Gun control, libertarians and a first step towards sanity

I think it is well established that I am both an atheist and a libertarian. I should clarify that I'm a little "L" libertarian rather than a big "L" party hack. We share some things in common, but for the most part we do not agree on tactics or on our approach to politics.

What do I believe? I believe that responsible citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. I am a responsible gun owner. I cannot conceive of a reason why I would need to surrender my gun or make purchasing another gun burdensome. That does not mean I would appose regulation of guns and gun ownership, quite the contrary. I believe our laws help keep us safe and effective enforcement of just laws are necessary, but not the only way,  to reduce the incidence of gun violence. 

The Libertarian position opposes all control, even bans on assault-style semiautomatic weapons.

Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles". They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them. Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent.

Of course, we know these arguments to represent an extreme negotiation point. They are stating a position that is the most conservative to begin bargaining (as if they have influence), instead of looking for a solution to gun violence via all vectors, they instead exclude any control that would limit access to, or ownership of, guns. Their position is intractable and is unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans. The Libertarians claim to be the "Party of Ideas", but what they often represent is bad ideas. Universal gun ownership appeals to a minority of the population for a reason. It does not work. People are dying and our children are being slaughtered. Voicing a position that supports the widest possible gun ownership is so out of sync with reality as to be considered laughable. There is a better way. 

The real question is how do we assure a citizen's right to own guns while maximizing efforts to reduce gun violence? 

I have a suggestion here too. Let's start by putting an executive in charge of the A.T.F. 

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, (ATF), the federal agency responsible for enforcing gun laws, has for years been choked by legislative restrictions that keep it from functioning efficiently, according to a report from The New York Times. The bureau also suffers from a six-year vacancy of its director’s seat.

Let start with leadership. We can climb the next hill when we finish the first.

California Libertarians and the question of image

One common trope in California Libertarian politics is that we put forth flawed candidates and leaders. Whether it be single issue ferret farmers or spitting druids, we attract and endorse people who make the members of the majority parties laugh in their collective sleeves.  We do ourselves no favors when our candidate for governor campaigns with single-minded determination for marijuana legalization while the real issues of the day are discussed at the adult table. We are irrelevant. The general populous thinks of us as wackos, nutjobs and buffoons.

I polled 73 people over the last two months and asked one question regarding our party. What one word best describes libertarians in California politics. The number one response was either wacko, crazy or nutjobs (64%). The number two was “out of touch” (22%).

Two respondents mentioned our officially sanctioned support of a convicted pedophile. I’d seen a few posts on Faceboodk mentioning a convicted sex offender in our leadership, but I did not know the name of the person or the specifics of the case. I looked it up this morning. It was not hard to find. The person in question is one Matthew Barnes. He was convicted in 1993 of three counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14-years of age.

A 2009 article indicates Barnes became the San Bernardino county Libertarian Party’s group vice-chairman for 2010. Barnes is a registered sex-offender.

When members of the San Bernardino County Libertarian Party elected Matthew Barnes as the group's vice chairman for 2010, they knew he was a registered sex offender.

"The members of the party that voted for him, they voted for him knowing he had completed his time and his punishment and didn't want to hold that against him," said Paul Darr, the county party chairman, who says he's planning a run for the State Assembly. "He completed his punishment by the state and has been reformed."

Barnes, 41, pleased guilty in 1993 to three counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years old, according to court records. The crimes were committed in the summer of 1987, when Barnes was 19.

Of course, people responded:

people4money of the Democratic Underground wrote:

This guy, Matthew Barnes, had sex with a 13 year old in the 90's, and this local chapter of the Libertarian party sees no reason why he shouldn't be their vice chairmen since he already served his time. I can't help but wonder if they secretly see him as some sort of victim of the big bad government for not recognizing his right to fuck 13 year olds. Maybe if he did something truly horrible, like lobby to end exploitation of third world, sweat labour, they wouldn't have been so forgiving. ...fucking kids though, now that's forgiveable to them apparently.

I really hate libertarians. I really do. They think the 12th century practices pederastry, polygamy, prostitution, etc, are some how progressive…

Sebastian Knowlton writes:

This is a sickening story everyone, and I’m tired of sidestepping it. A convicted, multiple-offense, child molester has been working with the San Bernardino County LP here in California for some time now, and the county brass continues to shamefully justify his presence there, simply because they had a friendly relationship with him prior to learning of his crimes. Granted, I could overlook alot ...

I could keep posting blog comments, but I’ve made my point. Californians, when they hear of Barnes’ appointment, issues a collective WTF. So do I. Given my focus on clergy sex abuse, I am stunned that any political organization would put forth a convicted pedophile as its face to the public. What I know to be true through countless hours of research is that a pedophile can never serve in a position of trust, and they will never be trusted by the larger population. Pedophiles are also at high risk to abuse again. The downstream potential for damage to the Libertarian Party is enormous. It does not matter if the person is “rehabilitated” by serving a prison term. Pedophiles are a different class of criminal. One that requires an increased need for vigilance and little if any trust.

Politically speaking, pedophiles are toxic. They alienate people who might otherwise be attracted to our ideas and shift the dialog away from our ideas to our practices. Allowing Matthew Barnes a leadership role was a bad idea. It hurt the party and feeds the trope that we are a party of nutballs. We need people to talk about our ideas and not nutballs.

Matthew Barnes is no longer in a leadership role at the Libertarian Party of San Bernardino, but he is active. His name pops up all over the web associated with state and local libertarian events. In other words, the Libertarian Party of California will forever be tainted by the perception that it somehow supports pedophiles and that Barnes is our poster boy.

I have nothing against Matthew Barnes. I don’t know his ideas or the quality of his thinking. This is not about Barnes, this is about Libertarian leadership. Barnes should never have been allowed in a leadership position. If our leadership cannot see this simple fact, they do not deserve the privilege of leadership.

Technorati Tags: Libertarians,Nutballs,Matthew Barnes,Politics,Pedophiles

Does Libertarian charity exist?

I had lunch with a good friend today. We talked libertarian nutballs for a few minutes and then moved on to discuss some of the pillars of libertarian theory. Take the pillar that states government welfare could be replaced by private enterprise if given an opportunity. We hear about it all the time. Ron Paul referred to it as the "generous society" during his failed presidential bid. It is a theory that states people, companies, and social organizations would step up to take care of those in need if government programs ended. Although the theory is a nice-to-believe libertarian staple, practical experience and world travel tells me that the absence of a government safety net results in anarchy, neglect, and death. Some people or organizations step up, but its never enough. People starve, or die from infections, or are victimized in some other horrible way. The world is a hard place. Survival of the fittest should not extend to human society. Social Darwinism is not libertarian thinking. It is a libertarian mental illness.

Enough of my ranting. My real question, and the subject of today's friendly lunch discussion, are there any well-known libertarian charity efforts? I thought long and hard about the questions and came up dry. In fact, I cannot remember charity being discussed in any group meeting or online forum except as something other people would do if needed. I realize I have a limited sample size, but I just don't know of many local or national libertarian charities or charity events. I certainly don't see it at the local or State levels. We don't eat our own dog food. How sad is that?

People, and by people I mean non-libertarians, would take us more seriously if we were able to actually help the needy. Hell, if we could just organize a quarterly food drive it would help establish the principle that we practice what we preach; but we don't. Instead, we preach as if charity happens by libertarian magic.

Do you know of a libertarian charity effort? Drop me a note in the comments. I'd love to promote it here on my blog.

Technorati Tags: Libertarianism

Informal libertarian survey results

I asked 34 people what they thought of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson. I should add. I asked people that were not already libertarians, of the 33, most were democrats. The results are interesting. 

Of the 34 people I talked to, 33 people had not heard of Gary Johnson.

• One person knew of Gary Johnson but had no idea what he stood for.

I asked a follow-up question. What do you think the Libertarian party stands for?

My answers were all over the map on this one. I've grouped them by themes below.

1. They want to over throw democracy. (40%)
2. They do not believe in America (a states rights response). (22%)
3. The party died out in the 90s. (10%)
4. Libertarians are a branch of the Tea Party. (10%)
5. Libertarians are like Republicans but without the religion (10%)
6. The rest were, "I don't know."

My analysis: We don't do a good job getting the message out. What do you think?

Technorati Tags: Libertarianism

Libertarian nutball Eric Dondero

I have a theory that states that the reason libertarian ideas fail to gain traction in America is because of the idiots who deliver the message. California election history is replete with examples of unqualified candidates spouting single interest positions, which, in the end, scare voters away from our movement and our ideas. It happens every election cycle.

There is an underlying taint of insanity associated with our cause. Every election cycle, another nutball manages to grab national press coverage because of the underlying insanity of his or her message. This cycle it was libertarian blogger Eric Dondero with his epic fail post: The end of liberty in America: Only course of action now is to fight back, electoral politics not working.

Because American Voters rejected his ideas, Eric Dondero is quitting the Libertarian Republican blog.

This may be my last post here at Libertarian Republican for quite some time, possibly forever…

His plan is odd.

…today starts a new course for my life. I've soured on electoral politics given what happened last night. I believe now the best course of action is outright revolt. What do I mean by that?

What does he mean by outright revolution?

However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

That’s some fearsome revolution right there. Eric Dondero unfriended me. Oh my. The pain is to much to bear.

It gets better. Eric is a bully with a puerile mean streak.

When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

Eric’s “revolution” is to bully welfare recipients. His bullying is the ultimate act of failure. He cannot influence politics to limit welfare benefits because his message is too extreme for rational adults to appreciate. Instead, he attacks those who are in need. Way to go you crazy libertarian crusader. Anyone who interacts with crusader Eric will think one thing; Libertarians are crazy. He does not help our cause at all. Nor do his stupid rants represent our movement. Eric Dondaro is a nutball, and like other nutballs, we should ignore him.

Eric Dondaro. Your revolute is an embarrassing temper tantrum. Go away.

Hat tip David F.

Related articles

• Wingnut Mad, Not Giving 'Suspected Democrats' The Pleasure Of His Doubtless Wonderful Company (wonkette.com)
• Paulbots and Kochheads Prove They're Just Stunted Teenagers (crooksandliars.com)
• Eric Dondero, The Saddest Libertarian Troll in America (toxichominid.com)
• Eric Dondero on Boycotting Democrats -- Daily Intel (nymag.com)

A follow up on voting libertarian

I had a few emails roll in over the last 24-hours since I posted this article One email pointed me to a link for what passes for the LPC's voters guide. I've recreated the guide below:

Libertarian Party of California Voters Guide

• Proposition 30 - No
• Proposition 31 - No
• Proposition 32 - No
• Proposition 33 - Yes
• Proposition 34 - Yes
• Proposition 35 - No
• Proposition 36 - Yes
• Proposition 37 - Yes
• Proposition 38 - No
• Proposition 38 - No
• Proposition 39 - No
• Proposition 40 - No position taken

The good news is, I now know what the Libertarian Party expects from its members, what I don't know is why I should vote yes or no on any of the propositions. If left to my own devices, I will always make up my own mind. Take prop 32 for instance. Why should libertarians vote for more regulation?

A little research shows that democrats appose the initiative while republicans support it. To put it another way, unions appose it, while businesses support it. Dig a little deeper and you find that Charles Munger Jr. poured $22 million into the initiative while the California Teachers Association poured $20 million.  Why does Munger support prop 32? He wants fair elections. Oddly enough, so does the Teachers Union.  Does prop 32 make for fair elections? No; not really. It limits union money from entering campaigns by attacking their funding. The initiative does not do the same thing for businesses (although it says it does). Businesses do not raise political donations from their employees. The notion that they would is absurd. If prop 32 were fair, it would the ability to contribute funds. 

My acid tests:

Is this proposition part of a Republican strategy to change the balance of power in California? If yes, then I vote no. Having a stronger Republican party does not advance libertarian ideals. It weakens our ability to influence policy. Republicans are increasing led by dangerous theocrats. Any link to libertairian principles are subverted by a Christian social agenda. We gain smaller government at the cost of inviting the government into our bedrooms? Doing anything to help the republican cause is insanity. 

Is the initiative fair? In this case, it is not fair. It attacks one side of the problem while leaving a gaping loophole that only business can exploit.  Balance is lost. Our system will suffer. 

Since I do not know why libertarians should support prop 32, I will vote NO unless I hear a better argument. 

This is my point - I want to know why we take a position on a proposition. I want a well written and professionally crafted document accessible to all that tells the story in language we can understand. If we have this, then people like me can  promote our position. Each month my blog has tens of thousands of visitors. I've racked up 2 million page views in the last couple of years. My articles post highly in search results. If I write about an issue, I can influence others in a small way. Yet without leadership, little happens. I must research and develop content on my own and guess at the motivations of our libertarian leadership. It still blows my mind that we cannot get our act together. Instead we talk about the unelectable Gary Johnson as if campaign matters. I don't get it. Gary who?

Where the hell is my voter guide? Where is my candidate analysis? I want to know which candidate, of the electable candidates, is most closely aligned with libertarian thinking. Trust me - very few libertarians who run locally are electable. Why vote for an unelectable libertarian if our ability to influence policy can best be implemented via a democrat?

Technorati Tags: Libertarian Party of California, Politics

So I’m a libertarian voter

Yes. It’s true. I’m a libertarian (notice the small L). I’m also an incrementalist. I believe that any movement, even small steps, towards libertarian political objectives is a good thing. I’ve tried to connect with big “L” libertarian establishment here in California over the last decade. Let’s just say I’m not a good fit, especially since the rise of the Tea Party nutballs. I’ll write more on this in the future, but for now I want to concentrate on one thing. I’m a libertarian voter. I want to know how I should vote in the 2012 election? Where is the official Libertarian voters guide?

Is there a voters guide posted at the LPC website? The answer is no (I looked hard too). You can waste a lot of time looking for it, but ultimately, you won’t find it because it does not exist. And that my friends, it just plain sad. There are 11 propositions on November's ballot. An inquiring libertarian wants to know what the LPC’s position is on all of these propositions? To find anything, I had to look in other places, like the up or down guide at LPLAC.

Take Proposition 34 for example. The LBC website has no articles on proposition 34. If you want to find the libertarian position, you must Google it and read the positions of the various county organizations (good luck in crazy land). All of the county positions I read call for libertarians to vote yes, which is good since that is my position. I want more though. Why should we vote yes. the why is important. What is the principle at stake here? What do we gain by supporting a repeal of the death penalty? Eager minds want to know.

I believe libertarians should vote YES on prop 34. The reasons are simple. The death penalty is morally wrong (I realize morality is not a libertarian thing). The state should not have the power to execute its citizens. And finally, eliminating the death penalty will save California tax payers billions of dollars and reduce the size of government.

I do have problems with prop 34 though. It calls for creating a fund of "100 million dollars to help solve more homicide and rape cases. I don’t see how ending the death penalty is in any way related to solving more crime, but given the potential savings, 100 million dollars is chump change. Remember, I am an incrementalist. Movement in the right direction is a good thing. Ending the death penalty is a step in the right direction. So I support it.

The Libertarian Part of California will never provide this service. Instead they offer this superficial tripe:

Libertarian solutions are the most practical and workable for strengthening our economy and governing our state. If they had been employed during the last decade, our state would be strong and not in a deficit. Thus, Libertarians work to:

• Reduce government spending;
• Reform public employee pensions, which are bankrupting cities, counties and the state;
• Promote private business development, which will create jobs;
• Privatize government services that are best delivered by cost-effective providers;
• Guarantee equal treatment under the law for all Californians;
• Regulate marijuana like wine for adults, thus making it less available to minors; and
• Adopt a part-time Legislature.

The Libertarian Party has candidates who will make these reforms, such as our Presidential candidate Gary Johnson, but first they need your support in this upcoming election.

Libertarian Party of California

Kevin Takenaga, Chairman

770 L Street, Suite 950

Sacramento, CA 95814-3361

(916) 446-1776, Extension 6

office@ca.lp.org

www.ca.lp.org

I’m sure Kevin Takenaga means well, but seriously. What does this have to do with proposition 35? Which is: California Proposition 35, Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery (2012). I’m told by the LPLSC guide that I should vote no. I would like to know why. I’d also like to know why this guide is not on the Libertarian Party of California’s website… Just saying.

Regarding prop 35. I was inclined to vote yes, but then I read the text of the proposition. I have a couple of rules on issues regarding crime.

First: Does it create a source of income for law enforcement? If the answer is yes, then I vote no. My reasoning is simple, if law enforcement agencies receive increased funding from arresting people, they will arrest people to keep their funding. In this case, fines levied against human traffickers will be split between law enforcement and victims. The cops will have an incentive to arrest people under this ordnance, which means the husband of a woman who chooses to work as a prostitute (a consenting adult with a consenting adult), could find himself arrested under a broad interpretation of the new law because he received financial benefit from his wife’s work.

Second: Is the initiative an unfunded mandate? The answer here is yes. There is no provision for offsetting the cost of increased prosecution at the state level and no funding for increased law enforcement training and procedural changes.Plus, no funding for increased incarceration in already overcrowded prisons.

Third: Is the proposition actually doing what it is purported to be doing. Again, in this case the answer is no. It adds language for the distribution of offensive material which would make any person distributing said material subject to prosecution as a human trafficker.

After thinking about it, I’m voting no. It is a good idea, but executed poorly.

Now, back to libertarian la la land. Where is the leadership? Where is the good advice? Where is the analysis? Why is it that we manage to act like kooks promoting all manner of oddness at a time when real issues need attention. We fail at all levels here. When  presented with something as simple as a well-designed website with good content, and a voters guide, we can’t seem to get it done.

I found this in on a blog post from September 24th.

Your California LP is hard at work preparing not only for the November 6th elections, but also getting Prop. 14 overturned, supporting our candidates, deciding our stands on the propositions, and getting our voter registration numbers up to meet ballot eligibility requirements.

I can’t see the results of the “hard work." There have been two blog posts since the one noted above. Neither have any content about the election.

Technorati Tags: Libertarian Party of California,Politics

Libertarianism attracts nutballs like Jules Manson

Jules Manson is a nutball. He threatened President Obama with an unbelievable comment on his Facebook page. The comments were racist, hateful, and violent.

Manson's comment that Obama and his "monkey children" should be killed had been removed from Facebook, officials said. But another Web site, Your Black Politics, posted a screenshot.

Read more: Facebook post threatens Obama

Manson backed away from his comments by claiming they were careless and emotionally driven. What? He just outed himself as racist nutball, and he uses he equivalent of a bad hair day as an of excuse. His excuse does not feel authentic, and I’m pretty sure the reason is that it is not authentic.

Manson claims to be a Libertarian. He was the last place finisher in a run for a Carson, California City council seat. City council races are non-partisan, so I am not sure why it was important that he proclaimed himself a Libertarian, unless it was to attach himself to a cause that will drive away voters. I can say this much. He stood out as odd duck during his campaign. I know because I work in Carson and follow the politics there. I even know Jim Dear, the current mayor. The Manson campaign was a joke.

What I find troubling is how often embarrassing political troublemakers are Libertarians. We’ve had too many cases to enumerate, although my personal favorite is the spiting candidate Gary Copeland, a druid, who ran for governor with the backing of the state party. Manson is just the latest in a long line of fringe nutballs to rise from the ranks of registered Libertarians and self-destruct on the national stage.

Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party of California has no effective way of vetting political candidates. In fact, they beg anybody to register to run in any race, be it local, state, or even at the federal level. All one need do is pay the dues and sign the pledge. Say yes to their request, and they will help put anyone on the ballot. They pushed me hard to run in a national election a few years back, and I’m unelectable.

There is no evidence that Manson is endorsed by the Libertarian party. Nor is there evidence that he participated in the Libertarian political process, although, I’m betting that evidence will surface soon. He appears to be a self-proclaimed libertarian, except for the fact that he is registered as a Libertarian under the name Julio Manson.

I call on the Libertarian Party of California to expel member Julio 'Jules" Manson from the state party. I also ask that they issue a statement clearly stating that they do not support Manson’s position. It is the right. In fact, I’m mystified why the Kevin Takenaga has not done so already. Furthermore, I call on the Libertarian Party of California to fix their friggen website. It’s embarrassing.

Technorati Tags: Libertarians,Nutballs,Politics

My vote for worst Libertarian website

It’s been interesting watching a once energetic California Libertarian movement give up and die these last two years. The State level organization is a mess, and local county chapters seem to have all but given up. I’ve started a small project to capture the worst of the worst when it comes to Libertarian party websites that, through bad design, actually drives people away. I think I’ve found the worst.

Region 67, East San Gabriel Valley. Ouch, it makes my eyes hurt.

My guess is that some 70-year-old retiree built this a long time ago and actually thinks it somehow helps to spread the Libertarian message. I can’t get past the Blue on something like blue background (with red highlighted letters no less). It looks like it’s made by a child.

Do you you have an example of an embarrassing Libertarian website? If so, submit it in the comments. An don’t bother submitting the Libertarian Party of California. We all know that sucks.

Technorati Tags: Libertarians,Libertarianism

How does one define fringe?

The Libertarian Party of California released it’s membership information recently via the Secretary’s Report (10/9/11).

• 575 Annual dues-paying members (new and renewed)
• 40 Continuing members (members that donate continually per month)
• 12 Elected officials
• 333 Lifetime members

That’s 960 total members. I can’t think of a better way to define fringe.

Technorati Tags: Libertarians,California

I’m for incrementalism

Incrementalism is small changes to large project. Take government funding of religious charities for example. I’m dead set against this issue, but you won’t see me demanding it be dismantled. I prefer the victory by a thousand cuts approach, or, incrementalism. Why? Because it works way better than large scale change in most cases. The goal is the reversal of Bush’s faith based initiative, any movement in that direction is good news.

President Obama recently made a change to the way faith-based organizations can use federal funding.

President Obama’s decree prevents soup kitchens run by churches from conducting sermons while feeding people, for example. The White House expects federal officials to monitor publicly-funded faith-based groups to ensure they comply with the new order.

It’s one of several small changes Obama could have made, any one of which would have moved the funding of religious charities in the right direction, which in this case is away from the public dole. I understand that the problem will persist for years, but with each year we have hope that additional small changes will move this wrong towards what our founding fathers originally intended.

I’m an atheist and a Libertarian, I welcome this small move in the right direction. Our president did the right thing. However, I know I’ve pissed off many atheists and all the Libertarians I know by taking this position. I hope a few of my atheist friends will see my point. I’m not asking that they support my position, but only that they see this as a useful healthy position when the alternative is unavailable. My Libertarian friends – well let’s just say I have no hope. The only position they support is total submission to the Libertarian party line. They want it all but will rarely ever taste the smallest of victories. Heck, at this point I’m not ever sure they know what victory is.

The concept is simple and non-threatening to those who hold different religions and political views. Simply move in the right direction, and oppose any movement in the wrong direction. I think this is one of the reasons I cannot go to a libertarian meeting. The only positions they take are untenable, yet they think them reasonable. It’s crazy.

Technorati Tags: Politics,Religion,Charity

Related articles

• Obama Executive Order On 'Faith-Based' Initiative Is Disappointing, Says Americans United (secularnewsdaily.com)
• Obama Administration Should Take Action To Fix 'Faith-Based' Initiative, Americans United Tells Congress (secularnewsdaily.com)
• Jeffrey A. Miron: Anti-Libertarian Presidents (huffingtonpost.com)

Trevor Southerland joins Third Party Watch

 I read third party watch every day. IMHO it is one of the best third party news sources on the web. I am please to see they have picked up a libertarian writer. This should boost coverage of libertarian issue.

I’d like to extend a very big welcome to Trevor Southerland. He will be joining TPW as a contributing writer in the next couple of days.

Source: Third Party Watch

Yes - I have a morbid fear of Big Brother

...and thanks to Somnambulist - it just got much worse. Check out a view of the future when we are all using a National ID Number.

*** Update ****

Somnambulist is no more - it was up yesterday and gone today.

It's that time of the year again

My inbox is starting to fill up with with Libertarians who intend to run for President. I get a kick out of the process because most Libertarians who choose to run, cannot get elected to a local school board. Yet, they have a plan to "save America".  Take Christine Smith  for instance (and no, not the Christine Smith from NWS - Playboy).

America needs true leadership.  I am running for President of the United States because I love America, and feel called to help save it.  It is time for a people's America.

I want to represent you, and will work to immediately enact changes in the federal government which I believe will make America safer, more productive, and regain and ensure the civil liberties guaranteed American citizens. 

[it goes on and on]

Source: Christine Smith Mission Statement

Christine has a blog, which needs some design TLC. She has a brief press release up at LNC, and she has been interviewed by The Next Prez. She is a Natural Law libertarian - and completely unknown to me.

I often wonder what motivates people to run for President under the Libertarian banner. It is the hopeless cause of hopeless cases. If she is lucky enough to become the official Libertarian candidate, she will live in the obscure shadow of the real candidates. I would feel differently about running for a major office if there was a chance that we could made a difference. But, history shows us, very few make any impact. It is a waste of time and energy, but... I love it because they all tend to be borderline crazy.

 

Technorati tags: Libertarians, Christine Smith, 2008 Election

An Open Letter to Fox News' Hannity and Colmes by Alexander Villacampa

Alexander Villacamp was a little pissed when Hannity and Colmes dropped him for a segment on the separation of church and state in favor of an atheist for a segment on church and state. I'm sure the atheist did a great job with the issue. Villacampa, a libertarian, has a perspective that helps our cause.  Sometimes we forget that we are not alone.

...many of the individuals in favor of these Ten Commandment displays, such as you, Sean Hannity, claim that the United States of America is a Christian nation founded on Christian laws; this can not be farther from the truth. In all reality, one of the principle reasons for the creation of the United States was freedom of religion and the separation of religion from the state. This is something the British crown did not practice and which led to many acts against minority religious groups by the English government. It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the United States government be free from all ties to any specific religion.

Source: An Open Letter to Fox News' Hannity and Colmes by Alexander Villacampa

Of course, I'm a libertarian too.

 

Technorati tags: atheism, libertarianism, Separation of chruch and state, Alexander Villacampa

Blue Skinned Libertarian

For further proof that running any idiot who wants to run for office under the Libertarian banner is bad for the Libertarian party brand, one need look no further than Stan Jones of Bozeman, Montana. Jones ran as the Libertarian candidate in a hotly contested Senate race where Democrat Jon Tester won by just 2,565 votes. Jones's vote count of 10,324 was more than enough to cover the difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates. By virtue of his ten thousand vote pull, Jones is being given credit for shifting the balance of power in the senate. It is an honor he does not deserve. Was the notoriety and press coverage generated by Jones good for the libertarian party? I don't think so.

He is also a man who accidentally turned his skin blue by drinking a homemade antibiotic laced with silver.

He first took the medicine in 1999, he said, fearing that the year 2000 would wreck computers, spread terrorism and disease, and make prescribed antibiotics unavailable. He concedes now that he miscalculated.

Source: Washingtonpost.com - A True Blue Libertarian

One: He has blue skin because he thought the world would end in 1999.

Two: he makes his own antibiotics and uses himself as a test subject.

Jones is a quirkily conservative kind of libertarian -- opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage

Three: He holds positions on important issues that are counter to core Libertarian values.

Since 2000, he has run twice for governor and twice for the Senate.

Four: He's a perennial losertarian. He takes up space on the ballot but offers little in the way of content.

Until the next Senate race rolls around in 2008, Jones said, he and some libertarian buddies are planning to place a series of initiatives on the state ballot to enforce the literal meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

"We plan to organize the constitution police," Jones said, breaking into a broad, bluish smile. "We are going to drive the secretary of state crazy."

Five:  Jones is apparently crazy too. Wasting time on fighting the constitute is a complete waste of time. With no political power, the fight is pointless.

During the senatorial debate held on October 9, 2006, Jones stated that a conspiracy of the European Union and North American political elites was on the verge of forming a "one world communist government".

Source: Wikipedia - Stan Jones

Six: He actually thinks there is a conspiracy to form a communist world government.

I'll ask again: Was the notoriety and press coverage generated by Jones good for the libertarian party? NO! We look crazy. His messege is the wrong message: Libertarians are crazy, they are against abortion, they are against gay marriage, and they dream crazy conspiracies while the rest of us worry about the economy and the war.

Enough of this crap - Kick the Stan Joneses of the world out of the party, tear up their membership cards, and publicly disavow their pointless political games.

 

Technorati tags: Libertarian politics, libertarianism, Stan Jones

Are we all nutballs?

 

...Loretta Nall, the Libertarian Party's write-in candidate for governor of Alabama, drew wide notice with her cleavage-based campaign.

But Nall conceded that her low-neckline, low-budget write-in campaign had no chance of topping Republican incumbent Bob Riley or the Democratic challenger, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley.

But the 32-year-old blond from Alexander City, who called for legalizing marijuana, a pullout of Alabama National Guard troops from Iraq , remained upbeat and is talking about a run for Congress in 2008.

Source: Libertarian talks of '08 run

I read this and shook my head in shame. I am a Libertarian, and I have no hope of ever influencing politics because of people like Loretta Nall. The people I know in California libertarian circles are a strange bunch, social misfits, malcontents, and idealists mostly. Not a one knows how to run an effective political campaign, many would support Nall's efforts under the auspices of "getting the libertarian message out". Of course, the only message that gets out it that libertarians are nutballs.

Loretta Nall is a single issue Libertarian primarily interested in marijuana legalization. Her background story is interesting, and a telling reason as to why she would be attracted to Libertarian politics. Her candidacy was pointless, she generated a great deal of media attention, after all, sex sells. However, the party image suffered immeasurable damage - and she plans to run again.

Are we all crazy? The Alabama Libertarian Party put her for as their officially endorsed candidate. They did this on purpose. Granted, ending the war on drugs is a legitimate libertarian issue, but is it the only issue? How can this possibly help the party?

Note: I'm closing my California themed libertarian blog and moving related posting to Deep Thoughts.

 

Technorati tags: Loretta Nall, libertarian politics, Alabama, nutballs

Is Religious Indoctrination a Form of Child Abuse?

The Zero Boss asks the question. Read his article and then let me know what you think. 

There are a number of good reasons to homeschool. “Religious indoctrination” is not among them. I would go so far as to say that this type of indoctrination, in the 21st century, is tantamount to child abuse. There are hundreds of thousands of parents in this country teaching their children to not think, not reason, and not question - simply to submit and obey. How is being homeschooled by such parents any better than being raised in Communist China?

Source: Is Religious Indoctrination a Form of Child Abuse?

This is an area where my libertarian and atheist values conflict. Because I lean toward common sense and personal liberty on issues like this, I tend to side with homeschoolers. Teach your kids what you want. After all, it's a Darwinian world we live in, if homeschoolers don't teach their kids how to think along with the religious rhetoric, their kids will grow to fill vital jobs in the service sector. Somebody has to take my order at the drive-thru.

 

Technorati tags: homeschooling, religion

Should Religious organizations be taxed?

I should admit that I have a double negative bias on this issue. As a libertarian, I hate taxes. As an Atheist, I find some religious organization tedious. Take my local "feed the poor" church a mile down the road from my house. The pastor is famous for feeding any person who is hungry. He does a good job too. I even donate to the cause when I have the opportunity. Do I want to see this vital community based program taxed?  Hell no.

On the other hand, The Brothers of the Holy Cross senior villas in Notre Dame cater to the rich while taking advantage of the rest of their community. Do I want to see this church based community service taxed? - Hell yes.

It gets worse...

In June, for example, the Florida Legislature passed, and Gov. Jeb Bush signed, a law that ended a five-year effort by Orange County tax authorities in Orlando to collect about $300,000 a year in property taxes from Holy Land Experience, a biblical museum and theme park that had sought exemption as a religious ministry but had been repeatedly turned down by the county.
Read More...

Should we allow an theme park to hide it's profits from the tax man? Did brother Jeb do the same thing for Disney World? The Holy Land Experience is Disney World for fundamentalists. Should the average tax payer foot the bill?

or, how about a church gym funded by tax exempt bonds?

At a price of roughly $2.5 million, the facility will contain a “middle-school-sized” gymnasium, he said, as well as a kitchen, meeting areas and classroom space. It will ease crowding at the 57-year-old church and open possibilities for new athletic ministries and outreach...
Read More...

Tax payers footing the bill for a church gym expansion? This does not sound right to me. Is a church gym a public work? Will it be open for all?

The NYT article I've been linking to for this post is chilling for a libertarian, and just plain disturbing for an Atheist. I'm ok with tax breaks for charity work, but when churches become businesses, the tax breaks should end.

 

Technorati tags: taxation, religion

Brian Holtz takes on 9/11 conspiracists

California Libertarian Candidate for Congress Brian Holtz has been using his intellect to debunk his Green opponent Carol Brouillet's 9/11 conspiracies. In a well written summary of a live debate held on August 17, Holtz delivers are devastating blow to the illogical positions espoused by his opponents. Brian even has a video of the debate. Take 20 or 30 minutes to watch or read what is sure to be a classic of skepticism in action. When done, post a word of support for a fellow skeptic who has gone into the lion's den and come out unscathed.

Brian deserves to be a Congressman. I urge you to visit his Campaign website, read about his positions on key issues, and then offer support.

Cross posted to Joe Libertarian

Technorati Tags: Skeptic, Brian Holtz, Libertarian, 9/11 conspiracy