Secession or not?

Rasmussen polls has asked the American public what they think of the right of states to secede from the union and whether they would support their state doing so. I was a bit surprised, to be honest. Support for secession was higher than I had anticipated——although it was still relatively low.

Eleven percent of the public said they would support their state leaving the union. I wonder what percentage would support other states leaving the union? One of my regrets about Norther victory in the Civil War is that it kept the Southern states in the union. In my opinion, looking at history since the end of the war to today, the American nation would have been much better off without the South. Historically it has been an economic drag. It has been a hot-bed of oppression and a cultural wasteland. Certainly it has been the main center against extending equality of rights to the various races, to women and to gay people. On balance I think the rest of the union would have been better off without the South dragging the country down in almost every sense of the word. (None of which means I have any admiration for Lincoln, I don't.)

Of course, six percent of the public has no idea what they think. And 83 percent say they would support secession.

Whether or not I'd support secession depends entirely on which state I'm living in. For my current state of abode I would support secession. Getting out of the US would be a good thing here. If I lived in the American South (God forbid!) I would oppose it. The union civilizes the South. Left to its own devices it would be a theocratic cesspool.

Texas were more supportive of secession with 18 percent wanted to leave the union. In light of the silly theocratic laws the Southern Baptists have inflicted on Texas, and in light of their contributions of Lydon Johnson and George W. Bush, Jr. to the White House, I regret them ever joining the union.

But then I think that the growth of the United States, into the gigantic country it has become, has been one of the main reasons that government has become so intrusive and oppressive. The more distant government becomes from the people the worse off we are. Ever since the Progressives rigged the Constitution with the 17th Amendment power has become more and more centralized in Washington—and that has been almost wholly a negative.

My guess would be that we'd be better off with around ten or twelve separate nations provided they had a free trade zone. I personally think Texas, California and Alaska would be best off as independent nations, and Hawaii as well. Places like Oregon, Washington and Idaho might be better off together. The rest of the West might make a good separate nation though I'm not sure what to do with Utah. The idea of having a border crossing making it harder for Mormons to spread around does have some appeal.

The Midwest would make sense as their own nation though I suspect that places like Minnesota and Wisconsin may merge separately having their own rather unique political views over the years. New England would be a separate nation in my world but without New York State. If they allowed New York in they would be dominated completely and New York would use its power to plunder the other states for their benefit.

Generally I think each individual nation would have been freer than they are today with the probably exception of the South, which clearly would be more oppressive. It is hard to judge what Texas would be like. The main detrimental influence in Texas is the moronic Southern Baptist Church which gained influence in Texas because of the migration of Southerners to Texas. Had Texas retained independent status it is hard to predict whether Southerners would have migrated there as easily.

California, I suspect, would not be freer than today, but then neither do I think it would be any more oppressive. It would probably be pretty similar to what it is now. But, in general, I think most regions would be better off in terms of individual rights, economic freedom and limited government.

The most libertarian regions, I suspect, would be New England and the Western region. Alaska would probably be fairly free as well. Texas, absent the negative influence of fundamentalism, would probably be quite free. But if they had become infested with the born again crowd then chances are fairly good it would be socially oppressive.

I personally doubt that there would have been a culture war had the US developed in several nations instead of one monolithic monstrosity. Most the culture war was American fundamentalist versus everybody else and fundamentalism was primarily a Southern phenomenon. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the poverty in the South forced many of these fundamentalist yokels into migrating to the civilized parts of the nation to seek employment and prosperity. To the detriment of everyone else and liberty, they brought their backwater religious values with them.

While 11 percent of the public prefers that their state secede from the union the numbers who believe states have that right is even higher (22 percent). What is interesting is that political independents are more pro-secession than Republicans and Democrats. Democrats love centralized power, 72 percent say "states do not have the right leave the United States" while only 54 percent of Republicans are so imperialistic. Among independents 50% are so inclined.

This continues an interesting trend that I have noticed. Independent voters seem to be more libertarian inclined than either Democrats or Republicans. The Democrats would destroy economic freedom while Republicans never met a civil liberty that they didn't despise. Independents seem to do better across the board. Ninety percent of Democrats would support their state staying in the union while 83 percent of Republicans would and 72 percent of independents would.

Meanwhile, concern about the growth of the Federal Leviathan is growing rapidly. Rasmussen also found that 52 percent of all Americans feel the federal government is doing too much. Rasmussen says this is "up from 50% a month ago and 43% in mid-February." Those who think the government will do too little stands at 31 percent.

I should mention one previous Rasmussen poll which showed support for capitalism, as being better than socialism, at only 53 percent. An amazing 27 percent of the public had no opinion. Rasmussen, however, notes that previous surveys they have done show much higher support (70 percent) for free markets. I can understand this completely. State capitalism is not about free markets but about regulated markets to redistribute wealth to the businesses associated with the political class. Libertarians have been noting the evil alliance of big business and the political classes for a very, very long time. Amazingly socialists still quite stupidly refer to libertarianism as being the philosophy of big business -- when in practice big business has embraced regulated markets, as pushed by the socialists, repeatedly.

Rasmussen says that their polls show "skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets." They write:

Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors. Only 15 percent prefer "a government-managed economy."

I am convinced that there is a much stronger sentiment for libertarianism among the American public than at any time in recent history. Unfortunately the Libertarian Party is almost totally useless at taping that sentiment and the political system is rigged against them. Ron Paul almost tapped into that sentiment. He'd attract people with his libertarian ideas and then run off into loony land with his John Birch Society conspiracy theories and obsessions. That turned off a lot of people who found him attractive. And if that wasn't enough, then Paul would leap into his anti-libertarian positions on social issues to complete the turn-off process. Even those Rondroids who stayed with Paul to the bitter end tended to be more libertarian than their guru.

I also suspect that the party faithful within the Democrats and Republicans are more libertarian than either of their parties. The Republican Party leadership is beholden to the American Taliban while the Democratic Party is controlled by people who are practically fascists in economic theory. One party promises to plunder your wallet and the other to police your bedroom. Each of those parties is dominated hard-core statists with anti-freedom agendas and their idea of choice is picking between a theocracy and socialism. No wonder record numbers of Americas don't affiliate with either party.

The Libertarians still have options but I suspect the LP is too dominated by closet conservatives to be of any fucking use at all. The recruiting of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root into the party shows how strong the anti-libertarian caucus of the Libertarian Party is. The so-called moderates in the party thought that gutting the platform would be the solution for the party, all it did was make it easier for the likes of Barr and Root to infest libertarianism with another version of right-wing populism.

I believe that a Democratic candidate who pushes hard for things like gay marriage and legalization of marijuana, while supporting cutting taxes and flattening the tax system, could go far. I believe the same is true for a Republican doing the same thing. I doubt that voters are ready for a candidate who tries to market a pure libertarian platform but candidates who push in that direction, and can do so without looking like religious-lunatics or Bircher crazies, would go a lot farther than they think.

For Democrats who think in pro-freedom direction I would recommend Freedom Democrats. For libertarian inclined Republicans, I'm not so sure. So-called "libertarian" Republicans tend to be conservatives not libertarians. I'm not sure the Republican Party has any hope as long as they remained chained to the Theopublican Right.

Libertarian skunks, Barr and Root, in action.

The Benedict Arnolds in the Libertarian Party have done their dirty work. Now the LP is officially under the control of warmongering neocon types. At least the top of the party’s ticket is dominated by such pond scum.

Your blogger was recently at the Freedom Fest shindig in Las Vegas, hence the absence in blogging for awhile. While there I witnessed two individuals I know to be libertarians attempting to talk to the Republicans who are now the LP’s candidates: Wayne Root and Bob Barr.

At one point I saw Marc Victor, an attorney and sometimes radio talk show host stand-in, speaking to Barr. Admittedly Barr makes my skin crawl so I didn’t pay much attention and the noise in the room was sufficient that I couldn’t hear the conversation. But when Marc saw me he can over and recounted the gist of the conversation.

Marc had recently seen Barr on television where Barr was dismissing the long-held libertarian position of legalizing drugs. That didn’t surprise me since Barr is a conservative and not a libertarian. But Barr has the blind LP party leaders with their noses in his pigpen so they pretend the man is something he isn’t.

Marc says that when he brought up Barr’s anti-libertarian position on drugs that Barr glared at him and then gave one of his handlers a signal. Barr is always accompanied by handlers whose job is to keep libertarians away from their presidential candidate so they can’t ask him questions about his Big Government positions. A rather large woman, working for Barr then pushed her way between them in order to push Victor off to the sidelines. Barr then turned tail and ran in the opposite direction.

Another libertarian I know, land developer Treg Loyden was later witnessed by me having a conversation with Wayne Root, the LP’s unlibertarian vice presidential candidate. I called Treg up this evening to ask what that was about. He told me and also pointed me to something he wrote about the experience.

Treg first attempted to speak to Bob Barr, a man Treg now sees as Little Napoleon. Treg too had tried to ask Barr about his anti-libertarian position on the war on drugs. And like Marc Victor, Treg got the same treatment. First, he told Barr that his position on drugs was not acceptable and then waited for Barr to respond. Barr looked at him silently and simply refused to say anything. Barr instead turned away from Treg and started talking to a conservative.

Barr wanted to know what he could say to win the conservative’s vote in November. That very question is unprincipled implying that Barr will say whatever is needed in order to win the votes of voters, provided of course, that the voter isn’t actually a libertarian. The conservative said he didn’t want to waste a vote on Barr but was unhappy with McCain. Barr’s reply was enlightening.

He told the man, “Well, we can’t let them just keep ruining our party.” McCain is a Republican. So the only party that Barr can be referring to is the Republican Party. Barr stills sees himself as a conservative Republican not as a libertarian.

I argued that the plan by Barr and his conservative handlers like Richard Viguerie was to use the LP and its ballot status in order to try to force the Republican Party toward a hard-core Right-wing position. Barr doesn’t give a damn about the Libertarian Party. He would be happy to destroy the Libertarian Party if he can succeed in pushing the Republicans to the Right. This is the man into whose hands the traitors at the LP national office have entrusted their party.

Treg was dismayed by this and walked away. He later saw Wayne Root and tried to talk to him. Root started to speak to Treg but saw David Friedman, Milton’s son, and tried to rassle up his support. This I witnessed first hand as I had just been speaking with David a minute before this happened.

Root claimed he had the LP presidential nomination for president in the bag for the next four election cycles. Talk about trash leading the blind. Root basically ignored Treg not considering him important enough to talk with.

Treg later mentioned this treatment to Steve Kubby, who apparently thinks that party loyalty is enough to override the odious natures of Root and Barr. He decided to reintroduce Treg to Root in the hopes of patching things up.

When Root learned of the money that Treg had put into Ron Paul’s campaign (a point Treg and I disagree about) he was suddenly interested. He asked: “So what can I say to get you guys behind the Barr/Root team?” I never thought I’d hear an LP candidate selling his principles for votes but then the LP is dead and what now exists is libertarian in name only.

Treg mentioned to Root how Ron Paul “wants us out o Iraq now.” Root said: “That is where I disagree with Paul. Yes, we should leave when the job is done and we should leave with strength, not weakness.”

In one of the pre nomination debates I heard Root telling libertarians that he had learned his lesson about Iraq and that he wanted out Iraq. Of course, at the time, he was telling them what they needed to hear to give him their votes. This is the unprincipled con artist that Root is. His positions are not based on principles but on power seeking. He lied to the LP delegates claiming a conversion on Iraq and then, once he gets their support, he goes right back to his pro-war position.

Root got agitated and stood up to leave. Treg admits he didn’t tape record the event and was recounting the approximate words of Root, but if this is even vaguely what Root said, then it shows how bad a libertarian he is. “America should just let Israel alone, defend itself, and go nuke the heck out of those Iranian cockroaches. Blow ‘em all up... just nuke the place for a thousand years.”

I know both Marc Victor and Treg Loyden. In spite of disagreements we have had on some matters concerning this election I believe them to be honest individuals and that both are telling the truth. I was close enough to see what was happening and it corresponds with their accounts. I also witnessed Barr and Root lying, twisting and distorting their own positions in order to con the Libertarian Party into nominating them. So I have every reason to believe their accounts regarding these incidents.

What both men recount is proof that the amazing conversion of these neocons to libertarianism is all facade and no substance. Root and Barr are still Republicans and both are using the LP as a tool to their own personal ends. The LP has committed suicide by putting two anti-libertarian con men at the head of its ticket. I doubt the LP can survive this and I suggest, that if it does survive, it will be further proof of the innate rot that has contaminated the party.

"Libertarian" Barr panders to racists and bigots.

This blog has argued that the reason Barr, Viguerie and other conservatives were trying to take over the (formerly) Libertarian Party was to turn it into a vehicle to attack the Republicans for nominating McCain. They want to strip votes away from McCain on the Right so that he will lose. This, they hope, will bring back the dominance that the far Right previously held in the party, but which they lost out to the neo-cons.

In other words their goal is NOT to build the (formerly) Libertarian Party but to use the party as a means of taking over the Republican Party. The LP is but a tool for their use, which shows the naivety of those Libertarians who argued that having Barr lead the ticket “would build the party”. Of course to accomplish that goal Barr can’t really run as a Libertarian. He doesn’t want the libertarian vote, he wants the conservative vote.

And one result is that we know have the spectacle of a Libertarian candidate playing up immigrant-bashing to pander to the racists that permeate the Right.

Barr just sent out a fund-raiser using “border security” as the key. Border security is the current Right-wing hysteria, the crisis that they use to try to terrify people into supporting them. Terrify the public with some monster and you can rally the villagers into a mob that you can run in front of so as to pretend you are the leader. And, since Barr has not been hesitant to climb into bed with open racists in the past, this sort of pandering comes naturally to him.

Barr sent out a fund-raiser for his campaign about the “crisis” of “BORDER SECURITY”. (Capitalization his own -- it’s scarier that way.) And he trashed the somewhat decent “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill that the racist Right managed to defeat a year ago.

Now, please note that Barr is playing a dishonest game of bait-and-switch. He starts out talking about the “crisis” of border security and then conflates that with being anti-immigration. The bill in question did not loosen up border “security” but tried to fix the immigration system that the conservatives have broken one piece at a time. In fact the reforms would have helped solve the “security” issue.

One reason we have millions of people who have crossed the borders illegally is because legal options don’t exist. Instead of pushing millions of people who want to work into illegally crossing we ought to be finding ways for them to enter legally. That would reduce the ability of the actual bad guys from hiding themselves among the millions who cross.

Consider how a real terrorist, who wants to cross illegally, would think. He’d find that its much easier to cross where tens of thousands of “decoys” are also crossing. If he crosses with five others his chance of detection is higher than if he crosses with 5,000. The conservatives, by shutting down legal entry, have actually made it easier to true criminals to enter illegally. Conservatives like to quote the law of unintended consequences but somehow they delude themselves into thinking it only applies to laws proposed by the Left.

Barr tries to scare people into donating to his unlibertarian Libertarian campaign by claiming there is a lack of “border security.” As we have seen that is rubbish. The government has ratcheted up the Big Brother methods necessary to “secure the border” significantly in recent years.

Just as Barr proved to be an easy patsy for the Patriot Act, scare the shit out the man and he caves in on liberty, he is proving to be a patsy for the Big Brother anti-immigration campaign. Exactly how does Mr. Barr think his anti-immigrant, border security, ideas will get implemented.

It won’t come about by making people more free. After terrorism the “border” scare is the main issue that is being used to justify massive state interventions into civil society. Barry rolled over for Bush and now he’s rolling over for the bigots. And when Barr roles over, for some reason, it is civil liberties that get screwed.

Of course, ten years down the road Barr can always have a conversion and apologize for his “errors” -- if it is convenient for his political career.

Barr paints McCain as evil, not for the many issues where McCain deserves to be attacked, but for one of the few issues where he is more libertarian than not --- immigration reform.

Barr’s entire letter was filled with lies, borderline bigotry, fear mongering, and calls for government action. It sounds just like the garbage that the far Right has been pushing for years. What it didn’t sound like was anything remotely resembling libertarianism. This is the sort of rot that the sell-outs in the LP have foisted on the party. Barr’s actions are understandable -- he’s just a sleazy politician. But what excuse do his point-men in the LP have for their disgusting, slimy actions?

What Barr’s letter has done is destroy the lie that he was spreading around in Denver that he would campaign as a libertarian. He isn’t.

Now, Barr will get more votes than the typical LP candidate and the morons will cheer that saying it vindicates their choice. But then running Hillary Clinton would have gotten even more votes if you catch my drift. Selling out libertarianism and pandering to the bigoted Right would win more votes. What it won’t do is further the cause of liberty but hinder it. The Libertarian Party has gone over to the dark side and deserves to die.

Smells like a Republican.

For the record, I had nothing to do with this video. It seems a lot of people have similar views to my own.



By the way, the New York Times had a short piece by Francis Clines regarding the amazing transformation of Bob Barr from family values zealot to alleged libertarian. Mr. Clines seems as baffled as I do by the miraculous transformation. Mr. Clines writes wickedly:

There are stranger things in politics than Mr. Barr’s metamorphosis, but few more enjoyable to witness for the sheer opportunism that underpins the careers of all manner of politicians from one end of the philosophical spectrum to the other.

Ouch! That had to hurt. But then, the truth often does.

Libertarian Party 1972 - 2008: Rest in Peace.

It is with a heavy heart that I report the death of the Libertarian Party. It was only 36 years old—far too young to die. And while there is some dispute over whether the death was self-inflicted or murder, the death itself was tragic and sad.

Once billed as “The Party of Principle” those principles were sold down the river. On Sunday, May 25, 2008 the principles were abandoned, and the party was last seen gasping for air
before expiring.

This author watched 30 years of his life pass before his eyes -- wasted. Having been a candidate and supporter of the party since 1978 what I saw ended any respect I had left for the LP.

Far Right Republican congressman Bob Barr was nominated for president and the loudmouthed, huckster, Wayne Root, an “odds maker” from Las Vegas, traded with Barr in order to become his running mate. They brought to the LP the sort of backroom deal-making once only seen in the larger, corrupt parties.

It is true that the principles did not die easily, however. On the first ballot conservative Barr was leading Mary Ruwart by just one vote. On the second ballot it was dead even. On the third vote Ruwart was in the lead. And then the “behind-the-scenes” deal of the two neocon infiltrators was announced.

Root, who had sworn he would never take the vice presidential made clear that he doesn’t necessarily mean what he says at all. He got up and announced that he was endorsing Bob Barr. In return Root said that he would be Barr’s vice presidential candidate and in four years time he was promised the top slot by Barr—as if Barr had any authority to make such a promise.

Realize that neither man is a libertarian, both are conservatives. Both endorse foreign interventionism. Root gave $1,000 to the campaign of Joe Leiberman and Barr gave around $100,000 to Republican Right-wing candidates. Almost all of those candidates were on the far Right of the party and advocates of war. The people Barr has supported, for the most part, were the absolute worst among the Republicans—those least likely to respect libertarian principles.

The antiwar Libertarians were duped by both men who had convenient conversions to new positions more satisfying to the delegates. Root entered the campaign a war-mongering hawk. When he ran into trouble with party members he suddenly saw the light and announced a new position.

Barr seemed to hold to his conservative principles. Only two weeks ago he adamantly said he was opposed to ending the war on drugs. Nothing he said this weekend actually changed that but Barr answered questions in ways that made it appear he had. He talked about the failure of the war on drugs for a long time and then said the federal government should get out of the drug war. Of course, he merely wanted the individual states to wage the drug war instead. That part was barely mentioned, making it appear he was more opposed to the drug war than he is.

When Barr arrived in Denver he found a large percentage of delegates sporting anti-Barr buttons —something never before seen at an LP convention. And he had to make some concessions. So he had one of those last second, dramatic conversions. Previously Barr was openly and viciously antigay and he authored one of the most discriminatory pieces of antigay legislation around, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Barr had tried to placate the delegates by pretending that his law was magically libertarian in reality. No one believed him.

Just a few hours before the big vote Barr suddenly announced that he had seen the light and changed his mind on gay marriage. He now said his legislation was bad and he realized he was hurting gay people needlessly and he was sorry. Personally I found him as sincere as a horny teenage boy telling his date that he really loves her and, “of course, I’ll still respect you in the morning.” Often the girl concedes because she wants to believe the promise. And many delegates in Denver wanted to believe the promise as well. I suspect what they will find is that Barr doesn’t actually love them, he used them, and as soon as he can replace them with his fellow conservatives they will find out exactly how screwed they were.

Barr had brought in his own people to Denver, people previously not affiliated with the Libertarian Party. Like him they were conservative Republicans looking for a vehicle to use. And the LP, with its ballot status in numerous states is a prime target for plundering. We have to remember that these dogmatic Rightists have one goal in mind and it isn’t the promotion of libertarianism.

They want to defeat John McCain. While there is little to say in favor of McCain the Far Right doesn’t perceive him as one of their own. He is not theocratic enough, authoritarian enough, or vicious enough to satisfy them. They want to take votes from McCain. And how will they do that? By arguing that McCain is not a “true conservative” and that Barr is. And exactly how will that be sold to the public? Barr will have to campaign, not as a libertarian, but as a Far Right conservative.

How did this revolting coup take place? There are three reasons.

First, over the years the party has recruited from the Right. While the party should have recruited from the Left as well, it didn’t. The party drifted further and further away from libertarian principles as time went by. As more and more conservatives joined the party it attracted more conservatives and turned off those on the moderate Left. To placate these Right-wingers some dubious characters raped the party platform. Many planks were removed or watered down.

Second, some party members just felt that “winning” recognition was more important than seeing the values of liberty spread. The party was started by people wanting to use it to push for liberty. The party was the means to an end. But these desperate individuals reversed things. The party was the end in itself. The goal wasn’t promoting liberty but holding power. They thought that losing an election was worse than losing their principles. Bob Barr took them to the mountaintop and showed them the baubles that politics can offer and they were seduced.

Third, and worse, the party was intentionally betrayed by a cabal of individuals who were mainly associated with the LP National Committee and the LP office staff.

Barr was brought into the party by a bevy of Right-wing, often religiously-motivated, individuals. They first had to raise Barr’s status in the party. They arranged for the national committee member from Georgia to step down from his seat and then had Barr appointed to replace him. So this “new libertarian” suddenly became a national officer almost the same day he joined.

During this time Barr used Right-wing mailing lists to raise $4 million for his political action committee. Very little of that went to candidates, most of it was eaten up by “expenses.” Of the money that was given to candidates, the vast majority went to Far Right Republicans, many of whom used it to campaign against Libertarian candidates. But a tiny percentage of that money, well under one percent, or $12,000, went to the Libertarian Party National Committee. It didn’t go to candidates but to the national committee on which Barr was serving. Apparently that tiny amount was all that was necessary.

Some national committee members started working to stage a conservative coup and they wanted Barr as their candidate. This was done in cahoots with party staff, none of whom had any business engaging in such matters.

One cigar-chomping Right-winger, Stephen Gordon, started a web site, Third Party Watch, which was regularly promoting Barr. Gordon ended up being a paid staff member of the Barr campaign. Before that, he was a staff member at the LP national office.

And it was at this site that the first inklings of a Barr-Root secret agreement, to purge the party , began. When Mary Ruwar announced she was running, both campaigns knew they were in trouble and started to attack Ruwart. They found it quite easy to make it sound as if she was promoting pedophilia. Ruwart has written that children "who willing participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well..." which implies precisely what her opponents say it means. Ruwart contends she was being taken out of context but the context didn't help her case that much.

The man who appears to be the most likely suspect for the attack campaign is Aaron Starr, a Root campaign supporter and a member of the national committee. Starr certainly worked with Root’s campaign manager to get this smear out. It was first spread through the Barr-affiliated Third Party Watch site. Then Root’s managers used material supplied by Starr at the Indiana LP convention to attack Ruwart directly.

After Third Party Watch pushed the attack for a couple of days, the executive director of the party, Shane Corey, without any authorization to do so, put out a press release which was meant to pour gasoline on the fire. Corey misused his office to announce a new party position -- a joint federal-state task force to go after pedophilia. That such activity is already against the law was ignored. That it is entirely a state matter, constitutionally speaking, was also ignored. Corey was basically calling for the federal government to take on a new, unconstitutional power for itself. But the purpose of the press release was to make it appear that the national Libertarian Party was distancing itself from Ruwart. [Nothing said here should be construed as an endorsement for Ruwart, who has proven herself, to this blogger at least, to be vicious and dishonest.]

Many libertarians were upset, especially since Corey had ignored all the proper channels and unilaterally announced a policy decision without an authority to do so. He resigned his position. But don’t feel sorry for him either. He had another position already in the waiting. This reporter has to clarify the exact position but let us say that he was either working directly for Mr. Barr or working for someone very close to Barr, Richard Viguerie. Mr. Viguerie, is a Far Right conservative who was looking to take control of a third party for some time now. And this time it seems he got what he wanted.

In addition, Viguerie suddenly turned up as a last minute speaker at the Denver convention. When I asked around as to why someone who is as unlibertarian as Viguerie was a last minute speaker I was told it was done at Barr’s request. Why only Barr was allowed to appoint speakers at the convention was never answered.

That was not the end either. Remember Stephen Gordon of Third Party Watch. Gordon used his contacts from his time in the LP office to start a libertarian e-mail list company which was then used to promote Barr directly to Libertarians. In addition he started his web site, Third Party Watch for almost nothing. That was the site used to promote Barr and attack Ruwart. And what I’ve now heard is that Gordon “sold” this web site. The man handing Gordon the money supposedly is Richard Viguerie. I wonder if the going price for such betrayal is still 20 pieces of silver. Either way I’d like to know how much money Mr. Gordon got out of Barr and Viguerie. Add that to the $12,000 “contribution” to the LP Nat-Com and we’d have some idea of what it costs to buy a political party.

In addition it seems the national convention was practically run by Barr people. A Republican was brought in to moderate the candidate’s debate—apparently a Libertarian wasn’t good enough. And individuals who were given prominent roles in the convention just happened to be individuals who were also picked to nominate Barr for the office. So after they were given added “importance” by being paraded before the delegates, they ended up giving nominating speeches on behalf of Barr. I am sure they will say it was a coincidence.

Various committees were packed with the “reformers”, all of whom had been working to strip the party platform of measures offensive to conservatives. They not only ended up raping the platform but then making up the Fifth Column supporting Barr at the convention. It seems that being a Barr supporter was enough to give one a prominent role at the cone deck in favor of Barr of course. Perhaps it was all a coincidence?

But, of course, the joint Barr-Root attack of Mary Ruwart, was also a coincidence. No doubt the Root endorsement of Barr was a coincidence as well—perhaps a fluke.

Many in the party were shocked and horrified at what happened. These reformed “libertarians”, many of whom were just recently in the Republican Party, were taking over. Long-time party activists were angry and felt that a coup had been purposely staged. Unity in the party was threatened and some suggested that the vice presidential slot should go to a principled libertarian.

Ruwart did not want to share a ticket with a non-libertarian. Steve Kubby, a previous presidential candidate, who had endorsed Ruwart, said he would accept the VP slot. Ruwart’s delegates were in favor. The delegates who had worked for Senator Mike Gravel also came on board. And the first vote was close. Even many Barr voters thought it would be a good gesture and a way of keeping some actual libertarians in the Libertarian Party.

Barr would have none of it. He got up and made a speech, making it clear that he would not accept anyone but his fellow neocon, Wayne Allen Root. Barr was not interested in a unified party. He was interested in a total coup. That is what his Nat-Com allies wanted, that is what his friends in the national office wanted, and that is what they got. Barr had enough trouble from real libertarians and wanted them gone. One “reformer” had announced on his blog that the goal was to drive out of the party all “anarchists”. Of course by anarchist he meant anyone with a consistent libertarian view -- as opposed to conservatives.

The reality is that Libertarian Party had one thing of value to the Far Right. It likely will hold ballot status in about 48 states. It has little in actual assets, but ballot status in that many states can cost millions of dollars. Barr, Viguiere and the Benedict Arnolds in the Nat-Com, like Starr, wanted that asset for themselves. And they got it -- at least they have it for the moment.

Many of the state affiliates have a large amount of discretion over candidates they will list. It is possible that the many states which supported neither Barr nor Root could refuse them local ballot status. Some are discussing complete disaffiliation.

Some states didn’t give either Root or Barr any support at all. For instance, Root’s home state, Nevada, shut him out completely. Not only wouldn’t they vote for Root but they didn’t even want him as a delegate. Even though he doesn’t live there Root was voting with the California delegation, a delegation where Starr had a lot of influence. Perhaps he arranged for Root to vote as a California delegate. However Root got there, it didn’t seem anyone was interested in finding out why Root’s own state wanted nothing to do with him.

A lot of angry libertarians are looking for ways to take the party back from this interlopers and traitors. I don’t know how successful they will be. Barr’s campaign will attract more intolerant, interventionist, conservatives like himself to the party. The more of them that join the party the more unlikely it will be that libertarians will have any influence in their own party.

Over the next couple of years the real indicator will be the party platform. To prepare for the coup the so-called Reform Caucus had been working to denude the platform of anything that conservatives would find offensive. In other words they wanted a Republican platform. The previous position of support for freedom of choice in abortion was watered down to say almost nothing. One sign of the Right-wing coup will be when that plank becomes explicitly anti-choice.

A second plank that I suspect will be targeted by the Barr-Root cabal will be that of immigration. Both men will start sounding like the Minutemen and other xenophobic Republicans.

Third, expect to see more planks referring to “state’s rights”. Issues like drugs and gay equality will get replaced with calls for allowing the states to have whatever policy they want on this -- regardless of how oppressive. Libertarians previously favored ending the war on drugs and favored full equality for gays before the law. Both those issues will go down the drain. Instead, the planks won’t call for either, but will merely say these are state matters -- and the libertarian position will be replaced by this conservative interpretation.

The best indication that the LP deserves its death is that it was incapable of having a decent candidate. Root and Barr were both disgusting and Ruwart, who would have secured the nomination if Barr hadn't, is flaky and untrustworthy, in spite of her well-acted saccharin tone of voice. This lack of any decent candidate for the nomination indicates the party has fallen a long way since Ed Clark was the LP presidential candidate.

In a cause that will triumph.

It must have seemed, at numerous points, that the American Revolution was going to fail. Certainly the men who gathered in Philadelphia to sign the treasonous Declaration of Independence pledged their very lives to the cause -- realizing that failure could bring about their execution. Their goal was both simple, profound and difficult.

Simply put, it was independence for the colonies, profound because it was rooted into the philosophical premises of classical liberalism, and difficult because this ragtag bunch of “farmers” were standing up to one of the greatest military forces of their day. It must have surprised many when they won.

For almost all of human history the idea that one human being could “own” another as a piece of property was widely accepted. It was sanctioned by both church and state. The Bible itself supported the institution, offering rules for how to treat slaves but never suggesting their freedom.

A tiny radical fringe started demanding “abolition”. There was no compromise with these people. They were not satisfied with restrictions on slavery. They wanted it abolished, entirely, completely, without exception. How does one even talk to people who refuse to be “reasonable” ?

In 1838 a group of liberals got together to form an organization that would demand free markets and free trade. They did not wish to reform the English tariff system, they wished to abolish it.

One of the leading reformers, businessman Richard Cobden was elected to parliament in 1841. Socialists, and the landlords who benefited from protectionism, both attacked him.

Cobden, and his co-conspirator, Richard Bright had little going for them except for the rightness of their cause. Not only were these radical liberals promoting free markets but they pushed for a reduction in England’s war making abilities. They were peace advocates as well. They were accused of being utopians, unwilling to recognize reality or to compromise.

Cobden’s radical positions were attacked from all sides. Harriet Martineau, in her History of the Peace, wrote that “he was not treated in the House with the courtesy usually accorded to a new member....” Cobden didn’t care. Instead he launched a strong attack on Prime Minister Pee,l to the fury of the House and the Prime Minister. But it was Peel who eventually surrendered to the arguments of Cobden, not the other way around.

The Corn Laws were eventually repealed and Peel said the man responsible was the uncompromising Cobden. Peel said:

I have no wish to rob any person of the credit which is justly due to him for them. But I may say that neither the gentlemen sitting on the benches opposite, nor myself, nor the gentlemen sitting round me—I say that neither of us are the parties who are strictly entitled to the merit. There has been a combination of parties, and that combination of parties together with the influence of the Government, has led to the ultimate success of the measures. But, Sir, there is a name which ought to be associated with the success of these measures: it is not the name of the noble Lord, the member for London, neither is it my name. Sir, the name which ought to be, and which will be associated with the success of these measures is the name of a man who, acting, I believe, from pure and disinterested motives, has advocated their cause with untiring energy, and by appeals to reason, expressed by an eloquence, the more to be admired because it was unaffected and unadorned—the name which ought to be and will be associated with the success of these measures is the name of Richard Cobden. Without scruple, Sir, I attribute the success of these measures to him.

In these incidents the goals varied. Some wanted political independence. Others wanted reforms that were considered impossible; not only that, but they were seeking reforms that overturned established political systems and tradition. Their demands were radical and often faced impossible odds. Yet they clung to their ideals and pushed for them. .

The causes that they promoted were radical but right, controversial but compassionate, unacceptable but unavoidable. Some of them won their battles quickly, others took much longer. In many cases the original visionaries who dreamed of change did not live to see the dream become reality. In spite of that the dreams did become reality.

In each case activists were derided, persecuted, often imprisoned, sometimes killed. They pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to a cause deemed hopeless but one destined to triumph. And they did so without compromise.

It was the purity of their vision that proved to be their strongest rampart. The equivocation of their opponents, the lack of moral clarity in their opposition, proved to be the demise of unjust and immoral policies, laws and traditions.

In First Corinthians, Paul wrote: “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” The movements discussed here won their battles. When they sounded the trumpet it was loud, and crisp, and clear. There was no equivocation, no compromise, no promise of victory. Yet victory was theirs.

The abolitionists did not call for reducing slavery, but for ending it. The American Revolutionaries did not seek to be ruled by an Earl in place of a king -- they sought independence. Richard Cobden did not call for reform but for repeal.

Today, many libertarians, so-called, argue that we must cloud our vision, or at the very least, hide it. They argue it is far better to nominate candidates who are less statist than the incumbents but not so “radical” as to scare people. They offer the American public a “me-too” political philosophy. They want to turn the Libertarian Party into a jobs machine for fourth rate politicians. They want to substitute electoral victory for freedom.

They seem to have forgotten that the Libertarian Party was founded with the prime purpose of promoting liberty. Electoral victories, while welcomed, were not the main goal. Such victories, we always knew, would be few and far between. But they were not our purpose. At best, they would be a means to the goal, but never the goal itself.

Today the Libertarian Party seems infested with individuals who have turned the means into an end. They are so anxious to achieve positions that they abandon principles, forgetting that the principles were the goal and positions merely a means to achieving it. Lord Acton warned that power corrupts. These “libertarians” seem to have shown that even the mere illusion of power corrupts.

Victory over oppression and tyranny can not be won by adopting oppressive and tyrannical positions. A drowning man needs oxygen not a different kind of water.

If the Libertarian Party continues down the disastrous road laid out by these Republican-lite types it will cease to have any justification for its existence. Milton Friedman liked to remind Libertarians that their victory would be achieved at the hands of others. Their purpose, he said, was to continue to make the moral case for freedom when others have dropped the torch of liberty. Only through the continual agitation of the radical, moral view does an idea that is outside the mainstream eventually become an acceptable alternative to the equivocating, compromising holders of office. Friedman repeatedly noted that the socialists in America won their victories, not by having their candidates elected, but by having their ideas stolen.

Socialists saw their ideas put into place because they held their ideas on principle -- wrong , but still firmly held and uncompromisingly promoted. The “reform” type of libertarians don’t want the Libertarian torch held high for all to see. At best they want it dimmed to show the public that Libertarians really aren’t that different after all.

However, the value of the Libertarian Party is entirely found in its differences not in its similarities. The abolitionists did not win because they were like the slavers but because they were their polar opposites. Richard Cobden faced down the most powerful politician in England, raked him over the coals, and in the end, won his mind, his respect and his thanks.

Compromise gives comfort to the tyrannical. It tells them that their values are right. After all, if even the libertarians, accept statist premises then control, and regulation and restriction is practical and desirable. The reform types that want the Bob Barrs or the Wayne Allen Roots, are people who would have the trumpet sound an uncertain sound.

What compelled so many people to pledge so much to the Libertarian Party was never the promise of electing fourth rate politicians to office. These people were inspired by the vision of freedom. As Proverbs says: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

And what is true for people is true for parties. Without the libertarian vision there is no libertarian party. There may be a shell with the same name but it will not be a libertarian party no matter what it calls itself. Without a vision the party will truly perish. If even the “Libertarians” are not willing to stand up for liberty then liberty, for the first time, would truly be a lost cause. It is when the darkness seems most likely to envelope and suffocate the candle that its light is most needed.

Bob Barr lies about libertarians while funding Republicans.

Right-wing bigot Bob Barr continues his campaign of lying to the public as to what it means to be a libertarian. This time the Village Voice questioned Barr’s bigoted anti-gay legislation and asked him how he justifies his statist legislation with seeking the Libertarian nomination. Barr answers by lying about what libertarianism is about.

He says that the positions he took in Congress, to strip gay couple of any rights at the federal level, “was based on the principle of federalism.” There are two aspects to his disgusting legislation. One said that no state need have to recognize the rights of gay couples to marry. The other mandated that no federal agency is allowed to grant any rights to gay couples that it grants to straight couples.

He continually downplays the aspect of his legislation that actually had an impact -- stripping gay couples of any rights in regards to anything federal -- including the right to have their life partners immigrate to live with them. Barr’s law demands that gay couples be treated as second class citizens in their own country. That is bigotry, raw and plain. And it is not even federalism, it was the imposition of bigotry into the federal legal code. It was an open attack on gay couples and it is not forgiveable since Barr himself sees nothing wrong with being a bigot.

Next Barr twists libertarianism by saying that his bigoted law is “a fundamentally sound, libertarian-oriented position on federalism.” Barr might be excused for being wrong simply because he has no idea what libertarianism is about. After all he is not now a libertarian and never has been.

Libertarianism has position about the rights of individuals in relationship to one another. It also have positions about rights of individuals in relation to the government or the state. But libertarianism per se says nothing, absolutely nothing, about the relationship of one government agency toward another.

A libertarian might be a federalist or might not be. But what a libertarian does say is that no government has the right to violate the rights of individuals. That includes the fifty states. Barr’s position is that the states do have that right. That is conservative, power-politics. That is statism. That is another form of the “divine right” theory of political entities--be they the king or the legislature--to regulate the lives of people.

Barr’s position is merely that he prefers to have a different level of government violating rights. The Libertarian view is that no level of government ought to violate rights. Barr’s view is not a variant of the libertarian view -- it is the polar opposite of the libertarian view.

Libertarians might argue over whether or not the state should exist at all. And they might argue over what form government should take if it did exist. But you can’t be a libertarian and say that government has the right to violate individual liberty and rights. Barr is not defending individual rights. He is defending the power of specific government entities to violate rights. He is an advocate of state power, just as Hillary or Bush or Obama is. His difference is merely over which state entity weilds that power. Libertarians argue that no state agency, at any level, is morally permitted to violate the rights of individuals. Barr does not share that view.

Barr gives a little spiel about how since 9/11 he has reconsidered his position on “government control in certain areas”. What he has basically said, however, is that he wants that control transferred to the states. He is not against the war on drugs. He has made that clear. He wants states enforcing drug laws and has actually argued that this will be more efficient.

What is a more efficient war on drugs? Or more precisely what is a more efficient war on drug users? Would it be more arrests? More no-knock dawn raids? More people in prison? This alone makes it clear that Bob Barr is a fraud.

At the same time Barr is pretending to be a big Libertarian he is channeling funds to Republican candidates around the country. How many libertarians know that? Barr is actually helping fund Republican candidates running against Libertarian candidates.

While Libertarians in states like Montana, Florida, Colorado, Alabama, Connecticut, Oregon, Pennsylvannia, New Hampshire, Maryland, Georgia, Minnesota, Idaho, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, Nebreska, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio have been working to try and build a Libertarian Party there, Bob Barr has been sending cash to their opponents. He has been donating money to campaigns aimed to influence voters to NOT vote Libertarian but Republican instead.

And many of the recipients of Barr’s cash are the most Right-wing, anti-individual liberty type of Theopublicans you can imagine. Many of them are Southern Christianists associated with the Religious Right. This includes people who repeatedly take anti-libertarian views on the major issues. Barr continues to fund Big Government Republican candidates while asking Libertarians to fund him.

Barr says he is a Libertarian and a libertarian. His views show he is not a libertarian. And his continual support of Big Government Republican candidates in 19 states shows he is not a Libertarian either.

Photo: As a reminder of Barr's ugly politics I illustrate this article with the photo of him speaking to a conference of white supremacists and anti-semites. What a lovely campaign photo for the Libertarian Party to use if they nominate him. Should I wear my sheets to the party convention?

LP official resigns but rot continues.

This blog was among the first to highlight the unscrupulous actions taken by Shane Cory, the executive director of the Libertarian Party. Mr. Cory appeared to be part of a campaign orchestrated to make the leading libertarian presidential candidate within the LP, Mary Ruwart, look bad. The intended beneficiary of this campaign was the neocon candidate, Wayne Allen Root. Also involved were Root campaign people, including a member of the Libertarian Party National Committee.

Numerous people were disgusted by the campaign and Root immediately claimed he had nothing to do with it. He said the press release from his campaign was done without his knowledge. His neo-con history aside, I’m not sure that helps him. If his own campaign acts without his knowledge what kind of administrator is he? After all these statements were sent to the press under his name and quoted him as making them. Apparently Mr. Root would prefer us to believe that he has no idea what statements are attributed to him by his own campaign.

The fury within the libertarian movement was significant. And now Shane Cory has resigned his position. A little late perhaps but a resignation that was clearly needed. The one act of cowardice the LP demonstrates in this resignation is that no where do they mention that Cory had unilaterally taken unlibertarian positions on behalf of the LP.

This whole ugly incident was swept under the rug. Instead the LP press release praises Cory. Various LP officials are quoted saying nice things about Cory including that he “did very well representing the Party” and that he was “an asset to the libertarian movement.”

As far as I know the unlibertarian press release has never been repudiated. In other words the LP is playing the same sort of PR games that politicians routinely play. Instead of admitting that Cory did something he wasn’t supposed to do they are praising him publicly and refusing to withdraw the press release he sent out.

It is the contention of this blog that conservatives have effectively stripped libertarians of control of their own party. One indication of this is that the LP national office recently praised a “new” LP candidate Kent Marmon. Marmon, like Root and Barr, is another failed Republican. He is also the LP’s candidate for Senate in Idaho. They claim that Marmon’s positions “are ones that would make any Libertarian proud.”

A quick look at Marmon’s own campaign site shows he is a conservative not a libertarian. He supports freedom on economic issues only. At no point does he take an issue on individual freedom in the social sphere. You would be hard pressed to tell the difference between his “issues” and those of any far Right Republican. The closest to discussing civil liberties that Marmon comes is his position on immigration and there is another xenophobic Right-wing type bashing immigrants.

He falsely claims that illegal immigration “threatens our national security” ignoring the fact that all the terrorists in 9/11 were legal immigrants cleared by the very entity he demands control the borders. He claims, contrary to what most economists say, that the economy “cannot long withstand an influx of millions of non-tax paying people who do not contribute toward the services they receive....” In fact immigration benefits the economy and only a total moron ignores the facts that illegal immigrants pay billions in taxes, as the federal government has admitted. The IRS even set up special account numbers which millions of illegals use in order to pay their taxes.

Another LP candidate has joined the xenophobic Far Right campaign to bash people who are actually contributing to the economy. This is mere pandering to the Far Right and it is not libertarian. Yet the national LP praises this guy as “Libertarian all along.” Pardon me while I gag.

But it gets worse than this. Marmon is another neocon war monger. He is also against Constitutional government. He writes: “We simply must put an end to aiding our enemy by a meddling Congress that is attempting to handcuff our military and our Commander in Chief.”

First, it is the job of Congress to handcuff the military and the president. That is what the Constitution lays out for Congress. It is supposed to make decisions on war not the president. Only after Congress declares war, which didn’t happen, is the president supposed to command the military. The president has no independent Constitutional authority to wage war on his own.

Marmon makes it clear that the hundreds of billions that George Bush is flushing down the “war on terror” toilet is not enough. He writes, “we must provide the funding necessary for them to carry out their duties to protect us.” There is not a single criticism of the war in Marmon’s statements. Everything he says supports the war and supports expanding the war under the unilateral actions of the Imperial president. His view is that Congress should just get out of the way and let Bush do what he thinks is right.

What position on Marmon’s site distinguishes him from the typical Republican? He takes all the conservative positions on economic issues. He takes no libertarian positions on civil liberties. And on the war he shuns libertarian views and adopts the typical Republican view. I challenge the LP head office to show one area where Marmon’s site actually lays out a libertarian position that differs from the conservative one. They can’t do it. Marmon is just another has-been Republican, or nobody GOP reject, who is looking for another venue to push their own conservative ideas.

When the LP starts running Republicans who refuse to take libertarian positions then the LP has become another arm of the Republican Party and has no justification for existing. The LP is supposed to make the case for libertarian views.

But some people think it is now a make-work center for has-been Republicans. This is done on the pretext that the LP has to run candidates who can win -- by which they mean candidates who are not libertarian. But if the idea is simply to win office then then instead of infecting the LP with bad Republicans these LP officials ought to just bite the bullet and join the Republican Party. I fear that the rot that is consuming the LP has started at the top.

I no longer wish to be associated with the Libertarian Party.

A few days I wrote about how the federal government is confiscating laptops and removing all the data to search through it. This is being done as people travel into the country. Individuals have no guarantees that the information found there won’t get out or be used privately by others. They simply must trust the government. No reasonable suspicion is required for the feds to do this. They can do it any time they damn well please. And they will.

The purported reason is to catch child pornography. Most people are rightfully upset by the topic and the government realizes that when people are in a moral panic it is easy to get them to surrender rights. Government uses child porn the way it uses “terrorism”. It helps whip up hysteria in order to expand federal powers. And those powers will be used mostly for entirely other purposes. These are not the reasons for the powers, they are merely the excuses.

The big government crowd will attack anyone questioning such expansive federal powers of being in league with terrorists or supporting child pornography. They know that isn’t the case but they hope it will shut them up.

One would think that o alleged libertarians would understand how government works. It uses legitimate problems, though vastly exaggerated, to justify illegitimate powers. Then those new powers are used for purposes totally unrelated to the issues which were hyped to justify their existence. Those who joined the campaigns to denounce the evils didn’t actually manage to fight the evils they wanted to get. Instead they gave government a justification for doing entirely different, entirely evil, things. Join the moral campaigns of government is the quickest way to become a collaborator with evil

Now the Libertarian Party has joined the hysteria and demanded more government. The party’s Executive Director released a statement calling for “increased communication between state and federal agencies” and demanded that “more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children.” This is pandering to a popular hysteria which is vastly exaggerated by government goons. That the LP has joined this hysteria is shocking.

I have to wonder if the Exeutive Director is empowered to act unilaterally like this. Or did he just assume these powers the way Bush does? Who approved a spokesman for the so-called Libertarian Party to demand “more action” by the federal government?

What is interesting about these conservatives is that they flit back and forth on the issues. When bigots like Barr justify antigay views or when neoconservative Wayne Allan Root wants to justify his postions against social freedom, they resort to “let the state’s enforce” these laws. Now the LP conservatives at head office are demanding more federal action. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given any powers over obscenity?

What the LP has effectively done is call for an expansion of federal powers beyond those in the Constitution. Or more precisely they have endorsed that expansion since the feds have moved into that field long ago. This isn’t even constitutionalism. This is big government.

And why do these Right-wing libertarians believe that the federal government will act in the limited way they say they want. They want more active federal policing but ask the feds to respect rights in the process. How stupid are these people? This is like asking a lion to not eat Springbok. It goes against the very nature of the beast.

Former LP presidential candidate, Harry Browne, made an important point on the war in Irag and Afghanistan. He said that libertarians who supported the war seemed to foolishly believe that the government would fight the war precisely the way these “liberventionists” wanted. Every advocate of expanded government power makes the same mistake. They always believe that it can done in the clean sort of way that they want.

What the morons, who took over the LP, think is that federal agents will have good evidence before they act. They seem to believe that only “perverts” will be targeted by this increased “federal action”. And they seem to think that the feds will act within the Bill of Rights. They probably believe in Santa Claus.

Government doesn’t work that way. Government is a sledgehammer swatting flies. You can bet it kills some flies but the collateral damage is massive. Libertarians used to know this. So what the hell is happening with the LP?

I fear it has been taken over by conservatives who are pissed at Bush and the GOP. It is no longer libertarian. These conservatives have run bigots for office who make my blood run cold. They ran conspiracy nuts who ranted like crazed Birchers. They invited the bigoted drug warrior Bob Barr to join the party and put him on the National Committee. Now we have the spectacle of a neocon like Wayne Allen Root in the presidential race. Two of the top three contenders in the LP presidential race are not even libertarians. And the head office morons seems fine with that.

Now these bureaucrats issue a press statement calling for “more federal action” in policing obscenity laws.

My activity in the Party goes back three decades. I’ve run for office for the Party and given hundreds of hours of my time to party activities. I’ve certainly questioned whether the LP was the best strategy but always was glad it existed. No longer is that the case. I now believe the Libertarian Party is destructive to the libertarian message. The kind of people who are running the national office, along with candidates like Root and Barr are a clear indication that some of the worst kind of conservatives are dominating the party.

As of today I no longer wish to be considered sympathetic to the Libertarian Party. It has strayed too far away from liberty toward social conservatism. It is no longer the party of social tolerance but one that promotes vile bigots like Barr. It no longer wants less govenment but puts out press releases demanding more federal action in a field not authorized by the Constitution.

My previous dismay about the state of LP had me believing that it was not worth funding simply because it wasn’t worth the resources it flushed down the electoral drain. Then my complaint was that the party was an inefficient use of resources. Now I see it very differently. The LP is not just an inefficient way of promoting libertarianism, it is actually destructive to that cause. The Libertarian Party ought to die. It is harming libertarianism.

I’m sure that when that party falls apart, and I believe there is a good chance that the campaign teams of Root and Barr will do a lot to bring about this destruction, that the fringe Right types will go back to the GOP. The party of principle sold out the principles and now it is merely seeking power. And as it seeks power it destroys the libertarian message. I have to say that at this time I consider the Libertarian Party as the enemy of libertarianism. I hope its death is quick and complete. And I urge libertarians to withdraw their membership from the party, cease funding the party or its candidates, and pledge not to vote for any LP candidates. There are plenty of good, educational campaigns that one can fund instead. But money given to the LP or its candidates helps betray the libertarian message. Boycott the LP.

Guess who's coming to dinner?

Who is the most consistent, war mongering, neo conservative in the United States Senate? This is a man who is such a war advocate that he rushed to hug Bush during his State of the Union ramble. In fact, this Senator is so rabid about war that he deserted his party because it wasn't sufficient militaristic.

Surely that last bit gave it away. Of course the culprit is Joe Lieberman the ex-Democrat Senator for Israel He's supposed to be representing Connecticut but his loyalties lie much farther away. Old Joe is such a war fan that he has wet dreams over George Bush blowing up half the Middle East. Talk about Dr. Strangelove.

What is even stranger is that the conservative Republican Wayne Root is trying to market himself as a libertarian. But what libertarian would contribute $1000 to Lieberman's campaign? Root would. Only a short while ago he was promoting a McCain/Lieberman ticket. But when Republicans attacked gambling he got pissed --- mainly because he earns money from saps who buy his gambling tips. He's a pissed off Republican but that doesn't make him a libertarian and surely $1000 from Root to Lieberman has to count very negatively against him. You can see the documentation that Root gave this money to Lieberman here.

He's also been trying to soft-pedal his non-libertarian positions. Previously he said that gays should not be allowed to marry. Now he says it is a "state's right" position. His campaign site says the war on drugs failed but he doesn't call for ending it just experimenting with legalizing medicinal marijuana but he'd rather leave it up to the states. How does a conservative pretend to be a libertarian -- by avoiding the social issues by claiming only the states should be involved.

How this "state's right" position applies to various federal issues he avoids saying. The federal government taxes income and forbids gay couples from filing joint returns thus penalizing them. Leaving marriage to the states doesn't solve that problem. The federal government forbids gay Americans from bringing a foreign partner to the States, something it doesn't do for heterosexuals. Leaving marriage to the states won't solve that problem. The federal government prevented a man who was legally married to his same-sex partner from changing his name on his passport to reflect his marriage. How would leaving marriage to the states resolve that? It doesn't The "state's right" position is not a position at all, not for Barr and not for Root, it is an attempt to evade a position. Claim that the state's have total jurisdiction and most people stop thinking.

What Root and Barr and other conservatives need to answer us is what they think they states ought to be doing. Does Root think it is wrong for the states to deny gay couples the right to marry or not? Does Root think it is wrong for the states to wage a war on drugs or not?

These "ex" Republicans also evade another issue. When they drone on about state's rights why is it that we never hear them specifiy what limitations on powers the states ought to have. The traditional view of the conservative is that the states can practically do anything they damn well please. They will say the federal government can't establish a state religion but that the states may. They say the federal government ought not run the war on drugs but that the states should.

The Barr/Root/conservative position is saying the states have the rights to violate individual liberty in ways which they would forbid to the feds. But what powers do would they fobid the states from having? They don't tell us because they aren't trying to enlighten us as to their purported federalism. They are trying to smother inquiry into their social positions.

My questions to them are simple. Should any individual state be allowed to conduct a war on drugs? Should the individuals states grant marriage equality to gay couples or not? Should the states have the right to engage in censorship? Should the states have the right to restrict sexual acts between consenting adults? Should the states have the right to promote the Christian religion?

Libertarian Party convention biased in favor of one candidate.

This blogger has had serious reservations about the Libertarian Party for some time. My concern is that it seems to run a lot of individuals for office who are clearly not libertarians. Now the Libertarian Party is holding their presidential nominating convention in Denver and it looks rather uninteresting. The speaker line up, for the most part, is rather poor.

My biggest concern is that the organizers are appearing to treat the candidates unfairly. They are giving the worst candidate a leg-up over all the others. Right-wing, social conservative Bob Barr has been given a prominent speaking slot at the convention prior to the presidential nomination.

Barr is the only presidential candidate being given a speaking slot. He is a keynote speaker and given a full hours worth of valuable time before the actual vote. The only other time that the other candidates are scheduled is a presidential debate, which they will share equally with Barr.

I suspect that the conference asked Barr to speak prior to his announcing his candidacy. And while I think it to be questionable to give Barr any speaking slot, because he is so anti-libertarian on so many issues, I can understand possibly having him speak on a topic where he actually is good -- there are a couple issues where he is a libertarian.

But any such justification, weak as it was, for having Barr as a keynote speaker went out the window the moment he announced he wanted the LP nomination. By keeping Barr as a keynote speaker the organizers appear to be endorsing the most unlibertarian of all the candidates. Even if they aren’t intending to do that they give the appearance of having done so. At the very least they are giving him an unfair advantage. Surely any sense of honesty or fairness requires that Barr be removed as a speaker immediately.

There is nothing the organizers can do to diminish the publicity they have already given Barr. But they can rectify this bias in favor of one candidate by deleting Barr from the speakers list. No one seeking the LP nomination should be given such an advantage by the convention organizers. Nor is it possible, or wise, to offer all the candidates one hour of speaking time. Such an offer would dramatically increase the number of rather sad candidates seeking the nomination. Every wacko in the party, and there are many, will crawl out from underneath his rock and announce his candidacy for no other reason than to numb the delegates with his own idiosyncratic views on some arcane and unimportant topic.

While I question the validity of inviting Barr to speak at all, due to his incredibly bad record in in Congress and to continual statist positions, I can see no justification for the conference organizers to continue to give Barr this unfair advantage. It smacks of bias on their part, which I don’t think was there. However, if they don’t rectify the situation they will prove that the bias exists. Either that or they will show they have no concept of a fair convention.

Photo: Previously this blog has discussed the disgusting record of Bob Barr. I referred to his giving a major address to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, which was the old White Citizen's Council under a new name. This antiblack, antiJewish organization is basically a front for Klan types. (Of course such bigotry fits well with Barr's antigay bigotry.) At the time I did not have the photo I include here. It is a bit grainy but it shows Bob Barr as he is speaking to this group of bigots -- gee won't the LP look great with him as their candidate! Bob whines that he didn't know he was dealing with racists. I would have thought the flag of the pro-slavery Confederacy behind him would have clued him in. Certainly two minutes on the groups website would have removed any doubts. Accepting Barr's excuse leaves the debate between whether he was just stupid or just bigoted. Of course, the third alternative is a bit of both. Take your pick. As for me I'd rather have a candidate who is neither.

UPDATE: We have just heard that Bob Barr will not be a keynote speaker and that he has been replaced. Conference organizers did the right thing and deserve support doing the right thing. Now let us hope the delegates do the right think and reject Barr completely.

Bob Barr feels the heat so he lies.

I understand that the fake libertarian, Bob Barr, is feeling some heat for his record of antigay bigotry. As a result he supposedly released a letter via his pimp, Steve Gordon. I have yet to see the letter but a source I trust quoted it as claiming that Barr authored his disgusting Defense of Marriage Act “in order to short circuit the Republican Party’s power move to ban gay marriage on the Constitutional level. My plan worked. States maintain their rights in relation to same-sex marriage and civil unions.”

Pardon my language but this is utter and complete bullshit. Let us dissect the several lies that Barr has packed into this one statement.

First, Barr did not stop a move to ban gay marriage on the Constitutional level. The reality is that the Republicans never came close to changing the federal constitution to include this hateful statement. At no point was a federal constitutional ban likely. Barr is lying about the threat that existed. True, Barr’s party used antigay rhetoric to rile up the fundamentalist nutters but Barr helped them in that. But support for a constitutional amendment never reached the level where such a measure was at all likely. Barr was not standing up to that bigotry. He was playing up to it. He was using it to further his own career by appealing to antigay bigots.

Next, Barr’s main purpose was to restrict the federal government from granting any rights of any kind to gay people. The so-called “state’s rights” issue, which is conservative not libertarian, was only one facet of the bill. Barr took the legislation much farther than protecting the alleged rights of states. His bill said: “The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.”

Barr testified before Congress in 2004 about his legislation. He said he was “a proud conservative” worried about “basic moral norms” and “creeping ‘contextual morality’”. He says because of these concerns he authored the Defense of Marriage Act. He said: “For the purposes of federal law only, DOMA codified marriage as a heterosexual union.” True, it left the states in the same position they have always be in -- able to write their own marriage laws. But Barr’s goal was to force the federal government to recognize only straight relationships.

Please note that this was a shackle on federal recognition of the equality of rights for gay couples. We have covered how that legislation means gay couples are taxed at higher rates than straight couples with the same income. The reason is that the federal government can’t do otherwise because of Bob Barr’s bill.

We have discussed how gay Americans are forced into exile overseas if they wish to live with their foreign partner. The reason is that the federal government is forbidden to treat gay couples as they would straight couples so the gay foreign partner is not recognized as being in a relationship -- no matter how long that relationship has lasted. Barr’s law forces the federal government to treat homosexuals like second class citizens when it comes to immigration.

Recently a gay man married his partner in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal. He legally changed his name to reflect a combination of the two names reflecting his status as married. But he was denied a passport with his married name and the federal government specifically said they were doing this because of Bob Barr’s bill.

Note that all these results have NOTHING to do with the alleged rights of states. It was mandatory discrimination on the federal level that Bob Barr pushed for and got. Bob Barr is an attorney and he knows what his bill was meant to do. By focusing on one aspect of it he and ignoring the rest of the bill he is dishonestly selling a lie to libertarians.

Now let us ask about this so-called right of the states to act in a bigoted manner. What Barr is arguing, and what conservatives like him argue, is that the states have the right to violate equality before the law. Social conservatives whine about federal tyranny and then whine when they can’t have tyranny at the state level.

The state’s rights argument is bogus from a libertarian perspective. States may have constitutional powers but states don’t have rights. Governments can’t have rights. Only people have rights. And what Barr wanted was to make sure that the states could continue to violate the rights of gay people to equal protection before the law. A real libertarian says that the states don’t have legitimate authority to violate individual rights. Barr’s position is that the states do have such authority and he was acting to protect that.

Next ask yourself why Barr introduced this legislation. Social conservatives had terrified fundamentalist voters with the gay monster lurking to destroy their families. They told them that without action a judge in San Francisco or some other “liberal” haven could change the law unilaterally and “ram gay marriage” down the throats of good Christian America. To counter this so called threat Barr authored his bill. His goal was to prevent a judicial review of discriminatory marriage laws as applied to homosexuals. The whole purpose of the legislation was to stop gay marriage. Now he makes it sound as if he was trying to preserve the ability of states to allow gay marriage.

In his testimony Barr said he was protecting federalism and allowing states to make their own laws. He acknowledged that might mean they would make “bad decisions”. By that he seemed to imply gay marriage was a bad decision. I think that is precisely what he meant. He also argued that actions by local governments or by the Massachusetts Supreme Court granting rights to gay couples “were wrong because they took the decision-making process out of the hands of the people.” So his federalism doesn’t mean the political process deciding it actually means a popular vote on whether or not a minority ought to have rights. Apparently Mr. Barr thinks rights are anything the majority likes.

Mr Barr now claims that marriage ought not be a matter of government. But what he proposed was even worse. “Matters of great importance, such as marriage, need to reflect he will of the people....” So the will of the majority should determine marriage. That isn’t taking marriage out of the hands of government. That is making private relationships a matter of the will of the majority. Under Barr’s logic interracial marriages would have remained illegal and interracial couples would have faced incarceration for loving one another.

Barr laid it out clear. He does not want gay couples to have equal rights before the law. I quote his testimony: “To be clear, I am absolutely not a supporter of granting marriage rights for same-sex couples any sort of legal recognition...” That is not libertarian. He argued that marriage should be regulated by the will of the people and he argued that gay couples should not have “any sort of legal recognition” at all.

What does it mean when you say they should not have any sort of legal recognition. It would mean that gay couples couldn’t own property jointly. It would mean that if one of them were hospitalized the other could be banned from visitation because he is not a relative. It would mean that gays get taxed at higher rates. It would mean that they can’t be with their partners under many circumstances. Straight people can’t be forced to testify against their spouse in court. Gay couples can be forced to testify against each other. Barr was clear. He said he doesn’t want “any sort of legal recognition” for gay couples. That means zero recognition, nothing, nada, zilch.

Barr says, “I oppose any marriage save that between one man and one woman.” How rich. In Barr’s case that is marriage between one man and one woman, then another woman, and then another woman. Yet this hypocrite wanted to lecture the country on the moral decline of marriage.

Barr is distorting the facts about his legislation and trying to justify his bigotry. If his legislation was good enough reason to doubt his libertarian principles his lying about the legislation is reason enough to doubt his integrity. His testimony was clear. He proposed this law to make sure that gay couples have NO rights at the federal level. And he expressed his wishes for the states: that no rights, of any kind, ever be granted to any gay couple for any reason. And that is the bullshit that he and his pimp are trying to sell as libertarianism. It’s bad enough he is an antigay bigot but it is disgusting he now lying about it.