Stan Jones of Montana for US Senate

Whew! That was heavy stuff. He just won the Constitution Party vote in Montana, which is actually significant. Good for 2 to 3%.’

My prediction, Jones will get a larger percentage than any other Libertarian US Senate candidate in the Nation, and will throw the election to Democrat Tester.

Burns has made zero attempt to reach out to libertarians in Montana, so he almost deserves this shallacking.

It will be interesting to watch the network talking head on Election Night reporting “and 6% for Libertarian Stan Jones in Montana…”

This dude is talking some absolutely batshit crazy, wingnut stuff. This is a prime example of why we don’t get taken seriously. For every viable candidate like Bill Peirce, there are two wackjob conspiracy theorists running under the LP banner. These candidates do heavy and irreparable (sp?) damage to the party every time they speak in public.

This type of thing is an absolute embarrassment, and it has got to stop.

National ID in 2008 is a fact
NAFTA/CAFTA/FTAA are facts
Amero is in the works.
The super highway is in the works.
America already practices all 10 planks of the communist manifesto.

Wingbat? Nutjob? He stuck to the facts Derrick.

Wow. What an idiot.

Here is the real deliniation of Libertarians. Not left vs. right; but crazy vs. sane.

All the communist talk… Give me a fucking break. Like the powers that be have some altruistic motive to crush capitalism and bring about a worker’s paradise. Communism strives for a stateless society, totally antithetical to what this nutjob is talking about.

In reality, this guy is the commie. He’s anti-trade, anti-free market. You know what I call a highway stretching from Mexico to Canada? Good for commerce. Good for freedom.

Look at the comments above. Half of them are in support for this idiot, and the other half recognize him for the paranoid nutcase that he is. Instead of the non-initiation pledge, Libertarian candidates should take a mandatory psychiatric evaluation and sign an “I’m not crazy” pledge.

This guys is a true embarassment and a discredit to the third-party movement. Just another excuse not to invite credible candidates to the debates. Good job. Join the fucking CP!!!

“Look at the comments above. Half of them are in support for this idiot, and the other half recognize him for the paranoid nutcase that he is.”

People who think that he’s a “parinoid nutcase” are people who haven’t done their homework.

Andy.. I own that book, but I haven’t had a chance to read it.

So Marx was a tool of the bankers? Lenin? Who and when exactly? Is Fidel a tool of the bankers? Was Che? Mao? Pol Pot? Kim Jung Il?

Bankers = not the bad guys. I swear, your contempt for free trade and capitalism makes me wonder if you’re not a secret commie spy.

Communists = misguided hippies and angry old college professors.

Dictators = bad guys… Communist, fascist, Islamic, or what have you.

Right-wing nut jobs running as Libertarian Party candidates = the real bad guys who disgrace and discredit legitimate campaigns and candidates.

Good for freedom because it allows people to travel more easily. Eminent domain for the purpose of road construction is constitutional, if inconveniant.

Dondero: Who cares if he scored the 2% Constituion Party vote? He was included in the debates and had an audience of thousands – possibly tens of thousands. He could have passionately addressed issues of importance to voters and scored 27% support from D’s and R’s. But instead he rambled about “secret organizations” and “radio frequency chips”, alienating 99.85% of the people watching. All while the words ‘Libertarian candidate’ appeared below him on the screen.

Mike Nelson: Even if he’s right about any of that stuff, he still alienated 99.85% of the people watching. All while the words ‘Libertarian candidate’ appeared below him on the screen.

Andy, Rick Rajter: Get real. Just because there is discussion of something (such as the Amero) doesn’t mean it’s a done deal. And, all of that put together doesn’t equal a “one-world communist government” orchestrated by the “secret organizations of the world power elite.”

Yeah, I have a lot to learn. You really showed me.

I live on Planet Earth. You might want to consider visiting sometime.

The Phoney ‘Free Trade’ Lobby
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_1362.shtml

Yep, now that you mention it, that is indeed the blue guy.

It’s not theft. People are compensated. Back on Planet Earth, roads do need to be constructed.

“The conspiracy nonsense, such as the “I don’t have to pay income tax” crowd, the “Federal Reserve is a private corporation” guys,”

The Federal Reserve is both public and private. It’s a cartel.

Nobody HAS to pay income tax. The government lies about their own rules. The only reason to pay is because of the threat of force or the use of force. Just because the government says something it doesn’t make it right or true.

Voters don’t care about any of this shit.

“The Federal Reserve system is not ideal, not truly free or independent, and is horribly flawed from a philosophical standpoint”¦ But dealing in reality, it is the best system in the world. I know I’m going to hear “America is prosperous in spite of the Fed, not because of it,” but there’s no evidence to support this.”

Now I’m wondering if you are the commie.

The Federal Reserve is the best central banking system in the world. You dispute this? It is not entirely independent, but it is more so than most other central banks. It has presided over America’s greatest era of prosperity. It creates a stable investment environment. I never said it was good for freedom. But the argument could be made that it facilitates social mobility by allowing people to have a stable investment environment and to move out of their station in life. Hardcore Amish Libertarians would like to return to a currency backed by ornamentry. How have such systems worked throughout time? What end result have they produced? Massive income disparity. Societies with little or no social freedom. Sorry to keep bringing up facts here. They’re often unwelcome when they clash with Amish Orthodoxy.

“The Federal Reserve is the best central banking system in the world. You dispute this? It is not entirely independent, but it is more so than most other central banks. It has presided over America’s greatest era of prosperity. It creates a stable investment environment. I never said it was good for freedom. But the argument could be made that it facilitates social mobility by allowing people to have a stable investment environment and to move out of their station in life. Hardcore Amish Libertarians would like to return to a currency backed by ornamentry. How have such systems worked throughout time? What end result have they produced? Massive income disparity. Societies with little or no social freedom. Sorry to keep bringing up facts here. They’re often unwelcome when they clash with Amish Orthodoxy.”

It sounds like you should change your name to undercover_communist.

“I’m also sure you understand what is meant by the statement “I don’t have to pay income tax”. If not, I will clarify that I meant without negative reprocussions from the federal government, including being fined and/or tossed into jail. I’m talking about the Irwin Schiff followers and the dozens of similiar folks.”

I agree with people like Shiff, Bob Schulz ( http://www.givemeliberty.org ), Joe Bannister ( http://www.freedomabovefortune.com ), Aaron Russo ( http://www.freedomabovefascism.com ), etc… about the income tax. I’ve studied the issue over the past few years and I believe that they are correct. However, one can be right and still go to prison. The government will often lie about their own laws. I’ve had government officials lie to my face about the law.

I would prefer a free market in currencies, backed by various commodities and notes issued by independent banks.

Of course, this would mean a much lower standard of living for everyone in America and the world.

But it doesn’t matter. The Federal Reserve isn’t going anywhere.

And it isn’t all that centralized or planned. It sets the discount rate. Often, the Fed cannot control interest rates. At the end of Greenspan’s tenure, he faced a “conundrum” when long term rates were not going up in tandem with short term rates.

Andy,

I’ve read the tax code and have their arguments to be absurd. The courts reach the same conclusion.

I agree that in a perfect world, there shouldn’t be an income tax. But we don’t have a perfect world. We have a 16th amendment (yes, it was ratified) and a tax code that clearly states that an income tax is imposed on all of us.

If we want to get rid of income tax, we need to elect the right people to congress. The key word is “elect”. We dont elect people to congress by getting tossed into jail after listening to men who make their living selling “get out of tax” packages all the while they pay theirs (Joe Bannister still pays income taxes *gasp*).

If you would rather keep your land then be compensated for a constitutionally permissable use of eminent domain, then you are out of luck. Of course, in this case, you would likely be a lone hold out. If several of your neighbors also wanted to stay, you could band together to demand a more appropriate price.

I think theft is a crime. Something constitutionally permissable is not a crime, is it?

Couldn’t agree more with Derrick’s comments in #55.

I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but I have the common sense to understand that it is just a theory. I don’t have the uncontrollable desire to convince everyone about my beliefs whenever I have a pulpit.

I’ve met some of them in person, and they ramble on about their theories continuously. It’s hard to get a word in edgewise, and takes a good 15-20 minutes to politely end the conversation. And if you dare question anything they say, it’s another good 15 minutes before you can get out of the conversation.

Well damn, if someone drew a cartoon about it, that’s all the evidence that I need. Can’t dispute that kind of research!

Look! Here’s a cartoon of a cat killing a dog with a 2×4!

http://www.pvponline.com/article/2915/thu-oct-05

It must be true.

“Along these lines, I’d like to point out that one can be right and still lose elections. Can we please have a serious, badly-needed discussion about how many LP candidates are entirely disconnected from political reality?”

The guy in Montana stands no chance of winning anyway and neither does any other Libertarian candidate for higher offices. Furthermore, why do you automatically assume that nobody is interested in what he has to say? I’ve talked about stuff like this with numerous people who were “newbies” that were interested.

“Wake up, people. The LP is a fringe organization even within the libertarian movement. Reason magazine laughs at us, all the think tanks and institutes keep us at arm’s length,”

I don’t fully trust Reason or Cato.

Of course not! Reason and Cato are run by the Jews, I mean, the bankers!!!

Derrick, you took the words right out of my mouth with this one:

Even if he’s right about any of that stuff, he still alienated 99.85% of the people watching. All while the words ”˜Libertarian candidate’ appeared below him on the screen.

I believe there is a substantial amount of truth to much of what he said (certainly not all), but a three-minute closing statement in a public debate is the worst possible time to bring up such a litany of topics.

He would left a more positive impression on the crowd if he’d kept silent and done his Blue Man Group impersonation.

“Of course not! Reason and Cato are run by the Jews, I mean, the bankers!!!”

Who said that Reason or Cato was run by Jews? I’d say a more accurate statement is that both organizations are filled with softcore or phoney “libertarians.”

I’m not saying that they are completely bad, just flawed.

“Well damn, if someone drew a cartoon about it, that’s all the evidence that I need. Can’t dispute that kind of research!

Look! Here’s a cartoon of a cat killing a dog with a 2×4!

http://www.pvponline.com/article/2915/thu-oct-05

It must be true.”

Nice strawman arguement. Prove that what I said is false.

Mary Ruwart gets it right with the bankers funding communism. Click the link and read on…

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap20.html

This guy hits the nail on the head when it comes to the Cato Institute. Check it out…

http://www.geocities.com/libertarian_press/reviews/cato.html

“Property is property.”

That’s a very Eurocentric thing to say.

Property is a social and legal construct. Different societies define it differently. And if “property was property” then we wouldn’t be here. Not only did we committ genocide so you could have your precious “property” that god forbid a road may be built upon, but we also completely and totally stole the entire western half of the country from another sovereign republic.

So what is property?

Black slaves were property. When they were freed, they had none. But “property is property” so fuck them.

I don’t want my property to be infringed upon. But there is this thing called the Constitution that “libertarians” like to cite when convenient.

And god forbid that the Libertarian Party allow a stockbroker in its midst. I’ve clearly “sold my soul.” I might as well be a Jew. Stockbrokers are pure commies, after all.

DAP: I’m right with you. I am bowled over by the number of people here who support this type of candidate, and then have the nerve to wonder why the media doesn’t take us seriously.

I certainly don’t advocate the use of force to “line my pocketbook.” The Fed is a reality. You want to fight it? Fine by me. I’m more concerned with the rights of GLBT, abortion rights for women, the rights of immigrants (and the rights of businesses to employ them), freedom from domestic spying and infringement on constitutional liberties, etc. I said that I would prefer a free market of currencies backed by various commodities and independnet bank notes. What else do you need from me? Making the Fed a primary campaign issue is a losing proposition. Making gold a primary campaign issue is a losing propsition. Making all this conspiracy crap a campaign issue is a guaranteed losing proposition.

Being against eminent domain is a mainstream concern. Communist takeover is not. The point is this: the nice people in Montana gave a Libertarian his chance to debate, and see what a laughingstock he has become.

Property is a social and legal construct. Society defines what is property. Natural rights are right to action. Property is defined by society and adminstered by the state. You get a title to your property. It isn’t a natural right. I respect and support property rights as defined by common law and the constitution. That makes me an ass-fucked, soulless, sell-out. No, it makes me a reasonable person.

Freedom speech is a right to action. Freedom of the press, religion, etc.

“Property” – meaning land – is legally defined and adminstered by government.

There is a huge difference.

No, I would not support the loss of actual rights by constitutional amendment. i.e. the flag burning amendment, marriage amendment, etc.

2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20037

send several.

That’s not the same, Michelle. Chattle property and real estate are not the same. You are not granted a title to your hair dryer by the government. There is not a finite supply of hair dryers – there can always be more made.

To make it clear – I think that land ownership and use “rights” (more accurately, “privelages”) should be extended, not receeded. But there is no “real estate” without the state. It is NOT the same as a hair dryer or free speech.

Forgive me, it’s 1:30 a.m. EST and my eyes are bugging out. I should have left the office long ago. Damn this thread.

Michelle: Regarding #114, I just think Sime is running a really strong campaign on the eminent domain issue, and thought you’d be interested in his site.

Regarding #116, you’re right of course. Because of the way you worded it, I think the general public would agree with everything you said, too. I guess it’s just a matter of getting an audience with them. Which leaves us back at square one.

Mike – You are profitting by using the government’s defined property lines, tracing back to the time of white conquest, to prevent others from having fair use of the land which you inhabit. Imagine you own 100 acres and only use a fraction of your land. Theoretically, a squatter could take up residence, improve your land, live off of it. Would you call the cops to have the squatter removed? If so, you are profitting from government’s use of force. The squatter does not share your royalist view on what is “property.” John Locke (or was it Jon Stuart Mill?) doesn’t share your view.

I don’t understand the point of your post, Michelle (#121). I’m not asking anyone to atone for any sins. My point (and how the hell this tangent came into being is beyond me) is that “real estate” is a creation of the state, just as surely as the corporation is. That doesn’t mean I’m against real estate ownership. Again, my wife is a Realtor. But we have to recognize it for what it is. Real estate ownership by title enforced by the government is no less offensive than a fiat currency. Both form the legal and moral framework of our financial system. In libertarian utopia, things would be different. But by focusing on abolishing the Fed, we are limiting ourselves to a “debating society” and not a legitimate, credible political party. My point is that the “property rights” (aka real estate ownership “rights”) are just as surely a creation of the state as a central bank is.

In the absence of government, who is to say who owns what land? What if I decide I own all of Michigan? Other people would go to their county clerk and get their government granted titles and say “no you don’t!”

Again, let me reaffirm my support for a free market of currencies backed by a variety of commodities and privately issued bank notes. I even hope to write a novel one day about an alternate world where the only “government” is voluntary confederations and the economy is based on a truly free market in which farmers (for example) deposit their grain and receive grain notes, which can be traded for other commodity notes or for private notes issued by independent banking clearing houses.

I get it. But I hate the idea of a gold-backed currency. And I’m only saying that the Fed and its fiat currency work pretty well. Not that it’s ideal or “libertarian.” And the truth is, that when candidates base a campaign on “blowing up the Federal Reserve building,” it makes them look about as credible as this nutjob.

Calm down you all. Chill!

Listen to what I have to say here. I just spent basically, the last 6 months of my life, on and off in the State of Montana. As many of you know, I was there petitioning and campaigning for the Property Rights and Spending Limits intiatives. I met countless Libertarians during my time there.

We are not talking Connecticut, Maryland or even Colorado here. Montana is a land of extremes.

If this guy had been running in any other state (besides maybe Alaska), yeah, he’d be taken as an extreme kook. But Montana has shitloads of Constitutionalists and other conspiracy/gun nut guys. They were probably hootin’ and hollerin’ after the debate, screaming, “finally someone gets it.”

Yes, he completely lost the more mainstream vote, turned ‘em off in fact. But he secured the fringe vote, which in MT could be as high as 5 to 6%.

For those who are not aware, basically all Libertarian Party members in Montana think and act the way Stan Jones does. Mike Fellow, the State LP Chair and candidate for Congress is virtually the same. He’s a very nice guy, but out there when it comes to real world politics.

There’s a breakaway group of Free State Project Libertarians in Granite County (pop. 950), in between Butte and Missoula. Every one of them is just like Jones. They’re well-meaning Libertarians, but very fringe.

The more mainstream libertarians in the State are active in the GOP. There are a number of libertarian-leaning GOP legislators in MT.

I don’t see the LP in MT moving in the mainstream direction. So, the best they can hope for is getting all the fringe, especially Constitution Party-type, vote, and make the best of it.

Incidentally, for all of you all who diss the Constitution Party, take note.

This year, the CP WILL elect a State Legislator in Montana. His name is Rick Jore. He is a former Republican legislator. In 2004, he switched to CP, ran again for his seat and won by 5 votes.

A liberal judge, same judge that threw our libertarian inititives off the ballot this year, gave Gore’s Dem opponent the election.

Well, Jore got the last laugh. For 2006, a group of libertarian-leaning GOPers got the State Party to NOT run a Republican against Jore this time. As a result he is a shoe-in for the seat which is in a heavily conservative/libertarian area.

The CP is running no less than 25 other candidates for legislative seats. Most are paper candidates. But 2 to 3 of them have a real shot of winning.

Even if Jore is the only one elected, this will REALLY screw up the liberals in Montana. Jore will make the Republicans look like moderate well-meaning guys.

While the guys delivery leaves a great deal to be desired he was not incorrect in the basic facts. In 2008 you will have a federal ID card and it will likely have an RFID chip in it. The North American Union and its currency are being seriously discussed by the 3 governments involved and they are being quite secretive about it. Their Super Highway is in the development stages and will certainly occur, requiring the theft of enormous swaths of privately owned land. The communist manifesto has been adopted, for all intents and purposes by the US government.
If he had delivered this message in a different manner this discussion would be moot.
As for bankers (and corporations) backing communist regimes. Absolute truth. I saw it in China in the 70′s and some of those folks had been there for decades, funnels in hand. Hell, even the USG supported the Russians with aid. Facts are facts…but, delivery counts.

“While the guys delivery leaves a great deal to be desired he was not incorrect in the basic facts.”

I agree. I guess I’m trying to argue that our candidates should be selective about which positions they present to the voters, and careful to word them in such a way that voters find them appealing.

For better or worse, political races are a popularity contest. It is not necessarily about being right. It’s about convincing the majority of people that you’re right.

Eric, I’d love to get in on some betting action on this one. If there are two major party candidates in this race, I say there’s NO WAY he’ll pull 5%, even in a somewhat “fringe” state like Montana.

Tom, I admit I never took into account the Smurf vote. I knew Montana was well-known for its ranchers and buffalo, but I wasn’t aware they had an unusually high Smurf population. Could this possibly explain why the Constitution Party is doing so well there?

this guy needs no words from me or any one else.

and the sad thing is that presented in the proper manner, he COULD have made some inroads to people outside the LP/CP community. A good presentation on the Real ID Act and pointing out that it will cost every driver >100 bucks to get their license renewed next time around would have helped him and the LP.

Sorry I’m late.

WTF. This guy is a complete and total dumbf—.

First, the EU is pushed by the free market liberals of Europe. These are the closest allies libertarians have in Europe. It is a model for showing why free trade works – if anything, the EU has only sped the collapse of socialism in Europe. I don’t advocate that for the US, but for Europe, it replaced authoritarianism and war with stability and diplomacy.

Secondly, the LP must stop this sort of crap. I’m not one for “Central Planning,” but the national and state LPs have to get a grip on limiting candidates like this. He’s a sloppy candidate and speaker anyway.

The LP is suicidal to keep running candidates that damage any progress we’ve made. This is exactly the batshit crap that makes people like me want to leave the LP and start something new. We’re in the hole here, and it’s quixotic to pretend that we’ll ever get out by continuing our failed 30 year policy of radical shock tactics and lousy candidates.

I think theft is a crime. Something constitutionally permissable is not a crime, is it?

Slavery was constitutionally permitted at one time. Was it a crime? I say it was always a crime, regardless of what any band of thugs calling themselves “the law” proclaimed at any given point in time.

Even if everything he said was true, it doesn’t matter. One can take a stance against the Real ID card, the Patriot Act, etc. without sounding like a nut. If people don’t understand what “nut” sounds like, you should check yourself. You might not even realize that you come off that way to the average person.

These are the people who are anti-government without any of libertarianism’s intellectual logic. They are blinded by their hatred for the State, seemingly more by political orthodoxy than any logical reason.

They also ignore that there is a huge uphill battle that one must fight tactically if you want to change the State, via reaching the electorate. Things like pulling the communist card are not tactical because they fool no one (it’s corporate socialism, btw.)

Libertarians have the burden of proof as the challengers of the status quo. Simplistic libertarianism is something we should all scoff at and reject. Without reason, “principle” means empty pigheadedness.