The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum

I'm more than a little saddened to see so much infighting with the third parties.

Far from being a disingenuous understatement, I think saying all this flak over Bob Barr skipping a meeting was an ingenuous statement. If anyone is dispersing Ron Paul supporters, it's Ron Paul.  Is Ron Paul interested in promoting Liberty or building alternatives to the two-party system? If it is interested in the latter, it may be better if he weren't a part of the two party system, although he is barely a part of it. If he is interested in the former, it may not be a good idea to promote someone like McKinney. He could have done both by taking Bob Barr's offer, it seems.

I'm not sure Ron Paul is the only libertarian in congress. The RLC had about 30 members of congress listed higher on the Liberty Index than Ron Paul in 2005 (the most recent listing I've seen). That doesn't necessarily mean there are 30 or more libertarians in congress, however.

Apparently the Paul people and Barr people don't get along very well. Oh well, these things happen. Some people have actually gone to the length to say Barr should be removed as the LP Presidential nominee over this incident, which I think is absurd.

If Ron Paul's supporters wish to support Barr because of the positions he holds, or join the LP that's fine. If they don't join the LP because they don't like Barr, or feel that Barr snubbed Lord Paul, then I have to wonder if their support is for Liberty or a personality.

Dave, if you're having trouble justifying your support for Barr, is it because of the positions Barr espouses or the relationship Barr has with Ron Paul? Neither Barr nor Paul is perfect, but then who is?

In fact I have not seen any of the conference, and my interest in it is only marginal. If I have time I will watch, however.

I was talking to former President Judge Charles Alexander last night, who recently retired and is back in private practice. When I mentioned about Barr remaining on the ballot in Pennsylvania, he began telling me how happy he was to hear that and how much he likes Barr's position on the War on Drugs. If he can like Bob Barr, I'm sure many Ron Paul supporters can, too.

Mik

I'm not sure Ron Paul is the only libertarian in congress.

Because I've been sort of ignoring politics recently out of exhaustion, I did not realize that Barr just didn't show up. He didn't cancel on them. He didn't call and say he wasn't going to make it. He just, didn't show up. I don't care if it is Ron Paul, John McCain, or Saddam Hussein holding the press conference. There is something wrong with that. I just don't know if I can vote for this man.

As some of you may know I was vehemently opposed to Barr's nomination, and vowed to not campaign for him nor vote for him. I've spent the last few days on the phone with people from the Nader camp, the McKinney camp at the Gp, and Lp HQ trying to get to the bottom of what occured at that press conference. I've contacted the Ron Paul camp 3 times, and was told someone would return my call. No one has yet to return my call.

Both Nader's camp,  and McKinney's camp told similar stories that confirms the story told to me by Lp HQ. Ron Paul's staffers confused and complicated communications between themselves and Barr's people. Whether or not the breakdown in communication was honest or there was something more to it niether camps would speculate. Naders people did say they worked late into the evening the night before trying to help Barr's people figure out what was expected of Barr as he had his own press conference scheduled for over a month, for that day.

-Paul was confused why Barr was late.
-Nader's folks explained Barr was unsure if he had security clearance to attend the event, and Paul instructed his staff to get Barr's people on the phone and find out what's going on.
-Paul's staff returned, one telling Paul his call yielded a "go ahead without me. It's not worth it.", another telling Paul his call yielded a "fuck off" followed by a hang up.
 McKinney's guy confirmed this, differing with what Nader's guy told me "Ron appeared disturbed" by the information, where McKinney's guy said he appeared "confused".

Both said that after their press conference they were all preoccupied with the photo-op session and had no idea what was occurring at Bob's press conference. After the media left the room, and Barr's conference had ended, Bob and his people met with everyone from Paul's joint conference. Mckinney's guy said the sparks flew and Ron became furious, shouting at staffers, and Ralph had to quiet him down because there was still media outside the door of the room they were all in. Nader's guy mentioned none of this.

I called the Baldwin camp and the guy I spoke with said "There's nothing to tell. Bob Barr was, for lack of a better word, Bob Barr". When I tried to inquire further he said "I'm not prepared to give any further comment on this issue at this time".

HQ told me Barr's had numerous problems with Paul's staff. Recently there was problems with a booth and speaking slot at the Rally for the Republic. HQ said Paul is surrounded by staff that are also working the Baldwin campaign.

It's kind of irrelevant but Nader's guy said "Bob Barr's problem is, because right now he's the biggest threat to the Karl Rove administration he's going to be damned if he does, damned if he does'nt." Just thought I'd share that with y'all.

Anyhoo... I'm on board. Bob Barr has my full support. What can I do?

Ron Paul's supporters are libertarians who are looking for somewhere to cast their votes.  Barr has a bad track record in case you haven't noticed.

Some of Paul's supporters are libertarians, some are conservatives, and some are nuts. If the Paul libertarians find a more libertarian candidate than Bob Barr on the ballot, they can certainly vote for that candidate. In fact, Pennsylvania allows voters to write in a candidate of their choice. They probably won't count the vote, but you can write in someone not on the ballot.

While Bob Barr may have a storied past, he did come around and immediately prior to his nomination spent two years on the LNC. I may be wrong, but I don't recall there being an outcry that a war mongering drug warrior who hates homosexuals was part of the Libertarian Party's governing body.

Dave, if you cannot find Bob Barr's position on the war on drugs, perhaps Rob Kampia (of the Marijuana Policy Project) could enlighten you. You may even recall Rob's speech supporting Barr at the convention (or you could look at this: http://www.lppa.org/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,60/topic,33570.0/). Basically Barr says on his website he wants to de-federalize the issue, and I believe I have heard Ron Paul take a similar position on some issues. I wouldn't tire myself out trying to defend or repudiate the past actions of another, however.

If Richard McCloud could not figure out what was going on with the news conference after a rather extensive inquiry, I doubt my watching the event is going to shed much light on the incident, although I still may watch it. The bottom line is I believe this was a minor, if not completely insignificant incident that does not merit anyone drastically changing their view of either Bob Barr or Ron Paul. It certainly shouldn't affect whether any of Paul's supporters want to join the LP.

If Ron Paul wanted his supporters to vote for Barr, he could have endorsed Barr, or if he wanted his supporters to go for someone else he could have endorsed Baldwin, or Nader, or McKinney for that matter. So what did he do?

Mik Robertson

** ** Anyone who enthusiastically wanted to vote for Ron Paul, but now can't since he's not running and probably will never run again, won't at this moment be nearly as enthusiastic about any other candidate and might be prone to see  things in a negative light for awhile.

There are kool-aid drinkers out there for every candidate, whether they want them or not.

It would be ethically difficult for Paul to endorse Barr, when Baldwin actively campaigned for Paul throughout the primary season.


David Jahn

I haven't found that on Barr's web site.  It certainly isn't listed among his issues.  Wouldn't it be better if Barr stated his position himself and posted his position front and center on his web site?  The point was to question how your friend "Judge Charles Alexander" could like Barr's position on the war on drugs when Barr doesn't have a stated position on his web site.

I have decided to lend my full support and faith in the candidacy of Bob Barr for President of the United States.

At this time, none of the other candidates are even remotely acceptable. Bob Barr has, in the past, been nothing resembling a libertarian, but he has sworn that he has had a change of heart. Should we believe him? Have we any reason not to? Are we that cynical that our first instinct is to think that someone is lying? It would seem so. As for me, I am too tired and too few in alternatives to fight it any longer. I have to take a leap of faith and cast my vote for the man. If he manages to pull of a miracle and get elected, then I'll have four years to find out whether I was wrong or not. If the usual happens and we are smothered out of the competition, then I won't find out, but I will at least know that I voted my conscience and made a statement.

I'm still living in a dialup world, so I won't be watching any of the press conference videos.  From what I've read here, however, that's probably not at all necessary. 

It appears that all the important stuff happened behind the scenes in private meetings, phone calls, cryptic texting messages and emails.  I doubt that much of that is on video.  Is it really surprising that the "they said" and "we said" recollections don't  match?  They seldom match even when everything goes right, let alone when things go wrong.  It's even likely that Ron Paul's scheduling of his press conference the same time as Bob Barr's was completely innocent.

Here's what I conclude from all this:

** Coordinating third parties is like herding cats.

** Anyone looking for a reason to not vote for Barr would consider this a reason to not vote for Barr. 

** Anyone looking for a reason to vote for Barr would consider this a reason to vote for Barr. 

** ** Anyone who enthusiastically wanted to vote for Ron Paul, but now can't since he's not running and probably will never run again, won't at this moment be nearly as enthusiastic about any other candidate and might be prone to see  things in a negative light for awhile.

Mark

@JohnKOTR I think a simpler platform is a good idea, too.

But your example principles are so watered down it's not very interesting. If the principles are that watered down I might as well go work within the the GOP or Dems.

A new product needs to be solidly differentiated from what's already on the market.

"use" force is vague. I prefer to say _initiate_ force. There is nothing wrong with retaliatory/defensive force. IOW, force itself is not inherently bad.

This is where initiation of force gets fuzzy. There are certain basic legitimate functions to secure individual rights that governments are authorized to do under federal and state constitutions. Among those functions, for example, is to provide for a system of criminal justice.

When burglars or rapists are arrested, tried and incarcerated, everyone benefits even though your house had not been burgled or you or someone you know had not been raped. If you are then asked to pay for this service and you refuse, who has initiated force? If you use a service from a plumber or a lawyer, or a doctor then refuse to pay, have those people initiated force on you?

Some people think that because they did not directly, individually, personally contract for the service they should have no responsibility for it. The contract comes with the acceptance of citizenship. While some may consider individual secession, not many take that route because at best it would likely be terribly, terribly, inconvenient and at worst may result in the need to leave the territory of the United States or face legal action.

While it MAY be possible to fund the legitimate functions of government, particularly the federal government, entirely through voluntary means, we are not there yet. First we need to constrain the government to its legitimate functions. Some think the operation of a criminal justice system (or systems) could be handled entirely by private courts and police forces, but that brings on a whole other set of problems.

I think core Libertarian principles are to maximize individual Liberty. I do not believe anarchy does that nor do I believe libertarianism inevitably leads to anarchy. This is where there is a lot of overlap between the LP and the CP, and people like Barr, Paul, and Baldwin. Pretending there is a lot of common ground with the other candidates may be pushing it, even though there may be some issue on which there may be agreement, although perhaps for different reasons.

In the end, it is silly for radical anarchists to call for the removal of Barr as the presidential nominee, and it will likely make very little difference who Ron Paul endorses for president.

Mik

As a minarchist, with strong anarcho-capitalist leanings, I will vote for Barr, if only to make the overall percentage of Libertarian votes microscopically larger than if I didn't.  And yes, Barr is the least of MANY evils in this election cycle.