorities didn't have the same rights as white men, like voting and education, etc. But, again, the few had to stand up to the many in the name of the Constitution. Now, it is the popular opinion that homosexuals don't have the same rights as us heterosexuals, but we know the Constitution says otherwise. Does anyone else this as being just like the other civil rights movements? Don't you believe this is one important stance that is needed to be made. I don't want live in a country in which the people can take away any rights they want in accordance with the Bible. If we don't focus on things like that, then we will end up becoming a theocracy.

Tim-
You are putting the cart before the horse. I HAVE to incorporate my business because if I don't it is not worth risking my equity in the enviorment that government regulations and taxes cause. Tim name me one case of business abuse that could not have been solved with just common sense anti-fraud laws. Where in the constitution does the federal government get the authority to regulate compines beyond copyright laws? The need to incorporate became a need ONLY because of federal governments unconstitutional regulation.Removing the protection that incorpartion gives me as a SMALL business owner I would have no incentive to risk my captial to start a business. If you say that new laws should only affect big corp. this is simply class warfare and once again where does the constitution give the government the authority to do this? Get rid of unconstitutional federal regulation then we can get rid of the speical protection given under incorporations license.
You said:

"Well, I dont think removing the ability of global corps. to corrupt government is the same thing as vilifying them. The legitimate ability of the company to conduct it's business affairs is something we as libertarians should never oppose."
How would you remove this "ability" more regulation? The fact is if government would stay with in it's constitutional framework "global corps." would have no motivation to corrupt government because the government is not given authority over economy from a central planning aspect. You are trying the same methods that Republacrats use, have the government fix the problems that they caused.The effect will be the same, the problems would become worse.

http://www.heraldsun.com/nationworld/national/30-631439.html
PEOPLE LOOK AT THIS YES! YES! update regarding eminent domain. I hope this gains more people trust in the Libertarian party and we mean business.

Matt:

While I agree with you in principle, I think we have to aim at reforming incorporation laws as part of the same process of reducing federal regulation, not afterward. Incorporation laws are a form of regulation, after all.

Blank, I agree with you. So did Jefferson among others. Your grandmother is passing along a long-standing lie...that the country was formed based on the Bible and Christianity. In truth, there is little evidence to support this fallacy. Instead, it is more accurate to say that many of the leading founders of the country were not devout Christians (they were mostly Deists), and the Bible-thumpers of the time opposed many kinds of liberty, in direct contradiction to the Declaration of Independence which so motivated the common man to take up arms against the crown.

Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Paine, and Ethan Allen were all either known or suspected Deists, although Jefferson and Washington went out of their way to keep peace with the Christians. However, neither became communicant members of their respective churches, and when Washington was pressured on this point, he declined to attend church for the remainder of his days. Failing to become a communicant member was a dicey proposition in those days, tantamount to religious heresy in the minds of some.

Allen was excommunicated from his church in Connecticut by the minister, who was also Allen's brother, because Allen spoke out in favor of inoculation against small pox, of all things! Jefferson was similarly strongly in favor of small pox vaccination. The church was against it, because vaccination was a direct challenge to the prevailing idea that death (particularly of young children, which affected all classes) was an act of God and that vaccination presumed to violate God's will.

Yet, as the fame of the various founding fathers grew, the Church changed its tune and increasingly painted them as having been loyal Christians acting on the church's behalf all along, despite the real history of the matter.

You might try asking your grandmother if she is familiar with Jefferson's Bible, which was a cut-and-paste job that eliminated 90% of the Christian Bible using English, French, Greek and Latin texts. You might also ask her if she knew that Jefferson was the most famous advocate in the country for the separate of church and state.

I think that there could be a lot done in the area of corporations. Eliminate the legal fiction of corporate personhood, recognizing that a corporation, as an entity, cannot have rights or liberties, only a natural person can have such. Make all stockholders, officers and directors jointly and severally liable for the actions of the corporation. Go back to detailed state charters.
Of course, at the same time, we need to do away with massive regulation. Deregulation and the abolition of limited liability would have to occur simultaneously.

Thank you, Libertarian TV. Any thoughts on the assertion that "freedom of religion" only meant the freedom to belong to any of the christian religions, or that "seperation of church and state" only meant that the state could not control the church and not the other way around?

I don't know whether this will clarify or obfuscate the religion debate, but here goes.

From Madison's original draft bill of rights, submitted to the first Congress in 1789.

"Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

It would seem to me from Madison's original draft, that freedom of conscience would indicate to me that the amendment was inclusive of freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion. It also indicates that what eventually become the "establishment" clause was only meant to preclude the establishment of a national religion, nothing more.

Separation of church and state, while a damn good idea, is not a constitutional principle.

Matt -

my brain hurts. Replys will have to wait until later.

AlthoughI wouldn't want to see us give up the fight against government theft for social programs, I feel that we could garner more favor from undecideds by educating the public on the harm done to the free market by corporate welfare handouts.

Most Americans are probably strongly against it, even if they don't know why yet.

Hi Blank,

You're welcome. Regarding your question...I think that claiming that "freedom of religion" only meant the freedom to belong to any of the Christian religions is completely unjustified. After all, Deists are not Christians. Is the claim that Deists had no freedom to be Deists? This is nonsense on the face of it, because at least five of the leading founding fathers were Deists. Surely, Ben Franklin didn't advocate freedom of religion for Christians only. He was open about and proud of his Deist conversion.

Neither did Thomas Paine, who wrote the book _The Age of Reason_, which was widely published at that time in the U.S. In that book he wrote:

"I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

"But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Some religionists might despair of Paine's ideas on the subject, but there can be no doubt that Paine did not consider freedom of religion to be the freedom to join a Christian church!

This particular book raised cain in America, as we might expect. Yet Paine was still highly respected, despite the controversy. As you probably know, Paine also wrote the pamphlet _Common Sense_, which was a major motivating force behind the American Revolution. John Adams once said of Paine, "Without the pen of Paine the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain."

As for the idea that "separation of church and state" only meant that the state could not control the church and not the other way around...this is also nonsense on the face of it. It is meaningless to say that there is a separation of church and state if the church can control the state. By definition, such control implies a lack of separation.

The legal basis for the concept in America is encapsulated in the First Amendment, which begins by saying, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." There are some important words in this phrase for us to notice. The first to which I would direct your attention is the word "respecting." Some religionists misinterpret this word to mean "show respect for," but this doesn't make sense if you plug it into the sentence: "Congress shall make no law by showing respect for an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." What's amusing is that this misinterpretation actually makes a mockery of their position by seeming to profess the opposite of what the religionists intend, albeit inadvertently.

Instead, the word "respecting" in this context more accurately means "having regard or relation to." Plug this phrase into the clause and you end up with, "Congress shall make no law having regard or relation to an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Now the injunction makes sense.

The opponents might argue, as you said, that the injunction is against Congress, and not against the Christian Church. This is true, but misleading. The Constitution is not designed to be a document either establishing or condemning any particular religion. Instead, it's designed to be a document for establishing a small, limited federal government. The first amendment is essentially a recognition that it is inappropriate to define religion in a governmental document (ie the Constitution), just as it would be inappropriate for the government to impose itself on any particular religion. If the separation of church and state were truly a justification for the idea that the church can run the state, the founding fathers would have chosen to specify in the Constitution that the state is the business of religion. They did not do this.

Corporations get stronger for the same reasons skunks got stinky and porcupines got sticky: evolutionary response to the biggest predator: the voters. The voters created a huge government bureaucracy out of an initially limited government by begging it to do things for them and giving away their responsibility.

In self-defense, and defense of their stock-holders (ironically some of the same voters), business fought for and won protections. All of the lobbies in Washington and elsewhere are fighting for the survival of their constituents because they were attacked first.

We have no one to blame but our fellow voters. Whether we vote in elections or at stockholder meetings. The cost of winning special concessions from government is high and they'll stop doing it the minute the voters and government stop trying to interfere in their business.

The "predators" will stop being so big and abusive when we make government small and stop trying to use it against them.

We need to get them on our side. Libertarian ideals are good for business.

Oh, and I just applied for a patent on an idea I got doing libertarian outreach and hope to make lots of money using it so I can do more outreach (it's actually an outreach tool). I also work at a movie studio and write (unsold) screenplays. An attack on patents and copyrights sends me screaming for my lawyer! I believe in my right to protect my rights! (Actually, I don't have a lawyer, but it sounds like I'll need one and my only hope of affording one is copyright and patent protection so I can make some money. The studios will not buy a script without the copyright. They have whole departments devoted to chain-of-title review to make sure they get it before they even start.)

The mess that is government is a big tangle. We won't get anywhere doing what everyone else is doing: proposing win-lose solutions.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0915/p12s01-lire.html

'But when George Washington visited Newport, R.I., in August 1790, the president found not just one Jewish family, but a Hebrew congregation with its own synagogue. They offered him a warm welcome to their community through a letter written by the leader of their congregation, Moses Sexias.

'Four days later, Washington penned a cordial response, assuring them they could enjoy full citizenship in the new United States of America - welcome news to a community whose ancestors had been expelled from the Iberian Peninsula during the Spanish Inquisition.'

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

'Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.'

. . .

'Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.'

It's tough getting votes 50 miles from the Mexican border while advocating a completely open border policy.

ABC Iraq Exit Roundtable:
2005.07.31 the 'gang' examines options for US troop withdrawl from Iraq.
http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/ABCIraqExitRoundtable.wmv

from AustinLibertyInterNet Radio/TV
via PeerCast.org

Libertarian TV said:
"While I agree with you in principle, I think we have to aim at reforming incorporation laws as part of the same process of reducing federal regulation, not afterward. Incorporation laws are a form of regulation, after all."

At the very least it would have to happen simultaneously.For example tort reform along with removal of limited liability. If you would remove the protections of incorporations before you remove the regulations that caused the need to incorporate it would cause a large drop in investment, which would cause a big drop in gdp, which would cause massive unemployment. That is just dumb policy making.I would never support a candidate that supported that policy no matter what party he who she belonged to.

I think we are starting to see a stratagy forming with our friends who want to reform our party. The first is a foreign policy that includes foreign aid. Now we are hearing mummurs from the peanut gallery that although very ambiguous sounds alot like either more bisness regulation or limitation on the freedom of speech. Who's freedom of speech? The shareholders of the corporations. If you can limit corporations members right to assemble or the right to speak who's next. The LP?
At first I thought the reform was about changing the image of the party but keeping it's princples but the more I hear the more I am convinced it is about changing the party into a populist movement.
In fact this very issue was brought up in the name of it being a populist postion.

"At first I thought the reform was about changing the image of the party but keeping it's princples but the more I hear the more I am convinced it is about changing the party into a populist movement.
In fact this very issue was brought up in the name of it being a populist postion."

Call it whatever you want, I think it's refreshing.

If your idea of a populist party is a party that recognizes that we have to provide solutions to issues and actually engages in politics, then by all means count me in. I'm glad the LP is realizing that we have to get out of what appears to be a libertarian circle-jerk.

If the likes of CATO is what you're afraid of slipping into, then your fears hold no weight, sorry. CATO, a think tank for christ's sakes, has accomplished more than this party has. They've provided credible solutions, they've stayed principled, and they ENGAGE in politics.

If you want a political safe-haven, a party that both bashes the state yet provides no solutions, support what has been the history of this party.

Matt,

I dont believe in foreign aid as a rule. I think the circumstances in Iraq are special due to our invading the country under false pretenses demanding that we do something to correct the wrong, and I'd rather use reperations payments to the Red Crescent or a similar method, but as a general rule I do not approve of foreign aid.

In that aspect, I would have preferred the IES use the term "reperations" instead of "foriegn aid" but the ultimate point is: do we share a burden to Iraq to fix what we broke becuase we $&%^#@$$ up?
I think we do, and call it foreign aid or some other name, the money all comes from the same place.

A more honest debate would be whether we owe Iraq a single dime for what we did to them. I say we do.

About populism: Here's something from Wikipedia:

The word populism is derived from the Latin word populus, which means people in English (in the sense of "I will govern for the people", not in the sense of "There are people visiting us today"). Therefore, populism espouses government by the people as a whole (that is to say, the masses). This is in contrast to elitism or aristocracy, both of which are ideologies that espouse government by a small, privileged group above the masses.

There's a lot in populism, I think if taken to mean expanding liberty upon the lives of INDIVIDUALS as opposed to PEOPLE AS A GROUP, there's a lot to recommend about introducing some populist ideas into libertarianism.

The libertarian movement has been stillborn for years. 25 years, to be exact. If we can get some new blood and fresh ideas without selling out the movement by introducing more government or higher taxes, whats not to like?

It's spelled 'reparations'.

I think it is important to change things, when we talk to the people we need to explain how and where we are going to change things. Concrete details, But at the same time. People need to understand that what we are striving for, if we have the democrates and republicans to block us on what we are trying to do if elected, the public need to know that this is a problem. It is going to take more then one libertarian in office. Because some of the mistake that politicians make is saying things they want to do but don't have the backup from the other political parties in office to make it pass and etc etc. So the elected official who does not have more help from people with the same goals of freedom, the person will look like a fabricator, even with good intentions because other parties who are not in favor will block the changes.

David,

Please excuse my dyslexia. Since I have to put up with it, so do you. It may interest you (or not) that each statement I write probably has 40%
spelling errors, which due to my wonderful condition, I can only address after the words hit the screen and I can see them. I still dont get all of them, as you noticed. It makes writing anything a chore.

I gain all sorts of things from the examination of other political idealogies, and when I see something I think fits in well with the overiding goal of libertarianism, I dont have a problem using it or advocating it. If it serves liberty well, it's not a bad thing.

David:

It would seem that according to today's Miami Herald("Despite billions spent, many in Baghdad don't see Improvement" available on their website), we don't need to wait or speculate about the effects of the "Libertarian" Party's flagship anti-libertarian proposal--foreign aid for Iraq.

A few pertinent quotes from the article:

"almost $2 billion has been spent...but most residents have seen scant evidence...that things are getting better."

"...the money goes for longterm projects that yield few visible results..."

"(Iraqis) blame American and Iraqi government corruption."

Baghdad mayor Alaa Mahmoud al Timimi, a civil engineer, says that with the money already spent, Baghdad should be sparkling; he complains of not being consulted on American projects.

From a libertarian prespective, the facts illuminated by this article should come as no surprise,as that is fundamentally a rational view, which allows these facts to support an understanding of the nature of foreign aid.

Of course the policy makers of the "Libertarian" party are anti-rationalist Pragmatists. They can see how foreign aid doesn't work, but because it would require application of abstract principles to initial decision-making, they are incapable of seeing that it can't work because of it's very nature. Thus, even though it's been proposed and tryed many a time to no avail,they feel free to offer it up along with another layer of bureaucratic "oversight"("Safe-guards will be put in place to ensure U.S. aid is spent efficiently..."--the i.e.s.).

They know foreign aid has always been an overwhelming failure. Do you suppose phrases such as "In previous successful postwar reconstructions...such as...the Marshall plan..." -(i.e.s.)come from ignorance? They know all about the Marshall Plan; They also know that a preponderance of the American public has a vaguely positive impression of the Marshall Plan, and like their fellow Pragmatists and de facto mentors the Dem/Reps, would rather attempt to trade on, than dispell that ignorance.

Thus, perhaps in these bizarre times, when Chinese communists can't sell capitalism to the U.S. congress, it's appropriate for the "Libertarian" party to advocate the worst international socialist welfare program ever devised.

The Kenyan free market economist, James Shikwati, in a recent interview with the German publication, Der Speigel, literally pleaded with the G-8 nations to stop foreign aid to the African continent; explaining how it is the main cause of their firmly intrenched cycle of poverty.

Let's hope he has better luck than the mayor of Baghdad.

Thank You,
The Bikemessenger

Posted by: James Johnson at July 29, 2005 10:17 PM

I saw your website. Your ideas are a good, but we need some way to make the LP more appealing to the mainstream without the Purists or also known as anarcho-capitalists ( a faction within the LP that wants to make all members almost worship their platform of extremely bare little or no government at all) trying to kick us out of the LP like they did to Ed Clark and fellow moderate followers in 1983. If it is not the mainstream it will be the purist faction that we will have to win against in order to succeed in order to bring true reform to the LP. I advocate reform ideas because I am a member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus. I hope more people come up with more ideas or even submit reform ideas to the Libertarian Reform Caucus at http://www.reformthelp.org.

Truth and principle don't need to be made "more appealing to the mainstream". They serve as their own justification.

Here's the best explanation I've seen for why abandonment of principle can never work for the LP:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0997a.asp

Carl,
I don't believe it's a matter of abandoning our priniciplas. It's a matter of presenting those principals to the mainstream effectively, not like stubborn, radical bastards.

Anarchy is simply incompatible with libertarianism.

Government's only legitimate purpose is to secure and protect rights and liberties, enforce contracts and protect against fraud and force. This is government's only legitimate purpose but it is an extremely important purpose. Without government, there can be no liberty or rights and no enforcement of contracts and fraud and force would go on unabated.

There is no liberty in the presence of anarchy. So if the Libertarian Party were to repudiate anarchistic policies, they are not stepping away from principle, they would be in fact, embracing libertarian principles.

A severe reduction in government, at all levels, is, of course, most certainly warranted. Abolish the welfare state at all levels, including corporate welfare. Get the Federal Government out of areas except for what is permitted by its enumerated powers. Privatize education. Reduce the police power and bring it within the limits prescribed by the Bill of Rights. And so on.

But, at the same time, make sure that government has sufficient residual power to protect rights and liberties, enforce contracts and prevent fraud and force. And that means having statutes on the books that accomplish these limited purposes, and it also means that government must have sufficient resources to accomplish these same purposes.

I believe, as the founders did, in limited government. Certainly a true libertarian position. I don't think anarchists can make that claim.

Mark:

It could also be argued that there can be no liberty in the presence of government. How can an organization that claims to protect our lives, our liberty, and our property start by taking our property without our consent, and threaten our lives and our liberty if we refuse?

How could individuals protect their rights in the absence of coercive government? By banding together voluntarily, or by hiring security forces to protect them. There could be multiple, competing, voluntary governments.

How could we have more than one independent government? The world has about 150 of them right now, and seems to get along okay, for the most part. Why couldn't they be intermingled geographically, with individuals deciding which government to join?

Reducing government spending is certainly a desirable goal, one that minarchists and anarchists can work together on, for now. Why split the freedom movement in half, when we're all on the same side at the moment?

Authoritarians love to divide and conquer!

GOVERNMENT: is that which has the greatest potential in a given area for compelling compliance to its aims.

That can take the form of:

formal state
local defense co-op
private security company
street gang
community consensus
and so on...

UNIVERSAL libertarianism includes using govt (as understood above) to promote and defend a principle that can be variously stated as:

Liberty & Justice for ALL
Live & Let Live
Reciprocal Comprehensive Physical Autonomy for Each Person
Physical Aggression Truce
and so on....

Posted by: Rob Eichenlaub at August 1, 2005 09:22 AM

Like you said in your statement. the Libertarian Reform Caucus is trying to presenting those principals to the mainstream effectively and more realistically as you will see at website.

The libertarian principle of a
'physical aggression truce' is already
in effect; though not perfectly 'yet' :)

While MOST people, MOST of the time, on MOST issues, consciously or not, will abide by this 'truce' many seek 'exceptions' for their own causes. So, they may claim that such a 'commonality' doesn't exist; and that those who say otherwise are being absurd.

Of course, people, including these 'exceptors' would NOT be able to walk out of their home each day if there was no effective 'physical aggression truce' already working. But, that observation seems not to disuade these exceptors from attempting to con other people about the matter.

Most people DO seem to inherently understand
and usually apply the needed reciprocity;
even if they don't know how to spell that word,
let alone consciously define it. This, in fact,
is the underlying principle for UNIVERSAL libertarianism; aka 'liberty & justice for ALL'

The truth is, that it is CONSISTENCY to this
'physical aggression truce' (aka NAP 'non aggression principle, ZAP 'zero aggression principle' and so on) which protects the 'self-ownership' autonomy of virtually all persons.

So, what would actually justify a person INITIATING, or doing a CREDIBLE THREAT to initiate, physical force against the person or justly held possessions of another;
AND, why should this `truce' EXCEPTION be allowable over the truce exceptions that may be wanted by someone else?

AlsoSee- Aggressors Promote LIMITED 'Libertarianism'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/38717

It would be hypocritical to NOT maintain integrity to libertarian principle.

Here's an example of how hypocrisy hurts:

February 10, 2000 Thursday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 3; ZONE: M; In the Midwest.
LENGTH: 213 words
HEADLINE: ANTI-GAY MOLESTER GETS 40-YEAR SENTENCE
BYLINE: From Tribune News Services.
DATELINE: ANDERSON, INDIANA

BODY:
A man who gained notoriety for stopping a gay man from adopting a girl under his foster care was sentenced Wednesday to 40 years in prison for molesting her.

Earl Kimmerling, pleaded guilty in January to four counts of molesting his foster daughter, now 9. He and his wife, Saundra, fought in 1998 to keep the girl from being adopted by Craig Peterson, a homosexual who had adopted the girl's three brothers.

At sentencing, Kimmerling tearfully apologized and pleaded for leniency. But Judge Frederick Spencer called Kimmerling's crime a betrayal of trust and ordered him to serve 40 years.

"It's hypocrisy at its highest level. He holds himself out to be a person of God, as a representative of the Christian community, and at the same time engaging in outrageous behavior," said Madison County Prosecutor Rodney Cummings.

During the adoption fight, the Kimmerlings gained support from political figures including Anderson Mayor Mark Lawler and Republican state Reps. Jack Lutz of Anderson and Woody Burton of Greenwood, whose proposal to ban gay adoptions failed in the Legislature.

The Kimmerlings eventually succeeded in adopting the girl, but in May 1998 Kimmerling was charged with 10 counts of sexual molestation after Saundra Kimmerling notified police.

Copyright 2000 Chicago Tribune Company Chicago Tribune

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/kimmerling.htm

There are MANY more stories like this one :(

It's a good thing that LIBERTARIANS are known for maintaining integrity to their avowed principles!

Look how hypocricy hurts Republicans
at http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

Tom Liberty Parker,

That website is a very good website and I did not know that many Republicans were child molestors and Adulters. I am glad that there are not any Libertarian molestors or adulters. I think the LP is a way better choice for voters. I wonder how many cases of Democratic adulters and child molesters there are. It is amazing what elected officals leader and activists do these days.

Terry Liberty Parker,

I am suprisied you don't use your nickname on the blog. I am a member of the Libertarian Party since June and a member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus. My nickname is the Libertarian Reformer because it makes sense because Libertarians are reformers. I know there's people who similar names to mine like Libertarian TV . The Libertarian Reformer is also been built up by my views on the economy and the patriot act. The whole Libertarian reformer idea start back when I was a supporter of Michael Peroutka and The Constitution Party in 2004. The Constitution Party had alot of ideas that were publically known as Libertarian-like on opposing the patriot act and the war on drugs and privitizing the economy and education etc. So those ideas brought me to the Libertarian Party. I plan to remain as a Libertarian Party member and register as a Libertarian in 2006. I thank the LP staff for comming up with the blog idea and I hope the LP staff comes up with more interactive things for the website in the future.

Understand, that the nature of libertarianism's 'influence' is derived from integrity to its ideal shown by its most visible
advocates.

the LP does NOT have poll watchers at every precinct to minimize election fraud; which, btw, existed long before electronic voting. That there are hundreds of Libertarians in public office is a stunning achievement in the face of a corrupt establishment. It is also a testimony to the 'power' of our advocacy with its integrity to
ideals that inspire not just us. We get help that we never will know much about from people we won't usually know who are stuck in that corrupt machinery.

Hypocrisy, like what devastates the credibility of OTHER political parties, must never infest and undermine the integrity of the LIBERTARIAN Party!

AlsoSee: Aggressors Promote LIMITED 'Libertarianism'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/38935

Timothy West,
I can see who Anarcho-Capitialists or anarchy in general are the complete opposite of Populism. In Anarchy there is aristocracy that espouse government by a small, privileged group above the masses. That is the problem is with anarchy like the same goes for Authortarianism. Anarcho-Capitalism is alike to it's totalitarian counterparts Communism and Fascism by anarcho-capitalists rule a society as small,priveleged group over the masses. The LP does not need a reputation like anarchy. The LP needs to take a more populist approach when running for office. If we take a more populist approach were not eliminating our Libertarian principles at all If we do this. Were still implementing the Libertarian Principles but in a order that does not appear drastic or extreme. read this article about making a more populist apporoach to sse what I mean. http://www.reformthelp.org/theory/positioning/moderatePop.php
implementing Libertarian principles in order to work will take years and pactince. We can not have a approach like Harry Browne said " I will reduce the size of government by over 90% in 4 years. The approach he had was unrealistic. We need implement Libertarian principles gradually in order to work not overnight. a overnight plan like 4 years will fall. The whole Libertarian ideology can not just be put in place all at once. We need more of a realistic view of what we can really implement in a 4 year period. it might be little by little over decades, but it would work. it took the US government years and decades to this big and the same will happen with Libertarian Principles.

incrementalating is a better solution than just getting rid of the Libertarian Principles and is still better than the what the lp has been doing for the past 25 years. incrementalating is a strategy of gradually implementing Libertarian principles. the article link I posted will show on what is incrementalating and the dangers of implementing Libertarian principles all at once
http://www.reformthelp.org/theory/moderation/incrementalating101.php

The time for a third party alternative to the Democrats and the Republicans is long overdue. The LP needs to be the third party to become to the liberty, personal freedom, smaller government alternative to the big government, little personal freedom, tiranny major 2 political parties. That's why I am a member of the LP and The LP reform caucus is to make sure our children and our grandchildren's generations can live free from government bearucaries that bring politics into everything every ascept of life and ruining and dictating their lives. If there will be a political party to make history for personal freedoms and limited government It should be the Libertarian Party.

Terry, I'm not seeing your point. Does anyone think that Lawler, Lutz, or Burton _knew_ that Kimmerling was a molester?

Why not displan an anti-patriot act logo on the LP home page with a link to how we view the violation of constitutional rights as appauling and CRIMINAL on the part of the government.

I really hope the L.P. doesn't start taking the low road of mudslinging and personal attacks. Sure you can come up with a list of Republican pedo's. I am sure some quick research would probably produce and equal if not longer list of Democratic pedo's. I can list a couple of Democratic murderers right off the top. Senator Edward Kennedy, who walked away from a car wreck while Mary Jo Kopeckne slowly suffocated over a two hour period. Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd who most likely presided over scores of lynchings while in the KKK. Both should be brought to trial and hanged. I am sure that research would likely produce a list of Libertarian and Green pedophiliacs. Pedophiles should be punished for their crimes. Their political affiliations are irrelevant.

Taking the low road in politics is why so damn many Americans are apathetic in the first place. It won't help the L.P.'s cause, so lets take the high road and debate the issues and principles of Libertarianism.

Terry, I'm not seeing your point. Does anyone think that Lawler, Lutz, or Burton _knew_ that Kimmerling was a molester?

Posted by: David Tomlin at August 2, 2005 08:41 AM

TerryResponds:

The damage to credibility of hypocricy, in this case as demonstrated by Kimmerling, was my point for that post.

It's a good thing that LIBERTARIANS are known for maintaining integrity to THEIR avowed principles!

Look how hypocricy hurts Republicans
at http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

A lesson, if not obvious by now, is how the devastation to credibility wrought by betraying one's own professed principles is just not an acceptable cost for venal political expediency.

Posted by: The libertarian Reformer at August 1, 2005 07:05 PM

That website is a very good website and I did not know that many Republicans were child molestors and Adulters. I am glad that there are not any Libertarian molestors or adulters. I think the LP is a way better choice for voters. I wonder how many cases of Democratic adulters and child molesters there are. It is amazing what elected officals leader and activists do these days.

TerryResponds:

A lesson, if not obvious by now, is how the devastation to credibility wrought by betraying one's own professed principles is just not an acceptable cost for venal political expediency.

Hypocrisy, like what devastates the credibility of OTHER political parties, must never infest the LIBERTARIAN Party, which would undermine the credibility of its integrity!

Envision UNIVERSAL Libertarianism
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/39740

I am sure the percentage of adulterers in the L.P. is identical to that in the Democratic, Republican or Green Parties, let's not get self righteous about ourselves here. Libertarians like illicit sex just as much as anybody else. They just aren't control freaks about restricting people's sex lives.

As for pedophilia, again, probably the same percentage. Pedophilia is ultimately a mental illness and the only suitable course of action is permanant removal of the offender from society. These people cannot be rehabilitated. The recidisim rate is near 100%. They will strike again and again. In some manner, they have to be separated from the general population, even if that means establishing a closed pedo colony somewhere. In the meantime, not much you can do except hound the hell out of them and shoot any you catch on your property.

Posted by: Mark B. at August 2, 2005 10:22 AM

I really hope the L.P. doesn't start taking the low road of mudslinging and personal attacks. Sure you can come up with a list of Republican pedo's. I am sure some quick research would probably produce and equal if not longer list of Democratic pedo's
.........
Taking the low road in politics is why so damn many Americans are apathetic in the first place. It won't help the L.P.'s cause, so lets take the high road and debate the issues and principles of Libertarianism.

TerryResponds:

Amen Bro!

*MY* purpose in posting that 'mud' was to demestrate how hypocrisy devastates credibility.

People are appropriatly cynical about 'politics AS USUAL'

COMPROMISING one's avowed values is wrong in principle AND a disaster in practice (as evidenced in the 'mud' I posted)!

Only hubris (look it up) would seduce LIBERTARIANS in to that darkness; and we critters of the light would not be (nor should we be) as good at those despicable games.

See: Aggressors Promote LIMITED 'Libertarianism'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/38935

It seems that we're all asking for a COMPLETE membership update as well as specifics on the current drive.
How about it?

What's the news on the zero dues proposal? Has it been passed/denied, or is it still pending.

the meeting is August 6th to discuss Zero Dues and lots of other things as well.

Whenever a nation faces a tragety, that becomes the impetus for government to gain more power and the people to lose their liberties. Libertarians have saw this with the passing of the Patriot Act. They have further saw this with the introduction of survelliance carmeras on street corners, such as in Tampa Bay and in New York. Libertarians are again seeing it now after the London bombings. In New York, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, at the behest of Mayor Mike Bloomberg, ordered the police to search the bags and other belongings of people who ride in subways. To me, this is a gross violation of the Constitution's forth amendment protections. One must wonder what other rights are are going to be hampered. We are going to have to wait and see.

Regarding the Richard Rider campaign and his disappointing vote total, the candidate himself had this to say in an email newsletter that went out today:

========== begin Rider excerpt

Many will lament that my low showing was because I’m a Libertarian. But I don’t think that was the major problem. Previously I’ve run in two major six-candidate nonpartisan races, receiving 19.4% and 15.7% of the vote. With a better effort and more support, this time I got far fewer votes.

As it turned out, our biggest enemy was the “wasted vote” fallacy – the common problem in partisan races which came back to bite me on the backside in this nonpartisan contest.

Here’s the dynamic: If there had been only one clear frontrunner with the rest of the majors in play, I would have done far better. If there had been only TWO clear frontrunners, I would have not lost many votes to the “lesser evil” mentality. But, as it turned out, the press decided that there were THREE frontrunners, with the top two going on to the general election. THAT was the killer! People felt that they HAD to vote for one of the top three, so the voter support melted away not only for me, but for the two other candidates in the second tier (4th through 6th place) and the third tier (7th through 11th place-- who weren’t going to get many votes in any event).

I’ve suggested that an interesting poll would have listed the candidates and asked two questions:

1. Who are you voting for (or DID vote for) mayor of San Diego?

2. If instead of voting, you were given the option of appointing one of these candidates as mayor, who would you have picked?

Needless to say, based on my experiences both before and AFTER the election, I strongly believe that I would have gotten MUCH higher numbers with the second question. Not enough to have been “appointed” perhaps, but certainly in double digits. So let me repeat – the “wasted vote” killed me at the polls.

========== end Rider excerpt

For an anti-tax crusader and a widely known Libertarian, Richard is a pretty practical guy, and refreshingly candid. If he thought his association with the Libertarian Party, our platform, the pledge, or any other aspect of the libertarian movement had anything to do with his performance at the polls, he would have said so. I'm not sure I agree with him about the "three front runners" theory, but it is certainly a defensible explanation for what happened. Let's see where he goes with the heightened visibility he has achieved. (In his letter, he also mentioned that the local Fox outlet now routinely interviews him to get his take on various political issues, so he is naturally sliding into the "designated gadfly" role, to which I alluded above. This could lead to something.)

I feel this, either enough people didn't go out and vote. Or the polls are fix so they can put in who they want. and or, we really need to get out there to get more people to understand what the Libertarians are about. And or all of the above.

Understand, that the nature of libertarianism's 'influence' is derived from integrity to its ideal shown by its most visible
advocates.

the LP does NOT have poll watchers at every precinct to minimize election fraud; which, btw, existed long before electronic voting. That there are hundreds of Libertarians in public office is a stunning achievement in the face of a corrupt establishment. It is also a testimony to the 'power' of our advocacy with its integrity to
ideals that inspire not just us. We often get help that we never will know much about from people we won't usually know who are stuck in that corrupt machinery.

PleaseSee:

Live&LetLive.1999.06.05:
Military intervention during US Prez Clinton's
administration opposed by libertarians at that time.
Surprise guest, Royal Masset was, until 1999,
Texas Republican Party Political Director for 15 years;
tells of working (sometimes behind the scenes)
with libertarians during those years to advance liberty
RealMedia Download/Playback at
http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/LL990605.rm

I read in the news yesterday that Bill Frist (R-TN) and Evan Bayh (D-IN), both considering a presidential run in 2008, have each raised over $1 million in their PACs in the first half of 2005, to support campaign travel and donations to other candidates.

Is this something that LP candidates can do? If so, why are they not doing it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2008

Because all they want to do is bicker and comment and blah blah blah. Time for some ACTION

I think that we have to promount Evelution towards true Libertarianism insteed of it going in four year after all it took 140 year for America to get to this point we can not canage over night with hurting alot of people and at the state I think we shoukld for a time suport some social program in the area of Health and Education to give people a fair start (it not real a free market if some get a far ahead because of who Daddy is) of couse as people begin untake the Libertarian ideas this program would be cut back and one no longer be in place Co-ops and Muchal aid group would replace them as a better to aid people with in the free market, but hey I more in the Ventara area of Libertarian and 2nd choise for party would be Green

Because all they want to do is bicker and comment and blah blah blah. Time for some ACTION

Posted by: [self-styled] True American at August 3, 2005 08:37 PM

TerrySez:

Thinking and talking sans action is impotent...

...BUT, thoghtless action is a danger to society!

Envision UNIVERSAL Liberty & Justice for ALL
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/39808

This letter is in response to J. Daniel Cloud’s editorial in the August issue of The Libertarian Party News asking libertarians for a little less talk and a lot more action. Mr. Cloud claims that in being the Party of Principle, we have allowed our principles to cripple us, making the Libertarian Party an ineffectual unit, more adept at bickering with one another than with advancing the cause of liberty in the political scene. He says that because we do not compromise our principles, we cannot hope to advance our cause. He cites his Iraq Exit Strategy as the kind of action we need to take. Because it compromises, Mr. Cloud claims, it has a better chance of gaining acceptance from the parties in power and being put into effect. I’m going to forget temporarily that compromising principle is inherently wrong. I’m going to ignore the fact that ends cannot justify means, because means are an end. I will pretend we can profit in the long run from immediate surrender, and even after I’ve made all these assumptions, I will still believe that compromise is the wrong choice in this matter.

So now that we’ve assumed compromise is acceptable, the next question I have for Mr. Cloud is “How do you intend to pass your party’s plan through Congress when your party does not have a single Congressman?” Compromise alone will not give an idea majority support. You need people with power to support your plans so that they can use that power to gain more support. Libertarians may hold 600 offices nationally (more than all other third parties combined!), but what real power do we have? We have no viable presidential candidates, no national legislators, and very few state legislators. Without people in these offices, we have no hope of ever gaining political efficacy, regardless of how much we compromise our principles.

The next logical question is “How do we put people into these offices and gain enough power to put our ideas into effect?” The argument is that compromise can help us with this by making us more mainstream. The Democrats and the Republicans currently hold the vast majority of political power in the United States. They maintain this stranglehold by parading a constant stream of candidates who do nothing but compromise their principles, so much that it is not evident they have and principles. Mr. Cloud’s contention is that by copying their example, we can rise to the level of power they enjoy. Let us consider an analogous situation and see if this strategy can work:

A new company named Mikrosoft enters the computer software market, and their core business is to make and sell an operating system called “Wimdows.” Wimdows is exactly the same as Microsoft’s Windows, with the same features, programs, and functionality, except for one critical aspect: in Wimdows, all shades of blue are 10% darker than they were in Windows. So do you continue to use the operating system that 95% of the market uses, or do you switch to one that’s almost exactly the same thing?

Of course, almost all of us continue to use Windows, because it’s what we’ve always used and there’s no real reason to switch. Similarly, there are two parties that have had a monopoly on the political market for a century, and they maintain their power through compromise. There is no room on the political market for another party of compromise. The only way libertarians can hope to achieve political power is to try a different approach. That is what we’ve been doing for thirty years. We’ve been the Party of Principle, refusing to compromise our principles. Sticking steadfastly to those principles is the only way we can ever hope to create the world we all desire. So the next question is, “If our principles are the only way to achieve liberty, why have they not yielded results yet?”

The answer is we have not been spreading our ideals enough. Mr. Cloud described the Libertarian Party as “irrelevant,” and unfortunately he’s right, although not for the reason he claims it. We are irrelevant as a political party because so few Americans are aware of our principles. The Libertarian movement cannot hope to change the political makeup of this country with so little a body of support. I think that we as Libertarians don’t understand how little the majority of Americans know about us. Many have never heard of the Libertarian Party. Many have heard of us, but are ignorant of the fundamental ideas behind our platform, ideas like non-aggression, individuality, independence, and implicit evil of force.

The solution is publicity, and the bes