THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 399, December 24, 2006
Send Letters to email@example.com
Re: "Back To Basics: Part Four", by L. Neil Smith
In response to El Neil's suggestion that any legislator who votes in favor of going to war, or passing funding for an undeclared war, be drafted into the military, I would like to add one additional criteria: Infantry, as privates.
They must not, absolutely not, be rewarded for their use of coercion by being given a command, unless they somehow demonstrate competence on the battlefield first. Having previously served in the military coveys no honores either.
Tow Senator Byrd behind a tank in a wheelchair for all I care.
I watched the first part of Mel Gibson's The Patriot yesterday. From the speech given in the South Carolina assembly:
"I will not fight. And because I will not fight, I will not cast a vote to send others to fight."
Alan Weiss asks the musical question in his essay "With all due respects to Stephen, there's nothing all that new about those, but given that Michael Badnarik of Texas had a pretty good cache of all three in his bid for state house, how did he lose so badly?"
Possibly he lost his bid for statehouse because he was running for Congress? It is true that he lost, but the LP gained major party status, in Texas, again. And in Wyoming. And is fighting in North Carolina on ballot access that was earned but revoked.
Endorsing candidates who are running as Democrats or Republicans is an okay strategy, if there are decent candidates. Ron Paul, for example, has been pretty good as a libertarian Republicancertainly not perfect, but pretty good. But, in a great many races, there are no Democrats or Republicans worthy of endorsement. In many such races, a third party candidate can throw the race into a runoff, or a recount, or deliberately spoil the race for the incumbent.
For my own part, I'm not convinced that there are any workable political solutionsand I include rebellion, revolution, and war as political strategies. I continue to suspect that there are economic and technological solutions, so I continue to work on them.
To Which Alan R. Weiss Replied:
Jim Davidson wrote:
> Dear Editor,
You are correct, and I know better. Typo. Apologies.
> It is true that he lost, but
Yes, and we've had major party status in a number of states for awhile, but it doesn't matter, Jim.
We're not selling what people want to buy.
People want to buy leadership and problem-solvingand yes, personality. They do not buy ideology, even if we're the best and the best-working.
> Endorsing candidates who are running as Democrats or
Agreed. Then we do not endorse.
> In many such races, a third party
Maybe, but can you count on two hands the number of races we've EVER thrown into a runoff?
We are making a little headway in being the margin of difference between Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B, but it has taken enormous efforts and 35 years to even get to that point.
Maybe its time to pick a different strategy. L. Neil Smith would argueand I would probably agreethat the purpose of the LP is to be a magnet of attraction, hardcore and pure. I would add, UNLESS you are going to run outstanding leaders in their fields with proven track records at solving real problems.
> For my own part, I'm not convinced that there are any
Clearly its not Claire Wolfe Time.
> I continue to suspect that there are
Check into the Free State Project or, if you are a hard-core westerner, the Free Wyoming Project.
Unless your personality is such that you can't really work with anyone elsein which case, you might be a fan of the Krassney solution. We'll say nice things at your funeral.
To which Jim Davidson Replied
> You are correct, and I know better. Typo.
No sweat, my friend. Everyone errs. It is part of the charm of the human race.
> We're not selling what people want to buy.
Of course you aren't. What people want is to be given "free money" at the expense of people a long distance away. Libertarians cannot sell what people want to buy from Democrats and Republicans. The only thing an LP candidate is good for is being there when people tire of being robbed. Just because that hasn't happened in thirty-five years doesn't mean it won't ever happen. There are critical points in every brew, and this one seems close to the boiling point.
> People want to buy leadership and problem-solving
People want to believe they are prosperous. As long as they have the illusion of prosperity, they won't change much. For my own part, I think the sundry Bushes, Kerry, Clinton, Gore, McCain, and the like have the personalities of wet bread, have managed to lead the country into several quagmires but lack the leadership ability to admit error, and if you think they have solved any problems, I'd like to know what you've been smoking. Yet, people are buying what they are selling.
If the cost of government benefits is a police state, and if the police state is not constantly tiresome and unbearable, people seem ready to buy it. Look at the number of people on the government payroll in one form or another, mostly as beneficiaries of funds extorted from currently working adults to be paid out to those retired. What people think they are buying is more of the same, in the same way that they seem to believe in perpetual motion.
> They do not buy ideology, even if we're the best
Correct. People only really take up a short term interest in principles when they find that the winds of expedience have borne them over into suffering and deprivation. As long as they are prosperous, they won't reconsider their premises.
You may recall from your history lessons that there was a great depression in 1722, caused by the bursting of the South Sea Bubble and the rather evident failure of the John Law fiat money experiment. That depression wiped out 95% of listed stocks in Paris and London, and eliminated about 90% of the value of the remaining stocks. It took sixty years to bring stock values back to what they had been in 1722. During the last decade of that period, the Americans had their revolution. Had there been no depression, no economic calamity, do you think there would have been an American Revolution?
> Agreed. Then we do not endorse.
Good for you. That seems wise.
> Maybe, but can you count on two hands the number of
Nationwide, yes, certainly, at least six times. But, keep in mind that does not mean the LP has ever been in the runoff.
> We are making a little headway in being the margin
Which does suggest, to me, that politics is not going to bear the tasty fruit of my freedom.
> I would add, UNLESS you are going to run
You seem like a sensible man, Alan. You aren't holding your breath awaiting these leaders to run for office, are you? I mean, people with outstanding leadership skills run major corporations. People with proven track records at solving real problems get very well paid for doing so.
> Clearly its not Claire Wolfe Time.
Claire seems to think it is not. And she wants nothing to do with those who think it is, last I checked.
It is time to find effective solutions to problems. I'm not convinced that any effective solutions are to be found in the realm of politics.
> Check into the Free State Project or, if you are a
Well, yes, Alan. I am rather deeply, personally involved in Free State Wyoming. Thus far, I have been to every jamboree since the first one, and was there at Three Forks when Ken Royce (aka Boston T. Party) was signing the hardcover edition of his book and announcing plans for the project back in 2003. A group I formed in 2005 just held a costume party for FSW members and Wyoming LP leaders on Saturday December 9th. The free mountain West is going to make all the difference.
> Unless your personality is such that you can't
That is, of course, Jim Bell's assassination politics without the web site or the bounties. And, as I've said, I don't think there are any political solutions to what are essentially economic and technological problems.
I do think it is absolutely fascinating that in Arizona in 2006, Harold Krassny was written in at least 28 times in different races all over the state. As a write-in candidate he represents quite a bit of open hostility. "Don't blame me, I voted for Harold Krassny."
> We'll say nice things at your funeral.
Since I won't be involved in most of those arrangements, I cannot say whether you'd be invited to my funeral. Someone may say nice things at my funeral, but I won't give a farthing whether that person is an LP apparatchik or not.
RE: Default Settings to Big GovernmentMy Sweet, Beloved Country is Gone. . .
Recently an editorial in "the Atlasphere" (a message board for Ayn Rand fans) stated that nice sounding arguments would eventually convince the American sheeple that the Libertarians are correct. Sweet-sounding arguments could gradually convince some of the American sheeple to vote libertarian, and if the Libertarians weren't too lazy to walk a precinct, it might work, in Alaska and Wyoming. But do I really think that's a reason why creeping incrementalism won't win the next election?
Or: Can the American public be peacefully broken of the habit of crawling blindly towards the Nanny-State's blood-engorged tit every time they have a problem?
Yep, I think people could be broken of the habit of going to government to use force against me. For instance, if I fire a lead slug at them, and it penetrates through their weak cracker-like skull and unreasoning, semi-solid jell-o that passes for a brain, so that they can't walk out to the mailbox anymore, and pick up their welfare checks, or snitch on me for violating some absurd regulation, then, . . .perhaps. . ., they might not support an overarching police state anymore.
However, this strategy might backfire, as the dead bodies killed by retaliations against socialist initiations of force are typically used as an excuse for . . .even more socialism.
Good luck Randites! Do you still think it was a good idea to remove yourselves from the libertarian party / movement? -Divided we fall, Galt's Gulch doesn't exist, and the government satellites can see everything. (When you call the ARI, if you ask them why they don't support the Libertarian Candidates, they suggest that the Libertarian Party is a worse choice than the Communist Party, because they don't alienate religious voters by criticizing their personal religious choices. They'd rather fail in electoral politics, than advocate even the chance of a peaceful revolution without their philosphy at the helm.)
. . .Time for a better strategy. The first step is reading "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross, and learning a little lesson called "bloody compromise" (but only when necessary). Bloody Compromise and dirty fighting created America. Bloody Rebellion created America.
But it's not time for a rebellion yet, right? And it's also not time to support the Libertarian Party either, I guess.
What time is it then, when it's illegal for a product manufacturer (Lipton Tea Company, for instance) to print the simple truth "Sweetened with Stevia" on a box of tea? They can include Stevia as an ingrediant, but only if they don't label the box correctly -because that would have interefered with Donal Rumsfeld (the former CEO of NutraSweet) going to the government for protection. Could it be that it's time for the whimpering bitches at the Ayn Rand institute to admit the truth? --That they never learned to shoot a weapon, and that open violence is the only chance left for freedom? The FDA raided Lipton and Celestial Seasonings because they printed the simple truth on their products -striking a blow against both capitalism and the first amendment. See: http://www.stevia.net/fda.htm
Any Randites take up arms?
That wouldn't exactly keep the fundraising going at their Irvine Cali office though, would it?
Or have they forgotten about the Boston Tea Party, fought over vastly fewer innocents killed than those killed by State-mandated, ignorance-caused diabetes? (Diabetes killed 73,249 Americans in 2002. Final 2002 mortality: males34,301 deaths (46.8 percent of total deaths from diabetes); females38,948 (53.2 percent of total deaths from diabetes. 13,900,000 Americans have physician-diagnosed diabetes (about 6.8 million males and 7.0 million females).) Thanks to the fact that it's illegal to tell the truth about a small plant from paraguay.
. . .Amazing, what actually matters, in life! Freedom actually does matter!
Ayn Rand advocated a rebellion when there was no more freedom of speech. And there isn't freedom of speech now, and hasn't been for a long time. Incrementalism works, and the ARI is just pretending it hasn't.
Ayn Rand was right. WAS. She's dead now, and so is America.
If the gunowners wanted to, they could rebuild a free country. They are the only ones left with a choice.
We've all got our different philosophies, and the lines have been drawn in the sand. "Our side" has been brutally bludgeoned, whenever we've even asked for a polite discussion. Remember what the IRS said in Aaron Russo's latest movie? "We are answering their questions, through enforcement actions."
Too bad George Washington's not hiring. I'd join his army. There are a lot of redcoats on my block. Luckily, most of them are old, broken down, overweight, and ravaged by diabetes. . . .Maybe I should just keep waiting for them to succumb.
> From: Atlasphere Columns