Here is a lnk to the text of Paul's press conference

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=483

That should work for all of the folks that are working with dail up and for those who don't have the time to watch the conference.

I would invite anyone to read it and point out anything he stated that is contrary to what we are trying to acomplish.

David Jahn

This is one of the many reasons why third parties are unsuccessful. The Republicans and Democrats have managed to form a coalition of many differing views based around a common set of principles. Third parties seems to have a long list of positions and if you disagree on even just one, we can't be friends. People want what they want and if they don't get exactly that, then they don't want to play ball. We've got to learn to compromise and to come together for the greater good. Perhaps a smaller set of core values ought to be in place.

This is where I agree with Dr. Paul. We ought to make a very short list of principles and leave positions on other issues undefined. We ought to set up a platform of being for smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, protections of the bill of rights and the constitution, and defense of property rights, including elimination of property taxes, which is essentially rent paid to the government for property that the government owns and can take away from you, at any time.

Or perhaps a different or smaller set of core principles. The point is the gather a coalition of people to solve a small set of the most important issues rather than having a stated position on each and every little thing. We can settle the important issues that threaten to tear this country apart, then when that is over, we can fight over the less important things.

The problem with distilling Libertarianism down to core principles in an effort to widen its appeal, is that at it's core is ZAP and Voluntaryism.  This core principle is SO radical compared to the status quo, that by this standard, guys like Bob Barr wouldn't even be allowed in the party.  (This is also why many of my Voluntaryist friends will not support him nor the LP.)

But anything short of this is truly a distortion of what libertariansim is.  You cannot have state-sponsored theft and extortion (what normal people call "taxation") and claim that it follows libertarian core principles.

Now, don't get me wrong...  I'm a realist, and understand that for my vision of the world to exist, we must first move back to limited, Constitutional government, then even further to Minarchy.  After a generation or so of having a government that does almost nothing for us, and us doing almost everything for ourselves, I believe we might be able to simply cancel government due to lack of interest.

But make no mistake.  That IS the goal.  Anything less than a society where NO ONE, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT, is permitted to use force, the threat of force, or deception / fraud to compel another person to do something they do not want to do voluntarily -- we do NOT have true liberty and freedom.

I am not saying that those are the exact words we should use. I am just putting up an example to make a point.

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

I'm with you there.  Too many people focus on Barr's negatives such as his voting for the patriot act and supporting the war on drugs, but he also had good traits as a Congress critter.  I recall he was a huge privacy advocate as documented in this article documenting his efforts to remove the secret search provisions from the methamphetamine act. 

More positives can be found on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr

I was hoping Barr would get more traction.  There were a lot of people looking for somewhere to cast their votes.  Perhaps he will pick up enough disaffected republicans to make up for the votes he is losing in the libertarian sector.

David Jahn

Barr could double or triple some previous presidential vote totals AND still not break a million votes. I don't think Barr is a bad candidate. He's getting decent press, not great but decent. He's raising a good amount of money for a Libertarian candidate, not great but decent. He's running a reasonably good campaign, not great, but decent.

What campaign positions has Barr presented that people think shouldn't be coming from the LP Presidential candidate? It's not over until it is over. There is still time for things to pick up.