[ca-liberty] Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to read

If you abort one after 6 or 7 months, with today's medical technology, you have to cut open its skull and suck out its brains, else evicting the trespasser from the womb results in the birth of a live preemie. Since that would mean the formerly pregnant woman, and her sire, would have to make a conscious decision to sign away parental rights, liberals, feminists and some libertarians have taken the position that society has the right to dismember a fetus that would be viable if evicting from the maternal womb, as opposed to the position that a woman own's her body and has the right to evict trespassers.

"Abortion" is not a unitary or an unchanging issue as technology changes.

Try honesty.

A great deal of this discussion underscores why
Libertarian Party candidates, despite having the right
stances on the issues, aren't making inroads into the
general electorate.

We've got white guys "explaining" why racist rants
aren't racist, we have gay men "explaining" why
declaring a woman's uterus to be government property
isn't so bad, we've got basically the diametric
opposite of every constituency we need to reach out to
"explaining" why they're wrong and we're right.

Until we learn to listen and build a broader based
movement that solidly embraces our principles (rather
than the phantoms of quick-n-easy victory), we're
going to continue spinning our wheels.

Ron Paul is no different. After his campaign fails
and the GOP nomination goes to someone else, there
will be no real momentum to grow the LP coming from
many of its traditional supporters. Then they'll
wonder why we're marginalized -- yet again -- when the
reality is that we're fundamentally unwilling to
invest our energy in the hard work of growth. . . and
are unwilling to consider that perhaps we shouldn't be
"explaining" to people what the proper view is, but
rather listening to them and helping them apply
libertarian principles to their own situations.

I am frustrated with the Ron Paul thing especially.

If I boil the contents of much of the discussion about
his gay rights record down to its core essence, his
supporters are essentially saying "shut the hell up,
faggot, you're screwing everything up."

I know that women and racial minorities are getting
the same message too. And that's not going to "build
the party" in the slightest.

Cheers,

Brian

--- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:

If you abort one after 6 or 7 months, with today's
medical technology, you have to cut open its skull
and suck out its brains, else evicting the
trespasser from the womb results in the birth of a
live preemie. Since that would mean the formerly
pregnant woman, and her sire, would have to make a
conscious decision to sign away parental rights,
liberals, feminists and some libertarians have taken
the position that society has the right to dismember
a fetus that would be viable if evicting from the
maternal womb, as opposed to the position that a
woman own's her body and has the right to evict
trespassers.

"Abortion" is not a unitary or an unchanging issue
as technology changes.

Try honesty.

From: eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:32:28 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to read

Should gov force or keep a person from a person to
get a medical procedure.
We have no right to a women/person' s body.
An unborn child has no rights in regards to the
women's body. The chicken before the egg. Life
rights before proposed life.
Parents have little or no right to their child's
pregnat body.
I do hope for a day when more can be done to save
aborted fetuses.

From: "Philip Berg"
To: lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to read
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:40:24 -0700

Did you listen to his talk at Google and his replys
to very tough questions from Google's progressive
employees.?

I do not think your characterizations are fair but
we agreee to disagree. The right to choose has a
legitimate counterpoint in the rights of the child
to be to life. At some point there is a balance
between the two. Some put it at conception, some at
the end of the first trimester, and some it the
moment of birth. Nearly all agree that once born. an
unwanted baby cannot just be put in a plastic bag
and thrown in the dumpster. The fact is that it is a
very difficult issue and that wherever you draw the
line, the State's legitimate interest in protecting
innocent weak life from stronger aggresers comes
into play.

Paul has made it very clear that as President, he
belives this is Constitutionally a State matter. He
personally , as an obstriticain, opposes abortion.

Limiting the Federal governments intrusion into this
issue allows the 50 states to decide. Many will ban
abortion. NBut many will not. So long as freedom of
expression and business are maintained, planned
parenthood could adveritise in the states where
abortion is banned and give poor folks tickets to
California or New York. Charities may even help
loved ones to come along.

I think some tolerance of social conservatives is
important. Culture wars can be very dnangerous to a
society, especially if fought at the national level
, and they tend to deteriorate into violence and
repression. The left won the war in Germany from the
end of World War One until the Reichstag fire.
Perhaps it is best to find some way to diffuse the
culture war, cuz there will never be a winner as
long as there is religion, or even thinking people
who do not know wherethe death of a fetus lies on
the spectrum of competing values. Having the issue
decided by judicial fiat at the national level has
invited , rightly or wrongly, serious resistence and
a certain amount of politically illegitimacy to the
issue of choice. Letting each State , or even
locality decide may help to diffuse some of the
emotions and avoid the danger of a different court
declaring an all out ban, a result that Paul would
vehemently oppose on the same constitutional
grounds.
From: Brian Miller
To: lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to read

Hello, Phil:

Here's the problem.

Black Americans aren't going to elect a benevolent
racist who would "help them" through eliminating the
income tax, etc. if they believe that Ron Paul holds
racist views. As president, he's going to be making
thousands of decisions -- many of which may hinge on
race as a factor. If African Americans don't believe
they're going to get a fair shake from his "liberty
agenda" -- and, indeed, that he's willing to give
the
police state the benefit of the doubt when they
arrest
black Americans and charge them with crimes -- he's
not going to get black support. This is holding true
in Paul's abysmal numbers with the black community.

Similarly, the overwhelming majority of gay
Americans
aren't going to elect or support a homophobe for
office, regardless of the general benefits that his
policies may offer them -- for similar reasons. When
it comes down to it, Ron Paul supports policies that
keep gay people as second class citizens.

Lo and behold, there's 20% of the population that
Ron
Paul has already written off.

Now, let's add in women (many of whom believe their
uteruses are their own property, and not that of the
state -- i.e. diametrically opposed to Ron Paul's
position), Latino Americans (who chafe under Paul's
immigration strategy), and add them to the African
American and gay communities and suddenly Paul's
campaign is excluding 80%+ of California, and 60%+
of
the national population.

The reality is simple -- Ron Paul's campaign is a
campaign of mostly older white straight guys. It
doesn't have much support amongst the young, or the
various other minorities who put together represent
a
supermajority. Nothing about the campaign represents
liberty for a majority of the people who are
targeted/excluded by Paul's agenda, and the excuses
for his behavior (i.e. "wouldn't people he doesn't
like still benefit from this?") are similar to the
typical Democratic and Republican lines that I spend
quite a bit of time criticizing.

That's why he's running as a Republican candidate,
and
not a Libertarian one. Despite the spin-job phoney
poll being cited repeatedly, I firmly believe that a
majority of Libertarian Party supporters would not
support his campaign. He's unfairly trading on the
"libertarian" brand to advance a socially
conservative, fiscally conservative agenda that has
serious flaws and appeals to statism. To the degree
that he's attracting "new" people to
"libertarianism, "
he is attracting people who want a wall on the
Mexican
border, constitutional amendments to declare a
woman's
uterus property of the state, and laws that
permanently marginalize gay American citizens.

If we're going to grow the "libertarian" base like
that, why don't we come out for single-payer
socialized medicine while we're at it?!?

Cheers,

Brian

--- Philip Berg <philip@choosepeacen ow.us> wrote:

> It's not the man , it's the ideas. He says that
> repeatedly. Will gettting rid of the welfare state
> be good for the black community, getting rid of
the
> income tax?, Ending inflation and eliminating the
> Federal Reserve? These measures may hurt the Black
> upper class and the Black middle calss that is
> ensconced in the beast's apparatus, at least in
the
> short term
> but isn't independence worth it?
> Or you can go with Bush's compassionate
> conservatism. I remember when Bush came to
Baltimore

=== message truncated ===

We've got white guys "explaining" why racist rants
aren't racist, we have gay men "explaining" why
declaring a woman's uterus to be government property
isn't so bad, we've got basically the diametric
opposite of every constituency we need to reach out to
"explaining" why they're wrong and we're right.

Ok, so you're saying people shouldn't make waves on these things as it interferes with pushing the party as a whole.

If I boil the contents of much of the discussion about
his gay rights record down to its core essence, his
supporters are essentially saying "shut the hell up,
faggot, you're screwing everything up."

Did I miss something or is your point here the opposite of your first?

Brian,

  I disagree. Republicans are by almost all accounts even less PC than Libertarians, and yet Republican Party candidates are regularly elected and their party firmly ensconced as half of the establishment. The reasons that the LP is not more successful lie elsewhere.

  I'm not saying "shut the hell up, faggot." I think you're entitled to your views on Ron Paul, and I have a certain amount of sympathy for them myself. But I'm trying to look at the bigger picture of moving toward a free society, and not being a "single issue voter."

  I also think there is a bit of "heretic syndrome" going on here [i.e. no one is disliked more than the person who differs enough from one's ideas or program to be seen as no longer in the fold (in this case, not being in the LP), but still has enough in common to not be seen as playing on the opposing team]. There are clearly lots of politicians out there way more homophobic than Ron Paul, but you seem to be devoting most of your criticism to someone who's less homophobic and way more libertarian than most.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Starchild:

If you view not being racist, not being homophobic,
and not being misogynistic as "PC," then I'm afraid my
core point has escaped you.

As for the success of the Republican strategy, things
are going really well for them as of late, aren't
they?

As for "moving towards a more free society," if you're
willing to trade the rights of a group of people, or
discount them as a "single issue," than you are by
default moving towards a *less* free society.

Cheers,

Brian

--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

Brian,

  I disagree. Republicans are by almost all accounts
even less PC than
Libertarians, and yet Republican Party candidates
are regularly
elected and their party firmly ensconced as half of
the
establishment. The reasons that the LP is not more
successful lie
elsewhere.

  I'm not saying "shut the hell up, faggot." I think
you're entitled
to your views on Ron Paul, and I have a certain
amount of sympathy
for them myself. But I'm trying to look at the
bigger picture of
moving toward a free society, and not being a
"single issue voter."

  I also think there is a bit of "heretic syndrome"
going on here
[i.e. no one is disliked more than the person who
differs enough from
one's ideas or program to be seen as no longer in
the fold (in this
case, not being in the LP), but still has enough in
common to not be
seen as playing on the opposing team]. There are
clearly lots of
politicians out there way more homophobic than Ron
Paul, but you seem
to be devoting most of your criticism to someone
who's less
homophobic and way more libertarian than most.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

> A great deal of this discussion underscores why
> Libertarian Party candidates, despite having the
right
> stances on the issues, aren't making inroads into
the
> general electorate.
>
> We've got white guys "explaining" why racist rants
> aren't racist, we have gay men "explaining" why
> declaring a woman's uterus to be government
property
> isn't so bad, we've got basically the diametric
> opposite of every constituency we need to reach
out to
> "explaining" why they're wrong and we're right.
>
> Until we learn to listen and build a broader based
> movement that solidly embraces our principles
(rather
> than the phantoms of quick-n-easy victory), we're
> going to continue spinning our wheels.
>
> Ron Paul is no different. After his campaign fails
> and the GOP nomination goes to someone else, there
> will be no real momentum to grow the LP coming
from
> many of its traditional supporters. Then they'll
> wonder why we're marginalized -- yet again -- when
the
> reality is that we're fundamentally unwilling to
> invest our energy in the hard work of growth. . .
and
> are unwilling to consider that perhaps we
shouldn't be
> "explaining" to people what the proper view is,
but
> rather listening to them and helping them apply
> libertarian principles to their own situations.
>
> I am frustrated with the Ron Paul thing
especially.
>
> If I boil the contents of much of the discussion
about
> his gay rights record down to its core essence,
his
> supporters are essentially saying "shut the hell
up,
> faggot, you're screwing everything up."
>
> I know that women and racial minorities are
getting
> the same message too. And that's not going to
"build
> the party" in the slightest.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...>
wrote:
>
> > If you abort one after 6 or 7 months, with
today's
> > medical technology, you have to cut open its
skull
> > and suck out its brains, else evicting the
> > trespasser from the womb results in the birth of
a
> > live preemie. Since that would mean the formerly
> > pregnant woman, and her sire, would have to make
a
> > conscious decision to sign away parental rights,
> > liberals, feminists and some libertarians have
taken
> > the position that society has the right to
dismember
> > a fetus that would be viable if evicting from
the
> > maternal womb, as opposed to the position that a
> > woman own's her body and has the right to evict
> > trespassers.
> >
> > "Abortion" is not a unitary or an unchanging
issue
> > as technology changes.
> >
> > Try honesty.
> >
> >
> > From: eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...>
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:32:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
> > Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to
read
> >
> > Should gov force or keep a person from a person
to
> > get a medical procedure.
> > We have no right to a women/person' s body.
> > An unborn child has no rights in regards to the
> > women's body. The chicken before the egg. Life
> > rights before proposed life.
> > Parents have little or no right to their child's
> > pregnat body.
> > I do hope for a day when more can be done to
save
> > aborted fetuses.
> >
> >
> > From: "Philip Berg"
> > To: lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
> > Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to
read
> > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:40:24 -0700
> >
> >
> > Did you listen to his talk at Google and his
replys
> > to very tough questions from Google's
progressive
> > employees.?
> >
> > I do not think your characterizations are fair
but
> > we agreee to disagree. The right to choose has a
> > legitimate counterpoint in the rights of the
child
> > to be to life. At some point there is a balance
> > between the two. Some put it at conception, some
at
> > the end of the first trimester, and some it the
> > moment of birth. Nearly all agree that once
born. an
> > unwanted baby cannot just be put in a plastic
bag
> > and thrown in the dumpster. The fact is that it
is a
> > very difficult issue and that wherever you draw
the
> > line, the State's legitimate interest in
protecting
> > innocent weak life from stronger aggresers comes
> > into play.
> >
> > Paul has made it very clear that as President,
he
> > belives this is Constitutionally a State matter.
He
> > personally , as an obstriticain, opposes
abortion.
> >
> > Limiting the Federal governments intrusion into
this

=== message truncated ===

--- Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:

Ok, so you're saying people shouldn't make waves on
these things as
it interferes with pushing the party as a whole.

Not at all.

I am saying that Libertarians should listen, rather
than discount the concerns of these various people as
"irrelevant" (or worse, embrace racism, homophobia or
other bigotry).

I frankly fail to see where Ron Paul is "making waves"
on these issues anyway. He's spouting the standard
Republican party boilerplate line on each of them, and
"libertarians" are rushing to defend the GOP talking
points as "libertarian."

By all means, go and piss off a majority of the
country by declaring their perspectives to be
meaningless -- just don't tell me you're building an
important national political movement!

Cheers,

Brian

I am saying that Libertarians should listen, rather
than discount the concerns of these various people as
"irrelevant" (or worse, embrace racism, homophobia or
other bigotry).

I frankly fail to see where Ron Paul is "making waves"
on these issues anyway. He's spouting the standard
Republican party boilerplate line on each of them, and
"libertarians" are rushing to defend the GOP talking
points as "libertarian."

So here you're saying it's bad that Ron Paul isn't radical enough.

By all means, go and piss off a majority of the
country by declaring their perspectives to be
meaningless -- just don't tell me you're building an
important national political movement!

And now you're saying libertarians that support Paul are being to radical.

Again, it's not clear to me which position you are taking or which course of action you are recommending.

--- Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:

So here you're saying it's bad that Ron Paul isn't
radical enough.

No, I am saying Ron Paul is too radical -- too
radically racist, too radically misogynist, too
radically homophobic, and too radically statist.

And now you're saying libertarians that support Paul
are being to
radical.

No, I am saying that libertarians *who* support Paul
aren't supporting libertarian -- they're supporting
another variation of Republican statism.

Again, it's not clear to me which position you are
taking or which
course of action you are recommending.

Don't be racist, don't be homophobic, don't hate
women, and don't support candidates from the
Republican Party who do so and reflexively defend
those positions as "libertarian." They're not.

Cheers,

Brian

Brian,

  I think I understand your core point very well. You speak of "building a broader based movement that solidly embraces our principles." That is exactly what I am trying to do. We must reach out to people on the left, and I have been championing such an approach. But we must do so based on libertarian principles of individual rights, not on the premises of group rights and "I'm-more-oppressed-than-you" identity politics. The latter premises are incompatible with our principles, and poison to the libertarian ideal of a society where everyone is treated equally under the law.

  I'm not saying you hold such views yourself, but we should avoid the implication that a person's statements are automatically less valid because of his or her race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It was this implication, in your statement, "We've got white guys 'explaining' why racist rants aren't racist, we have gay men 'explaining' why declaring a woman's uterus to be government property isn't so bad..." that caused me to use the term "PC." I realize that such persons saying such things *look* bad to those who *are* coming from a politically correct perspective, and I assume that's what concerns you. I share that concern, but it's a tough balance -- as I said, we cannot afford to embrace identity politics, nor should we try to restrict free speech. We just need to communicate in a sensitive manner that shows we understand legitimate grievances and recognize the reality of oppression where it exists.
  
  The charge of "trading the rights of a group of people" is specious here. I could just as well say that you are for "trading the rights of a group of people" when you oppose U.S. government military intervention in Darfur because of the effect it will have on the liberty of people in the U.S. Broadly speaking, "gay rights" *is* a single issue in national politics. Yes, there are lots of sub-issues, but that's also true for other meta-issues like migration, drugs, monetary policy, civil liberties, and so on, et cetera, ad nauseum.

  This is a side point, but the Republicans are far from out as a national party. Most of their current downturn is related to the situation in Iraq, not to issues such as race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Starchild:

A person's knowledge grows out of his experiences.

The simple reality is that most white guys --
certainly white guys who live in white suburban areas
-- don't know what it's like to be a black American.

Most men don't know what it's like to be a woman.

Most straight guys don't know what it's like to be
gay.

Yet we have white straight guys presuming to describe
all of these things and counter the testimony of
others as a matter of policy.

If it's wrong for a black man to slam a white guy for
"white privilege" or a gay man to condemn all
heterosexuals for their "breeder privilege," it's
equally wrong for a white straight group of guys to
ignore the issues of the black and gay communities and
claim they don't exist.

Libertarians are in denial on this basic point.
Rather than offer solutions to the problems these
communities have that cleverly utilize Libertarian
theories and thoughts, we pretend that those problems
just don't exist and that acknowledging that they do
is somehow endorsing "group rights."

Ironically, many Libertarians aren't willing to
consider individuals of those various communities as
individuals themselves, when levelling blanket
condemnations. Thus, no traction is made, and very
few people of color or of alternate sexual
orientations or women -- the latter representing a
majority of humanity -- get involved.

If the ongoing assumption is that the issues of a
majority of society should be ignored, and worse, that
a majority of society should be condemned in a bigoted
way with state power because restrictions elsewhere
would be loosened by the would-be condemner, we cannot
act surprised when Americans pass us by and pull the
lever of the party that represents their own
self-interest. After all, we're not making any effort
to market ourselves to them or even pretend to try to
understand their context -- we're simply denying it
exists and writing them off.

And such foolish amortization goes both ways.

Cheers,

Brian

--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

Brian,

  I think I understand your core point very well. You
speak of
"building a broader based movement that solidly
embraces our
principles." That is exactly what I am trying to do.
We must reach
out to people on the left, and I have been
championing such an
approach. But we must do so based on libertarian
principles of
individual rights, not on the premises of group
rights and "I'm-more-
oppressed-than-you" identity politics. The latter
premises are
incompatible with our principles, and poison to the
libertarian ideal
of a society where everyone is treated equally under
the law.

  I'm not saying you hold such views yourself, but we
should avoid the
implication that a person's statements are
automatically less valid
because of his or her race, gender, sexual
orientation, etc. It was
this implication, in your statement, "We've got
white guys
'explaining' why racist rants aren't racist, we have
gay men
'explaining' why declaring a woman's uterus to be
government property
isn't so bad..." that caused me to use the term
"PC." I realize that
such persons saying such things *look* bad to those
who *are* coming
from a politically correct perspective, and I assume
that's what
concerns you. I share that concern, but it's a tough
balance -- as I
said, we cannot afford to embrace identity politics,
nor should we
try to restrict free speech. We just need to
communicate in a
sensitive manner that shows we understand legitimate
grievances and
recognize the reality of oppression where it exists.
  
  The charge of "trading the rights of a group of
people" is specious
here. I could just as well say that you are for
"trading the rights
of a group of people" when you oppose U.S.
government military
intervention in Darfur because of the effect it will
have on the
liberty of people in the U.S. Broadly speaking, "gay
rights" *is* a
single issue in national politics. Yes, there are
lots of sub-issues,
but that's also true for other meta-issues like
migration, drugs,
monetary policy, civil liberties, and so on, et
cetera, ad nauseum.

  This is a side point, but the Republicans are far
from out as a
national party. Most of their current downturn is
related to the
situation in Iraq, not to issues such as race,
gender, and sexual
orientation.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

> Starchild:
>
> If you view not being racist, not being
homophobic,
> and not being misogynistic as "PC," then I'm
afraid my
> core point has escaped you.
>
> As for the success of the Republican strategy,
things
> are going really well for them as of late, aren't
> they?
>
> As for "moving towards a more free society," if
you're
> willing to trade the rights of a group of people,
or
> discount them as a "single issue," than you are by
> default moving towards a *less* free society.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> >
> > I disagree. Republicans are by almost all
accounts
> > even less PC than
> > Libertarians, and yet Republican Party
candidates
> > are regularly
> > elected and their party firmly ensconced as half
of
> > the
> > establishment. The reasons that the LP is not
more
> > successful lie
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > I'm not saying "shut the hell up, faggot." I
think
> > you're entitled
> > to your views on Ron Paul, and I have a certain
> > amount of sympathy
> > for them myself. But I'm trying to look at the
> > bigger picture of
> > moving toward a free society, and not being a
> > "single issue voter."
> >
> > I also think there is a bit of "heretic
syndrome"
> > going on here
> > [i.e. no one is disliked more than the person
who
> > differs enough from
> > one's ideas or program to be seen as no longer
in
> > the fold (in this
> > case, not being in the LP), but still has enough
in
> > common to not be
> > seen as playing on the opposing team]. There are
> > clearly lots of
> > politicians out there way more homophobic than
Ron
> > Paul, but you seem
> > to be devoting most of your criticism to someone
> > who's less
> > homophobic and way more libertarian than most.
> >
> > Love & Liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > > A great deal of this discussion underscores
why
> > > Libertarian Party candidates, despite having
the
> > right
> > > stances on the issues, aren't making inroads
into
> > the
> > > general electorate.
> > >
> > > We've got white guys "explaining" why racist
rants
> > > aren't racist, we have gay men "explaining"
why
> > > declaring a woman's uterus to be government
> > property
> > > isn't so bad, we've got basically the
diametric
> > > opposite of every constituency we need to
reach
> > out to
> > > "explaining" why they're wrong and we're
right.
> > >
> > > Until we learn to listen and build a broader
based
> > > movement that solidly embraces our principles
> > (rather
> > > than the phantoms of quick-n-easy victory),
we're
> > > going to continue spinning our wheels.
> > >
> > > Ron Paul is no different. After his campaign
fails
> > > and the GOP nomination goes to someone else,
there
> > > will be no real momentum to grow the LP coming
> > from
> > > many of its traditional supporters. Then
they'll
> > > wonder why we're marginalized -- yet again --
when

=== message truncated ===

Brian,
  
  You seem to be suggesting that being pro-life on abortion is synonymous with "hating women." Some of these comments aren't helping make your case...

Love & Liberty,
          <<< starchild >>>

So do support Kubby who abondons his family for a
younger woman, do support Hollist who is insane, do
support Root and Imperato who hate muslims and are for
the war.... right Brian?

-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

I'm pro-life on abortion myself. I don't like that it
happens and, when asked, express that point of view.

I'm also anti-government-ownership of women. People
who advocate government ownership of womens' bodies
(almost always men), and who are willing to lecture
women on how government has the "right" to possess
their uterus, are expressing a hatred towards women
that's just as clearly communicated as efforts to ban
gay marriage express hatred towards gays.

Sorry, that's the truth!

Cheers,

Brian

--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

I guess Brian believes a candidate more like Harry
Browne or Badnarik could not get support of those
supporting Ron Paul. I think the exact opposite. I
think those supporting Ron Paul (and are more like the
LP style of candidate and voter), far outnumber the
group Brian fears (the closet gay bashers, women
haters and racists).

I think we need to tap into what is really attracting
the support for Ron Paul (anti war, anti fed reserve,
anti income tax) and figure out how to co-opt that way
to present it to the masses, as it is being utilized
by the RP campaign. There is something going on in the
RP campaign that LP voters, volunteers and candidates
should try to tap into to grow our party and the
movement.

-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

Starchild:

A person's knowledge grows out of his experiences.

The simple reality is that most white guys --
certainly white guys who live in white suburban
areas
-- don't know what it's like to be a black American.

Most men don't know what it's like to be a woman.

Most straight guys don't know what it's like to be
gay.

Yet we have white straight guys presuming to
describe
all of these things and counter the testimony of
others as a matter of policy.

If it's wrong for a black man to slam a white guy
for
"white privilege" or a gay man to condemn all
heterosexuals for their "breeder privilege," it's
equally wrong for a white straight group of guys to
ignore the issues of the black and gay communities
and
claim they don't exist.

Libertarians are in denial on this basic point.
Rather than offer solutions to the problems these
communities have that cleverly utilize Libertarian
theories and thoughts, we pretend that those
problems
just don't exist and that acknowledging that they do
is somehow endorsing "group rights."

Ironically, many Libertarians aren't willing to
consider individuals of those various communities as
individuals themselves, when levelling blanket
condemnations. Thus, no traction is made, and very
few people of color or of alternate sexual
orientations or women -- the latter representing a
majority of humanity -- get involved.

If the ongoing assumption is that the issues of a
majority of society should be ignored, and worse,
that
a majority of society should be condemned in a
bigoted
way with state power because restrictions elsewhere
would be loosened by the would-be condemner, we
cannot
act surprised when Americans pass us by and pull the
lever of the party that represents their own
self-interest. After all, we're not making any
effort
to market ourselves to them or even pretend to try
to
understand their context -- we're simply denying it
exists and writing them off.

And such foolish amortization goes both ways.

Cheers,

Brian

--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

> Brian,
>
> I think I understand your core point very well.
You
> speak of
> "building a broader based movement that solidly
> embraces our
> principles." That is exactly what I am trying to
do.
> We must reach
> out to people on the left, and I have been
> championing such an
> approach. But we must do so based on libertarian
> principles of
> individual rights, not on the premises of group
> rights and "I'm-more-
> oppressed-than-you" identity politics. The latter
> premises are
> incompatible with our principles, and poison to
the
> libertarian ideal
> of a society where everyone is treated equally
under
> the law.
>
> I'm not saying you hold such views yourself, but
we
> should avoid the
> implication that a person's statements are
> automatically less valid
> because of his or her race, gender, sexual
> orientation, etc. It was
> this implication, in your statement, "We've got
> white guys
> 'explaining' why racist rants aren't racist, we
have
> gay men
> 'explaining' why declaring a woman's uterus to be
> government property
> isn't so bad..." that caused me to use the term
> "PC." I realize that
> such persons saying such things *look* bad to
those
> who *are* coming
> from a politically correct perspective, and I
assume
> that's what
> concerns you. I share that concern, but it's a
tough
> balance -- as I
> said, we cannot afford to embrace identity
politics,
> nor should we
> try to restrict free speech. We just need to
> communicate in a
> sensitive manner that shows we understand
legitimate
> grievances and
> recognize the reality of oppression where it
exists.
>
> The charge of "trading the rights of a group of
> people" is specious
> here. I could just as well say that you are for
> "trading the rights
> of a group of people" when you oppose U.S.
> government military
> intervention in Darfur because of the effect it
will
> have on the
> liberty of people in the U.S. Broadly speaking,
"gay
> rights" *is* a
> single issue in national politics. Yes, there are
> lots of sub-issues,
> but that's also true for other meta-issues like
> migration, drugs,
> monetary policy, civil liberties, and so on, et
> cetera, ad nauseum.
>
> This is a side point, but the Republicans are far
> from out as a
> national party. Most of their current downturn is
> related to the
> situation in Iraq, not to issues such as race,
> gender, and sexual
> orientation.
>
> Love & Liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > Starchild:
> >
> > If you view not being racist, not being
> homophobic,
> > and not being misogynistic as "PC," then I'm
> afraid my
> > core point has escaped you.
> >
> > As for the success of the Republican strategy,
> things
> > are going really well for them as of late,
aren't
> > they?
> >
> > As for "moving towards a more free society," if
> you're
> > willing to trade the rights of a group of
people,
> or
> > discount them as a "single issue," than you are
by
> > default moving towards a *less* free society.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > I disagree. Republicans are by almost all
> accounts
> > > even less PC than
> > > Libertarians, and yet Republican Party
> candidates
> > > are regularly
> > > elected and their party firmly ensconced as
half

=== message truncated ===

I assume that you have proof for these allegations?

Frankly, I would expect more responsible public
conduct from a Libertarian Party executive than
reprehensible public attacks on Libertarian Party
candidates. I intend to raise the issue of
Libertarian Party executives attacking our own
candidates, while endorsing Republicans, at the next
convention.

I happen to believe that Libertarian Party officials
should support Libertarians. If you want to support
Ron Paul and attack Steve Kubby and other Libertarian
candidates, Tim, you should resign from the LP, join
the GOP, and do it from there.

In fact, I'm going to make a public call for you to
resign from your office right now.

Cheers,

Brian

--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:

Wow, Tim, you've been taking pages out of the Log
Cabin Republicans' book. When they were pushing
George W. Bush in 2000, they used the exact same
argument that you did -- soothingly telling the
American people they had nothing to fear and that even
though their candidate was a statist, he was "broadly
in agreement" with libertarians and mainstream
Americans.

Look how that turned out.

At least the Log Cabin Republicans were endorsing a
candidate of their own party, however, and their
attacks weren't directed against candidates from their
own party, which will be handy campaign slogans for
other parties' candidates after Ron Paul flames out
and the Libertarian Party will be running one of the
people you've slammed in public as an LP executive.

Cheers,

Brian

--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:

I guess Brian believes a candidate more like Harry
Browne or Badnarik could not get support of those
supporting Ron Paul. I think the exact opposite. I
think those supporting Ron Paul (and are more like
the
LP style of candidate and voter), far outnumber the
group Brian fears (the closet gay bashers, women
haters and racists).

I think we need to tap into what is really
attracting
the support for Ron Paul (anti war, anti fed
reserve,
anti income tax) and figure out how to co-opt that
way
to present it to the masses, as it is being utilized
by the RP campaign. There is something going on in
the
RP campaign that LP voters, volunteers and
candidates
should try to tap into to grow our party and the
movement.

-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

> Starchild:
>
> A person's knowledge grows out of his experiences.
>
> The simple reality is that most white guys --
> certainly white guys who live in white suburban
> areas
> -- don't know what it's like to be a black
American.
>
> Most men don't know what it's like to be a woman.
>
> Most straight guys don't know what it's like to be
> gay.
>
> Yet we have white straight guys presuming to
> describe
> all of these things and counter the testimony of
> others as a matter of policy.
>
> If it's wrong for a black man to slam a white guy
> for
> "white privilege" or a gay man to condemn all
> heterosexuals for their "breeder privilege," it's
> equally wrong for a white straight group of guys
to
> ignore the issues of the black and gay communities
> and
> claim they don't exist.
>
> Libertarians are in denial on this basic point.
> Rather than offer solutions to the problems these
> communities have that cleverly utilize Libertarian
> theories and thoughts, we pretend that those
> problems
> just don't exist and that acknowledging that they
do
> is somehow endorsing "group rights."
>
> Ironically, many Libertarians aren't willing to
> consider individuals of those various communities
as
> individuals themselves, when levelling blanket
> condemnations. Thus, no traction is made, and
very
> few people of color or of alternate sexual
> orientations or women -- the latter representing a
> majority of humanity -- get involved.
>
> If the ongoing assumption is that the issues of a
> majority of society should be ignored, and worse,
> that
> a majority of society should be condemned in a
> bigoted
> way with state power because restrictions
elsewhere
> would be loosened by the would-be condemner, we
> cannot
> act surprised when Americans pass us by and pull
the
> lever of the party that represents their own
> self-interest. After all, we're not making any
> effort
> to market ourselves to them or even pretend to try
> to
> understand their context -- we're simply denying
it
> exists and writing them off.
>
> And such foolish amortization goes both ways.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> >
> > I think I understand your core point very well.
> You
> > speak of
> > "building a broader based movement that solidly
> > embraces our
> > principles." That is exactly what I am trying to
> do.
> > We must reach
> > out to people on the left, and I have been
> > championing such an
> > approach. But we must do so based on libertarian
> > principles of
> > individual rights, not on the premises of group
> > rights and "I'm-more-
> > oppressed-than-you" identity politics. The
latter
> > premises are
> > incompatible with our principles, and poison to
> the
> > libertarian ideal
> > of a society where everyone is treated equally
> under
> > the law.
> >
> > I'm not saying you hold such views yourself,
but
> we
> > should avoid the
> > implication that a person's statements are
> > automatically less valid
> > because of his or her race, gender, sexual
> > orientation, etc. It was
> > this implication, in your statement, "We've got
> > white guys
> > 'explaining' why racist rants aren't racist, we
> have
> > gay men
> > 'explaining' why declaring a woman's uterus to
be
> > government property
> > isn't so bad..." that caused me to use the term
> > "PC." I realize that
> > such persons saying such things *look* bad to
> those
> > who *are* coming
> > from a politically correct perspective, and I
> assume
> > that's what
> > concerns you. I share that concern, but it's a
> tough
> > balance -- as I
> > said, we cannot afford to embrace identity
> politics,
> > nor should we
> > try to restrict free speech. We just need to
> > communicate in a
> > sensitive manner that shows we understand
> legitimate
> > grievances and
> > recognize the reality of oppression where it
> exists.
> >
> > The charge of "trading the rights of a group of
> > people" is specious
> > here. I could just as well say that you are for
> > "trading the rights
> > of a group of people" when you oppose U.S.
> > government military
> > intervention in Darfur because of the effect it
> will
> > have on the
> > liberty of people in the U.S. Broadly speaking,
> "gay
> > rights" *is* a
> > single issue in national politics. Yes, there
are
> > lots of sub-issues,
> > but that's also true for other meta-issues like
> > migration, drugs,
> > monetary policy, civil liberties, and so on, et
> > cetera, ad nauseum.
> >
> > This is a side point, but the Republicans are
far
> > from out as a
> > national party. Most of their current downturn
is
> > related to the
> > situation in Iraq, not to issues such as race,
> > gender, and sexual
> > orientation.
> >
> > Love & Liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >

=== message truncated ===

Since I was the one who brought Sam Clauder's allegations about Kubby to the attention of this list, I should follow up with what Kubby told me when I asked him about them at the California convention. In his account, it wasn't a matter of his "abandoning his family." His wife Michelle was extremely concerned-not without justification-about what might happen to their kids if Kubby ran for President, and was unalterably opposed to his running for that reason. They parted amicably, and are still on good terms. That is his report, of course-I have not heard anything, directly or indirectly, from Michelle-but I found it credible. It was also pretty clear from the beginning that Clauder's attempt to discredit Kubby was personally motivated.

Brian,

  I'm not pro-life; I'm somewhere on the fence, since I want to make the "abortion pill" widely available and outlaw late-term surgical abortions. But I certainly don't advocate government "ownership" of women's uteruses. I also favor laws against using knives to assault and kill innocent people, but that doesn't mean I advocate government "ownership" of your hands, merely that I favor prohibitions on using them in specific ways.

"People who advocate government ownership of womens' bodies (almost always men)..."

  "Almost always men?" I wonder where you got that impression, since it seems to be so completely at odds with the facts:

"Polls show that men and women in the U.S. have similar attitudes about abortion. An aggregate of Gallup abortion polls from 2001-2003 showed that 45 percent of men and 43 percent of women considered themselves 'pro-life.' By contrast, 47 percent of men and 48 percent of women called themselves 'pro-choice.'" (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22793)

"... and who are willing to lecture women on how government has the "right" to possess their uterus, are expressing a hatred towards women that's just as clearly communicated as efforts to ban gay marriage express hatred towards gays. Sorry, that's the truth!"

  Because that is a statement of belief, and not a claim that can readily be measured against real-world evidence, I can't produce the same kind of refutation as above. But with all due respect, it is simply *your opinion,* and no more the infallible truth than your suggestion that people who "advocate government ownership of womens' bodies" are "almost always men."

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

I believe sanity is a matter of degree. Is Dave Hollist less realistic about his chances of becoming president than most people would be? Undoubtedly yes. Is he obsessive about the idea of contract insurance? Again, undoubtedly yes. Can you have a normal conversation with the guy? Yes. I have. He's a nice guy. He may be out of touch in certain ways, but then so are most politicians. I'm definitely not saying he's the best presidential candidate the LP has to offer, but I'd far rather have somebody in office who's out of touch in the ways Dave is, than someone who's out of touch in the ways George Bush is.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

I continue to be torn on that -- not primarily Steve Kubby's family issues, but more the cumulative impact of stuff Sam Clauder said to me about Steve, including why it might be a bad idea as far as his health, finances, etc. After a long conversation with Sam I even thought I'd made up my mind that it would be best if Kubby didn't run, but I'm no longer convinced of that either. I really need to talk with both of them again, but I tend to be a procrastinator and it's an unpleasant matter I haven't exactly been looking forward to focusing on.

  Even if the case against Steve's running were twice as strong however, I would still prefer him as the LP's nominee over Root, Imperato, or Jingozian.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>