Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 53

Thread: So, seriously, has nobody yet rubbed sand in the faces of....

  1. #1

    So, seriously, has nobody yet rubbed sand in the faces of....

    ...all those Gary Johnson supporters?
    http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/how-ma...n-libertarian/

    All third parties combined got 4%.
    Johnson absolutely DOMINATED that field with 3.5% total votes cast.

    Is it time to recognize that the L is supposed to mean something? Or are we going to see the same thing in 2020 - swearing again on a stack of Bibles that the "most electable" candidate is more important than the one with principles?

    Can we give this "ideological purity" thing a go next time around, maybe, since we've proved over and over that what's getting done isn't working?
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Or perhaps someone who could maintain a coherent thought in public?

    You know... either/or...
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  4. #3
    I'm still rubbing it in the face of ZippyJuan and TheCount. What will they do since all of their Hillary supporting posts seem to be in vain?


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I'm still rubbing it in the face of ZippyJuan and TheCount. What will they do since all of their Hillary supporting posts seem to be in vain?


    I love the taste of liberal tears

    Goes great with coffee
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  6. #5
    I wonder if they'd have gladly taken the federal money had they got to 5%.

    Johnson did a little better than I thought, though. I called 2%.

  7. #6
    [QUOTE=
    Johnson did a little better than I thought, though. I called 2%.[/QUOTE]

    Maybe you underestimated how much people disliked Trump and HRC.

    "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." - John Adams

    "He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind." - John Witherspoon


    Why I stand with Rand

  8. #7
    I was no Trump supporter, but Gary Johnson was a hideous candidate. At no point did he even attempt to look anything more than an aging hipster who wanted to use big government to give rights that cannot be given and take rights that cannot be taken. He was a mess. Maybe now he will just settle down and marry his fiancee and give up the idea he has anything helpful to contribute to the cause of liberty beyond casual conversation at a cocktail party.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi

  9. #8
    I was hoping he would get 5, he got 3.5

    Not bad, still the best the LP has ever done and I believe the best 3rd party showing since Perot when I was a kid.

    Nobody here expected Johnson to win or even come close to winning.

    A "purist" LP candidate would get maybe .1%



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Sadly I think it gets even harder for third party voters from here. I already see hysterical Dems on Facebook attacking friends who voted Johnson or Stein. They truly believe Hillary was entitled to every non-Trump vote. They cried the same thing after Nader tipped Florida in 2000, and the third party vote in 2004 was abysmal.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    I was hoping he would get 5, he got 3.5

    Not bad, still the best the LP has ever done and I believe the best 3rd party showing since Perot when I was a kid.

    Nobody here expected Johnson to win or even come close to winning.

    A "purist" LP candidate would get maybe .1%
    I disagree. I would vote for a "purist" and I suspect most of the folks who voted for Johnson wouldn't have gone Trump or Clinton because the LP candidate was too pure. Would you? Mr Animal held his nose and voted Johnson but he would've actually actively campaigned for and donated to a purist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  13. #11
    Third party candidates over poll when given as an option, I didn't believe the third party vote would break 5% combined. 3.5% is a respectable result for the Libertarian Party, Johnson/Weld were awful candidates and they still got the greatest result in party history. To bad they're not libertarian anymore...

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    A "purist" LP candidate would get maybe .1%
    The fact is, you don't know, and you are going to try your damnedest to keep from finding out.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  15. #13
    Asking us will literally get you no where. Best bet if an individual cares about this is to join their state's LP party (and convince others to join as well) in attempts to become a delegate for the 2020 Libertarian convention. You'd have to remove the sand from your ______ to rub it in someone's face.

  16. #14
    This is the time for some real libertarians to start putting their ideas out there. This was a very close election, so I think there is a need for alternative thinking. That is, how does a government downsize itself in a way that does no harm?
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    I disagree. I would vote for a "purist" and I suspect most of the folks who voted for Johnson wouldn't have gone Trump or Clinton because the LP candidate was too pure. Would you? Mr Animal held his nose and voted Johnson but he would've actually actively campaigned for and donated to a purist.
    I would have been ok with most of the candidates. Probably not the greasy guy Perry who wanted to legalize sex with children. Not the fat dude who stripped.

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    The fact is, you don't know, and you are going to try your damnedest to keep from finding out.
    Honestly I don't care that much either way. I think their best shot is somebody like Johnson, not a nobody. Weld burned his bridges already so you don't have to worry about him anymore.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    I love the taste of liberal tears

    Goes great with coffee
    I enjoy them with fava beans and a nice glass of Chianti.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    ...all those Gary Johnson supporters?
    http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/how-ma...n-libertarian/

    All third parties combined got 4%.
    Johnson absolutely DOMINATED that field with 3.5% total votes cast.

    Is it time to recognize that the L is supposed to mean something? Or are we going to see the same thing in 2020 - swearing again on a stack of Bibles that the "most electable" candidate is more important than the one with principles?

    Can we give this "ideological purity" thing a go next time around, maybe, since we've proved over and over that what's getting done isn't working?


    ...seems to me you'd have to be a trifling goddamned fool to waste any time crapping on the LP...they've never had any power, never had any money...they are certainly not responsible for the mess we're in...

    ...?your goddamned republican fools [and the stinking democrats] is where any enlightened rage, contempt, etc., will be directed...

  21. #18
    McAfee was a better choice. Him and Weiss are still putting out videos showing that they "get it", better then anything Gary said or accomplished in this election. did we forget the original libertarian bill weld?

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    A "purist" LP candidate would get maybe .1%
    Historical average is closer to 0.4% in presidential elections.

    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    Asking us will literally get you no where. Best bet if an individual cares about this is to join their state's LP party (and convince others to join as well) in attempts to become a delegate for the 2020 Libertarian convention. You'd have to remove the sand from your ______ to rub it in someone's face.
    Actually, I think the LP would be more successful if they...

    1. developed good candidates at the local level before running them
    2. trained volunteers in electioneering, not focus entirely on the philosophy
    3. run in races that have unopposed incumbents
    4. run in races that have infrequently opposed incumbents*


    The Dems put someone up against our incumbent GOP congressman every once in a while, but in 2010 our choices were (R), (LP), and independent. LP took third and it was due to bad campaign. They actually recruited a great candidate but then they abandoned him. He, like myself, has since joined the GOP.
    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

    H.L. Mencken

  23. #20
    2008: .4%
    2012: 1%
    2016: 3.5%

    But yeah, let's mock them instead of supporting the rise of a third party which has historically been 100% on our side. Gary Johnson is not a libertarian, he's a centrist. He did a good job getting the name out there. Now let's capitalize on that.
    The more prohibitions you have,
    the less virtuous people will be.
    The more weapons you have,
    the less secure people will be.
    The more subsidies you have,
    the less self-reliant people will be.

    Therefore the Master says:
    I let go of the law,
    and people become honest.
    I let go of economics,
    and people become prosperous.
    I let go of religion,
    and people become serene.
    I let go of all desire for the common good,
    and the good becomes common as grass.

    -Tao Te Ching, Section 57

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Is it time to recognize that the L is supposed to mean something?
    It does mean something: Loser.

    Like the folks who voted for a retread Republican and his Marxist running mate because they were too principled to cast an effective vote against Clinton.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    It does mean something: Loser.

    Like the folks who voted for a retread Republican and his Marxist running mate because they were too principled to cast an effective vote against Clinton.
    Against Clinton doesn't equal for Trump.

    I didn't like either and didn't think one was any better than the other.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    I was no Trump supporter, but Gary Johnson was a hideous candidate.
    Not to mention that oaf, Weld.

    The one thing that had to happen this election was to stop Clinton, and even THAT has yet to happen, given all the calls to subvert the EC.

    I do not know if it is true, but some right/alt-right sites have supposedly reported that at least one elector has stated that he was approached with a carrotstick in the form of a $175K payoff in an offshore account and implied death threats against his family if he didn't take it. I have NO idea whether there is any truth to it, but the simple fact that it comes up gives some indication of the times, at the very least.

    Trump is, thus far, not spectacular. It is, however, too early to make any firm judgments.

    Has he made any reference to treatment of the Fed? Something positive there would earn him valuable capital. I wish someone with access would ask him a pointed question or two on that issue.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by cjm View Post
    Actually, I think the LP would be more successful if they...

    1. developed good candidates at the local level before running them
    2. trained volunteers in electioneering, not focus entirely on the philosophy
    3. run in races that have unopposed incumbents
    4. run in races that have infrequently opposed incumbents*


    The Dems put someone up against our incumbent GOP congressman every once in a while, but in 2010 our choices were (R), (LP), and independent. LP took third and it was due to bad campaign. They actually recruited a great candidate but then they abandoned him. He, like myself, has since joined the GOP.
    I was talking about how to one would go about achieving the 'ideologically purist thing' mentioned in the OP. I think the best approach changes with a person's overall objective. I watched the Ron Paul interview with Alex Jones and Ron basically said he had no hopes of achieving political success, for him it was about converting 'one person at a time' or so he says. And for someone like that an educational campaign is success. I find myself in the pragmatic camp because I do seek political success and I haven't been shown a successful road through ideological purism. And I feel like pragmatism is being being dismissed to early, without exploring what it can really mean. Such as an Anti-Federalist campaign which doesn't require a complete agreement between people, just that we agree to go our separate ways. And I'm sure there are other pragmatic efforts that we will not explore if we assume the only way forward is purity. I agree completely with what you say. I think state libertarian parties ran in that fashion make sense. But on the federal level there isn't a different outcome between Anti-Federalism and libertarianism yet libertarianism requires much more agreement between people.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by jonhowe View Post
    2008: .4%
    2012: 1%
    2016: 3.5%

    But yeah, let's mock them instead of supporting the rise of a third party which has historically been 100% on our side. Gary Johnson is not a libertarian, he's a centrist. He did a good job getting the name out there. Now let's capitalize on that.
    Well said.

    The numbers in each election are growing. This is a good sign. And in fact, the Libertarian Party earned ballot access in several states, based on Johnson's showing. Here's the full list:

    The Libertarian Party achieved a number of critically-important ballot access victories, making the LP a recognized party in 39 states, the highest ever after an election in the party’s history.
    • The Texas LP retained ballot access with Railroad Commission candidate Mark Miller receiving over 5 percent. The party would have had to collect over 80,000 signatures to get back on the ballot if no statewide candidate received 5 percent. This will save the party approximately $220,000 in petitioning cost.
    • The LP retained ballot access in North Carolina for four years with Gary Johnson and the gubernatorial candidate, Lon Cecil, each getting over 2 percent. The party would have had to collect over 100,000 signatures to get back on the ballot if neither the presidential nor gubernatorial candidate got 2 percent, saving the party approximately $250,000 in petitioning cost.
    • Iowa and Kentucky are recognized parties for the first time, with Gary Johnson getting over 2 percent in both states.
    • New Hampshire is a recognized party for the first time in two decades due to governor candidate Max Abramson getting over 4 percent.
    • The DC party is recognized for the second time ever, with candidate for Delegate to the US House of Representatives Martin Moulton getting over 17,000 votes.
    • The LP retained ballot access in North Dakota, with Gary Johnson getting over 6 percent.
    • In Connecticut, Libertarian Dan Reale for US House in the second congressional district, Richard Lion for US Senate, and Gary Johnson for President all received over one percent of the vote. As a result, the party will not have to petition in these races in the next election.
    • Massachusetts is a recognized party again, with Gary Johnson getting over 3 percent.
    • West Virginia retained ballot access for four years due to David Moran receiving over 2 percent in his race for governor.

  30. #26
    It would be awesome if in 50 years we reach 8%! Maybe even 8.5%!!!
    ...

  31. #27
    Gary Johnson is a Baked American.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    ...all those Gary Johnson supporters?
    http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/how-ma...n-libertarian/

    All third parties combined got 4%.
    Johnson absolutely DOMINATED that field with 3.5% total votes cast.

    Is it time to recognize that the L is supposed to mean something? Or are we going to see the same thing in 2020 - swearing again on a stack of Bibles that the "most electable" candidate is more important than the one with principles?

    Can we give this "ideological purity" thing a go next time around, maybe, since we've proved over and over that what's getting done isn't working?

    These, from one of my previous threads, go here.


    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Anyone who knows me knows that I believe that electoral politics is almost completely worthless as a means to advance the cause of liberty.

    The idea that you're going to get a bunch of "liberty candidates" elected to positions of power and then use that power to drag the general populace into a state of liberty (whether they want it or not) is, at best, extremely problematic on various levels. It'll never happen, and if it did, it wouldn't be liberty.

    Likewise the idea that you can use political campaigns as a tool to "wake up" or educate significant numbers of people to any reasonable level is one I've never been completely convinced of. After what I've seen in this election cycle, I'm pretty much totally convinced that the idea is untenable.

    However, since it's apparent that most liberty advocates are not yet ready to give up their addiction to electoral politics and devote their energies to activities that might be more profitable, and probably won't be ready to do so any time soon, it's probably a good idea to find any available methods of getting the absolute most that can possibly be gotten out of it. I believe that L. Neil Smith's insights below would be a VERY good place to start.


    Reforming the Libertarian Party
    by L. Neil Smith
    lneil@netzero.com


    Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

    I recently joined a group, the LP Radical Caucus, that was new to me, and one of the things they asked on their Facebook page was what ideas, if any, did I have for straightening out what's wrong with the Party. I've had many such ideas for years. The following essay is my answer.

    I joined the Libertarian Party forty-three years ago, in 1972, the first full year the Party existed. Although I became lifelong friends with founder David F. Nolan, knew a couple other founders, and lots of famous folks associated with the Party, it soon became apparent to me that there were many potentially fatal flaws in its structure and organization.

    To begin with, Dave told me that the LP was copied after the national Young Republicans. I believed then, and continue to believe to this day, that if you accept such a limitation, you won't be able to keep from acting like a Republican, and believe me, to get what we want to make of society, libertarians must learn not to act like Republicans.

    For years, obsessed with achieving "respectability", the LP embarrassed itself by mindlessly imitating Republicans and Democrats, never realizing that a third party is a different sort of animal, that must achieve product differentiation by flamboyance and confrontation. A third party, especially a brand new third party, has no other capital.

    Except, of course, the truth.

    During the years of my greatest activity, the LP, governed by its comic relief National Committee, closely resembled a high school student government, with many of the same petty social jealousies and conflicts. The committee tended to try to guess what potential voters might think, instead of simply doing and saying what was right. A full and frank disclosure of what libertarians actually believe was thought to be too much for Mrs. Grundy, living in Peoria, so we all must soft-pedal it. The clever idea was to try to fool people into becoming free.

    In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results.

    My campaigns consisted of prepared speeches, telling groups what they didn't want to know—I called it the "2x4 between the eyes approach"—telling liberal university women, for example, about our position on guns, and then assuring them that that was the worst they would have to hear, and that we libertarians had reached our radical conclusions about womens' rights by just the same kind of reasoning. I told conservatives about our position on drugs. I told old people that they has been defrauded by Social Security and that there wasn't a damn thing the LP could do about it but abolish taxation and economic regulation to generate a vastly more prosperous, survivable future.

    At the same time, I avoided conventional "wisdom" about such matters as clothing, never wearing a necktie, preferring a leather sportcoat, a western shirt, jeans, and cowboy boots, instead. I showed voters what their lives could be like—what groceries and other commodities would cost, in a tax-free, regulation-free society. Unlike all the other candidates, I made my audiences growl at me, laugh with me, and, most of all, remember me. Regrettably, my results were "alibied away" by Party leaders who ignored or refused to learn from them.

    At about the same time, well before personal computers or the Internet would have made it easier, I was laboriously writing and speaking passionately about the changes that my wife (and partner and accomplice) Cathy and I strongly believed needed to be made to the Party.

    Its principle problem was that in a highly unlibertarian way, it was overly centralized, as if its leaders wanted to be Kings of the Libertarians. Nobody who was considered by them to be "uncool" had a prayer of seeing his ideas even considered by the Party's august rulers. Their sublime arrogance and stupidity was best illustrated by headquartering the Party in the Watergate, infamously associated across "flyover country" with Richard Milhous Nixon and his criminal gang.

    Fully as bad was the decision to place the LP in Washington, D.C., the bitter focus of everything we opposed politically. The excuse always given was access to the media—more likely to fashionable cocktail parties. But the parasitic press will always scuttle along behind you if you do newsworthy things. Better to place libertarian headquarters in real America, the center of the country, say, Omaha. Instead of a cramped but expensive suite in a notorious location, make it an answering machine in a closet. Or these days, an inexpensive laptop.

    The Party's biggest problem, the National Committee, spending unearned resources extorted from the state parties like drunken Democrats, would be abolished. It would be replaced by a Congress of State Chairs, who are elected by the grass roots, are accesible, know what campaigns need most, and have a better idea what's really going on in the whole country. This Congress would meet at every national convention.

    There would be one of those every year, giving more party members more time to meet each other, to participate in convention business, to devise various schemes, and generally to get a social leg up on Republicans and Democrats. These conventions would always be held in our weakest states, leaving a stronger state organization behind. The best part of this plan is that the Party could nominate immediately following the most recent election, giving us four years to make our candidate's name and face familiar to the media and the public. Whenever anything politically significant happened, voters would know exactly what the Libertarian Party candidate would do and why. This would be aided by a permanent program to produce weekly press statements.

    All during the period that I was most active in the LP, it was almost impossible to get copies of the national platform to distribute so that people would understand what real libertarians really stand for. Cringing weaklings among the party leadership were ashamed of a simple, direct, declaration of principle. More recently, the great platforms of the late 70s, which I helped to write, were savagely raped by the "pragmatists", leaving nothing but unattractive pap behind.

    It's been a number of years, but one Carl Milstead, as I recall, was chief among the platform buggerers. He bragged about it openly, dismissing those who opposed his acts of vandalism as "purists" and was perversely proud of it, never realizing the wreckage he was making of the efforts of far better men and women than he could ever hope to be. Today, if he were on fire, I wouldn't cross the street to piss him out.

    Parallel with the GOP, we're infested by LINOs who thoughtlessly and unoriginally adopted the Statue of Liberty—which I call "The Hollow Woman"—as a symbol because one or two people thought the old "Libersign", devised by award-winning advertising man Dave Nolan, looked fascistic. I deeply dislike the porcupine—porcupines are stupid. I greatly prefer the highly intelligent and mischievous skunk—equally a creature of pure defense—upside-down in full battle array.

    My experience as a candidate taught me that the more openly frank libertarians are about what they stand for, the more enthusiastic the audience and the higher the vote totals. Don't let anybody tell you differently. People sought me out after the election to tell me that they disagreed with me about a lot, but voted for me because I spoke the truth. These are not times for timidity, or for censoring ourselves.

    Dum vivimus, vivamus!


    Celebrated and award-winning author of over 30 books and countless shorter pieces, L. Neil Smith is available, at professional rates, to write articles and speeches for you or your organization, providing that our principles are compatible. Contact him at lneil@netzero.com.

    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2016/tle853-20160103-02.html

    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    It's likely that some here will be unable, or unwiling to look past Smith's comments on abortion to see the larger point, but others may not be so encumbered. Regardless, Smith's overall point is right on the mark IMO.


    Seems Like Old Times
    by L. Neil Smith
    lneil@netzero.com


    Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

    Operating my trusty laptop last week was like piloting a time machine. My tolerance for the subhumanity offered to the American public as Presidential timber had sunk to an all-time low. I couldn't imagine what candidates for lesser offices were like. I was thinking of Caligula. When he appointed his war-steed to the Roman Senate, it was said to be the first time a whole horse had occupied a Senate seat.

    I shared my discontents with a handful of Facebook correspondents, who agreed with me, but didn't seem to have any better idea what to do about it than I had. I had known, since I was in Fourth Grade, that I was living at the end of this particular cycle of civilization (how I knew it is a whole other story) but I didn't want to be. I haven't yet given up on the idea that is America, and I wasn't quite ready to begin.

    That's why I had joined the Libertarian Party in the first place, and it had always wound up in passionate arguments and discussions just like I was having now, on Facebook. What's the best strategy for getting there from here, to freedom from non-freedom? It was an eerily familiar feeling. There were a few of those, like me, who were less concerned about the number of votes we collected, than the number of folks who could be persuaded just to live their own lives, and others to whom a vote was everything—even a good excuse to fudge on your principles just a little. The latter got seriously in the way of the former.

    What's more, with the generous help of an anonymous benefactor, I had recently written and published a big book, Down With Power, about what's wrong with our country and how to fix it relatively quickly and easily. The trouble was, nobody seemed to be buying Down With Power or reading it; my publisher was disconsolate, and even my contributor appeared disappointed with the result. I think he'd been expecting another For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard, or Libertarianism, by John Hospers, or The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman, but from the very beginning, I hadn't wanted to write just another primer, explaining what libertarianism is, but a policy book, explaining what libertarianism could do, if it was given the opportunity.

    http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".

    And there was another problem: the "pragmatists", a gaggle of wonks within the Libertarian Party who cherished a number of ridiculously absurd beliefs that had long kept the Libertarian Party from achieving measurable success. These absurd beliefs had sprung into being, I think, the first day that the party existed. The first absurdity was that the "pragmatists" were somehow vastly more intelligent or far better educated than the average schlub voter who didn't belong to Mensa, and telepathically or clairvoyantly knew what the voters wanted (or didn't want) better than the voters themselves, did.

    The second might be termed "Jack Nicholson's Fallacy" or "You can't handle the truth." The idea is that, somehow, the average voter, "Joe Sixpack", won't be able to tolerate the overwhelming shock of what libertarians really believe deep down inside, and so he must be lied to. People must somehow be fooled into being free. The "Pragmatists" thought it would be cute to gut the national platform of the late 1970s, and, using excuses even they knew sounded phony and malicious, remove from it any reason people might discover for voting for libertarians instead of Republicans or Democrats. The equivalent of the GOP's RINOs, they gleefully destroyed a document ten years in the making, which the editor of a major New York publisher praised as reading as if it had been written by one person. Helpless to act against these vandals, I vowed revenge—and a new comprehensive platform with which to embarrass them. Down With Power is that platform.

    http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".

    I don't believe in Joe Sixpack, myself, so to disprove this utter nonsense, I ran for the Colorado State House of Representatives, against the popular six-term Speaker of the House, resolved absolutely to tell my audiences what I and most other libertarians really believed. It didn't take much resolve, in fact,it rarely does. I'm a natural-born blabbermouth.

    To carry matters to extreme, I always led with the most unpopular issue. If I was speaking to a liberal group, for example, like the Association of University women, the topic was "gun control". Before they had a chance to react emotionally, I explained to them the basic process—the Zero Aggression Principle plus the Bill of Rights—by which we'd come to our conclusion, and additionally promised them it was the worst thing that they'd have to hear from me. I added that we'd used exactly the same method to arrive at our conclusions on abortion.

    (A parenthetical statement is probably called for here. In 1977, Freshman Congressman Ron Paul and anti-abortion activist Doris Gordon appeared before the Libertarian National Platform Committee in San Francisco to make their plea for what many of us on the panel regarded as enslaving young women to fetuses that they didn't want. It my view, they should have been dismissed curtly, not listened to politely as they were. The LP has remained somewhat confused on the issue ever since.)

    When the group was conservative, I started with drugs, made the same explanations, and wound up with guns. The toughest were groups of old people to whom I spoke about Social Security. I found that they didn't really want to impoverish or indenture their grandchildren. It helped that the core of my speech was about increasing their real purchasing power by a factor of eight, by abolishing taxes and regulations.

    In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00. More importantly, people came to me afterward to tell me they disagreed, but had voted for me because I'd told them the truth. made them mad, even made them laugh and cheer.

    So much for "pragmatism".

    I have come to believe that a major problem with these specimens is that they're timid. They're embarrassed to state plainly, and in public, what a libertarian really is—an entity who owns himself absolutely—and what he stands for—no aggression, no compromise. They erroneously assume that everybody else is just as afraid to hear that truth. This psychopathological phenomenon is known as "projection".

    And of course, there are those who are simply reserving some right they erroneously imagine that they possess to beat me up (or anybody else) and kill me if it happens to serve their private or public interests.

    Or, I suppose it's possible, that out of a misguided sense of opportunism, a person might become a "LINO"—a "libertarian in name only"; what advantage there might be in it, I'm totally at a loss to understand.

    Whatever their reasons for being whatever they were, I wanted them all subjected to the humiliation of attempting to explain away (especially to the media) obviously libertarian ideas—although I freely confess that they may not be equipped to appreciate the irony of it. For now, I'll just be kind and leave the poltroons unnamed, but in future essays, I will indeed speak of them and their organizations by name, and, after some research, try to examine their individual motivations,

    I found that I had missed that old, magical time, when the movement and its infinite possibilities were new to me. I wanted it all back, along with the spark, the thrill. I thought my own book, Down With Power—and its effect on others—might bring it back to me.

    I wrote this book as a weapon of individual liberty.

    http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".

    The libertarian movement as we knew it is dying; it's practically dead. If you think you want to revive the libertarian movement, if yu want to feel philosophically young again, if you want to restart the revolution, first, buy and read Down With Power. It's available on paper, electronically, or read aloud by radio personality, Brian Wilson.

    http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".

    Then, if what you have read suits you, buy copies of Down With Power for your relatives and friends, for your parents, for your grandparents, for your kids, your cousins and uncles and aunts—and especially for your enemies. If the badguys get even an inkling of what they're up against, they'll advertise it in a noisy panic, far better than we could ever hope to do. I'll send a signed copy, myself, to that pack of carrion-eating jackals, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    The next step is bigger: buy cartons of Down With Power, at a generous discount for your group. It's cheaper than an AK-47 or an AR-15, and more effective, because it takes on and kills the very idea of authority and initiated force. Distribute it any way you can think of. Libraries might be a place to start, and your doctor might like her waiting patients to read about separation of medicine and state.

    http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".

    Finally, show up at public gatherings—especially political ones—with copies of Down With Power, its distinctive cover, in your hands. You'll be talking back to the guys who think they run things.

    True, I will make money—but that's how I earn a living, how I feed my family, and libertarians are supposed to be all in favor of individual private enterprise. My small Maryland publisher—what must he think of our vaunted movement right now?—will prosper, which is extremely good news for all of us. And you'll have another shot at creating a free country after being disappointed by politics and politicians all these years. Now, instead of begging them to listen, you'll get to listen to them begging to know what's in the book.

    They may ned help with the big words.

    So it's time to go to work. There are 330,000,000 Americans who need to read and apply the remedies in Down With Power if America is going to survive the 21st century. You can help them decide if it will.

    Down With Power click through from The Libertarian Enterprise

    http://www.NCC-1776.org—Scroll down until you find the "bookstore".

    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2015/tle845-20151101-02.html
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    ...all those Gary Johnson supporters?
    http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/how-ma...n-libertarian/

    All third parties combined got 4%.
    Johnson absolutely DOMINATED that field with 3.5% total votes cast.

    Is it time to recognize that the L is supposed to mean something? Or are we going to see the same thing in 2020 - swearing again on a stack of Bibles that the "most electable" candidate is more important than the one with principles?

    Can we give this "ideological purity" thing a go next time around, maybe, since we've proved over and over that what's getting done isn't working?
    I think you make good points. I probably agree, but don't really care about the LP too much one way or the other, so maybe I'm looking at them in a more detached way.

    What I think could be said on the other side is that GJ really could have and should have done better than he did. He followed a bad campaign strategy. But he still was the most credible candidate the LP could run. And no one else would have done as well as he did, to say nothing of what he had a real potential to do.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by jonhowe View Post
    But yeah, let's mock them instead of supporting the rise of a third party which has historically been 100% on our side.
    Historically meaning up through 2004?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Bruce Springsteen rubbed Obama's face in a steaming pile of s%&# yesterday
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-15-2014, 11:02 AM
  2. Thermit from sand
    By osan in forum Personal Security & Defense
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-11-2013, 05:15 PM
  3. Where is YOUR line in the sand?
    By Matt Collins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-15-2011, 11:18 AM
  4. What is your 'line in the sand'?
    By Rael in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 01:22 PM
  5. Where is your line in the sand?
    By GunnyFreedom in forum Freedom Living
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 10:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •