Libertarian Party Campaign Sites Update

There are some pretty good websites out there for LP candidates, and some which are not so good. The best list I have is over at LFS. Please let me know if you have any updates.

Here are some of my recent favorites:

Jeremy Ryan — City Council, Ward 7, Burlington, VT
Wilbur Wood — U.S. Congress, District 10, Virginia (new)
Bill Peirce — Governor, Ohio (one of Van Dyke’s sites)
Sue Jeffers — Governor, Minnesota (won Politics1 site of the day)

Apparently, there are some who place the party banner ahead of advancing the cause of liberty. Believe it or not, Congressman Ron Paul has a challenger from the Libertarian Party.

I don’t know anything about him, but if Eugene Flynn (who doesn’t even seem to have his own website) manages to draw enough votes to knock Paul out of office, I expect that he will become enemy number one of the entire freedom movement.

To be sure, everyone should have the right to run for office — including Jeffrey Diket, Jim Burns and Dave Hollist. However, people like these give the general public plently of reason to call the LP a bunch of loooooosers. Perhaps if we pop Flynn enough e-mails, he’ll remove the tin foil from around his head and kindly drop his race.

Stephen Gordon

I like tasteful cigars, private property, American whiskey, fast cars, hot women, pre-bailout Jeeps, fine dining, worthwhile literature, low taxes, original music, personal privacy and self-defense rights -- but not necessarily in this order.

81 Comments
  1. So, amid all the posts on this site claiming that there should be more choices in the poll booth, you think that too much competition among libertarians is a bad thing (ecspecially because Flynn isnt real competition anyway)?

    If you firmly believe that voters should have more choices, you must apply this belief across the board.

  2. if ron paul can sell out (he got his seat running under the LP), others can step up and fill the void. You see, had paul stayed with the party he came in with, this would have been settled in a primary blowout. As it is, his selling out may cost him his seat. Sic Semper Sellouts.

  3. Cool, I see different messages out there, different campaigns and different tactics (see, for instance Mike Murphy’s campaign. But we urgently need something only “national” can give us. The post-election analysis of what worked where and under what circumstances. This election “post-mortem” must be done shortly after the election, and preferably by someone who can look at the big picture, such as… the National Libertarian Party.

  4. Ron Paul is a conservative leaning Libertarian. The only difference between them and liberal leaners is where to start first with libertarian reform. The liberals want to get at the big money first: welfare and subsidies for the rich. The conservatives want to cut taxes and the pittance of welfare to the poor first. Unlike many minbari radio hosts who masquerade as libertarians I haven’t seen any serious deviations from libertarian principles from Paul.

  5. Jeffrey Diket, eh? He made quite the splash at the 2004 LP convention in Atlanta. Unfortunately one of the Louisiana delegates began yelling “baby murder, baby murder” when Diket began to talk about his stance on abortion.

  6. We go through the same thing every two years with Dr. Paul. All candidates in Texas must file for nomination in December of the preceding year. We have to file to fill the spot because we don’t know what everyone else is going to do.

    First of all, Dr. Paul has an opponent in the Republican primary. If he should somehow lose in the primary, had Mr. Flynn not filed, we would not have a candidate.

    Secondly, the Libertarian Party of Texas cannot prohibit anyone from filing. All qualified applicants must be considered according to state law. Candidates in district races, such as USTX #14, will be chosen in late March. It is up to the district convention delegates to accept or reject the candidacy of Mr. Flynn. This is one of the many cases in which “NONE OF THE ABOVE” comes in handy in Libertarian politics.

    Thirdly, Mr. Flynn, if chosen as the LP candidate can still pull out of the race after the district convention. This has also happened in the past.

  7. However, Presidential candidate Ron Paul ran for election as a Libertarian. When he returned to his district, he had to win the Republican primary against an incumbent Democrat-ship-jumper to get on the November ballot.

  8. In addition to what Jagge and Porto said, even if this guy did/does pose a tactical threat to Ron Paul, there may be legitimate reasons for him to run.

    For example, Congressman Paul is anti-immigration and pro-life, and if you happen to be a libertarian for whom the party’s official stance on the other side of those issues is of key importance, you would not want to back R.P., would you? I would agree, for me, his stances would not preclude a vote for him overall, but for someone else they may be the most important issues and the reason why they are in politics and/or a libertarian.

    Then again Steve may well be right….and I don’t think he said the guy should not be allowed to run, just that he should be dissuaded. The LP is chock full of tactically stupid nitpickers, and this fellow may well be one. Or not. I don’t know him either, so if you really want to know, well, email him….

  9. I know Eugene Flynn. He is a lawyer who specializes in immigration matters. He has a legtimate gripe with Ron Paul’s stance on immigration.

    I don’t endorse Eugene and will not support him personally unless Dr. Paul loses his primary. However Eugene is not a tinfoil-hatter and he will certainly not embarass the LP.

    Based on past experience, Eugene is probably already buried in a blizzard of hate mail for filing on the LP line in Dr. Paul’s district. I am confident that he has a thick enough skin to ignore all that. It will be interesting to see what he decides to do once the primary is out of the way.

  10. Well, in that case, maybe it IS a good idea for him to run.

    I’ve long thought the LP, especially in USA/USM border states, should bill itself primarily as the open border party (with lots of advertising to the fact in Spanish).

    It would open a great line of communication/opportunity to make political inroads in the re-emerging Aztlan Nation, especially, but not only, among recent immigrants who haven’t really chosen a US political party yet, or even really thought about it.

    And it may well help an LP emerge, re-emerge or strengthen in Northern Mexico, too. Anyone know if there is one, and if so, how it’s doing? I heard there were efforts underway to start one, but I haven’t kept up with Mexican politics nearly enough to know how it’s going.

  11. Steve: “Hessforgovernor” on LFS is a bad link. I haven’t been able to, as an AZ resident, find any info on him that’s relevant to this year. (Granted, I haven’t searched all that heatedly, but still.)

  12. Lets apply Darwins Theory of evolution.
    The one person selected by the party would be the one
    believed to be bested suited for the job.

  13. That’s an interesting picture accompanying this post. Is that supposed to be a representation of your average LP candidate, or just Eugene Flynn?

    On another note, it would be a shame to lose Ron Paul. That man sure can write an interesting article.

  14. Another Thing I noticed while perusing the list of websites is how many websites are incredibly badly designed, that’s barely passable for a water commision election, but anything above should have a passable design! I’ve seen better websites from high-school kids than from some Gubernatorial candidates in this list.
    Good (and simple) design is NOT that difficult, if you can’t even find a volunteer to do a website for you maybe you shouldn’t think to run for Governor?

  15. DAP,

    I said they have the right to run — I also maintian my postion that it is stupid for them to run and does a diservice to the cause of liberty.

  16. If this guy actually runs against Ron Paul I will be very irritated. I think that he’s got a right to run for office, but I consider this to be HORRIBLE from a strategic standpoint. Ron Paul is the BEST congressman that we’ve got in this country. Even if one has one or two minor disagreements with him he’s still the best person that we’ve got in the federal government. Losing Ron Paul would be a huge loss for liberty.

    Ron Paul’s stance on abortion and immigration have been brought up. I don’t consider being anti-abortion to be anti-libertarian. I’m personally on the fence with the abortion issue as I think that there are good arguements on both sides of the issue. Saying that abortion is murder IS a legitamite arguement. However, keep in mind that Ron Paul is in a FEDERAL office and he has correctly stated that abortion is not a federal issue and should be decided by the states. How does any of this make Ron Paul a bad guy?

  17. As for Ron Paul stance on immigration, I actaully agree with him. Flooding the country with illegal aliens is a part of the New World Order agenda to destroy this country and heard us into a global police state. If you don’t believe this do some research into globalist organizations that the elite Democrats and Republicans are members of like the Council On Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group. Globalist foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation actually donate money to RACIST hispanic groups like MECHA (whose motto if “For our race everything, for other races nothing.”) and La Raza (which means The Race in Spainish). These are the same people who favor welfare benifits for illegal aliens and are in favor of affirmative action programs. I personally saw these groups campaigning against Proposition 54 at Cal State Northridge.

  18. Yo A,

    “Ron Paul’s stance on abortion and immigration have been brought up. I don’t consider being anti-abortion to be anti-libertarian.”

    It’s against the LP official position. The merits of abortion from a philosphical libertarian perspective are widely and hotly debated, as is the party’s plank. So is immigration. But if one is on the opposite side of those issues from RP and considers them to be primary issues – as do many people – it can make sense to run.

    “I’m personally on the fence with the abortion issue as I think that there are good arguements on both sides of the issue. Saying that abortion is murder IS a legitamite arguement.”

    Me too, but not the point here.

    “However, keep in mind that Ron Paul is in a FEDERAL office and he has correctly stated that abortion is not a federal issue and should be decided by the states. How does any of this make Ron Paul a bad guy?”

    For a comprehensive reply from a libertarian prochoicer, see http://radgeek.com/

  19. A,

    I don’t consider being anti-abortion to be anti-libertarian.

    It’s against the LP platform as currently stated although a sizable minority of LPers are pro-life and what to change the platform, whereas others want to make it even stronger as it used to be. The same debate exists among non-party libertarians. Same with immigration.

    The point is not where you stand on these issues or the merits of either side. It is that if one is on the opposite side of these issues from RP – as many people, and the majority of the LP, are – AND consider them to be the most important issues – as many people do – it can certainly make sense to run against him.

  20. Proposition 54 was a ballot initiative in California to take racial check boxes off of applications for employment & contracting in state and local government and also off of applications to state & community colleges. If these people were really so concerned about freedom why do they support affirmative action programs that serve their own interest and screw over others?

    For that matter, if these people were really so concerned about freedom, why do you find so many of them looking for handouts at the welfare office? I challenge anyone here to walk in a welfare office in Los Angeles county and you’ll see what I mean.

    I recently read a statistic that Americans pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $36 BILLION to educate the children of illegal aliens. How much more are we paying for their healthcare, food stamps, and other forms of welfare? And what about all of the bilingual crap? What happened to immigrants learning to speak English?

  21. I happen to agree with Hans-Herman Hoppe’s essays about immigration (posted on LewRockwell.com). Hoppe brings up the fact that if we had a true libertarian society – as in anarcho-capitalism – all land would be in private hands. Therefore it would be up to individual property owners as to who can go on what land. Some people may chose to have “open borders” in their area while other areas would have various restrictions which would be determined by the resident property owners.

    I am NOT opposed to immigration, and I do not believe that Ron Paul is opposed to immigration either. I just don’t believe that having hordes of poor people, some of whom carry communicable diseases (check out the increases in diseases due to illegal aliens), some of whom have a racist “La Raza” agenda, some of whom are hardened criminals, and many of whom use a disproportionate amount of tax payers supported services, is a positive thing.

  22. If the purpose of the LP is, as I have been told a number of times of late, to get Libertarians elected to office then there should be no hue and cry if a Libertarian runs against Mr. Paul, a Republican. Just because he is a small L libertarian means little when the supposed purpose of the LP is to elect Libertarians to office. If the LP candidate were to win against Mr. Paul and take the office as an LP candidate I have to wonder if the reaction would be the same?

  23. MRJ: There is a hue and cry on my part. I’m more interested in liberty than in the Libertarian Party.

    Considering that I don’t know or haven’t even heard of the LP candidate in the race, he is not going to beat Paul. No way, no how. But he could keep Paul from winning in the general election, which would be a great loss for those of us interested in the protection of liberty — as opposed to those interested in party promotion.

  24. So, the LP candidate isn’t interested in individual liberty? Doesn’t the LP candidate have the right to run for a competitive office and shouldn’t he excercise that right? Mr. Paul, a man I admire on many levels is a player in a game that invites competition. Now he may well find himself in a 3 way race. Competition is healthy and, in the political arena it will certainly be an indicator of a persons mandate. If Mr Paul were to lose due to the drawing away of votes then that might well be an indication that he needs to switch his party affiliation. The political realm is about party promotion, whether we like it or not.

  25. At this particular time we do not have the luxury of running Libertarians against libertarians (big “L” or small “l”).

    Even if you disagree with Ron Paul’s stances on abortion (although since Ron Paul is in a federal office and he’s said that it’s none of the federal government’s business then I don’t know what you people are worried about) and immigration wouldn’t you people say that you agree with him around 98% of the time? Isn’t a candidate that you agree with 98% of the time a heck of a lot better than a candidate that you agree with 50% of the time or 0% of the the time or 0% of the time?

    If this guy contributes to Ron Paul losing his seat in Congress then he’ll be a damn fool.

  26. Hey, where are Andy’s comments? I was going to respond to him. And no, he is not me, he is my business partner and we are sitting at adjacent computers at a college library, if you are judging by the IP. Just because he was wrong does not mean you should remove his comments.

  27. MJR:

    It is unlikely that Dr. Paul would win as a Libertarian. To run in opposition to him would dilute votes which might cause him to lose as a Republican.

    Some people place liberty as a priority (me). Some people place candidates as a priority (many). Some place issues as their priority (many). Some place political parties as a priority (you, it seems).

    The poltical realm is often about much more than party promotion.

  28. Ron Paul is–by a dizzyingly wide margin–the only true friend of liberty in the House; the only Rep who votes in accordance with the Constitution as a matter of principle.

    The primary purpose of the LP may be to elect declared Libertarians to office. If so, it is a stupid and senseless one. The promotion of liberty is the only legitimate purpose of the Party, in my eyes.

    We need to focus on giving Ron Paul some peers, not defeating the only honest and principled member of the House.

    Eugene Flynn has the right to run, of course. He also has the right to be an idiot. It appears he isn’t afraid to exercise either.

  29. As a matter of fact, I place individual liberty above the politcal machine entirely. You and others, myself included have chosen to play in the political arena and there are principles and rules involved in the game. Where political parties are concerned you either run people or you do not. Those who choose not to run people lose. Every single time. You’ve said you don’t know Mr. Flynn, yet you are quite willing to label him as a loon. You might well be bashing someone who would be a greater defender of individual liberty than Mr. Paul. If Mr. Paul and others who are libertarians have to become liars to win their elections that speaks poorly for them.

  30. If he has lied, to win an election, you should illustrate that. If you know of some area in which Ron Paul has failed to defend liberty and in which Flynn will do so, please enlighten us.
    I stand by my statement that to contribute to Ron Paul’s defeat is to deliver a crushing blow to liberty.

    The movement running effective, pro-liberty candidates is more important than someone having an L next to their name. I tend to support the LP candidates. But an established libertarian who wears an “R” and vocally points out Republican hypocrisy while his congressional behavior is guided by the Constitution is not someone any friend of freedom has any business opposing.

  31. If he has lied, to win an election, you should illustrate that. If you know of some area in which Ron Paul has failed to defend liberty and in which Flynn will do so, please enlighten us.

    Immigrants’ rights, for starters. Not that this necessarily means Flynn is overall better than Paul or not, or should run or shouldn’t run, or anything else.

    But since you asked….

  32. If you’re a Libertarian and run as a Republican in order to get elected then you have lied to further you place in the political game. You end up lying about who and what you are in order to win a spot in the game, you lie to libertarians or to your Republican constituents.

    If the issue is running pro-liberty candidates then the LP should fold up the tent, place R’s behind their names and run with a winning team, if we were to use that logic. Fortunately, we do not. Promoting the LP candidates furthers the cause of liberty, slighting them and denigrating them shows weakness in front of the “enemy”.

    As for Mr Flynns ability, I do not know the man, therefor I will not render judgement on him while lacking any facts, unlike others.

  33. Your opinion on immigration hardly proves that Dr. Paul opposes individual rights. Immigration is a complex issue on which several sides have valid points.

    If you’re a Libertarian and run as a Republican in order to get elected then you have lied to further you place in the political game.

    That is an asinine argument that is completely without merit. How does running with a different consonant next to ones name diminish one’s principles or relegate one to the position of liar? Not that it would make a difference, but Dr. Paul was a Republican first.
    In any case, why can’t Republicans be small “l” libertarians, or full-fledged Libertarian Party members choose to run for office under the banner that is most likely to give them a congressional vote? That such actions are deemed dishonest is a vapid argument.

  34. If you are consistent, no registered Democrat or Republican can toil or limited government and individual freedom without first resigning from their respective parties and registering as Libertarians.

  35. Party bouncing in order to gain votes is lying. A masquerade. Dr. Paul “lied” in order to gain rank and file Republican votes that would not have come his way while he was registered as a Libertarian. That is a lie, your protestations to the contrary not withstanding. Mr. Paul uses the ignorance and knee jerk voting to gain prominence on the ballot. The argument is hardly assinine, it’s a simple matter of committing a fraud and saying you are something you are not. As I stated before, I admire Dr Paul and his stance on many issues, but that does not change the fact that he engages in a lie in order to win his spot in the political game.

  36. Dr. Paul “lied” in order to gain rank and file Republican votes that would not have come his way while he was registered as a Libertarian.

    You have failed to make the case for a lie, but you are partially right: he runs on the ticket that gives him the best chance to win and by winning supports freedom.

    You are clearly unable to make the “lie” stick. Your only method is to say it over and over. As Dr. Paul clearly makes his position on issues known and continually runs under the banner of a party that has claimed to be that of lower taxes and less government, the fraud lies with the majority of Republicans, not with him. He has taken an oath to the Constitution and has upheld it. His peers have not.

  37. Why you feel Dr. Ron, an obvious libertarian must run under the banner of the Libertarian Party, is a mystery you apparently don’t want us to solve. But anyone interested in freedom must concede that the country is in a much better position with Dr. Paul holding a congressional seat.

  38. It’s no lie for any candidate to run on any label. The only lie involved would be if the candidate misrepresented his views on the issues. All the R, D or L do is to put a tag on it — like an alligator on a polo shirt.

  39. “You have failed to make the case for a lie, but you are partially right: he runs on the ticket that gives him the best chance to win and by winning supports freedom.”

    I know a number of Jesuits who would disagree with you. Subterfuge is a lie. Whether it is mortal or venial is in the eye of the beholder. AS I have said, I admire Mr. Pauls stance on a number of issues but it does not matter. Political parties exist to run candidates. If the LP does not run a candidate then they lose by default. You have admitted ignorance in the case of this candidate and still stick to your guns that the LP should not run a candidate because you know nothing of the LP’s candidate. In the politcal game you run candidates, regardless of how you may feel about a sitting politician. That’s how the game is played. If you dislike the rules…go play a different game.

  40. If Ron Paul, as close to a libertarian as we have, has to remain a Republican to win re-election, then that’s an indictment of the Libertarian Party, not of Paul.

    Of course people have a right to run if they want to. Strategically though, it’d make a lot more sense to try to ADD someone with an L next to their name to congress to take Paul’s fight further than to try to REPLACE him & end up bringing the count of freedom-lovers in congress to Zero when it doesn’t work.

  41. Andy,

    If these people were really so concerned about freedom why do they support affirmative action programs that serve their own interest and screw over others?

    Which people? All immigrants (or all immigrants of certain national origins) or only some – perhaps just a political group?

    If the latter, in what way does it justify the state interfering with the freedom of movement of those who do not? If some whites – members of the KKK, for example – want special rights for whites, does that justify stopping immigration from Europe and other mostly white parts of the world (for example, Australia)?

    I’ve forgotten whether this is classified as a type I or type II error, but it’s one of these in statistical terminology.

  42. Andy,

    For that matter, if these people were really so concerned about freedom, why do you find so many of them looking for handouts at the welfare office? I challenge anyone here to walk in a welfare office in Los Angeles county and you’ll see what I mean.

    Again, which people? Even if we were to grant that all non-white immigrants, or all immigrants in general, are anti-freedom, this would not justify taking away THEIR freedom. It would certainly not justify taking away the freedoms of anyone who happens to look or sound like other people who oppose freedom.

    As for folks looking for handouts at the Welfare Office. Not that we have time, but if you are really interested we can go down to the welfare office here in Faulkner or Pulaski County, Arkansas tomorrow, since it’s closer than LA. We’ll see how things are down there. I reckon we’ll be sending a lot of folks back to Africa and Europe, although I am sure which country specifically will be a quandry.

  43. I recently read a statistic that Americans pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $36 BILLION to educate the children of illegal aliens. How much more are we paying for their healthcare, food stamps, and other forms of welfare?

    This is quite an incomplete analysis, since it ignores all the hard work and business, as well as savings to consumers, presented by “illegal” aliens. As you know, I agree with you that all government run welfare should be taken away and private aid allowed to flourish instead.

    For stats see the work of the late great Julian Simon – hopefully still archived on his website.

    One form of state infringement on liberty never can justify another; we may as well say that until we legalize drugs we still need gun control, or some such crap.

    And what about all of the bilingual crap? What happened to immigrants learning to speak English?

    Nothing wrong with Americans learning foreign languages too.

  44. And what about all of the bilingual crap? What happened to immigrants learning to speak English?

    As I said, there’s also nothing wrong with Americans learning foreign languages too.

    However, immigrants should certainly learn English whenever possible. My parents and I did (except that my dad already knew it prior to coming here), and so can they. To say otherwise is insulting to the intelligence of some groups of immigrants, IMO. It also has a negative effect on their chance of success in America.

    As you and I have discussed, foreign language schools that work practice immersion. This may be why I succeeded for the most part in learning English, but failed utterly to learn Hebrew, and my efforts to learn Spanish have fallen somewhere in between the two.

    Bilingual education as currently practiced does more harm than good. This may well be intentional.

  45. I happen to agree with Hans-Herman Hoppe’s essays about immigration (posted on LewRockwell.com). Hoppe brings up the fact that if we had a true libertarian society – as in anarcho-capitalism – all land would be in private hands.

    You may also want to check out more detailed pro and con arguments if you haven’t read all the perspectives yet.

    As for the term anarcho-capitalism, I object to the capitalism part, on the grounds discussed here by former Alabama House District 79 Libertarian candidate Charles Johnson.

  46. As for Ron Paul stance on immigration, I actaully agree with him. Flooding the country with illegal aliens is a part of the New World Order agenda to destroy this country

    While I oppose the NWO agenda, at least most of it, I won’t say something is wrong just because they are for it, or allegedly for it. This language about “flooding” the country smacks of racism, and you should stop reapeating this crap. Also, bringing up the racism of some extremist Hispanic-American groups does not excuse its mirror image on your part any more than the KKK justifies the Nation of Islam, or Hammas justifies Kahane/KACH, etc.

    As for the term illegal alien; it is the state which is illegal, not people. Crossing an imaginary border drawn in the sand by illegitimate property non-owners, ie the state, is not an initiation of coercion, no matter what “80%” think as you’ve said.


  47. I am NOT opposed to immigration, and I do not believe that Ron Paul is opposed to immigration either.

    How does this square with your statements which I have addressed above? We’ve discussed this issue many times and you usually talk in circles about it IMO, although to be fair we both believe that ultimately private property parcels should reprsent the only legitimate borders, and the state’s so-called commonly owned property should be privatized – we just disagree on what that means in the meantime.

    As many times as we’ve talked about this, it’s now in writing – maybe we can move the discussion forward from the rut it has been in better this way?

  48. Recommended reading.

    The Case For Free Trade and Open Immigration edited by Richard M. Ebeling and Jacob G. Hornberger

    Published by the Future of Freedom Foundation, this collection of essays makes the moral and practical case for unilateral free trade and open borders.

    Table of contents

    I think I still have some hard copies in Alabama (I used to give these out). Next time I’m there if I can manage to crack open the boxes in the garage I’ll see if I can find one…

  49. The fact of the matter is that libertarians are not the ones “running the show” so to speak. The people in charge are for a one world socialist/fascist government. When they talk about “Free Trade” they aren’t really talking about free trade, they are talking about government managed trade to benifit select corporations. Same thing with immigration. The New World Order elite doesn’t give a rat’s behind about the plight of immigrants. They are merely pawns that are being used to bring down the USA and merge us with Mexico. The likes of Bush & Kerry are actually IN FAVOR of illegal immigration.

    I don’t care about political correctness. Also, how about going after real racist groups like MECHA and La Raza? Also, I don’t like white European socialists either.

  50. The fact of the matter is that libertarians are not the ones “running the show” so to speak. The people in charge are for a one world socialist/fascist government. When they talk about “Free Trade” they aren’t really talking about free trade, they are talking about government managed trade to benifit select corporations. Same thing with immigration. The New World Order elite doesn’t give a rat’s behind about the plight of immigrants.

    With you 100% so far.

    They are merely pawns that are being used to bring down the USA and merge us with Mexico.

    Well, no; while they may or may not be that, they are also human beings excercising the right to freely move to seek better opportunity. Only legitimate property owners have a right to interfere with freedom of movement and the state does not fit this bill.

    The likes of Bush & Kerry are actually IN FAVOR of illegal immigration.

    Yes, and they would like to keep it illegal.

    BTW don’t we have to go?

  51. I’ve read Jacob Hornberger’s essays on this and other subjects. Jacob seems like a good guy, although I didn’t like the way that he jumped back into the LP Presidential race in 2000 at the last minute.

    I actually intended to bring up Jacob Hornberger myself. I don’t really care for the way he pushes the “open borders” issue but if Jacob Hornberger was elected to Congress I would not try to sabatoge his re-election campaign. Why? Because I mostly agree with him and we do NOT currently have the luxury of knocking people out of office with whom we only have minor disagreements.

    Even if one disagrees with Ron Paul’s stances on abortion (which is really idiotic since Ron Paul has said that abortion should be left to the states to decide) and immigration I really don’t believe that these things merit knocking him out of office. Ron Paul losing his seat in Congress would be a HUGE set back for the greater movement in my opinion.

  52. They are merely pawns that are being used to bring down the USA and merge us with Mexico.

    That may not be a bad thing, however.

    I don’t care about political correctness.

    Is this a response to something I said, or something I said you said? If so, what?

    Also, how about going after real racist groups like MECHA and La Raza?

    Have I disagreed with you there?

    Also, I don’t like white European socialists either.

    Good for you. Should we send all whites back to Europe or just stop new ones from coming in?

    We really should continue later, you and I have the capacity to sit here until they close this thing at midnight doing this…

  53. Jacob seems like a good guy, although I didn’t like the way that he jumped back into the LP Presidential race in 2000 at the last minute.

    I agree.

    I don’t really care for the way he pushes the “open borders” issue but if Jacob Hornberger was elected to Congress I would not try to sabatoge his re-election campaign. Why? Because I mostly agree with him and we do NOT currently have the luxury of knocking people out of office with whom we only have minor disagreements.

    You’re probably right about this. It depends on just how much you emphasize those issues on which you disagree. As an immigration rights lawyer, Flynn obviously feels strongly about the issue, which is huge in Texas.

    Also, we haven’t yet found out whether the LP of Texas will actually endorse him and whether he will pursue his race if/when Dr. Paul is re-nominated by the GOP.

    So don’t get all worked about this just yet.

  54. What right is there to “freely move” on to property where one isn’t wanted? That sounds like a leftist/socialist saying that people have a “right” to “free” education, “free” healthcare, a “living wage,” etc… Murray Rothbard (if he were still alive) & Lew Rockwell would agree with me here.

    The likes of Bush & Kerry actually SUPPORT amnesty for illegal aliens. Bush wants to merge our Social Security system in with Mexico. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea….NOT!

    Maybe I should waltz on to an Indian Reservation and claim to be a member of their tribe. Some of that gambling money would be nice. If they ask me to leave I’ll just scream “open borders” and whine about how racist they are.

  55. Even if one disagrees with Ron Paul’s stances on abortion (which is really idiotic since Ron Paul has said that abortion should be left to the states to decide)

    At the present time, I share Dr. Paul’s opinion on this matter – at least until we eliminate the states as well.

    However, other libertarians present counter-arguments to this particular point, claiming women’s rights are more important than states rights. That’s what I pointed you to Charles Johnson’s site for.

    To be fair, there are also pro-life libertarians who believe fetus’ rights are more importants than states rights (vs. federal).

    Ultimately, neither state nor federal government have any legitimate rights. I deally I believe in a free society we can find technological solutions such as artificial wombs, and other market and community solutions which are prevented by the state and its indirect effects.

  56. What right is there to “freely move” on to property where one isn’t wanted?

    The question is not wanted by whom? Legitimate property owners or a “majority” of alleged owners of poorly-defined property held by a coercive, illegitimate organization, very imperfectly expressed by conglomerated votes (of those who even choose to vote) and opinion polls – an organization which also DOES interfere with even those property owners who DO want so-called illegal immigrants on their property?

    I certainly won’t argue with legitimate property owners not wanting illegal immigrants or any other trespassers on their property.

    FYI it’s almost 8 pm here.

  57. Murray Rothbard (if he were still alive) & Lew Rockwell would agree with me here.

    Murray and Lew represent one slice of libertarian views. There are many other libertarian perspectives ranging from Karl Hess and Sam Konkin to Robert Lefebvre and…shudder…Ayn Rand, although the last did not call herself a libertarian.

    Murray did, and Lew still does, a lot of good work, but there are issues on which they are way off base. After all they are mere mortals; their opinion is not the be-all and end-all, nor the final authority on all matters.

  58. I don’t consider abortion to be a high priority issue. I’m not completely against immigration, I just don’t care for some of the stuff that’s going on right now in regaurds to immigration. In my opinion, the current problems with immigration are more of a symptom of a greater problem and that is the exsistence of the welfare state.

    The most important issues in my opinion are as follows (in no particular order)…

    1) Abolishing the Federal Reserve.

    2) Abolishing the IRS.

    3) Restoring gun rights.

    4) Stopping foreign military imperialism.

    5) Calling off the drug war.

    6) Getting the US out of the UN.

    7) Abolishing the domestic police state (ie-Homeland Security, Patriot Act, NSA, FEMA, etc…).

    8) Liquidating Social Security.

    9) Ending the “unholy alliance” between big government & big corporations.

    10) Putting an end to pork barrel spending & huge debts.

    Ron Paul is dead on right on all of these issues.

  59. Ok last one for tonight!

    What issues you or I consider most important are not necessarily the same as what other libertarians consider most importnt. Everyone has different reasons for why they are in politics and/or a libertarian, and we should respect our diversity.

    Now in the words of the b$^&$% from the travelodge OK LET’S GO!

  60. Jacob Hornberger and this Flynn guy are mere mortals as well. One could just as easily say that they are off base.

    I know that Jacob Hornberger does a lot of good work and I assume that this Flynn guy does as well, I just consider it to be naive to push for “open borders” (which would not even exsist under anarcho-capitalism) when the reality of the situation that we are living under is that the people who want one world government are the ones who are running the show and this plays right into their hands.

    If this Flynn guy contributes to Ron Paul losing his seat in Congress I’d call him a fool who set the movement back.

  61. Flooding the country with illegal aliens is a part of the New World Order agenda to destroy this country and heard us into a global police state.

    Egad. Are we attracting Alex Jones listeners now?

  62. Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik have both been on The Alex Jones Show on several occasions and both consider him to be a friend.

  63. naive to push for “open borders” (which would not even exsist under anarcho-capitalism)

    No, but the difference is that the borders would be legitimate (actual property lines). The regime’s borders are illegitimate and the whole country is not their property; they have no moral right to say who may or may not enter what is not theirs. If they can do so, logically it follows that they can dictate everything else which goes on or does not on “their property” – ie all the rights of property owners.

    when the reality of the situation that we are living under is that the people who want one world government are the ones who are running the show and this plays right into their hands.

    Again: I don’t oppose something just because someone else (allegedly) supports it, or vice versa. It’s not a good enough reason.

  64. The AMERICAN people are the rightful owners of our government. Therefore it is the American people who own the borders and who own all of the rest of the property that is held by our government.

    The “government” (as in the forces that control both the Democrats and the Republicans) actually WANTS massive immigration, particularly poor 3rd world immigrants. It is the majority of the American people who don’t want it. You make it sound like the average American wants all of these illegal immigrants flooding into the country and the the government is really interested in preventing these immigrants from entering and this is the OPPOSITE from what is really happening. The current immigration situation does NOT reflect the will of most Americans and it would not happen this way even if we had anarcho-capitalism.

    New World Order style immigration is a SCAM just as their supposed “free trade” is a scam just as their “War On Terror” is a SCAM just as their UN is a SCAM, etc

  65. Therefore it is the American people who own the borders and who own all of the rest of the property that is held by our government.

    The border is not just property held by the regime, but numerous private property parcels. While some of the owners of those parcels share your view, others don’t. The regime enforces its line in the sand nevertheless. There is no property that is legitimately held by the regime, nor could there be. There is no way to decide how to manage it properly; opinion polls and votes don’t help.

    In other words, what the majority wants is irrelevant.

    If it was relevant, they this opens the door to treating any and all matters the majority sees fit as public property
    ie

    drugs, guns, welfare/charity, eminent domain, etc….

    If the state has legitimate property ownership rights, as enforcement of a border implies, it has all these other property rights too; it follows logically.

    IMO, it has none of these rights legitimately.

  66. “We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;”

    Actually, paulie, Ron Paul’s anti-abortion position isn’t technically against the LP platform. One who believes life begins at conception (like me) would feel that two provisions of the LP Platform are in conflict with each other. Here I show that the LP Statement of Principles actually affirms, explicitly, the “right to life.”