Phil Maymin to appear on MSNBC

According to Maymin’s campaign:

Phil Maymin, candidate for U.S. Congress in Connecticut’s 4th District, will appear on Tucker Carlson’s show on MSNBC, Wednesday at 4pm EST. Tucker played Maymin’s “I Approve This Massage” ad on his show a couple of days ago. Watch
the clip.

Note: The clip is best viewed with Internet Explorer.

Previous coverage of Phil Maymin here.

Update: For those of you that live in Maymin’s district, be sure to vote for him on this online poll.

Update2: Maymin’s interview on MSNBC here. (best viewed with Internet Explorer)

posted by disinter
  • Dennis Anthony Porto

    I didnt know Carlson was a libertarian. Too bad no one watches MSNBC.

  • disinter

    He’s less Libertarian than the Libertarian Retard caucus – which isn’t very Libertarian.

  • Devious David

    … So he’s just an even more profoundly confused Republican than average.

  • http://www.duoism.org a Duoist

    There’s an old saw in Hollywood that states, ‘write anything bad you want to, about me; just spell my name right.’

    “Massage.” If flippancy wins votes, it’s a brilliant spot. If not, then exactly what is the point of flippancy in a political campaign?

  • Chuck

    a duoist – when the media in general is not listenting to your message or even giving it a chance, flippancy if done decently and not to the level of being asinine(like the statue of libery guy), can actually help get your message out there, we’ve seen it with Loretta and now with Maymin. I personally think Maymin’s spot is adorable, and is a great ad for someone that is almost assured not to win, but just needs to get his message out there for the future.

  • http://www.sundwall4congress.org Eric Sundwall

    Kudos,Phil !

    Stay on msg. w/Carlson – don’t let him turn it into a cutesy story. The War & Debt are Shay’s & Farrell’s weakness.

    ‘Hammer’ him about their cutesy Donkey & Elephant ad too . . .
    Two characters walking down the beach . . . Where’s the Penguin ? Is that the Libertarian animal symbol ?

  • undercover_anarchist

    Tucker is more of a “Goldwater Conservative” than a Libertarian.

    He is a very good, fun journalist, though. There’s nothing wrong with a journalist having an opinion, so long as they make it known, don’t feign “fair and balanced,” and can actually be objective.

    I have a feeling that Tucker will be 100% pro-Maymin, since Maymin himself is more of a paleocon than a libertarian (i.e. border nazism, ovarian marxism, etc.)

  • undercover_anarchist

    Let’s recognize this: Phil Maymin has run the best CAMPAIGN of any Libertarian for any office. I’m not talking about his ideological purity or attractiveness as a candidate, but as far as running a CAMPAIGN (without a millionaire’s bank account), he has done the best job. Every candidate has it within them to run a campaign approaching this level, and yet so few do. I would rather have one Phil Maymin than 10,000 Bob Smithers.

  • Derrick

    UA, sometimes your points are overshadowed by the dramatic language you use. Border Nazism? Ovarian Marxism?

    Furthermore, I suggest that you will have better luck in influencing people by using positive language. In other words, point out the things which you like about various candidates, instead of the things which you don’t like. Ex: “Guthrie really is doing a great job of appealing to the left” instead of “Maymin is such a totalitarian.”

    Leaders lift up the people around them. Check out “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. The title may sound cheesy, but it’s really not. It’s all about making the most of every interaction with other people.

  • matt

    If Maymin’s campaign is anywhere as good as his debate soundbites, then what UA is right about it being well-done. His mannerisms are a little terse, and I don’t fancy a fence myself, but he makes good points and gets airtime on MSNBC. That’s rare, and certainly worthy of a little apllause.

  • Derrick

    And yes, I agree with you on #8. Maymin is running one of the best campaigns I have seen.

    What has struck me the most is that he knows and understands the issues which are of concern to voters. Whenever one comes up in a debate, he rattles off facts, figures, names, dates, and policy proposals.

    More LP candidates should be prepared like that. Too many are caught on the spot, and only offer a default “government is too big, the market will solve all” response, with no real details on how a libertarian solution is right for a specific situation.

  • matt

    Oh nooo! We’re too dramatic and negative!

    Wait, isn’t that what message boards are for? I personally am a lot nicer and more understanding to people I have over to my house for dinner than I am to people on message boards, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing neccessarily.

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    Tucker is most certainly a libertarian. I have watched him call himself that numerous times.

    I’m hereby adding him to my List of Famous Libertarians over at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com.

    And incidentally, for the guy who said “he’s not a libertarian, he’s more of a Goldwater Repubilcans…”

    Hey, NEWSFLASH!!! Goldwater Republicans IS LIBERTARIAN!!!

    Sheesh!!!

  • paulie

    Tucker is most certainly a libertarian. I have watched him call himself that numerous times.

    So did Bill Clinton. So what?

    I’m hereby adding him to my List of Famous Libertarians over at donderodelusions.com

    That makes it official. Not a libertarian.

    Goldwater Republicans are not libertarians. Duh.

    Oh nooo! We’re too dramatic and negative!

    Wait, isn’t that what message boards are for? I personally am a lot nicer and more understanding to people I have over to my house for dinner than I am to people on message boards, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing neccessarily.

    I agree. It makes it more entertaining.

    UA’s right about Maymin, too.

  • disinter

    Tucker is most certainly a libertarian. I have watched him call himself that numerous times.

    So if dubya called himself a libertarian, that would make it so?

    Do you have any idea where Tucker stands on the issues? I have listened to him a few times and I can tell you he is not even close to being a libertarian, or a goldwater republican.

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    From what I’ve seen from his show, Tucker is socially moderate (leans liberal) and economically moderate (leans conservative). There are those that are MUCH worse, namely O’Reilly, and about 434 congressmen and 100 senators.

    Of all the shows I have to pick from between CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, I like him second only to Keith Olbermann (who definitely IS NOT libertarian, but IS funny.)

  • disinter

    Olbermann is my favorite as well. He even appears more libertarian than Tucker, to me anyway.

    At any rate, I appreciate Tucker for even having a Libertarian candidate on his show.

  • matt

    Tucker Carlson is a TV talking head. That’s right folks, he plays a character on TV. TV talking heads like him, Bill O’Reilly, Keith Olbermann, Lou Dobbs, etc. provide entertainment mostly. If he wants to get Maymin on his show, well then great. That’s a testament to the (slight)buzz surrounding the LP right now. I sure loved the detective show Matlock. Can we speculate on whether or not Matlock was a libertarian? It makes just as much (or little) difference as “Tucker”‘s affiliation. Less, probably, since Andy Griffith was actually kind of funny in that show.

  • http://warcriminal.freeservers.com Sol

    If he wins I hope he does something about this. Your tax dollars at work from “The No Nookie for You Department”

    Abstinence message goes beyond teens

    By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY

    The federal government’s “no sex without marriage” message isn’t just for kids anymore.
    Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

    The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it’s a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm

  • http://warcriminal.freeservers.com Sol

    Tucker likes William Hung’s singing

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12647373/

    Maybe the government will tell Tucker to not have sex…

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm

  • Derrick

    That’s a testament to the (slight)buzz surrounding the LP right now.

    I think it’s more of a testament to the buzz surrounding Maymin right now. From a story in the Stamford Advocate:

    [...] one candidate who also is targeting those voters, and who could be a spoiler for the incumbent, is Libertarian candidate Phil Maymin. Maymin, who petitioned his way onto the ballot in July, participated in more than half of the 11 congressional debates, surprising observers with his knowledge of the issues and personality.

    Maymin is focusing on issues which the voters care about, such as Iraq, the general state of the economy, and immigration. He is reading up on those issues and offering intelligent (albeit somewhat radical) policy proposals. That’s a much better political strategy than ranting about the gold standard or 16th amendment.

  • Bill Flanigen

    “From what I’ve seen from his show, Tucker is socially moderate (leans liberal) and economically moderate (leans conservative). There are those that are MUCH worse, namely O’Reilly, and about 434 congressmen and 100 senators.”

    So the fact that Carlson has called himself a libertarian, and that there seem to be people in the world that are less libertarian than he is, makes him a libertarian? Please. The fact that you mention Bill O’Reilly as an example of someone “less libertarian” than Carlson is like trying to prove that Noam Chomsky is a conservative, because Karl Marx was leftist through-and-through. Or that a banana is orange, because if you look at an apple, it’s really really not yellow. In other words, it’s a stupid argument.

    Anyone that adds Carlson to a list of mainstream libertarians (especially a list odd enoug to include Schwarzenegger) has very little appreciation for sincere libertarianism of any kind, be it moderate or extreme.

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    Bill, I never claimed Tucker was a libertarian.

  • Andy

    “Tucker is most certainly a libertarian.”

    This from the guy who started “Libertarians for Lieberman” and “Libertarians for Bush.” This from a guy who thinks that Council On Foreign Relations member PJ O’Rourke is a libertarian. This from a guy who considers big spending gun grabber Arnold Schwarzennegger to be one of his political heros. This from a guy who thinks that Kinky Friedman is a libertarian. This from a guy who thinks that it’s “libertarian” to kill people in other countries who haven’t done anything to us.

  • Andy

    “Tucker is most certainly a libertarian. I have watched him call himself that numerous times.”

    Just because somebody calls themselves a libertarian it doesn’t necessarily make them one. Bill Maher has called himself a libertarian and I don’t consider him to be one.

  • Andy

    “since Maymin himself is more of a paleocon than a libertarian (i.e. border nazism, ovarian marxism, etc.)”

    Maymin is probably more of a libertarian than undercover_anarchist is.

  • Andy

    “UA, sometimes your points are overshadowed by the dramatic language you use. Border Nazism? Ovarian Marxism?”

    One could refer to undercover_anarachist as a border socialist and a baby killer. Not to mention that he’s pro-eminent domain, pro-Federal Reserve (he thinks that the big bankers are pro-free market), pro-tax, and pro-Affirmative Action (he’s a racial Marxist).

  • paulie

    Maymin is focusing on issues which the voters care about, such as Iraq, the general state of the economy, and immigration. He is reading up on those issues and offering intelligent (albeit somewhat radical) policy proposals. That’s a much better political strategy than ranting about the gold standard or 16th amendment.

    True, the only problem being that Maymin’s immigration position is even worse than a Republocrat’s, and his tax view is (probably inadvertantly) as well, since he’s probably not aware of the real hidden agenda behind the FraudTax which he also supports.

    One could refer to undercover_anarachist as a border socialist

    If socialism means collective ownership, the idea that the government collectively owns the border (and, by implication, the whole country) is socialist. Of course, it’s also nationalist, which makes it National Socialist.

  • undercover_anarchist

    No, Andy is the border socialist who believes the border is the collective property of “Americans” and that the state has the authority to create imaginary lines that human beings must respect. I have often used the term “border socialist” instead of “border Nazi” – they are interchangable.

    Andy also has Nicolae CeauÅŸescu’s position on abortion. He thinks that women are property of the state and that they have the obligation to breed for the state’s prosperity. He wants more children, more people – so long as they aren’t brown ones who cross his precious imaginary line.

    If I’m “pro-eminant domain” then so were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Andy lives in the upside down world of INGSOC where freedom = tyranny and the framers of the constitution were unconstitutional.

    I never said I was pro “affirmative action” whatever that means. I support the right of private institutions to foster diversity as they see fit. Strangely, the same people who oppose the Civil Rights Act oppose…

  • undercover_anarchist

    …voluntary “diversity” initiatives by private organizations. Hmmm.. What’s the common element? Just admit you’re pro-white and be done with it.

    Pro tax? Absurd. I do however live in a wonderful place called reality where taxes are a necessary “evil.” In a better world, taxes would be based on property and not on productivity, which is what John Locke and the early patriots of this country believed. Again, Andy subscribes to INGSOC. I recognize that the tax system is not going to be transferred to a property-based system, and therefore, I support an amended version of Steve Forbes’s Flat Tax. I guess that makes me “pro tax.”

    And as for the Fed. Again, reality, you might want to try visiting. America’s prosperity is the product of its legal and financial system. You Boston T. Party type “libertarian” (white supremacist) neanderthals want to rape your sisters in Amish yirts in the name of “freedom.” I’d rather maximize freedom within the American system. If being pro-growth… (contd)

  • undercover_anarchist

    that I’m a commie, then I stand convicted. Just be sure to round up every productive wealth creating citizen in the nation while you’re at it, so you anacrhonistic idiots can worship your precious shiny metal while destroying prosperity, reinstating racism, and subjugating women to the will of the state, all in the name of “freedom.”

    Fuck you very much.

  • paulie

    If I’m “pro-eminant domain” then so were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

    They were hardly perfect. They practiced slavery too, which doesn’t make slavery OK – and it doesn’t make eminent domain OK either. And no, I’m not saying you’re pro-slavery.

    I never said I was pro “affirmative action” whatever that means. I support the right of private institutions to foster diversity as they see fit. Strangely, the same people who oppose the Civil Rights Act oppose voluntary “diversity” initiatives by private organizations.

    We don’t oppose voluntary diversity initiatives. We do oppose the government classifying people by the scientifically dubious race concept. In fairness, I don’t think you said your FOR government affirmative action, just against making it a prime issue.

    taxes are a necessary “evil.”

    Evil, yes.
    Necessary, no.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Well, they’re not necessary if you want to live like Somalians, the perfect “anarchist state.”

    I’ll make it clear: I am against racial preference in government contracting. More than that, I’m against government contracting. Why doesn’t the LP make THAT the issue? Answer: Becuase they’re racist.

    I do not worship the framers nor the Constitution – which I have often referred to as a document written behid closed doors by a cabal of slave rapists. But I respect the pre-Kelo interpretation of eminant domain as written into the Constitution. If that makes me a commie, then so was every single founding father. That’s all I’m saying.

  • Bill Flanigen

    “Bill, I never claimed Tucker was a libertarian.”

    Ahem. It seemed like you were defending the fellow above you that said Carlson was a libertarian. My apologies for the assumption.

  • http://www.reformthelp.org Carl

    Carlson writing in Cato’s Letter:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv4n2.pdf

    FWIW

  • Dave

    I watched the episode and didn’t see phil Maymin on there. I thought he was going to be a guest. They already showed his ad. I didn’t see the ad on there this time, but I fast forwarded it to find maymin on the show and didn’t see him.

  • Dave

    Nevermind. He is on Wednesday, not Tuesday.

  • paulie

    Well, they’re not necessary if you want to live like Somalians

    Somalia’s growth rate is a lot higher than America’s, outside the non-anarchist warzone in the south especially.

    The problem with Somalia’s living standard is the previous imperialist/colonial, fascist and communist governments.

    Ending taxes would dramatically improve any country’s standard of living, including America. Central planning is not more efficient than a free market, so taxes can’t raise our standard of living.

  • paulie

    I do not worship the framers nor the Constitution – which I have often referred to as a document written behid closed doors by a cabal of slave rapists. But I respect the pre-Kelo interpretation of eminant domain as written into the Constitution. If that makes me a commie, then so was every single founding father. That’s all I’m saying.

    On this particular issue they were. That doesn’t make you, or them, a “commie” on every issue. But as you pointed out they had their problems. This happens to be an anti-freedom stand, which Kelo made even worse.

  • Andy

    “One could refer to undercover_anarachist as a border socialist

    If socialism means collective ownership, the idea that the government collectively owns the border (and, by implication, the whole country) is socialist. Of course, it’s also nationalist, which makes it National Socialist.

    Comment by paulie ”” 2006-10-31 @ 3:19 pm”

    What you guys overlook is the REALITY of the situation in which we live. We have a government whether we like it or not. We pay taxes whether we like it or not. A lot of those taxes go towards infastructure such as roads, schools, libraries, hospitals, etc… Since we the people (that is Americans) pay for this infastructure I would say that implies group ownership of that infastructure. Most of us here – maybe even all of us here – do not like this, but it takes a lot more than us not liking it to change this reality. Reality is that this place we call the United States Of America has built up a very large welfare system. Adding more

  • Andy

    people to it through mass immigration is insane. I’m NOT opposed to all immigrants. Some immigrants are fine, however, reality is that there are a hell of a lot of poor immigrants who come here and who have children (who are counted as “Americans”) and who are a drain on the tax payers. According to undercover_anarchist it is “racist” to deny benifits to illegal aliens. I’d call that socialist.

    I’d also say that it’s socialist for you guys to ASSUME that if all land in this country that is currently under the control of our government were back into the hands of individual Americans that everyone would want mass immigration on their land. Some would want this but there are also a hell of a lot of people who wouldn’t want this.

  • Andy

    “Andy also has Nicolae CeauÅŸescu’s position on abortion. He thinks that women are property of the state and that they have the obligation to breed for the state’s prosperity. He wants more children, more people – so long as they aren’t brown ones who cross his precious imaginary line.”

    I never said where I stand on abortion. What I have said is that I think that one can be “pro-choice” or “pro-life” and still be a libertarian. If one considers abortion to be murder than how can one say that opposing it is anti-liberty? You refer to anyone who opposes abortion to be an “Ovarian Marxist” and dismiss them as anti-libertarian and I do not consider this to be valid. I do not consider abortion to be a definitional libertarian issue because one can make a good pro-liberty arguement for either side.

  • Andy

    “Pro tax? Absurd. I do however live in a wonderful place called reality where taxes are a necessary ‘evil.’”

    I seem to recall you supporting tax payer funded political campaigns on another thread. I don’t consider that to be a good idea.

    I wouldn’t say that taxes are a necessary evil. I doubt that we could get rid of taxes in one fell swoop, but this does not mean that taxes are necessary.

    Also, according to what Walter Burien says ( http://www.CAFR1.com ) our government has enough money in slush funds (which can be found in Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for local, state, and federal agencies) that the proceeds from these government investment funds could be used to fund government and that we could do away with all taxes. I’ve investigated his claims and from what I’ve found it looks like he’s right. For more information on CAFR’s also check out http://www.cafrman.com.

    As I indicated above, getting rid of all taxes at once is probably not going to happen,

  • Andy

    however, since taxation is theft and since a voluntary society is the end goal for libertarians I’d say that getting rid of all taxation is a part of that end goal. I don’t know if we’ll get there or not but this is still the goal.

  • Andy

    “And as for the Fed. Again, reality, you might want to try visiting. America’s prosperity is the product of its legal and financial system. You Boston T. Party type “libertarian” (white supremacist) neanderthals want to rape your sisters in Amish yirts in the name of ‘freedom.’”

    So opposing the Federal Reserve is “racist.” Yeah, this makes a lot of sense…not. America would be far more prosperous if the Federal Reserve System had never exsisted.

  • Andy

    “I do not worship the framers nor the Constitution – which I have often referred to as a document written behid closed doors by a cabal of slave rapists. But I respect the pre-Kelo interpretation of eminant domain as written into the Constitution. If that makes me a commie, then so was every single founding father. That’s all I’m saying.”

    I wouldn’t say that ALL of the framers were “slave rapists,” and I consider the Constitution (if followed) to be a hell of a lot better than what we’ve got now and the types of governments that exsisted before that time, however, I do not consider the Constitution to be the be all and end all of liberty because liberty obviously runs deeper than what the Constitution has to offer.

    The original intent behind eminent domain is a lot better than Kelo decision eminent domain, however, even if it is for a road from a libertarian perspective it is still taking land by the use of force.

  • Timothy West

    Not for me. I dont believe in anarchism. But I’d like to see a federal government reduced in size to around 15%~20% of present size. Taxation is not theft if the taxation is consented to. The great majority of poeple consent to the concept of taxation. They dont grab their guns and they dont refuse to pay. Some do. but the number of those that do is so small as to be irreleveant as concerns public policy.

    I think these people that dont consent are already in the underground economy. They dont care – they are already not paying taxes.

    I’m pretty sure that many a ballot sig taker might fit into this category. :D

  • Timothy West

    America would be far more prosperous if the Federal Reserve System had never exsisted.

    There’s no way to prove or disprove that. We have what we have.

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    This from a guy – Andy – who believes that to call oneself a “libertarian” you have to let Muslims invade your country, take over the government, veil all your women and cover them from head to toe in ugly black burkas and force all the men to kneel down and pray to Allah 5 times a day, or get their heads cut off.

    According to this Andy fellow, Libertarianism = Support for Islamo-Fascism. That’s the only definition that matters.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Immigrants pay taxes too. And in the case of Social Security, they pay taxes for a benefit they’ll never receive.

  • http://freelancify.com Nigel Watt

    UA: A simple question: Do you believe affirmative action by government to be right or wrong?

    Another: Is everyone who disagrees with you a racist?

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    What you guys overlook is the REALITY of the situation in which we live. We have a government whether we like it or not. We pay taxes whether we like it or not. A lot of those taxes go towards infastructure such as roads, schools, libraries, hospitals, etc”¦ Since we the people (that is Americans) pay for this infastructure I would say that implies group ownership of that infastructure.

    If you conclude from this that government has effective collective ownership rights over the border, why stop there?

    If you own your own house, you can forbid drugs and guns there, you can say whether or not homosexuals acts are permitted in your house, you can charge rent (taxes), etc.
    This is the logical conclusion of what you say above, wouldn’t you agree?

    Remember when that cop in Little Rock told us that the government owns the country? Well, here you seem to be agreeing with him!

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    Reality is that this place we call the United States Of America has built up a very large welfare system. Adding more people to it through mass immigration is insane.

    I like Loretta’s position on this in

    http://nallforgovernor.blogspot.com/2006/10/nall-answers-debate-questions.html

    No additional state laws or enforcement tools will be used under my administration for immigration. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates 10 million jobs will be unfilled in 2010, when the first wave of boomers retire.
    Immigrant labor contributes to the economy. Many industries would struggle and some would even close were it not for immigrant labor.

    Building a wall is a stupid idea as the vast majority of illegal immigrants come across the border by automobile. It is a ‘feel good’ piece of legislation that does nothing to address the issue and truthfully I am more afraid of being walled in than walling Hispanics out.

    cont….

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    cont

    Deporting immigrants is also a stupid and fiscally irresponsible idea. Until we gain control of the border and have the ability to inspect every automobile that comes across all of the people deported would just come back.

    Imprisioning immigrants who are breaking no law other than being here is inhumane and the most fiscally irresponsible proposal of all. Why take someone who is contributing to the economy, cage them and add them to the taxpayer tab at $12,000 a pop?

    My plan is naturalize immigrants and add them to the tax base to increase state coffers. When the labor shortage hits in four years Alabama will be prepared.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    Andy:

    According to undercover_anarchist it is “racist” to deny benifits to illegal aliens. I’d call that socialist.

    Here’s the problem with this argument: Yes, I would like to eventually replace government welfare with private charity; however, that doesn’t mean it would be OK in the meantime to say, for example, that only blonde haired white people can get government welfare. I’m not saying that is what you actually advocate. I’m saying that it would be equally wrong.

    Yes, welfare should be taken out of government hands, but it should be done in a non-discriminatory way. One wrong does not justify another!

    Why not say that we can’t allow private ownership of guns until drugs are legal? Or that we can’t legalize drugs until we have completely private health care, housing and schooling? Or that we can’t have those until we end limited liability for corporations?

    How about “ALL our freedoms ALL the time”?

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    I’d also say that it’s socialist for you guys to ASSUME that if all land in this country that is currently under the control of our government were back into the hands of individual Americans that everyone would want mass immigration on their land. Some would want this but there are also a hell of a lot of people who wouldn’t want this.

    Strawman argument, since no one assumed any such thing. Want to have a piece of land where only white Anglos are allowed? Knock yourself out. Want to have one where you can’t enter unless you bring along someone who is fluent in Hindi? Equally fine. It’s your land, do what you wanna do.

    But that also means it isn’t the government’s land.

    A thousand Anglo ranchers putting up walls on their own land with their own money, perfectly fine. The US regime putting up a Great Wall of America with stolen tax money, NOT fine! See the difference?

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    America would be far more prosperous if the Federal Reserve System had never exsisted.

    True.

    getting rid of all taxes at once is probably not going to happen,

    You have a crystal ball? Kewl!

    however, since taxation is theft and since a voluntary society is the end goal for libertarians I’d say that getting rid of all taxation is a part of that end goal.

    That depends on how you define libertarian. If we define it in the traditional way, you are correct. However, there’s another definition, which is “top quadrant of the Nolan chart,” most of whom don’t share our end goal.

    Yet another even broader definition is “less government than at present”. Since government under clinton was smaller than under Bush, I guess Clinton was right after all when he said he was a libertarian! And since under the next Clinton it is likely to be larger yet, Eric is right when he calls Bush a mainstream libertarian!

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    But I’d like to see a federal government reduced in size to around 15%~20% of present size.

    All the way back to its Nixon administration size?

    Taxation is not theft if the taxation is consented to. The great majority of poeple consent to the concept of taxation.

    Even if 99.999999% consent, they have no right to steal from what few don’t consent. But if, as you say, that many consent, what’s the problem? Surely they can come up with enough money to run their regime without stealing from us few oddballs?

    They dont grab their guns and they dont refuse to pay. Some do. but the number of those that do is so small as to be irreleveant as concerns public policy.

    You might underestimate us. There are literally millions who don’t file and don’t pay every year. Most don’t speak up about it or get involved in politics.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    I think these people that dont consent are already in the underground economy. They dont care – they are already not paying taxes.

    I’m pretty sure that many a ballot sig taker might fit into this category. :D

    Au contraire – we do pay sales taxes, whether we like it or not. We pay through the sales and income taxes adding to the cost of goods at every stage of their production, transport and retail. We also pay transient taxes on lodging, which local governments love because we don’t stay long enough to vote them out of office.

    They go to great lengths to impose these taxes on people who live in motels. In many areas, families have to move from one motel to another after 28 days. In LA I had to be locked out of one room for a day, with my stuff still there, so they could continue to claim I am not a permanent resident. What a rip off!

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    America would be far more prosperous if the Federal Reserve System had never exsisted.

    There’s no way to prove or disprove that. We have what we have.

    http://www.mises.org/store/Case-Against-the-Fed-The-P69C0.aspx

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    This from a guy – Andy – who believes that to call oneself a “libertarian” you have to let Muslims invade your country, take over the government, veil all your women and cover them from head to toe in ugly black burkas and force all the men to kneel down and pray to Allah 5 times a day, or get their heads cut off.

    We believe no such thing. If this were a real threat, and not a phony one used to scare Americans into giving Bush’s fascist gang dictatorial powers, we’d be fighting off the invasion as I’m sure would you – literally, not on a keyboard.

    The fact is that Muslim extremists don’t possess the means
    to enslave America or even come close. But neocon-theocon
    “Christian” fascists are a REAL threat. Giving the real fascists unlimited power to fight a phony threat is the height of stupidity.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    According to this Andy fellow, Libertarianism = Support for Islamo-Fascism. That’s the only definition that matters.

    C’mon Eric – you’re smarter than that.

    First of all, there is no such thing as Islamo-fascism. And before you fire off another half-cocked response, actually READ the link in support of my statement this time!

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis46.html

    Our definition is completely opposed to initiations of force, and that includes in the name of any religion.

    If you have to balance fighting against different violations of liberty in the real world, you have to judge which poses a more immediate and credible threat. The actions of the Bush regime in the name of the “war on terror” pose a far more immediate and credible threat than the absurd fantasy of Muslim extremists invading and taking over America!

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    Immigrants pay taxes too. And in the case of Social Security, they pay taxes for a benefit they’ll never receive.

    And this too is true.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    Oh, and anticipating your next move, Andy, before you bring my grandparents into it, they were LEGAL immigrants.

  • undercover_anarchist

    NIGEL: I thought I made it clear. I’m against government-based “affirmative action.” The problem is that most people who AGREE with me are racists; not the other way around.

  • Andy

    “Another: Is everyone who disagrees with you a racist?”

    Throwing the “racist” label around is a typical smear tactic used by leftists. Cut benifits and one is a “racist.” Oppose Affirmative Action and one is a “racist.”

    This is an example why the Libertarian label should not be considered part of the left or right. Cozy up too much to the left and we sound too much like UA. Cozy up too much to the right and we sound too much like Dondero.

  • Chuck

    RECLAIM THE THREAD, WAS MAYMIN ON THE SHOW? DID ANYONE SEE IT?

    Thanks

  • http://warcriminal.freeservers.com Sol

    >And in the case of Social Security, they pay taxes for a
    >benefit they’ll never receive.

    I’d say that applies to most young working people. At best, by the time you factor in inflation, most young people will probably get pennies on the dollars they and their employers have paid in if they get anything at all.

    If you don’t believe just do some research. Start with the link below. People want their big gubmint to take care of them. They’re going to get it good and hard.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-28-economic-disaster_x.htm

  • disinter

    Chuck,

    Maymin will be on today at 4pm EST.

  • matt

    “You Boston T. Party type “libertarian” (white supremacist) neanderthals want to rape your sisters in Amish yirts in the name of “freedom.” ”

    Okay, people, I’m having a little trouble with this one. Hyperbole is great fun and I indulge myself from time to time, but shouldn’t it be based on at least a little substance? Boston T. Party seems interesting and funny, I’ve never once heard that he’s a white supremacist. Did I miss something? If not, you’re just knocking westerners/country folk for no reason. Not cool.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Yeah, I was knocking western/country folks for no reason so I guess I’m not cool. I would prefer to knock Texans and other southerners but there are too many of them here.

  • TerryP

    He did a good job with Tucker. I wish he would have mentioned Ron Paul at the end just to give people a sense that it is not that big of a stretch to have a libertarian in Congress.

    Best of luck in the election Phil!

  • George Whitfield

    Phil Maymin did great on the Tucker show. He made his points, was direct, kept smiling and communicated very well. I wish him the best and am glad I contributed to his campaign!

  • Chuck

    That was nice, I wish he hadn’t had pulled the, it’s for the children line, but besides that nice job!

  • http://freelancify.com Nigel Watt

    Hey, if it gets the job done, that’s what matters. Some bullshit on a TV program isn’t a big deal.

    UA, why are you throwing around the term “racist” when you want to cast aspersions on whole groups of people (ie, Texans like myself) unapologetically, but don’t have the balls to do it?

  • http://warcriminal.freeservers.com Sol

    In the ad the masseuse confuses a libertarian with Lieberman. Was the masseuse Dondilldo’s sister?

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    Speaking of Lieberman, is it true that Eric is planning to start Libertarians for Avigdor Lieberman?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    As I see in the Libertarians need to… thread he’s already plugging Bill O’Reilly as a true libertarian.

    I needed the laugh this morning. Eric’s comments are always entertaining!

  • Peter Borah

    Three cheers for Maymin! This guy is the best candidate from _any_ party I’ve ever seen. Hopefully people other than HoT readers watched the show.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Nigel… Have you ever heard of a joke? Jesus Christ.

  • Timothy West

    But I’d like to see a federal government reduced in size to around 15%~20% of present size.

    All the way back to its Nixon administration size?

    thats a realistic assesment of the best I think possible. If we would manage to get there, I’d then like to take it down more.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    Well, at least it’s refreshing to know you don’t think the government was too SMALL before LBJ and Nixon :-)

  • Timothy West

    My ideal size of the federal government would be roughly pre – 16th amendment sized. Think Hoover.

    it would be a bit bigger in some areas and a bit smaller in others. I’d really like to dismantle the military industrial complex and kill it’s chances of ever coming back.

  • disinter

    Tim,

    All I have to say is… thank god you left the Libertarian Party.

  • Andy

    “Oh, and anticipating your next move, Andy, before you bring my grandparents into it, they were LEGAL immigrants.”

    Actually, I was not going to bring that up. But since you did my repsonse is that legal immigrants – especially those who never worked a day in their lives here – should not be able to collect any benifits either.

    I think that not giving tax benifits to immigrants would make them resent the government – as well as all of the lazy ass Americans who feed out of the public trough – and thus make them more libertarian.

  • Andy

    “This from a guy – Andy – who believes that to call oneself a “libertarian” you have to let Muslims invade your country, take over the government, veil all your women and cover them from head to toe in ugly black burkas and force all the men to kneel down and pray to Allah 5 times a day, or get their heads cut off.

    According to this Andy fellow, Libertarianism = Support for Islamo-Fascism. That’s the only definition that matters.”

    This is completely aburd. Do you REALLY believe this nonsense? There are no Muslims invaiding this country. Muslims do not have the military might to do this even if they wanted to. Muslims have little political power in this country.

    Fascism better describes the Bush regime than it does the Muslims.

  • paulie

    My ideal size of the federal government would be roughly pre – 16th amendment sized. Think Hoover.

    If I recall history correctly, Hoover was president about 15-20 years after the 16th.

    I’d really like to dismantle the military industrial complex and kill it’s chances of ever coming back.

    My #1 priority as well.

    Tim,

    All I have to say is”¦ thank god you left the Libertarian Party.

    Turns out he didn’t.

    He left the letter in the truck for his wife to mail, she never did, and after a week he changed his mind and decided to hang in there.

    I’ve had times when I almost quit as well, such as 1998 when the Alabama LP exec comm voted to lower the price of the petition from 1.00 to 60 cents in the “great 3/5 compromise” illegal email vote afetr we had already hired people locally.

    Now I can’t, as a life member I’m stuck, kinda.

  • Timothy West

    I didnt. Still here. I’ve posted the circumstances elsewhere.

  • paulie

    I think that not giving tax benifits to immigrants would make them resent the government – as well as all of the lazy ass Americans who feed out of the public trough – and thus make them more libertarian.

    I don’t think it really would.

    I guess if this works though, we can single out groups – blacks this week, women who weigh over 200 pounds the next, etc – and take away government benefits.

    Pretty soon we’ll have a nation of libertarians this way.

    Or not.

  • paulie

    This is completely aburd. Do you REALLY believe this nonsense? There are no Muslims invaiding this country. Muslims do not have the military might to do this even if they wanted to.

    Yes, I think he really believes it.

    Eric’s convinced that Iraq really did have WMDs and that they are now in Syria.

    (Of course, what good did having them do them if they didn’t use them when they were being invaded and regime changed? This is beyond absurd).

  • Timothy West

    no, anyone can renounce the oath at any time. Gets you right out.

    Hoover was president about 15-20 years after the 16th.

    Could be – to clarify, I want a federal government REALLY REALLY A LOT SMALLER than it is now, and I want to remove it’s power to tax my income, among other things.

    I almost quit when the LNC had the “secret vote” to raise the dues payments. I did quit after the Perry Willis stuff, but never sent in the oath disavowment. It’s not real unless you do that. You only go into a inactive status.

    Of course, I think the oath is a bunch of shit anyways, and I dont agree with it or the premises surrounding it. Maybe Nelson can get me kicked out.

  • paulie

    But I do agree with the oath.

    Renouncing it would be dishonest.

    Even if I become a bomb-throwing anarchist revolutionary, I would consider it *retaliatory force* rather than initiation of force. Thus still OK under the oath.

    Given the dysfunctional nature of LP operations, if I had it to do over I would have kept that thousand bucks and spent in on something better, like Filet Mignon, Asian Massage parlors, hardcore pornography, and Guinness.

    But I made 2.5 k that week on Oklahoma sigs, so I kicked a thou back.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Switch out the Guinness for some young Chianti, and I’m in with Paulie.

  • paulie

    Chianti’s not bad either.

  • Andy

    “I don’t think it really would.

    I guess if this works though, we can single out groups – blacks this week, women who weigh over 200 pounds the next, etc – and take away government benefits.

    Pretty soon we’ll have a nation of libertarians this way.

    Or not.”

    Why not? First off it would discourage non-productive people from coming here in the first place. Secondly, the immigrants here would be really resentful of all of the lazy welfare parasites and they would become more anti-tax and anti-government.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    It would create pleny of pissed off people, but that does not make them libertarian.

    It would be more likely to make them communist than libertarian, if they were to get into politics at all, which few of them would.

    Stealing is wrong. Prejudice is also wrong. One wrong does not make another right.

  • Andy

    “It would create pleny of pissed off people, but that does not make them libertarian.

    It would be more likely to make them communist than libertarian, if they were to get into politics at all, which few of them would.”

    I think that giving them tax payer funded benifits is more likely to make them socialist. If you give people hand outs it gives them less incentive to live productive and responsible lives.

    If immigrants can’t get the tax payer funded “freebies” it would make them resentful of the lazy ass Americans recieving them and the government that taxes them to fund the welfare state.

    One of the things that helped mold me into a libertarian was when I worked at this place where there were several people who took advantage of the welfare system. I’d look at my pay check stud and see all of these taxes taken out and realized that some of the money I was paying in taxes was

  • Andy

    going to support these people that were abusing the system. This irritated me.

    So I say no welfare benifits for immigrants. I call it tough love.

    “Stealing is wrong. Prejudice is also wrong. One wrong does not make another right.”

    Yeah, stealing is wrong so that’s all the more reason to not add more people into the welfare system by allowing immigrants to recieve it. I don’t see why this should be a problem. If a person comes here so they can “ride the system” they are not peaceful and they should not come here.

  • paulie

    There’s a state role in the short term, so it should be non-discriminatory.

    Prejudice is wrong, because it treats people as members of groups rather than as individuals.

    I would eventually like to replace state welfare with private charity.

    But in the meantime, it would be wrong to pass a law that only blonde white people can get state welfare.

    Just as it would be equally wrong to pass a law that blonde white people can not get state welfare.

    Why is there a contradiction?

    Welfare should be privatized in a non-discriminatory way.

    Advocating that ONLY immigrants should be taken off state welfare, thus using the state to favor native born citizens, just paints us as racists. Bad move.

    Advocating that ONLY “illegal” immigrants should be taken off state welfare bolsters the argument that the state collectively “owns the country” thus legitimizing the preemise behind all state actions, including state welfare. After all, it would be perfectly OK to provide ….

  • paulie

    (..99…) “welfare” to members of your own household.

    If the state is a collective household, as the idea of a legitimate state border implies, why not welfare?

    For that matter, why not taxes, gun control, drug laws, sodomy laws, etc? After all these are all A-OK to pass for your own personal property, are they not?

    As for the practical argument that removing regime “benefits” from groups of people who are used to receiving them will make them libertarian:

    There have been “cuts” in government benefits over the last couple of decades. For example, laws have been passed that those who have a record of drug convictions are no longer “entitled” to “benefits”.

    This has not made the people affected libertarian. If anything, it’s just made them bitter.

  • undercover_anarchist

    I don’t quite agree with you, Paulie. I’m 100% pro-immigrant and certainly more sympathetic to the concept of welfare than probably anyone else here, but I don’t think barring non-citizens from recieving welfare is discriminatory. In most areas, people without SS#s cannot receive welfare, medicaid, etc.

  • http://www.MayminForCongress.com Phil Maymin

    FYI I will be on MSNBC Live with David Shuster for their news segment today, Sunday, in the afternoon, sometime between 4:30pm and 5:00pm.

    Best,
    Phil