MySpace

Random Shots

blogs.myspace.com/mikewb1971
MySpace | > rss | Connexion
Mike (L/BT-NM)



Dernière mise à jour : 2/01/2010

> Email
> Message instantané
> Partage avec un ami
> Souscrire

Sexe : Male
Statut : Célibataire
Age : 38
Zodiaque: Poisson

Ville : Albuquerque
Région : NEW MEXICO
Pays: US
Date d’inscription :: 8/08/2004

Compliments de :

Ras Krispy (2)

Souscriptions
Southern Whiskey Rebellion
août 23, 2006 - mercredi 4:41

Humeur actuelle :  vache
Recently, I've been somewhat disappointed in the Libertarian Party, or more accurately, in the conduct of some of its members, specifically, a faction of the LP's "Libertarian Reform Caucus" (LRC[1])[2].

Now, if the LRC's aim was to improve the marketability of libertarian principles and make Libertarian candidates more electable, I could live with that.

But ... (There's always one of these where politics is concerned.)

Some of the Reform Caucus' members have been insisting that the LP go beyond the marketability issue by disavowing the Zero Aggression Principle, causing me to refer to them at various times as the Deform Caucus, the Retreat Caucus, the Surrender Caucus, the Chickenshit Caucus, etc. The specific tactic that they tried at the LP's 2006 National Convention in Portland, Oregon was to remove the Pledge, which states:

YES, I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

Personally, I think that any candidate the LP puts up for public consumption should be a libertarian as well as a Libertarian, meaning that the person in question should have an idea of what libertarianism is all about. That means they should know what the ZAP is (and sign the Pledge to show that they agree with it!) and how it applies to the issues of the day.

Along comes a particular Deform Caucus member named Carl Milsted, who wrote an article for LP News titled "Are Libertarians anarchists? It's time to decide".

Here's the best part of the article:

The initiation of force will always be with us. The option of no such force is not available; advocating such is equivalent to advocating free energy or time travel.

The best we can do is minimize the initiation of force, and the overwhelming historical evidence indicates that this minimum requires some government â with some war, police and taxation authority.

Maybe minimizing that initiated force is the best that's possible. That does NOT mean that I have to sign off on that (or any other) initiation of force.

Duh.

Anyway, the Clown Caucus gets together up there in Portland, and they strip all of the "strident" stuff out of the LP's platform. All that whacko talk about freedom will scare people off, dontcha know?

I guess it never occurred to them that other people might be attracted by the "strident" language, as I was in 1994.

Anyway, they've had their fun and games in Portland, now comes the hard part. Conquest is the easy part -- occupation is the shit job. Just ask the Brits occupying Northern Ireland (or the Occupied Six Counties, as the local Catholics call it), or American troops currently stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan. You never know who amongst your allies is going to switch sides, sell you out or stick a knife in your back.

There's been some dissension amongst LPRC / LRC elements over exactly what to replace the removed planks with. Some of the cheerleaders of this have been dismayed after that their buddies have supported the Iraq occupation, for example.

L. Neil Smith commented on this in The Libertarian Enterprise

The Portland Purge / Teaching Pigs to Sing

An interesting reaction to this is the formation of the Boston Tea Party by Tom Knapp. Tom's a great guy, founder of the 2004 Draft L. Neil for President effort, Rational Review and FreedomSLUT.com.

While the BTP is a competing political party, it's also complementary to the LP in that it fills that space the Surrender Caucus would have the LP vacate by keeping the heat on Government with its platform:

The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.

Tom's taken a net-centric approach to the BTP's business where most states' election laws require meetings of some kind to be held in person in order to organize. Plus, the BTP at present allows for members to also be members of other political parties.

I've just joined (member no. 267). Maybe I'll be leaving the LP. Maybe not. I'm not sure at present. Anyway . . . . Stop by www.bostontea.us and check it out.

[1] As opposed to LewRockwell.com, also abbreviated as "LRC"
[2] There is also a Libertarian Party Reform Caucus. Anyone who cares about these clowns is gonna need a scorecard to keep track of who's who, who's sticking a knife in whose back, that sort of thing.
 
Article précédent: Tailgate Party, Anyone? | Retour à la liste des blogs | Article suivant: Cleaning out, updating, and a note of thanks
Ras Krispy
Kristopher McCraw

 
Since the elections are rigged.
Since the people in the White House, Supreme Court, Senate and Congress are there to support their corporate sponsors.

I'm giving up and seeking seclusion. I'll never vote again for anyone.
I could give a shit about how many chickens they put in my pot.

I'm already on many subversive lists for being someone who believes in Liberty.
If the party of Liberty is advocating force.

I guess there isn't much to do but lock, load, and hide to protect your family against the fascist state. A constitutional solution is out of our grasp.
 
Publié par Ras Krispy le août 25, 2006 - vendredi - 9:37
[Répondre] 
Mike (L/BT-NM)

 
What's even funnier than the stuff I've posted above is that there are people who say, "Nominate me and I'll stump for my opponent."

No, I'm NOT making this up.

In 1998 (?) Abraham Gutmann was a member of the NM Green Party. The Greens nominated Carol Miller for the 3rd District U.S. House race, and Gutmann goes out and founds a group called "Greens for Udall." Tom Udall was the one Carol Miller ran against in that race. Then in 2004, Gutmann tells the Greens that if they nominate him for the 1st District U.S. House race, he'll stump for the Democrat.

In 1998, Bruce Bush of the LPNM was planning to endorse Phil Maloof for the 1st U.S. House race (Bruce was the LPNM nominee). I thought I had talked him out of it (picture signing up for the New Mexico Scorpions and telling them that you'll shoot the puck into their own net!), but then he gives this videotape against Wilson to Maloof. Then this year, he threw his hat in the ring for U.S. Senate against Jeff Bingaman, and in late February or early March, said that if nominated, he would stump for Bingaman.

Now these two have gotten together -- more on this BS will be posted at the KCUF Media site when it comes up . . . .

I swear, I can't think this stuff up. I could drink til the room spins and then some, and STILL wouldn't come up with what Abe and Bruce do.

 
Publié par Mike (L/BT-NM) le septembre 29, 2006 - vendredi - 7:47
[Répondre]