I have opinions...

I sent this comment to Justin Raimondo's Who's the Libertarian Now?

According to ISidewith.com, I’m 92% in agreement with Johnson. I want people who vote to vote for him.

Johnson’s not, however, the person to articulate the libertarian philosophy. His position on religious liberty, from the burqa flap to the Nazi cake demonstrates that he doesn’t get it. If the Libertarian Party continues to support candidates like him, it should change its name.

I sent this comment to Thomas L Knapp's Hillary Clinton: More Equal Under the Law Than Others:

Cut her some slack. I think her mishandling of the emails was due to PTSD from the sniper fire in Bosnia two decades ago. I'm confident she'll be cured by the Inauguration.

And this to Stephen Cox's Extremely Careless:

We can't trust an agency that has no Constitutional reason to exist to do the right thing. We live in the world where the FBI exists. In a country that tolerated J. Edgar Hoover's Directorship of intimidation and blackmail. In a post-9/11 world where the Dept. of Justice's Inspector General found habitual law-breaking and abuse by the FBI.

Principles and Parties

Check out my latest: Principles and Parties. Excerpt:

Party politics is not my favored method to spread the ideas of liberty, and it's not the only method. But it is the favored method in America today, and I understand why many people get involved with it.

I would prefer that the only means be bring about liberty is pure, non-political persuasion.

Maybe that's possible, but I haven't seen it yet.

John Stagliano For President!

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=142495089095766

This group urges the nomination of John Stagliano for President by acclamation at the 2012 Libertarian Party National Convention.

Mr. Stagliano is an adult film producer who is currently being prosecuted in a federal kangaroo court on "obscenity" charges. The "law" which he supposedly violated is unconstitutional, and the trial is conducted in a lawless manner. What's worse, his "crime" involved only consenting adults acting on their own free will, doing things which are not illegal, and for which no objective standard has been established in law. For details, check out coverage of his case at Reason Magazine: http://reason.com/topics/john-stagliano-trial

Regardless of how you feel about pornography, we must draw a line in the sand. Federal prosecutions of consensual "crimes" must stop!

We don't know what motivated the persecution of Mr. Stagliano. But it is interesting that he has been a financial supporter of liberty-oriented organizations such as the Reason Foundation and the Libertarian Party. It reminds one of the prosecution of the late author and medical marijuana advocate Peter McWilliams, who supported the Libertarian Party and even wrote a book, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, that argued for libertarian values.

McWilliams died ten years ago while on bail - he was charged for being a "drug kingpin" for his medical marijuana activities.

Was Peter McWilliams targeted for his actions, or because he spoke out in favor of freedom?

Is John Stagliano singled out among all porn producers for his actions, or because he supports those who speak out in favor of freedom?

We don't know. What we DO know is, if convicted, Mr. Stagliano could face up to 32 years in prison!

Nominating Mr. Stagliano for President would send a message to America. It would say that libertarians reject, completely, the federal war on consensual behavior, and that, whatever we think of pornography, we'd rather have a porn producer who respects individual rights, as Mr. Stagliano does, as President than anyone who believes porn producers should be in jail.

John Stagliano is not just a victim of the federal government, he's also a symbol of the federal government's march toward absolute tyranny and lawlessness. The Libertarian Party could not make a bolder statement for freedom, and for the United States of America, than by nominating John Stagliano to be President of the United States.

Barr Wins LP Nomination

I saw most of the balloting on C-Span today. It looks like everything went like clockwork. The non-endorsements by George Phillies and Mike Gravel probably hurt Mary Ruwart, but the combined Barr and Root votes were favoring Barr throughout.

For months my argument was Barr centered around stealing votes for McCain to ensure McCain's defeat without giving assent to the Democratic nominee. But here's the key point: Bob Barr would make a better President than any other candidate. But will he represent libertarian ideas? As "Fluffy" comments at Reason:

In 2008, if a candidate talks about shrinking government, pushing back the nanny state, restoring civil liberties, halting the frenzied rush to a surveillance society we've seen in the last 8 years, foreign policy restraint, and drug policy liberalization, those are core libertarian beliefs.

Barr's Running

I don't know if Bob Barr will win the Libertarian Party nomination for President. And, if he does, I don't know if this will be good for the libertarian movement - whatever that is. But assuming an Obama-McCain contest in November, a vote for Barr will:

a) likely rally more disgruntled conservatives who can't stand McCain and don't want Obama either. Barr will give them a candidate closer to their values. McCain is Public Enemy #1, the world's greatest threat to peace - and therefore to liberty and prosperity. He must be defeated.

b) send a message to Obama that his program is unacceptable. The more politically weak Obama enters the White House, the less government can grow under him.

The equation would be different if Hillary Clinton is nominated, because she can't attract anti-war conservatives and libertarians they way Obama can. With Obama as the nominee, the LP and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin are actually at a greater disadvantage. Their hopes of winning votes from the anti-war Left disappear, and they will instead have to persuade the anti-war Right to vote for them instead of Obama.

However it turns out, I just want McCain and neo-conservatism to be thoroughly rejected and repudiated by the American people. Knocking Obama to under 50% of the vote, and McCain to under 40%, would be great. If Barr could get numbers in the range of Perot's 1992 total, that would be fantastic.

I'm not that optimistic. But I don't see how any other LP candidate could get more than half-a-percent of the vote. Barr has the best chance of making a difference and ensuring McCain's defeat.

Further Thoughts on "Divided They Fail"

Suppose you see yourself as a hard-core libertarian. Who would you rather win an election: a pro-gay marriage candidate who wants to nuke Iran and invade the Sudan, or an anti-gay marriage candidate who wants to end undeclared wars and bring the troops home? To me, the answer is clear: I want peace, liberty, and legal equality, but peace must come first.

Likewise, I want to get rid of the national oppressor before the local oppressor, because the national oppressor oppresses more people. In elections, would prefer Libertarian Party candidates first, Constitution Party candidates second, and nobody else third, because of this.

What sparked my piece "Divided They Fail" was the fact that Libertarian Party members were embarrassed and angry that Mary Ruwart, seeking the Party's nomination for President, takes the libertarian position on child sex and child pornography.

It's as if Ruwart was disqualified as a spokesperson for libertarian principles - which is essentially what an LP Presidential candidate is supposed to be - because she held to libertarian principles even in a particularly tough and controversial case. It made me, like this commenter G.E. at Third Party Watch, think that I'd rather vote for the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin and know I'm getting a "consistent Constitutionalist" than support an LP candidate who somehow draws the best line between aiming to be principled and aiming to please.

The LP's problem is that it tries to do two things. First, it tries to be ideological, and recruit individuals willing to "certify in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." Second, it tries be a political party dedicated to shrinking the size of government - the federal government first and foremost. It can do both, but it can't succeed at both.

• If the LP is to be radical and hard-core, its leader should be a consistent libertarian. Of course, this won't win many votes or lead to long-term growth, which makes one wonder if the Libertarian Party as an outreach tool was a good idea whose time has passed in the Internet Age.

• If the LP's purpose is to win elections and take power on a small-government platform, well of course Ruwart's position on child porn won't help. But if there are differences of opinion on this issue, then there will definitely be differences on major issues as well. Libertarians will differ on specific solutions and the next steps to take. One says sales taxes are worse than income taxes, another says the opposite. Person A says get rid of the welfare state first and then immigration laws, Person B says says the order of what gets repealed first doesn't matter. The one will accuse the other of "betraying" libertarianism.

I respect LP members who want to remain hard-core. It just seems to me that those who would agree with the hard-core position the most will take it to the logical conclusion of not voting and not participating in party politics at all. It is very conceivable that a person could move from frustrated Republican or frustrated Democrat, to being drawn to the Libertarian Party message, to getting deeper and deeper into the libertarian philosophy, to becoming a non-voting anarchist - all within a two-year election cycle. Guess what - the Libertarian Party would have done its job! All too well, in fact - it never does get this person's vote. I respect the hard-core line, but I would suggest building agorist activist organizations and educational institutions would be a better use of their time than campaigning in elections. If nothing else, ballot access laws make their efforts inefficient at best. The sheer irony of a "libertarian" party trying to win power is another drawback. But if that's how some hard-core libertarians want to spend their time and money, I respect that.

I have a bigger problem respecting LP members who a) condemn Mary Ruwart, and/or b) supported Ron Paul, but would never consider an alliance with Constitution Party members. (For the record: I'm not a current LP member, I agree with Ruwart, and I supported Ron Paul.) They won't forgive Ruwart for her consistency, they will forgive Ron Paul for his deviations, but they'll write off the CP as theocrats - even though their differences with libertarianism are in many of the the same areas Ron Paul deviates from it.

I'm not sure what the problem is. The CP opposes abortion because, supposedly, they're religious nutjobs, whereas Ron Paul and pro-life libertarians have a different but principled view of when human rights begin. The CP doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to the states because, supposedly, they're theocrats, whereas Ron Paul - who has sponsored legislation expressing this view - just has an unorthodox but logical interpretation of the Constitution. (For the record, I agree with Paul's view: if the First Amendment was meant to apply to the states, either it or the Fourteenth Amendment would have said so explicitly.)

I think the objections are special pleading. I think libertarians resent the paleoconservative's finger-wagging condescension toward libertarianism, and I think paleoconservatives resent the libertarian's stridency and abstractions. Both sides (except the most hard-core of each) give Ron Paul a pass, and are willing to disagree with him on a few points and still love him, but they won't support anyone else who could bridge this divide.

I'm not asking members of either party to set aside their principles. I'm asking them instead to come together and form a party based on their many points of agreement.

I'm calling for a national party focused strictly on the national issue of the size, scope, and powers of the federal government. Statewide and locally, there may be LP candidates who want legal casinos in the state and strip clubs in the county, and CP candidate who want both banned. Fine - but they can all sign on to a national agenda of downsizing the size, scope, and power of the federal government:

• bring the troops home; no entangling alliances; only Congressionally-declared wars from now on;
• no ceding of legislative, executive, or judicial authority to international organizations;
  
• repeal post-9/11 curbs on civil liberties; restore crime control as a state function; defend the Second Amendment;
  
• cut spending across the board; abolish unconstitutional departments and programs such as the Department of Education;
• deregulate and desubsidize the energy industry;
• work toward a free market in health care;
• simplify the tax code and cut taxes;
• restore a Constitutional money system.
  

Allow differences on these issues:

• the specifics of tax reform;
  
• immigration restrictions;
• tariffs and trade;
• the role of Congress and the federal judiciary on First and Fourteenth Amendment issues pertaining to state and local laws;
• state and local controversies.
  

The goal of downsizing the federal government are the same in both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. There, and only there, can they and should they work together. Perhaps a national platform could be a new "contract with America" based on points of agreement that could be signed by all party candidates. They can run against each other in primaries emphasizing issues where the platform allows for differences. But if and when elected, they will support the contract they had singed onto.

So everyone gets to keep their principles and ideology, while they support a national party that is dedicated to a smaller federal government but doesn't advance a particular ideology. Say what you will about Republicans and Democrats, but they swallow both their principles and their pride to vote for candidates who differ with them on major issues. Indeed, they do this all the time. Why can't advocates of small government do the same, especially if their differences are minor or technical?

Maybe for the same reason we never succeed: most of us who want small government are driven by principle, not power - and although we are all principled, we continually disagree on which principles. So even when we're in agreement 80% of the time, we go nowhere because those who should be our strongest allies are instead our bitterest enemies.

Perhaps non-voting anarchists and spiritual gurus were right all along: we will never achieve freedom through politics.

Divided They Fail

My latest at the Partial Observer, wondering "If they both support Ron Paul, why don't the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party merge?" Excerpt:

I don't know if it was ever strategically sound to promote philosophical principles through a political party. Principles, to remain principles, must be untarnished, whereas politics works through compromise, which means tarnishing principles. In any case, the Internet has made the dissemination of libertarian principles, and education in the libertarian philosophy, much easier than it used to be. If the Libertarian Party exists to educate, I don't know if that is necessary anymore. If anything, it could lead people who take the philosophy far enough to see the contradiction of the LP's own existence.

But if the purpose of the party is to win elections and govern, it would do well to disband or change its name to something more generic and non-philosophical. It could then do a better job of advancing libertarian ends without allowing the various, necessary and inevitable compromises to besmirch the libertarian philosophy. This is where joining together with the Constitution Party, Ron Paul Republicans, and others come in. If the immediate and primary goal is to downsize the federal government, the various groups that support this goal can no longer be divided against themselves.

An Exploratory Committee is for Exploring

Bob Barr has set up an Exploratory Committee to gauge support for a possible run for the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential election.

I was among the first to endorse Barr, for the same reasons Justin Raimondo mentions today.

That said, I hope this Exploratory Committee is just that - I hope it explores Barr's prospects and the best interests of the Libertarian Party. I hope Barr's people reach out to others running for the LP nomination - several of whom have been campaigning for over a year, and/or have been involved with the LP far longer, and/or are more ideologically "pure" - and earn their trust and support. A chaotic convention leading to an unknown as candidate is not what the LP needs at this point. I believe Barr has the record and profile to draw votes away from John McCain, ensuring his defeat, and prompt a revolt among pro-peace and small-government conservatives within the Republican Party. But if the LP can not, or will not, rally around him this year, he should gracefully withdraw before making any formal announcement. This will be better for his future than jumping full-throttle into the race and getting embarrassed at the Convention.

This is what Barr's Exploratory Committee should find out. How will other candidates and their supporters react to a "celebrity" candidate coming in at the last minute? A Barr run may attract Ron Paul Republicans to join the LP and take over the Convention, but if this alienates the "old-timers" it may well lead to a schism. The pro-peace, pro-liberty wing of the American public will need to put up a united front this year if it is to grow. I think Barr is the best one to lead the Ron Paul Revolution, and the LP the most appropriate organization for it if the Republican Party is no longer a viable option. But if a united front is impossible this year, Barr should probably "pay his dues" in the LP a little longer and make a run in 2012.

Ron Paul and the Libertarian "Movement"

It's a funny thing about libertarianism. Most people who have a good idea of what libertarianism is, and am familiar with me, would agree that I am a libertarian, and the majority would probably call me "hard core."

Among the members of the hard core, however, I probably wouldn't be considered hard core, and some wouldn't consider me libertarian at all if I don't adhere to their particular doctrines and conceptions of libertarianism.

Which is fine by me. I don't consider libertarianism a religion or a philosophy of life, and maybe it isn't even a "movement," and if it is a movement, maybe I'm not even in it. What prompts this thought is the various debates among the neo(con)-libertarians, anti-political anarchists, Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists, and, for lack of a better word, regular libertarians on whether Ron Paul's candidacy is good for the "movement."

Well, which movement is that? There are libertarians who want to abolish the state through non-political means, libertarians who want to abolish the state through political means, and libertarians who may like the idea of abolishing the State, but don't believe the State can be or will ever be abolished in this age; to them, anarchy may be an ideal, but it's not a goal. Their goal is, instead, to do as much as they can to restrain the State and undo the damage it has done.

The movement to abolish the state and the movement to restrain the state are two different and separate movements. Since libertarians are unaware of this, we get confused, and we get into fights amongst ourselves.

The anarchists disagree with each other on political involvement, and that is why they have the Ron Paul debate. Perhaps the non-anarchist libertarians should stop thinking the same way, and stop contemplating what society would be like with libertarian majorities. That's a fantasy not far removed from the fantasy of abolishing the state altogether. Like other fantasies we may have, it is best to just leave it as a fantasy, because trying to make it a reality is just a waste of time.

Instead, these libertarians, of which I include myself, should break the libertarian "program" down into specific items, and for each item, work with activists and office-holders who agree with us to advance that particular cause. Instead of a "libertarian movement," there should be:
- an antiwar movement;
- a civil libertarian movement, fighting against the Patriot Act, Real ID, warrantless spying, etc.
- an "honest money" movement;
- a "small government," (cut taxes, cut spending) movement,
- etc.

The four specific items I named are the ones most important to me, in the order I list them. Dennis Kucinich seems to support the first two, Paul supports all four. I don't believe any other candidate endorses any of these, aside from maybe a couple of Republicans who may same some nice things about taxes. If Paul had a fatal character flaw that made him a poor spokesman and counter-productive leader, I may have supported Kucinich as the candidate who could do the most good and/or the least harm on the issues I care most about. (As it is, Kucinich's support is miniscule, and it's a moot question.)

Even considering the newsletter scandal, I don't believe Paul has been discredited; indeed, the deeds of all the other candidates have been far more harmful than the words Paul may have written. In any case, Paul isn't leading a "libertarian" movement, so I don't see why libertarians should get all that worked up about it.

Does Paul's anti-immigration stand contradict market-anarchism principles? Part of it undoubtedly does.

Does Paul's strict Constitutionalism and concern for national sovereignty always cohere with pure libertarianism? No.

Is Paul's federalist view of the abortion question and personal pro-life stance (and his federalist stance on church-state questions) fatal to the libertarian cause? Personally, I don't think so, but maybe it is.

Is Paul a "heretic" on some issues important to libertarians? You could say so.

Will Paul's old newsletters that catered to populist and paleo-conservative prejudices discredit the "movement" to abolish the state? Will it discredit the "movement" to get libertarian majorities? Perhaps; at worst Paul may have marginally reduced the chances of accomplishing the impossible.

But for me, the key questions are: Is Paul correct on the war? Is Paul correct on civil liberties? Is Paul correct on money? Does Paul support tax and spending cuts? The answers are Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. Does any other candidate bat higher than .500 on these issues? NO, and most bat .000.

Let's not say that Ron Paul is the leader of the libertarian movement. Let's not even call him a libertarian at all; even he emphasized through most of his campaign that he is a conservative and a traditional Republican, so we should take him at his word. Let's just call him a conservative Presidential candidate whom many libertarians support because they agree with him on issues important to them.

We should just leave it at that, and not pretend that Ron Paul is either the savior of libertarianism, or the worst thing that ever happened to libertarianism. He's just a politician with his own agenda; if some libertarians agree with it enough to support him, fine, and if other libertarians don't agree with it, that's fine too.

Ron Paul and the Radical Line

Responding to my own comments in my recent post on Ron Paul, Rich Paul, a minarchist (see his blog), writes "I don't know that there is any mismatch between anarchist principals and voting ... after all, votes are weapons, and most anarchists who vote do so only in self defense."

I agree. But unless hard-core libertarians and anarchists vote only for candidates who promise to abolish the government immediately, they must accept the compromises of politics. If they are committed to parties and elections, they can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Too often I hear complaints that so-and-so is not a "real" libertarian because so-and-so doesn't have the same priorities or strays from the hard-core line once too often. But if such a person can persuade more people to take the country in a libertarian direction, wouldn't we all be better off?

If on a scale where a centralized totalitarian state is, say, a 10, anarchism is 0, the Libertarian Party is a 1, and Ron Paul is a 3, I can see the argument that Ron Paul shouldn't represent the Libertarian Party - if the LP exists primarily as an education tool. That's different, however, from saying that a Ron Paul campaign would be a bad thing for liberty. When every other politician in America is a 6, 7, or 8, we need Ron Paul and his Constitutionalism even if it's not pure libertarianism. Paul is the only visible counterweight to authoritarianism in America.

The role of the radical is to persuade moderate libertarians and Constitutionalist conservatives to the radical position. But the role of the Ron Pauls of the world is to persuade big-government moderates to become moderate libertarians and Constitutionalists. In the tug of war for liberty, the radicals are the intellectual anchor, but Ron Paul's broad coalition of supporters will provide the manpower.

Constitution Party on Ron Paul

From the Constitution Party website:

The Constitution Party presidential candidate will be selected at its convention in the spring of 2008. We can’t say for sure what will be decided by the convention delegates, but as the party who puts principle above party loyalty, it seems that in the unlikely event that Doctor No [Ron Paul] is able to capture the Republican nomination, we would stand behind him 100%.

The dilemma we have is that we cannot sit around and wait to see what the Republicans are going to do but must build the ark that true Constitutionalists can find refuge on when it dawns on them that the Republican and Democrat parties will let them drown. To that end we must work to secure ballot access in all 50 states NOW and find a candidate who can carry our principles into a presidential campaign which will more than likely find a left-of-center candidate carrying the Republican mantle.

If the Grand Old Party does choose to return to its conservative ideals by supporting Congressman Paul, then there will be ample opportunity to throw our support behind him should our delegates so decide. If he does not win the GOP nomination we will have done much of the work to gain the ballot lines necessary to field a candidate who shares our values and who will govern constitutionally. That candidate could be Ron Paul should he decide to continue his race by seeking the Constitution Party nomination.

This is quite a dilemma. By the time the Republican primaries are finished thanks to what will be the most vicious and dishonest smear campaign in the history of the Republic (after the strategy of ignoring him had failed), Ron Paul will still have a much larger following and greater name recognition then than he does in this early stage of the campaign. Paul could probably launch an independent or third-party bid and get at least 10% of the popular vote and probably a lot more. If Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination but decides to continue in the race, options include:

- Unity 08; see my column on it here.
- An independent run or creating a new third party, provided it gets tacit endorsement from the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party in that they don't nominate their own candidates. But if Paul runs as an independent, the ballot-access chances of both parties are hurt. But his pro-peace, pro-civil liberties message will also be effective outreach to many on the Left. The ends of both the LP and CP would be advanced, however imperfectly, by an independent Paul run, even if it does institutional damage to those parties.
- seeking the nomination of either the CP or the LP, but not both. This will be a bonanza for the party he chooses, as it would guarantee ballot access for that party in every state. Then again, he isn't a "pure" Constitution Party guy as he's a federalist on the abortion question and rejects protective tariffs, which the CP seems to favor. And he's an even less "pure" Libertarian, as he is more federalist than individualist on "moral" issues, more nationalist than laissez-faire on immigration, and favors national sovereignty over "free trade agreements."
- seeking the nomination of both parties. This could lead to conflicts and confusion on state ballot laws, and perhaps competition between the parties as to who will Paul represent in a particular state.

Time will tell. But it brings me joy to even speculate about it. The Ron Paul grassroots so far has proven to be larger, more enthusiastic, and better organized than I had anticipated, so that his campaign at this point is now more good news than bad, with greater reasons for optimism now than when it started.

And, as I said then, it's better for Ron Paul to run than for everyone to wonder what might have been. Because now, I'm wondering about what might be, which is more fun than trying to speculate which Libertarian candidate has the best chance to win half a million votes.