Message from Ron Paul

Discussion
21

Of course I am all for protecting yourself with a gun
and I, too, believe we need to do away with the
"revenue" collection BS.... that is just my point, our
police forces would not have as many unsolved murders
and rapes if resources were used, not to fight drugs,
gambling and prostitution or to give us tickets for
NON DANGEROUS speeding and non drunk driving, motor
vehicle offenses. I think we are closer than we may
believe in our thinking. However, saying, let's get
rid of police won't win votes, but saying, let's get
rid of these functions that keep police from doing an
effective job will work, even calling for private
detective firms to help police, and having police not
be so pissy when they do help would be good in
campaigning, but again, we WILL NEVER WIN if we tell
the electorate we want to get rid of the police, at
least not right now.

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

When I lived in New England, years ago, I was
attending the Greater Boston Business Council
meeting (the LGBT chamber of commerce for southern
New England) at Club Caf� in the South End.

As I exited the club, I noticed about a block from
my car that I was being followed by a group of 18 to
23 year olds (if I had to guess their age range). I
was only 22 at the time.

Anyway, long story short, they chased me, I got in
my car and drove off. Unfortunately, they got in
THEIR car, found me a 1/2 block later (they were
parked in the same garage) and gave me a chase all
throughout Boston -- eventually cornering me. To
get away, I ended up having to literally bang my car
into theirs (and break off the driver side mirror).
Fortunately, since it was an old K-Car, no real
damage done!

Not long afterwards, I purchased a gun, because I
realized that private protection would be far more
viable than begging the police for protection (the
police couldn't have cared less when I called to
make a complaint).

In our neck of the woods in the Peninsula, the
police are primarily revenue-collection agents, not
"protection forces." Their jobs are pretty much
restricted to issuing pricey parking tickets for
parking too long in the train station lot, or
clocking you doing 30 in a 25 (and handing you a
ticket), etc. These roles could easily be done by
private companies or -- even better -- eliminated
altogether. There's no serious victim of doing 30
in a 25 or parking 15 minutes "too long" at the
train station (especially when you've been there
"too long" due to a train delay in the wonderful
government-funded CalTrain system!)

Cheers,

Brian

Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
                           Yes.
--- "Acree, Michael" <acreem@...> wrote:

> Tim:
>
>
>
> Ron Getty has found for us that the San Francisco
> Police Department has
> (if memory serves) a 6-year backlog of 1000
unsolved
> raped, 300 unsolved
> murders, and 16,000 unsolved armed robberies. Do
> you really think
> private police protection would be worse?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:36 PM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> libertarianism in each State
> vs. Federal government
>
>
>
> it's doubtful..... all I want is an anarchist to
> tell
> me what happens if my daughter is raped, who do I
go
> to for justice and then if I am accused of a
crime I
> didnt commit, who do I go to for defending me and
> proving me innocent....
>
> no anarchist ever explains these things to me
they
> just sent me more articles written by people who
> have
> never lived in an anarchal society
>
> -TJ
> --- Mike Denny <mike@...
> <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
> wrote:
>
> > And another thing TJ....here's an interesting
> quote
> > to consider from
> > Benjamin
> >
>

Tucker...Benjamin Tucker - Wikipedia

>

<Tucker...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker&gt;

>
> >
> >
> >
> > "There are some troubles from which mankind can
> > never escape. . . . [The
> > anarchists] have never claimed that liberty
will
> > bring perfection; they
> > simply say that its results are vastly
preferable
> to
> > those that follow
> > from authority.... As a choice of blessings,
> liberty
> > is the greater; as
> > a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then
> > liberty always says the
> > Anarchist. No use of force except against the
> > invader." -
> >
> >
> >
> > Hopefully upon further communication you will
at
> > least consider those
> > who share his views are a little more grounded
> than
> > your "insane" label.
> >
> >
> >
> > :>)
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:03 AM
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> > libertarianism in each State
> > vs. Federal government
> >
> >
> >
> > I didnt say rape went away, I said with no
> > government
> > running a justice system how is someone to
> prosecute
> > someone who committed a crime, how do we punish
> > criminals, how do we protect ourselves if
someone
> > believes we committed a crime without due
process
> of
> > law? We have none of these things, and Somalia
had
> > none of these things, w/o a government, I don't
> know
> > how it is now, I am sure it sucks cause it's a
3rd
> > world, but I believe what the Constitution
> provides
> > for is adequate and would not want anything
> less...
> > except maybe a private post office w/
competition
> of
> > free market, but certainly I believe in police,
> > national defense, fire departments, government
> made
> > currency and the court system. I think it's
insane
> > to
> > believe we could carry on w/o these important
> > functions.
> >
> > -TJ
> > --- Mike Denny <mike@...
> <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com>
> > <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well TJ...there are pretty bad situations
going

=== message truncated ===

22

That's right TJ...we just have to keep presenting the evidence over and over and over again...and eventually...people will come around.

The fact that the public doesn't understand or appreciate it doesn't make the position wrong.

Mike

23

It looks as though you've set yourself up for tolerating government
abuse without limits. No matter how bad the government monopoly is-and
we have plenty of evidence of how quickly even the best governments
deteriorate into tyranny-you will always believe that competitive
private enterprise would do a worse job. And, if I read you correctly,
you're not leaving yourself open to ever discovering otherwise.

In your subsequent posts, however, I notice a possible opening, where
you appear to make a distinction between what you believe and what you
say publicly.

24

Tim, my observation is that it looks like your platform lines up much better with the Republican Party platform than the Libertarian Party platform as it stood prior to the Portland Massacre.

I'm curious -- what is the appeal of the Libertarian Party to you? A great deal of what you're advocating would go against the perspective of your average LP member (i.e. reform government rather than shrink it, give the military domestic police powers, expanding the role and power of state government, etc.)

Cheers,

Brian

Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: I don't share his views on eliminating the FBI or CIA
but I do believe in ending DOE and letting states
decide, ending the IRS and replacing with FairTax (and
eventually nothing) and ending HUD and making the DHS
a division of the military and make it about 10 times
smaller (while getting rid of DEA, FEMA, ATF and a few
other groups inside it, also, Coast Guard would remain
part of Navy as I would want to abolish Dept of
Transportation as well). My point in this, is that I
can disagree with Ron Paul and still support him
because he has a better chance of being elected (maybe
not as the R but as a third party vs. Libertarian), or
will at least get a higher vote total than no names
like Smith, Kubby, Imperato et al.

--- Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:

> Thanks TJ....but I'm not sure you are hearing the
> entire Ron Paul
> message. He recommends abolishing the IRS, FBI, CIA,
> DHS, HUD, DOE and
> many many more...and replacing them with nothing. If
> that's not your
> definition of "doing without the government"
> relating to these
> functions...then I don't know what is.
>
>
>
> You are right....and I'm not about to use Somalia as
> an example of peace
> on earth...I'm just saying it got better when the
> government was gone.
> And I'm predicting it will get worse now that the
> "government" is back.
> This is the same message communicated in the
> articles I sent that showed
> some European city streets got safer when the laws
> and control signs
> were removed for drivers...and a Mexican town got
> safer when the police
> were fired.
>
>
>
> There were many other points made in those articles
> that directly
> referenced some of the areas you expressed
> particular concerns about.
> You might take some time to consider them.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:33 PM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> libertarianism in each State
> vs. Federal government
>
>
>
> I will be open to ideas on how to take care of these
> functions once we get there and get all other parts
> of
> the bloated federal government out of the way. To
> try
> to convince the voting public (and new voters) that
> we
> can do without these functions is insanity, and why
> the Libertarian Party hasn't been doing so well. A
> message like Ron Paul's or local government messages
> (like John Inks for Mountain View City Council),
> that
> speak on open government, balanced budgets, low
> taxes
> and security (through non-intervention abroad, etc),
> and privacy are what appeals to the vast majority or
> these mostly government school educated voters right
> now.
>
> I also will have a hard time believing Somalia or
> any
> other anarchal state was anything but hell. No
> article
> will disuade me. And again, I am for small
> government.
> Try to tell the average voter you want the USA to be
> more like Somalia.... see how many votes that gets.
>
> Peace,
>
> -TJ Campbell
>
> --- Mike Denny <mike@...
> <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks TJ....
> >
> >
> >
> > You said "but certainly I believe in police,
> > national defense, fire departments, government
> made
> > currency and the court system. I think it's insane
> > to
> > believe we could carry on w/o these important
> > functions"
> >
> >
> >
> > I used to think this way too...but there are just
> > too many interesting facts that don't support the
> > position. Here are just a few articles for your
> > review. Again...I won't try to change your
> > mind...but it's possible you might find yourself
> > open to at a re-evaluation or at least sympathy
> for
> > those who disagree once you consider the
> > evidence....and I have plenty more if you have any
> > other specific interests.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let me know...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121
> <http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121>
> >
> > Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
> >
> >
> >
> > by Thomas Whiston
> >
> >
> >
> > [Posted December 25, 2002]
> >
> >
> >
> > Those who claim that government is the source of
> > social order say that in its absence there would
> be
> > violence, chaos, and a low standard of living.
> They
> > cite civil wars in Africa, drug wars in South
> > America, or even Gengis Khan in Mongolia. They
> claim
> > that these things, which are actually examples of
> > competing governments, are what life without
> > government will produce.
> >
> >
> >
> > Another common objection to stateless legal
> > enforcement systems is to ask for "just one
> example
> > of where it has worked."
> >
> >
> >
> > Medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and
> > well-documented historical example of how a
> > stateless legal order can work and it provides
> > insights as to how we might create a more just and
> > efficient society today.
> >
> >
> >
> > Because of Iceland's geographical location there
> was
> > no threat of foreign invasion, so the demand for a
> > national military force was absent.
> >
> > Icelandic settlers held similar ideological and
> > philosophical ideas toward the state and the law
> as
> > where held by the founding fathers of the United
> > States, including distrust of a strong central
> > government.
> >
> >
> >
> > The main reason the Vikings moved from Norway to
> > Iceland in the first place was to avoid the feudal
> > relationship between the king and his lords and
> > serfs and thus the Icelandic settlers developed a
> > decentralized system of governance.
> >
> >
> >
> > Iceland did not have an executive branch of
> > government. Instead of a king they had local
> > chieftains. One permanent official in their system
> > was the "logsogumadr" or law-speaker. His duties
> > included the memorization of laws, the provision
> of
> > advice on legislative issues, and the recitation
> of
>
=== message truncated ===

25

I'm not Tim and can't presume to speak for him, but as a moderate libertarian who largely agrees with most of the positions he takes, I think I can say, at least for me, that there are many, many reasons why the Republican Party is not a good fit. If you look at the list of positions he just posted, the majority of them greatly shrink the government (making DHS 10 times smaller, ending the IRS, abolishing entire departments of the federal government). Do you honestly think that Republicans would go for a 10X reduction of the military/police? Really? I haven't heard a mainstream Republican talk about abolishing a single federal department for YEARS.

I'm an extremely moderate libertarian by LP standards, but my fiscal beliefs are so far out of the mainstream of Republican politics that I'd be laughed out of the room. And that's ignoring my social beliefs, which would obviously be even worse! There needs to be a place for people like me, because making the LP a party for purists only would exclude massive amounts of people who may not be anarcho-capitalists, but are solid 80/80 Nolan Chart scorers. With the current state of American politics, I'd say anyone with above 60/60 is going to feel extremely uncomfortable in either the Republican or Democratic parties. The LP deserves to be their home; they shouldn't be run out on a rail because they disagree on a few issues, even if it's your pet issue. If the LP doesn't try to attract moderate libertarians the only solution would be to form a new, more inclusive libertarian party, and as any software engineer can tell you, forking is generally considered a Very Bad Thing.

Jeremy

26

They shrink the FEDERAL government -- however, we have (at least) three levels of government, which is my core point.

Republicans have long called for a smaller federal government -- abolishing the IRS and replacing it with a Fair Tax is a GOP idea from Steve Forbes, for instance. Merging DHS into the military is popular in the GOP, and many Republicans (including Ron Paul) call for shrinking the military budget. That is a popular position in the GOP -- if not the majority one on every issue.

However, as I pointed out before, shrinking the federal government doesn't solve the problem if state and local government grows bigger to fill up the vacuum. And this is where the real division between Libertarians and Republicans pops up, in my view.

Republicans like Paul, Gingrich, etc. talk a lot about the "rights" of state governments. Libertarians talk more about the rights of *individuals*.

In a Libertarian (i.e. "Libertopia"), individuals would work together in free arrangements through mutual consent. In a Republican society, individuals would be regulated by state and local government.

Both views call for a reduction in the size and scope of the FEDERAL government -- but Republicans put the "rights" of states over the rights of individuals, and Libertarians tend to do the latter. Thus, it's not really accurate to say that calling for shrinking the federal government is calling for shrinking "the" government -- it's just shrinking the federal government, while shifting much of the bureaucracy over to state and local jurisdiction.

I view that more as a reshuffling of the deck chairs on the Statist Titanic. Hence my curiosity in the appeal of the Libertarian Party to folks who don't mind big, oppressive state governments (and Tim has on this list expressed that view, in a direct response to an earlier inquiry of mine).

Cheers,

Brian

Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...> wrote: On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Brian Miller wrote:

> Tim, my observation is that it looks like your platform lines up much
> better with the Republican Party platform than the Libertarian Party
> platform as it stood prior to the Portland Massacre.
>
> I'm curious -- what is the appeal of the Libertarian Party to you? A
> great deal of what you're advocating would go against the perspective of
> your average LP member (i.e. reform government rather than shrink it,
> give the military domestic police powers, expanding the role and power
> of state government, etc.)

I'm not Tim and can't presume to speak for him, but as a moderate
libertarian who largely agrees with most of the positions he takes, I
think I can say, at least for me, that there are many, many reasons why
the Republican Party is not a good fit. If you look at the list of
positions he just posted, the majority of them greatly shrink the
government (making DHS 10 times smaller, ending the IRS, abolishing entire
departments of the federal government). Do you honestly think that
Republicans would go for a 10X reduction of the military/police? Really?
I haven't heard a mainstream Republican talk about abolishing a single
federal department for YEARS.

I'm an extremely moderate libertarian by LP standards, but my fiscal
beliefs are so far out of the mainstream of Republican politics that I'd
be laughed out of the room. And that's ignoring my social beliefs, which
would obviously be even worse! There needs to be a place for people like
me, because making the LP a party for purists only would exclude massive
amounts of people who may not be anarcho-capitalists, but are solid 80/80
Nolan Chart scorers. With the current state of American politics, I'd say
anyone with above 60/60 is going to feel extremely uncomfortable in either
the Republican or Democratic parties. The LP deserves to be their home;
they shouldn't be run out on a rail because they disagree on a few issues,
even if it's your pet issue. If the LP doesn't try to attract moderate
libertarians the only solution would be to form a new, more inclusive
libertarian party, and as any software engineer can tell you, forking is
generally considered a Very Bad Thing.

Jeremy

27

They shrink the FEDERAL government -- however, we have (at least) three levels of government, which is my core point.

Republicans have long called for a smaller federal government -- abolishing the IRS and replacing it with a Fair Tax is a GOP idea from Steve Forbes, for instance. Merging DHS into the military is popular in the GOP, and many Republicans (including Ron Paul) call for shrinking the military budget. That is a popular position in the GOP -- if not the majority one on every issue.

Shrinking the military budget is a popular GOP position? How many elected Republicans other than Ron Paul have made public statements to this effect recently?

However, as I pointed out before, shrinking the federal government doesn't solve the problem if state and local government grows bigger to fill up the vacuum. And this is where the real division between Libertarians and Republicans pops up, in my view.

Republicans like Paul, Gingrich, etc. talk a lot about the "rights" of state governments. Libertarians talk more about the rights of *individuals*.

What someone TALKS about is based on what he's trying to do. Ron Paul is running for federal office, therefore it's not his place to talk about what state governments should be doing. It's the same reason I get annoyed when libertarian candidates for mayor talk about ending the Iraq War. It's irrelevant to the office for which you're running!

In a Libertarian (i.e. "Libertopia"), individuals would work together in free arrangements through mutual consent. In a Republican society, individuals would be regulated by state and local government.

But we don't live in Libertopia, and in the real world we live in, reducing the federal government would lead to an enormous reduction in the power that ALL government has over our lives. If we eliminate the federal income tax, there is no way that state governments are suddenly going to institute a 30% income tax just because the feds aren't anymore. If we eliminated everything you disliked about the federal government, and kept the state governments entirely the same, that would be a massive, massive increase in the liberty we both enjoy. Even if we say that there are some people in the libertarian movement that want to only shrink the federal government (a contention with which I disagree), in our current atmosphere, believing in ANY large decrease in the federal government would put the views of those people far out of the mainstream of the Republicans or the Democrats. Isn't it logical for these people to ally themselves with the LP, at least until the work on the federal government is done? After the federal government is reduced by 90% or more, we can argue about next steps.

Both views call for a reduction in the size and scope of the FEDERAL government -- but Republicans put the "rights" of states over the rights of individuals, and Libertarians tend to do the latter. Thus, it's not really accurate to say that calling for shrinking the federal government is calling for shrinking "the" government -- it's just shrinking the federal government, while shifting much of the bureaucracy over to state and local jurisdiction.

I view that more as a reshuffling of the deck chairs on the Statist Titanic. Hence my curiosity in the appeal of the Libertarian Party to folks who don't mind big, oppressive state governments (and Tim has on this list expressed that view, in a direct response to an earlier inquiry of mine).

If I recall correctly, what Tim said was that an oppressive state government would be easier to reform than an oppressive federal government, which I agree with. You totally ignore the principle of federalism on which our country was founded. I'm not an anarchist, so I do believe in some level of government; one of the things I believe in is zoning laws and some minimal amount of urban planning. Does that mean I think it's appropriate for the federal, or even the state governments to be responsible for urban planning? Absolutely not; the more local the government, the better, and in that case I'd want every community to be responsible for its own regulations in that area, since standards differ and there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Jeremy

28

Brian,

  You make a good point about not calling the U.S. federal government "the" government, as if it were the only government in the world. It is one of many, unfortunately, albeit the largest and most powerful, and one that is increasingly out of control.

  But I think it is accurate to say that calling for shrinking the federal government is calling for shrinking government, unless one is proposing to increase the size or power of state or other governments to the same degree as the shrinkage. In your example of military spending, I know that Ron Paul is not advocating that state governments increase their military budgets as military spending is cut at the federal level.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

29

Jeremy,

  I agree that the Libertarian Party should welcome moderate libertarians. My only concern is that we not water down what we stand for in order to attract them. If your beliefs are as far out of the mainstream of the Republican Party as you say, and anyone scoring above 60/60 on the Nolan Chart would feel extremely uncomfortable in either establishment party, steps that some of the so-called "reformers" want to take, such as watering down our platform, eliminating the pledge, and abandoning the Non-Aggression Principle should hardly be necessary. I strongly believe that moderates have an important role to play in the party so long as they respect the LP's historical legacy as a radical pro-freedom voice saying what others lack the courage to say, and are willing to allow this to be the continuing official stance and public face of the party. The longer people stay in the party, the more radical they tend to become, so it would be foolish to insist that people hold certain beliefs in order to be part of the team. There is a great deal of pro-government socialization to overcome, and this takes time.

  Meanwhile, no one who wants more freedoms should be uncomfortable making common cause with those who seek a radical increase in freedom, because people are welcome to quit the coalition as soon as society reaches the point where they feel that people have enough freedom. If I'm hitch hiking to Reno on Friday, and absolutely can't go any further because I have to be back in SF by the end of the weekend, should I refuse a ride from a guy who's driving all the way to New York, or demand that he go no farther east than the Mississippi? Of course not! As long as he's not going to lock the doors when we get to Reno and refuse to let me out of the car, the vehicle he's driving is as good as any heading in my direction, even if he's got a big sign on the back that says "New York or Bust!" Better to catch a ride with him than with someone who might not even be going as far as Reno.

Love & Liberty,
          <<< starchild >>>

30

I've said little to nothing about the whole platform/pledge issue, because quite honestly I don't really care one way or the other. I think a few of the planks in the Platform are ridiculous but the Democratic and Republican parties have lots of things in their platforms that most of their members would find absurd, too. People on either side of the debate make silly claims about what will happen if the Platform is eliminated (or is kept). I don't know how any realistic person could think that the only thing preventing Libertarians from being elected en masse is the Platform, nor can I understand how the purists believe that eliminating the Platform or watering it down is going to turn us into "Republican-lite."

What's most important to ME is not what the Platform says, but whether anyone whose beliefs deviate from the party line is labeled as "unlibertarian" or a "statist" as many are wont to do. If you have to be 100/100 on the Nolan Chart to run for office, or be in an officer of the Party, we have a real problem. No other party requires such conformity in their ranks and individual LP members should be able to take different stances on issues, in the same way that Guiliani and Brownbeck disagree on a large percentage of things, yet people aren't accusing either of being "un-Republican." Imposing a one-size-fits-all view of libertarianism is bad strategy and bad politics.

Jeremy

31

Well Michael, read what I wrote back to Phil just
minutes ago... also, my fear with private police is
the "warlords" thing happening. First of all, if I
hire 3 private security to protect me, but some
neighbor has 8, he can then "fight" my men causing
"mini" wars correct? With one unified police force we
don't have much infighting, at least not violence. I
believe when you have multiple groups with their own
idea of what law and order is you get problems. If we
have one code of laws... albeit we need to change many
of our current codified laws (like drug laws etc)... I
feel we have a better society with less violence (even
though it is bad right now).

That's what I am trying to say here.

-TJ
--- "Acree, Michael" <acreem@...> wrote:

It looks as though you've set yourself up for
tolerating government
abuse without limits. No matter how bad the
government monopoly is-and
we have plenty of evidence of how quickly even the
best governments
deteriorate into tyranny-you will always believe
that competitive
private enterprise would do a worse job. And, if I
read you correctly,
you're not leaving yourself open to ever discovering
otherwise.

In your subsequent posts, however, I notice a
possible opening, where
you appear to make a distinction between what you
believe and what you
say publicly.

________________________________

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:59 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
libertarianism in each State
vs. Federal government

Yes.
--- "Acree, Michael" <acreem@...
<mailto:acreem%40ocim.ucsf.edu> > wrote:

> Tim:
>
>
>
> Ron Getty has found for us that the San Francisco
> Police Department has
> (if memory serves) a 6-year backlog of 1000
unsolved
> raped, 300 unsolved
> murders, and 16,000 unsolved armed robberies. Do
> you really think
> private police protection would be worse?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:36 PM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> libertarianism in each State
> vs. Federal government
>
>
>
> it's doubtful..... all I want is an anarchist to
> tell
> me what happens if my daughter is raped, who do I
go
> to for justice and then if I am accused of a crime
I
> didnt commit, who do I go to for defending me and
> proving me innocent....
>
> no anarchist ever explains these things to me they
> just sent me more articles written by people who
> have
> never lived in an anarchal society
>
> -TJ
> --- Mike Denny <mike@...
<mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com>
> <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
> wrote:
>
> > And another thing TJ....here's an interesting
> quote
> > to consider from
> > Benjamin
> >
>

Tucker...Benjamin Tucker - Wikipedia

<Tucker...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker&gt;

>

<Tucker...Benjamin Tucker - Wikipedia

<Tucker...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker&gt;

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > "There are some troubles from which mankind can
> > never escape. . . . [The
> > anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will
> > bring perfection; they
> > simply say that its results are vastly
preferable
> to
> > those that follow
> > from authority.... As a choice of blessings,
> liberty
> > is the greater; as
> > a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then
> > liberty always says the
> > Anarchist. No use of force except against the
> > invader." -
> >
> >
> >
> > Hopefully upon further communication you will at
> > least consider those
> > who share his views are a little more grounded
> than
> > your "insane" label.
> >
> >
> >
> > :>)
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:03 AM
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> > libertarianism in each State
> > vs. Federal government
> >
> >
> >
> > I didnt say rape went away, I said with no
> > government
> > running a justice system how is someone to
> prosecute
> > someone who committed a crime, how do we punish
> > criminals, how do we protect ourselves if
someone
> > believes we committed a crime without due
process
> of
> > law? We have none of these things, and Somalia
had
> > none of these things, w/o a government, I don't
> know
> > how it is now, I am sure it sucks cause it's a
3rd
> > world, but I believe what the Constitution
> provides
> > for is adequate and would not want anything
> less...
> > except maybe a private post office w/
competition
> of
> > free market, but certainly I believe in police,
> > national defense, fire departments, government
> made
> > currency and the court system. I think it's
insane
> > to
> > believe we could carry on w/o these important
> > functions.
> >
> > -TJ
> > --- Mike Denny <mike@...
<mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com>
> <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com>
> > <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well TJ...there are pretty bad situations
going
> on

=== message truncated ===

32

I am not for expanding powers of the state, but better
the state than the federal government as it is easier
to fight city hall and Sacramento (or Lansing, or
Cheyenne) than it is DC. I do not want the military to
have domestic police powers and never said that, and I
do want to shrink the federal government (and state if
we can, but again easier for me to fight state
government than feds).
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

Tim, my observation is that it looks like your
platform lines up much better with the Republican
Party platform than the Libertarian Party platform
as it stood prior to the Portland Massacre.

I'm curious -- what is the appeal of the Libertarian
Party to you? A great deal of what you're
advocating would go against the perspective of your
average LP member (i.e. reform government rather
than shrink it, give the military domestic police
powers, expanding the role and power of state
government, etc.)

Cheers,

Brian

Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
                           I don't share his views
on eliminating the FBI or CIA
but I do believe in ending DOE and letting states
decide, ending the IRS and replacing with FairTax
(and
eventually nothing) and ending HUD and making the
DHS
a division of the military and make it about 10
times
smaller (while getting rid of DEA, FEMA, ATF and a
few
other groups inside it, also, Coast Guard would
remain
part of Navy as I would want to abolish Dept of
Transportation as well). My point in this, is that
I
can disagree with Ron Paul and still support him
because he has a better chance of being elected
(maybe
not as the R but as a third party vs. Libertarian),
or
will at least get a higher vote total than no names
like Smith, Kubby, Imperato et al.

--- Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:

> Thanks TJ....but I'm not sure you are hearing the
> entire Ron Paul
> message. He recommends abolishing the IRS, FBI,
CIA,
> DHS, HUD, DOE and
> many many more...and replacing them with nothing.
If
> that's not your
> definition of "doing without the government"
> relating to these
> functions...then I don't know what is.
>
>
>
> You are right....and I'm not about to use Somalia
as
> an example of peace
> on earth...I'm just saying it got better when the
> government was gone.
> And I'm predicting it will get worse now that the
> "government" is back.
> This is the same message communicated in the
> articles I sent that showed
> some European city streets got safer when the
laws
> and control signs
> were removed for drivers...and a Mexican town got
> safer when the police
> were fired.
>
>
>
> There were many other points made in those
articles
> that directly
> referenced some of the areas you expressed
> particular concerns about.
> You might take some time to consider them.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:33 PM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> libertarianism in each State
> vs. Federal government
>
>
>
> I will be open to ideas on how to take care of
these
> functions once we get there and get all other
parts
> of
> the bloated federal government out of the way. To
> try
> to convince the voting public (and new voters)
that
> we
> can do without these functions is insanity, and
why
> the Libertarian Party hasn't been doing so well.
A
> message like Ron Paul's or local government
messages
> (like John Inks for Mountain View City Council),
> that
> speak on open government, balanced budgets, low
> taxes
> and security (through non-intervention abroad,
etc),
> and privacy are what appeals to the vast majority
or
> these mostly government school educated voters
right
> now.
>
> I also will have a hard time believing Somalia or
> any
> other anarchal state was anything but hell. No
> article
> will disuade me. And again, I am for small
> government.
> Try to tell the average voter you want the USA to
be
> more like Somalia.... see how many votes that
gets.
>
> Peace,
>
> -TJ Campbell
>
> --- Mike Denny <mike@...
> <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks TJ....
> >
> >
> >
> > You said "but certainly I believe in police,
> > national defense, fire departments, government
> made
> > currency and the court system. I think it's
insane
> > to
> > believe we could carry on w/o these important
> > functions"
> >
> >
> >
> > I used to think this way too...but there are
just
> > too many interesting facts that don't support
the
> > position. Here are just a few articles for your
> > review. Again...I won't try to change your
> > mind...but it's possible you might find
yourself
> > open to at a re-evaluation or at least sympathy
> for
> > those who disagree once you consider the
> > evidence....and I have plenty more if you have
any
> > other specific interests.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let me know...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121
> <http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121&gt;
> >
> > Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
> >
> >
> >
> > by Thomas Whiston

=== message truncated ===

33

Sorry about double responses....
Why I am a libertarian.... and member of the LP

Because I am pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti
affirmative action, pro gun rights, anti income tax
(anti tax but FairTax to me is a step towards lesser
and lesser taxes and government... I can explain why I
believe that later).... I am against fighting wars on
Vice and I am against initiation of military force
unless attacked. My issues are WAY more closer to the
LP than the GOP... but, as you may or may not know, I
was born a Republican (Goldwater and Reagan style per
my father) but went to LP in 1996 (with my Dad) after
we read Why Government Doesnt Work by Harry Browne. I
went back to the GOP in 2002-2004, after 9-11, as I
perceived (wrongly) that the LP was weak. During
2002-2003, with Patriot Act and Co. on their way
through Congress I figured the only party I could
comfortably associate with, and do most work with, was
the LP. Now, I have found ways to coalition on certain
key issues that we agree with groups in the Dem and
GOP parties and work together to achieve common goals,
and I support a VERY maverick GOP candidate for
President, but that hardly makes me any "less" a LPer,
and this message is again precisely what I am saying
about how out of touch many of you "all or nothing"
libertarians are. Instead of doing things that will
make your town, state or country more free, you sit on
bulletin boards and email lists all night calling
fellow Libertarians out and claiming they are not
Libertarians, to that I say *@$%*^@ (well if I said
what I really want to say to you I would get kicked of
this list). I used to be like you, trying to find
purity in this or other political parties, but that is
now how elections are won. Elections are won by taking
positions on the issues that concern voters most,
giving them a better "plan" and winning their votes.
If that doesn't make me pure, well, I will worry about
that when I am in Sacramento or DC fighting yet
another bloated budget bill....as an elected
representative.

In Liberty,

-TJ

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

Tim, my observation is that it looks like your
platform lines up much better with the Republican
Party platform than the Libertarian Party platform
as it stood prior to the Portland Massacre.

I'm curious -- what is the appeal of the Libertarian
Party to you? A great deal of what you're
advocating would go against the perspective of your
average LP member (i.e. reform government rather
than shrink it, give the military domestic police
powers, expanding the role and power of state
government, etc.)

Cheers,

Brian

Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
                           I don't share his views
on eliminating the FBI or CIA
but I do believe in ending DOE and letting states
decide, ending the IRS and replacing with FairTax
(and
eventually nothing) and ending HUD and making the
DHS
a division of the military and make it about 10
times
smaller (while getting rid of DEA, FEMA, ATF and a
few
other groups inside it, also, Coast Guard would
remain
part of Navy as I would want to abolish Dept of
Transportation as well). My point in this, is that
I
can disagree with Ron Paul and still support him
because he has a better chance of being elected
(maybe
not as the R but as a third party vs. Libertarian),
or
will at least get a higher vote total than no names
like Smith, Kubby, Imperato et al.

--- Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:

> Thanks TJ....but I'm not sure you are hearing the
> entire Ron Paul
> message. He recommends abolishing the IRS, FBI,
CIA,
> DHS, HUD, DOE and
> many many more...and replacing them with nothing.
If
> that's not your
> definition of "doing without the government"
> relating to these
> functions...then I don't know what is.
>
>
>
> You are right....and I'm not about to use Somalia
as
> an example of peace
> on earth...I'm just saying it got better when the
> government was gone.
> And I'm predicting it will get worse now that the
> "government" is back.
> This is the same message communicated in the
> articles I sent that showed
> some European city streets got safer when the
laws
> and control signs
> were removed for drivers...and a Mexican town got
> safer when the police
> were fired.
>
>
>
> There were many other points made in those
articles
> that directly
> referenced some of the areas you expressed
> particular concerns about.
> You might take some time to consider them.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:33 PM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> libertarianism in each State
> vs. Federal government
>
>
>
> I will be open to ideas on how to take care of
these
> functions once we get there and get all other
parts
> of
> the bloated federal government out of the way. To
> try
> to convince the voting public (and new voters)
that
> we
> can do without these functions is insanity, and
why
> the Libertarian Party hasn't been doing so well.
A
> message like Ron Paul's or local government
messages
> (like John Inks for Mountain View City Council),
> that
> speak on open government, balanced budgets, low
> taxes
> and security (through non-intervention abroad,
etc),
> and privacy are what appeals to the vast majority
or
> these mostly government school educated voters
right
> now.
>
> I also will have a hard time believing Somalia or
> any
> other anarchal state was anything but hell. No
> article
> will disuade me. And again, I am for small
> government.
> Try to tell the average voter you want the USA to
be
> more like Somalia.... see how many votes that
gets.
>
> Peace,
>
> -TJ Campbell
>
> --- Mike Denny <mike@...
> <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks TJ....
> >
> >
> >
> > You said "but certainly I believe in police,
> > national defense, fire departments, government
> made
> > currency and the court system. I think it's
insane
> > to
> > believe we could carry on w/o these important
> > functions"
> >
> >
> >
> > I used to think this way too...but there are
just
> > too many interesting facts that don't support
the
> > position. Here are just a few articles for your
> > review. Again...I won't try to change your
> > mind...but it's possible you might find
yourself
> > open to at a re-evaluation or at least sympathy
> for
> > those who disagree once you consider the
> > evidence....and I have plenty more if you have
any
> > other specific interests.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let me know...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121
> <http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121&gt;
> >
> > Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
> >
> >
> >
> > by Thomas Whiston

=== message truncated ===

34

Steve Forbes is a proponent of the Flat Tax, and
heavily criticizes the Fair Tax whenever he get's a
chance. And the Fair Tax is a Bi-Partisan Bill in
Congress (albeit only one or two dem sponsors).

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

35

Brian,

I see now where you get I support federal police, well
I do. I think the FBI and even the CIA are good, but
need to be heavily oversighted and need to end wars on
Vice and spying on citizens.

I feel DHS, lots smaller with no FEMA could be a
branch of the military and act as a home defense,
really though, I think our best defense would be
national guard and militia (yes those types of
militia) groups that arent sent to Iraq on a fool's
errand. I think protecting our seaports and airports
is in the best interest of the nation, a lot more than
starting more wars in the lion's den is...

I also believe that individuals rights and the
"state's rights" are almost hand in hand. Individuals
make us states, states make up "small" federal
government. You can't have state powers without
individuals granting them. But those powers have to be
granted BACK from the federal government to the states
(and people... individuals). I just will reiterate one
more time for you.. it is easier to fight Sacramento
and city hall than the federal government.

Peace

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

36

Agreed Starchild,

But I would be happy with a vehicle that got me to
Tahoe, and Ron Paul is that vehicle.

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

37

Actually Jeremy,

There ARE those in the GOP who call Giuliani
"un-Republican or RINO... but to what I will agree
with you, is there isn't the chastisement, at least
not in the level of many purist Libertarians towards
people like us, in the GOP, at least usually they will
come together on common ground to elect their party's
choice, for example, Goldwater, fmr. New Mexico Gov.
Gary Johnson, and even if Ron Paul somehow got the GOP
nomination. There would not be a split, not a large
one, people will just go with Paul on common beliefs,
less taxes etc. Which is to say (barring a Paul
nomination) I will vote for Kubby or Smith or maybe
even Hollist, if they get the LP nomination, because
of what we do have in common, they are the better
choice than Romney et al.... however, I have hinted at
writing-in Paul if anyone but Smith or Kubby got the
LP nod, and then again, maybe if they do.

-TJ

--- Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...> wrote:

38

Think of it this way, Jeremy.

Under the present watered-down post-Portland platform, I could run on a platform advocating a 100% income tax on all income above $50,000 per year, and still be a "100% platform-compliant Libertarian."

That wasn't the case prior to the Portland massacre.

The LP platform is a benchmark to measure the "libertarianness" of candidates running under the LP banner. People disagree with various elements, yes, but vast distances from the LP platform in the past tended to indicate that a candidate probably wasn't a "real" libertarian -- and tended to avoid candidacies like the hypothetical one I've posed above.

With the emasculated platform we presently have, and particularly with the even further reduced platform the LRC is certain to attempt to present, it won't be long until George W. Bush could run for office as a "platform compatible Libertarian candidate."

There's no benefit to taking the "L" out of "LP."

The Paul campaign doesn't do that (yet?) because it's a Republican campaign. It's relatively easy to point out the problems with supporting a Republican, and Paul's vanishingly small share of the GOP primary vote indicates that lots of Libertarians tend to see those problems. When it comes to an actual LP candidate, however, things get a bit more "interesting." Most people tend to assume that a candidate will be in-line with the platform and that being in-line with the platform makes them libertarian -- however, that's not the case with the LRC non-platforms as proposed or implemented.

Cheers,

Brian

Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...> wrote: On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Starchild wrote:

> Jeremy,
>
> I agree that the Libertarian Party should welcome moderate
> libertarians. My only concern is that we not water down what we stand for in
> order to attract them. If your beliefs are as far out of the mainstream of
> the Republican Party as you say, and anyone scoring above 60/60 on the Nolan
> Chart would feel extremely uncomfortable in either establishment party, steps
> that some of the so-called "reformers" want to take, such as watering down
> our platform, eliminating the pledge, and abandoning the Non-Aggression
> Principle should hardly be necessary. I strongly believe that moderates have
> an important role to play in the party so long as they respect the LP's
> historical legacy as a radical pro-freedom voice saying what others lack the
> courage to say, and are willing to allow this to be the continuing official
> stance and public face of the party. The longer people stay in the party, the
> more radical they tend to become, so it would be foolish to insist that
> people hold certain beliefs in order to be part of the team. There is a great
> deal of pro-government socialization to overcome, and this takes time.

I've said little to nothing about the whole platform/pledge issue, because
quite honestly I don't really care one way or the other. I think a few of
the planks in the Platform are ridiculous but the Democratic and
Republican parties have lots of things in their platforms that most of
their members would find absurd, too. People on either side of the debate
make silly claims about what will happen if the Platform is eliminated (or
is kept). I don't know how any realistic person could think that the only
thing preventing Libertarians from being elected en masse is the Platform,
nor can I understand how the purists believe that eliminating the Platform
or watering it down is going to turn us into "Republican-lite."

What's most important to ME is not what the Platform says, but whether
anyone whose beliefs deviate from the party line is labeled as
"unlibertarian" or a "statist" as many are wont to do. If you have to be
100/100 on the Nolan Chart to run for office, or be in an officer of the
Party, we have a real problem. No other party requires such conformity in
their ranks and individual LP members should be able to take different
stances on issues, in the same way that Guiliani and Brownbeck disagree on
a large percentage of things, yet people aren't accusing either of being
"un-Republican." Imposing a one-size-fits-all view of libertarianism is
bad strategy and bad politics.

Jeremy

39

Yes, so Wayne Allen Root, David Hollist and numerous
other past and present candidates have and will
continue to be "platform compliant". I have to say
Brian, you are making me nod my head on part of this.
I must also agree that we cannot "water down" our
platform. Our platform is our platform. It should be
about reduced or limited government. If anyone will
vote for us on our platform it is someone looking for
our stands on issues. I believe that those voters I am
trying to reach out to (the ones we actually need to
get to actually add on to our 4 percent we get from
those that give a crap about our platform already, and
the 1 or 2 percent who like our platform and then vote
for us) could care less about our platform. So I will
not support an LRC water down, but I will support
moderate approaches to reduce government and garner
support for our candidates to win, I also am not a
fool to think we will never have LINO's (Libertarians
in name only) just like the Ds and Rs have RINOs and
DINOs, because if our party ever got popular enough to
win major elections, we will have people joining and
running on our coat tails. But until we get there that
is neither here nor there.

So Brian, I think I am agreeing with you twice
tonight, does this mean the end of the world?

-TJ Campbell

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

40

TJ,

  I agree with you that the platform should be based on advocating "reduced or limited government," but we need to do more than just make the *practical* case that less government is better on issue after issue. To help people understand the importance of freedom across the board, and not just on issues where they happen to agree with the practical arguments, we need to make the *moral* case for individual liberty. Showing people a consistent approach to public policy will help them draw the mental connections between areas where they already understand the problems with government action, and areas where they do not. Once they grasp a general principle of liberty, we will not have to keep convincing them of every single case on its factual merits (e.g. we won't have to spend years successfully educating someone that farm subsidies are harmful, and finally bring them around, only to find that when the issue of arts subsidies comes up, we have to start all over again from scratch).

  This is where the Non-Aggression Principle comes in, and why explaining the party's position on various issues in light of the idea that people should be legally free to do as they wish, so long as they do not initiate force against others, is so important. To address one of Jeremy's points, I care less about what stances Libertarian candidates may take on individual issues than I do that they grasp the overall concept of the Non-Aggression Principle and seek to apply it when evaluating issues, because if they truly "get" the NAP, they are likely to agree with other libertarians the overwhelming majority of the time and there is much less worry that they will unexpectedly take a strongly anti-libertarian position when some new issue arises which has not been previously addressed.

  I also believe that our platform should respect the Dallas Accord, the famous 1974 compromise in the LP between anarchists and proponents of limited government that the party would not take a position on whether or not to get rid of "the last 10%" of government. In other words, planks should not be worded so as to either demand or preclude anarchy.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>