Yep.
<sarcasm>Yes, we can see how beholden George W. Bush was to the conservatives who helped get him elected, and how beholden Obama has been to the progressives who helped get him elected. </sarcasm>
I saw Tim Donnelly speak in Sacramento a few months ago. Not impressed. Especially when I did some more research online and learned about his background as a leader of the anti-immigrant "Minuteman" vigilante group. He also said in his talk that he plans to make a campaign issue of human trafficking. HT is the latest tactic being used by an unholy alliance of man-hating feminists and anti-sex social conservatives to go after prostitution among consenting adults. The irony is that to the extent human trafficking is an actual issue and not just a political agenda that's benefitted from a lot of media sensationalism, the primary cause of it is -- immigration restrictions!
At least Donnelly is running as a Republican and not (that I know of) calling himself a libertarian. That's something to be thankful for. If the GOP wants to shoot themselves in the foot by further cementing their reputation as the party of xenophobia in a largely Hispanic/immigrant state, I don't want the public confusing them with us.
As for the charge that libertarians aren't doing better because "purists" (i.e. people not afraid to speak the truth) are losing influence and elections, my sense from years of watching election returns is that libertarian candidates who take strong libertarian positions on the issues don't typically do any worse than libertarian candidates who water down our views in the hopes of getting elected (or just aren't as libertarian to begin with). Perhaps in a very high profile race a moderate would have an edge -- but even that is far from proven. The "moderate" Prop. 19 marijuana legalization measure lost, and I'm pretty sure the reason why is because of the lukewarm support for it among those who should have been the most motivated to work to get it passed (the marijuana community itself). Besides, we see how candidates act in high profile races, before and after they get elected. Once in office, those who "run to win" typically betray their supporters and sell out (see first paragraph above).
To get officeholders we can trust, we need candidates who care more about principles and doing the right thing than they care about winning. Winning elections is only the first part of the battle, and if we "win" by electing somebody who's not going to follow through, we haven't won -- we've lost. Better to lose with honor than have a Pyrrhic victory of that sort.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - John, please forward my message to bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com since I can't post there -- every attempt I've made to subscribe to the list has been unsuccessful.
Well this is getting lively. Good points. Nevertheless, never winning is loosing.
So Carole and I are speaking of the social formation that remains after the election to deal with the conditions after the election. This is a quantum leap in sophistication beyond the cheering of the crowds. Usually, the ENTIRE political world is dealing with the conditions BEFORE the elections. That's pretty stupid when you think about it.
The fact is, it doesn't much matter who gets elected, it matters who we are.
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com; dbmining <dbmining@...>; davelibertyjones <davelibertyjones@...>; richard <richard@...>; Carole Robinson <carole.mason@...>; zakcarter <zakcarter@...>; c4l-sf-list <c4l-sf-list@...>; dbacigalupi <dbacigalupi@...>; Winston Chin <winston.chin@...>; chad <chad@...>; mschmidter <mschmidter@...>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [BAP2] Re: "Winning"<sarcasm>Yes, we can see how beholden George W. Bush was to the conservatives who helped get him elected, and how beholden Obama has been to the progressives who helped get him elected. </sarcasm>
I saw Tim Donnelly speak in Sacramento a few months ago. Not impressed. Especially when I did some more research online and learned about his background as a leader of the anti-immigrant "Minuteman" vigilante group. He also said in his talk that he plans to make a campaign issue of human trafficking. HT is the latest tactic being used by an unholy alliance of man-hating feminists and anti-sex social conservatives to go after prostitution among consenting adults. The irony is that to the extent human trafficking is an actual issue and not just a political agenda that's benefitted from a lot of media sensationalism, the primary cause of it is -- immigration restrictions!
At least Donnelly is running as a Republican and not (that I know of) calling himself a libertarian. That's something to be thankful for. If the GOP wants to shoot themselves in the foot by further cementing their reputation as the party of xenophobia in a largely Hispanic/immigrant state, I don't want the public confusing them with us.
As for the charge that libertarians aren't doing better because "purists" (i.e. people not afraid to speak the truth) are losing influence and elections, my sense from years of watching election returns is that libertarian candidates who take strong libertarian positions on the issues don't typically do any worse than libertarian candidates who water down our views in the hopes of getting elected (or just aren't as libertarian to begin with). Perhaps in a very high profile race a moderate would have an edge -- but even that is far from proven. The "moderate" Prop. 19 marijuana legalization measure lost, and I'm pretty sure the reason why is because of the lukewarm support for it among those who should have been the most motivated to work to get it passed (the marijuana community itself). Besides, we see how candidates act in high profile races, before and after they get elected. Once in office, those who "run to win" typically betray their supporters
and sell out (see first paragraph above).
John,
Fully agreed. The Libertarian Party (and other libertarians) need more of an organized effort to keep tabs on officeholders we've supported after they get into office, to support those who stick their necks out fighting for freedom amidst their statist colleagues, and putting the pressure on those who are not doing such a good job. Traditionally we've only concentrated on getting people elected. But putting someone in office with an "L" next to his or her name means little or nothing if that person does not pursue a strongly libertarian agenda once elected.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Where's Vito Corleone when we need 'em? 
________________________________
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: dbmining <dbmining@...>; davelibertyjones <davelibertyjones@...>; richard <richard@...>; Carole Robinson <carole.mason@...>; zakcarter <zakcarter@...>; c4l-sf-list <c4l-sf-list@...>; dbacigalupi <dbacigalupi@...>; Winston Chin <winston.chin@...>; chad <chad@...>; mschmidter Schmidter <mschmidter@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [BAP2] Re: "Winning"John,
Fully agreed. The Libertarian Party (and other libertarians) need more of an organized effort to keep tabs on officeholders we've supported after they get into office, to support those who stick their necks out fighting for freedom amidst their statist colleagues, and putting the pressure on those who are not doing such a good job. Traditionally we've only concentrated on getting people elected. But putting someone in office with an "L" next to his or her name means little or nothing if that person does not pursue a strongly libertarian agenda once elected.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))Well this is getting lively. Good points. Nevertheless, never winning is loosing.
So Carole and I are speaking of the social formation that remains after the election to deal with the conditions after the election. This is a quantum leap in sophistication beyond the cheering of the crowds. Usually, the ENTIRE political world is dealing with the conditions BEFORE the elections. That's pretty stupid when you think about it.
The fact is, it doesn't much matter who gets elected, it matters who we are.
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com; dbmining <dbmining@sbcglobal.net>; davelibertyjones <davelibertyjones@...>; richard <richard@marshall-ranch.com>; Carole Robinson <carole.mason@...>; zakcarter <zakcarter@...>; c4l-sf-list <c4l-sf-list@...>; dbacigalupi <dbacigalupi@...>; Winston Chin <winston.chin@...>; chad <chad@...>; mschmidter <mschmidter@...>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [BAP2] Re: "Winning"<sarcasm>Yes, we can see how beholden George W. Bush was to the conservatives who helped get him elected, and how beholden Obama has been to the progressives who helped get him elected. </sarcasm>
I saw Tim Donnelly speak in Sacramento a few months ago. Not impressed. Especially when I did some more research online and learned about his background as a leader of the anti-immigrant "Minuteman" vigilante group. He also said in his talk that he plans to make a campaign issue of human trafficking. HT is the latest tactic being used by an unholy alliance of man-hating feminists and anti-sex social conservatives to go after prostitution among consenting adults. The irony is that to the extent human trafficking is an actual issue and not just a political agenda that's benefitted from a lot of media sensationalism, the primary cause of it is -- immigration restrictions!
At least Donnelly is running as a Republican and not (that I know of) calling himself a libertarian. That's something to be thankful for. If the GOP wants to shoot themselves in the foot by further cementing their reputation as the party of xenophobia in a largely Hispanic/immigrant state, I don't want the public confusing them with us.
As for the charge that libertarians aren't doing better because "purists" (i.e. people not afraid to speak the truth) are losing influence and elections, my sense from years of watching election returns is that libertarian candidates who take strong libertarian positions on the issues don't typically do any worse than libertarian candidates who water down our views in the hopes of getting elected (or just aren't as libertarian to begin with). Perhaps in a very high profile race a moderate would have an edge -- but even that is far from proven. The "moderate" Prop. 19 marijuana legalization measure lost, and I'm pretty sure the reason why is because of the lukewarm support for it among those who should have been the most motivated to work to get it passed (the marijuana community itself). Besides, we see how candidates act in high profile races, before and after they get elected. Once in office, those who "run to win" typically betray their supporters
and sell out (see first paragraph above).
Starchild: Generally I agree with your sentiments, but two issues come to mind as I read your missive
(1)....I think it is almost impossible to predict how someone will behave after they have been elected. Working for the government is soooo lucrative and profitable that it is difficult to find someone who won't be co-opted,
When I still lived in Michigan, I knew a number of people who were on principle critical of government, but then they went to work for the State of Michigan. Oh, how their opinions changed. They were then full of praise for the good work that politicians and bureaucrats were doing or attempting to do.
(2) Once people get elected, they discover that they have to compromise in order to get anything at all done. If they adopt too much of a puristic stance, they doom themselves to irrelevance. Some people who get elected might conclude that it is better to win some battles than to be dogmatic and lose them all. I not saying that I like this or approve of it, but I do think it is reality in a representative democracy.
Les
Les,
I think you are looking at what Carole and I are speaking of from another viewpoint.
Regardless of who gets elected or what anyone in government may think, government is still the only relevant social formation.
And the way it is instituted will produce certain outcomes.
After many decades, even the major political parties have conformed to the institution and now serve as ministries of the central government.
There are no longer any relevant social formations to keep the government in check. No Masons. No Church. No Guilds. No militias. No profusion of mutual aide societies.
Even though there are vestiges of these institutions, they have been neutralized in the political landscape.
We are seeking to remedy this vacuum of decent robust influence, to compete effectively against the self-service of government.
________________________________
From: leslie mangus <lesliemangus@...>
To: "lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com" <bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com>; dbmining <dbmining@sbcglobal.net>; davelibertyjones <davelibertyjones@...>; richard <richard@marshall-ranch.com>; Carole Robinson <carole.mason@...>; zakcarter <zakcarter@...>; c4l-sf-list <c4l-sf-list@...>; dbacigalupi <dbacigalupi@...>; Winston Chin <winston.chin@...>; chad <chad@libertytc.com>; mschmidter <mschmidter@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2014 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [BAP2] Re: "Winning"Starchild: Generally I agree with your sentiments, but two issues come to mind as I read your missive
(1)....I think it is almost impossible to predict how someone will behave after they have been elected. Working for the government is soooo lucrative and profitable that it is difficult to find someone who won't be co-opted,
When I still lived in Michigan, I knew a number of people who were on principle critical of government, but then they went to work for the State of Michigan. Oh, how their opinions changed. They were then full of praise for the good work that politicians and bureaucrats were doing or attempting to do.
(2) Once people get elected, they discover that they have to compromise in order to get anything at all done. If they adopt too much of a puristic stance, they doom themselves to irrelevance. Some people who get elected might conclude that it is better to win some battles than to be dogmatic and lose them all. I not saying that I like this or approve of it, but I do think it is reality in a representative democracy.
Les
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com; dbmining <dbmining@...t>; davelibertyjones <davelibertyjones@...>; richard <richard@marshall-ranch.com>; Carole Robinson <carole.mason@...>; zakcarter <zakcarter@...>; c4l-sf-list <c4l-sf-list@...>; dbacigalupi <dbacigalupi@...>; Winston Chin <winston.chin@...>; chad <chad@libertytc.com>; mschmidter <mschmidter@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [BAP2] Re: "Winning"<sarcasm>Yes, we can see how beholden George W. Bush was to the conservatives who helped get him elected, and how beholden Obama has been to the progressives who helped get him elected. </sarcasm>
I saw Tim Donnelly speak in Sacramento a few months ago. Not impressed. Especially when I did some more research online and learned about his background as a leader of the anti-immigrant "Minuteman" vigilante group. He also said in his talk that he plans to make a campaign issue of human trafficking. HT is the latest tactic being used by an unholy alliance of man-hating feminists and anti-sex social conservatives to go after prostitution among consenting adults. The irony is that to the extent human trafficking is an actual issue and not just a political agenda that's benefitted from a lot of media sensationalism, the primary cause of it is -- immigration restrictions!
At least Donnelly is running as a Republican and not (that I know of) calling himself a libertarian. That's something to be thankful for. If the GOP wants to shoot themselves in the foot by further cementing their reputation as the party of xenophobia in a largely Hispanic/immigrant state, I don't want the public confusing them with us.
As for the charge that libertarians aren't doing better because "purists" (i.e. people not afraid to speak the truth) are losing influence and elections, my sense from years of watching election returns is that libertarian candidates who take strong libertarian positions on the issues don't typically do any worse than libertarian candidates who water down our views in the hopes of getting elected (or just aren't as libertarian to begin with). Perhaps in a very high profile race a moderate would have an edge -- but even that is far from proven. The "moderate" Prop. 19 marijuana legalization measure lost, and I'm pretty sure the reason why is because of the lukewarm support for it among those who should have been the most motivated to work to get it passed (the marijuana community itself). Besides, we see how candidates act in high profile races, before and after they get elected. Once in office, those who "run to win" typically betray their supporters
and sell out (see first paragraph above).
Les,
Good points. The temptations offered by the "dark side" are indeed strong! I think the best safeguard against electing people who will sell out is to back candidates who are clearly passionate about and committed to freedom. Those who have demonstrated a high level of integrity and strong resistance to selling out by having made sacrifices or taken significant risks in their life to support the cause are the safest.
Also, the more specific pro-freedom commitments a candidate makes, the more obvious it will be if he or she abandons the movement once in office. Therefore we should demand specific promises, and they should be things that an officeholder can accomplish on his or her own without the cooperation of other politicians, such as "I will vote against all tax and fee increases", "I will introduce legislation to immediately pardon and free all prisoners incarcerated solely for victimless 'crimes'", "I will keep only 50% of my government salary and donate the rest of it to pro-freedom organizations seeking to reduce the burden of the State", etc.
I think it is true that individual politicians may sometimes be able to get more done by compromising, but I think an entire *movement* can get more done by consistently electing people who *don't* compromise, and building up a critical mass of such hardcore officeholders. A key consideration is that from our (the movement's) perspective, a politician who compromises for tactical reasons is virtually indistinguishable from a politician who has succumbed to the lure of selling out, if the traitor to the cause is clever about it. A politician who wants to sell out without getting blamed for doing so (or perhaps even without acknowledging it to himself/herself!) will no doubt claim that his or her compromises are merely tactical. This is another reason to frown upon such compromises, even when the noblest of reasons are claimed for them.
The challenge then is to elect public officials who are committed enough to the movement to consistently put its interests ahead of their own individual interests. Individuals with big egos, or who seem to have a strong need or desire for *personal* accomplishment in office, are highly "at risk" of turning to the "dark side" and therefore have significant minuses as candidates from a libertarian perspective.
We need libertarians in government with the perseverance, patience, and humility of Ron Paul, who are willing to labor for years in principled "irrelevance", rather than compromise.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
It's naive to think "Batman", "Green Lantern" and "Superman" candidates will save us when they get into office. It doesn't matter much who they are or what they say, they can't do much without us being relevant and influential.
We are who matters.
________________________________
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: dbmining <dbmining@...>; davelibertyjones <davelibertyjones@...>; richard <richard@...>; Carole Robinson <carole.mason@...>; zakcarter <zakcarter@...>; c4l-sf-list <c4l-sf-list@...>; dbacigalupi <dbacigalupi@...>; Winston Chin <winston.chin@...>; chad <chad@...>; mschmidter Schmidter <mschmidter@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2014 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [BAP2] Re: "Winning"Les,
Good points. The temptations offered by the "dark side" are indeed strong! I think the best safeguard against electing people who will sell out is to back candidates who are clearly passionate about and committed to freedom. Those who have demonstrated a high level of integrity and strong resistance to selling out by having made sacrifices or taken significant risks in their life to support the cause are the safest.
Also, the more specific pro-freedom commitments a candidate makes, the more obvious it will be if he or she abandons the movement once in office. Therefore we should demand specific promises, and they should be things that an officeholder can accomplish on his or her own without the cooperation of other politicians, such as "I will vote against all tax and fee increases", "I will introduce legislation to immediately pardon and free all prisoners incarcerated solely for victimless 'crimes'", "I will keep only 50% of my government salary and donate the rest of it to pro-freedom organizations seeking to reduce the burden of the State", etc.
I think it is true that individual politicians may sometimes be able to get more done by compromising, but I think an entire *movement* can get more done by consistently electing people who *don't* compromise, and building up a critical mass of such hardcore officeholders. A key consideration is that from our (the movement's) perspective, a politician who compromises for tactical reasons is virtually indistinguishable from a politician who has succumbed to the lure of selling out, if the traitor to the cause is clever about it. A politician who wants to sell out without getting blamed for doing so (or perhaps even without acknowledging it to himself/herself!) will no doubt claim that his or her compromises are merely tactical. This is another reason to frown upon such compromises, even when the noblest of reasons are claimed for them.
The challenge then is to elect public officials who are committed enough to the movement to consistently put its interests ahead of their own individual interests. Individuals with big egos, or who seem to have a strong need or desire for *personal* accomplishment in office, are highly "at risk" of turning to the "dark side" and therefore have significant minuses as candidates from a libertarian perspective.
We need libertarians in government with the perseverance, patience, and humility of Ron Paul, who are willing to labor for years in principled "irrelevance", rather than compromise.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))Starchild: Generally I agree with your sentiments, but two issues come to mind as I read your missive
(1)....I think it is almost impossible to predict how someone will behave after they have been elected. Working for the government is soooo lucrative and profitable that it is difficult to find someone who won't be co-opted,
When I still lived in Michigan, I knew a number of people who were on principle critical of government, but then they went to work for the State of Michigan. Oh, how their opinions changed. They were then full of praise for the good work that politicians and bureaucrats were doing or attempting to do.
(2) Once people get elected, they discover that they have to compromise in order to get anything at all done. If they adopt too much of a puristic stance, they doom themselves to irrelevance. Some people who get elected might conclude that it is better to win some battles than to be dogmatic and lose them all. I not saying that I like this or approve of it, but I do think it is reality in a representative democracy.
Les
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com; dbmining <dbmining@...>; davelibertyjones <davelibertyjones@...>; richard <richard@...>; Carole Robinson <carole.mason@...>; zakcarter <zakcarter@...>; c4l-sf-list <c4l-sf-list@...>; dbacigalupi <dbacigalupi@...>; Winston Chin <winston.chin@...>; chad <chad@...>; mschmidter <mschmidter@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [BAP2] Re: "Winning"<sarcasm>Yes, we can see how beholden George W. Bush was to the conservatives who helped get him elected, and how beholden Obama has been to the progressives who helped get him elected. </sarcasm>
I saw Tim Donnelly speak in Sacramento a few months ago. Not impressed. Especially when I did some more research online and learned about his background as a leader of the anti-immigrant "Minuteman" vigilante group. He also said in his talk that he plans to make a campaign issue of human trafficking. HT is the latest tactic being used by an unholy alliance of man-hating feminists and anti-sex social conservatives to go after prostitution among consenting adults. The irony is that to the extent human trafficking is an actual issue and not just a political agenda that's benefitted from a lot of media sensationalism, the primary cause of it is -- immigration restrictions!
At least Donnelly is running as a Republican and not (that I know of) calling himself a libertarian. That's something to be thankful for. If the GOP wants to shoot themselves in the foot by further cementing their reputation as the party of xenophobia in a largely Hispanic/immigrant state, I don't want the public confusing them with us.
As for the charge that libertarians aren't doing better because "purists" (i.e. people not afraid to speak the truth) are losing influence and elections, my sense from years of watching election returns is that libertarian candidates who take strong libertarian positions on the issues don't typically do any worse than libertarian candidates who water down our views in the hopes of getting elected (or just aren't as libertarian to begin with). Perhaps in a very high profile race a moderate would have an edge -- but even that is far from proven. The "moderate" Prop. 19 marijuana legalization measure lost, and I'm pretty sure the reason why is because of the lukewarm support for it among those who should have been the most motivated to work to get it passed (the marijuana community itself). Besides, we see how candidates act in high profile races, before and after they get elected. Once in office, those who "run to win" typically betray their
supporters and sell out (see first paragraph above).
John,
Very much agreed. Our primary focus should always be on *the movement*, not on individual candidates or officeholders. Individuals and organizations can and do go astray, but the libertarian movement is by definition whichever individuals and organizations are consciously working for freedom at any given point in time. A primary focus on the larger project rather than on individual leaders will also help keep egos in check that can lead individual officeholders to sell out as discussed below.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))