LLR Pages

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Jerome Kowalski's Pre-Eliminary Exam Postponed...Again

Jerome Kowalksi, the man charged with murdering his brother Richard, 65, and his sister-in-law Brenda, 58, in their Oceola Township home, is facing another postponement of his pre-eliminary exam, which was delayed the first time back on May 22.

This is what the Livingingston briefs in the Detroit Free Press reports today:

Countywide: Murder hearing adjourned

The preliminary exam for a Warren man accused of murdering his brother and sister-in-law in their Oceola Township home has been adjourned again for further discovery evidence to be presented to the defense attorney and pending lab analysis. Jerome Walter Kowalski, 61, was expected to appear before 53rd District Judge Carol Sue Reader today. The exam has been rescheduled for Sept. 11 to determine if there's enough evidence to bind the case over for trial in Livingston Circuit Court. Kowalski is charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of his brother, Richard Kowalski, 65, and his sister-in-law, Brenda Kowalski, 58. He faces life in prison if convicted.

I remain unconvinced that Kowalski was behind the murder of his brother and his sister-in-law, due to the unusual nature of the police's unwillingness to release the autopsy results that have still never been released to the public since May 6.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The Lew Rockwell Show

First, he started out as president of an educational research think tank named after a libertarian Austrian-British economist. Then, he was an author and blogger of an online popular political commentary website. And now, he's a talk radio show host.

Ludwig von Mises Institute president Lew Rockwell has just launched his new podcast show The Lew Rockwell Show. Each episode of the show is roughly 13 to 16 minutes long, in which he comments on various issues, particularly the state's affairs in every economic, cultural, and social facet of our lives. He also interviews prominent libertarian guests who, with him, will discuss various vile and diabolical acts against all of us committed by the state.

Here's a list of the first three episodes so far:

  • The first podcast -- the "pilot" if you will, which is entitled "The Fed and Friends" -- features Lew talking about what the Fed and the state are doing to our economy. (Running time: 16:12)

  • The second podcast, entitled "The Banks Are Broke," features Lew interviewing monetary/banking economist Joe Salerno who describes in depth the atrocities of the fractional-reserve and thus house-of-cards banking apparatus. (Running time: 13:19)

  • the third podcast, entitled "Who Killed The Constitution?," features Lew interviewing libertarian blogger and author Tom Woods who talks about his new book Who Killed the Constitution?, in which he posits how the Constitution was less libertarian than the Articles of Confederation and why we shouldn't care about it. (Running time: 16:58)

The show is vibrant, inspiring, and raw, not to mention highly eloquent. Lew's voice shows how strong and booming it is, in terms of how he communicates his pro-freedom ideas, although it may come off as somewhat intimidating to other people. His poignant interview and commentary styles are a reflection of how much of a true professional he is in the realm of liberty.

With him as my competition, I'll have to step it up now. Grade: A (I could have gone for A+, but decided against it because Lew's show is a bit too short).

Sunday, July 13, 2008

The Court of Public Relations

YouTube member, anti-state activist, (and Free State Project member) SamIam has produced an excellent 34-minute, 26-second documentary entitled The Court of Public Relations, in which he showcases the difference between government allegedly solving market needs and the free market truly solving market needs. A lot of the footage in the documentary shows Sam in a local Texan municipal court combating an officious government judge, a government prosecutor, and two law enforcement "government" officers.

The case involves Sam being hauled into court by the state for speeding on a public "government" road. The claim, by the judge, is that he was going 62 MPH over the 45 MPH speed limit. The officials at the courthouse coerce Sam (or at least try to coerce him) to enter a plea (they were enticing him to plead "guilty," but Sam refuse to partake in the process).

Sam appeared before the judge, attempted to ask him "a few questions." The judge refused to allow him to ask his questions and, in a series of ludicrous and farcical statements, the judge refused to comply with Sam's request to have his questions answered. The judge, at one point in the film, entered a "plea of not guilty" on Sam's behalf. Then Sam asked, "Am I required to understand the nature and cause of the proceeding against me?" The judge said, "No, sir. I'm just not going to put up with it. I'll just have you enter a not guilty plea." Sam refused to enter the not guilty plea, and the judge declared to him, "You don't question me, sir."

Watch the documentary in its entirety. It just shows how inherently vile and diabolical government is, especially within its own foundations:

[H/T to Free Talk Live's Ian Bernard who posted this on his blog.]

Oliva on Sandefur and Kinsella

Oliva continues his bizarre, false attacks on me (last one noted here):

My Last Post Ever…

…about Kinsella and Sandefur. To sum up the two divergent poles of “libertarianism”:

Kinsella: True libertarians never take any action to advance liberty.

Sandefur: True libertarians murder every man, woman and child who doesn’t share his worldview.

He is partially right about Sandefur--he's referring here to Sandefur's devotion to mass-murderer Lincoln and war perpetrated by big Western states against bad smaller states. But the way he wrote it is an exaggeration even of quasi-libertarian Tim Sandefur's views (and strange given his recent praise of Sandefur--here, here, and here).

He's wrong about me--I am not opposed to taking action to advance liberty. I don't even oppose suing the states in federal courts to try to vindicate my rights. I would do it. I simply maintain that outsider analysts should be honest. That's all. I might argue for incorporation as a plaintiff, because I want the feds to stop a state from hurting me. My argument might even persuade the court. (As I noted in my last reply to Oliva, "I of course support any victim of any state crime using another state against the offending state. If I were on the receiving end of a bad state law, sure, I'd use every argument in the book to try to persuade a federal judge to strike it down.")

But bhat does not mean it's honest or correct for a libertarian to say the court's interpretation of the Constitution is accurate, or that that feature is a libertarian one that should be part of any federal constitution.

As for this being his "last post" on me and La Sandefur, well, I remember when he "retired from blogging (2)." Uh, yeah. He has also given up (how does one do that?) "being a libertarian" -- see here.

Oliva's behavior of late is bizarre--attacking me for no reason, after years of friendly interaction. See e.g. here. Pro-Mises Instute, then against, now pro again; pro-Kinsella, now anti-; pro-Sandefur, now anti-; "libertarian", then "no longer". Wow, what a ride.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

San Francisco to Name Sewage Plant After George W. Bush

The City of San Francisco is preparing to vote on whether to rename one of its sewage plants after George W. Bush.

Here's an except of the story here from England's TimesOnline:

San Francisco is to hold a vote on whether to rename one of its largest sewage treatment facilities after George W. Bush, in what supporters describe as “a fitting monument to the President’s work”.

More than 8,500 signatures have already been gathered in support of the plan — 1,300 more than the minimum required to get the proposal on the November ballot. The scheme was devised by an official-sounding group called the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco.

"On matters ranging from foreign relations to fiscal and environmental stewardship, no other president in American history has accomplished so much in such a short time," says the group on its website. "We believe this is an appropriate honour for a truly unique president. If you think so too, join this grassroots movement to rename this important and iconic landmark in his honour."

The official renaming ceremony — the sewage facility is currently named the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant — would take place in January, when the next President is sworn in. Part of it would include a "synchronised flush", described as a way to send a gift to the renamed plant.

[H/T to Elizabeth Imeson on this great news tip.]

The Death of Pro-Bush Neocon Tony Snow

Like the media frenzy over the sudden yet unexpected demise of NBC's "Meet The Press" chief Tim Russert, the media hysteria over the sudden yet expected demise of the mainstream media's (MSM) "one of our own" pro-Bush neocon Tony Snow. Snow, who had passed away earlier today from colon cancer (which had taken its final toll on him by the way), certainly had the skills of real journalists like Russert but lacked one attribute that distinguished both gentlemen from Mencken, Hayek, Mises, etc.: the passion and desire for the truth.

While I wasn't able to express my condolences and sympathies to the Russert family at the time of his death on June 13, I do express my condolences and sympathies to the Snow family. However, I don't feel sorry for Snow because he was a compulsive liar, considering the dishonesty that persists to follow him to his grave. I can sympathize with a family who loses a loved one to cancer (even if that one is a politician), but I can't sympathize with one of the practitioners person for his lies and distortions that have become the hallmarks of his life and career.

What is interesting at this point is that Snow, like Russert, was in his fifties. Maybe -- just maybe -- this is the result of a lifetime of an erosion of his inner life, given the fact that he was a paid shill for the state and was a defender of the state's violent activities, especially when the ends justified the means (and, in the eyes of its current defenders, still does to this very day).

Friday, July 11, 2008

The State's Now In Your Hotel Bed

Leviathan plans to combat and ward off bed bugs at a hotel near you.

The vile and diabolical H.R. 6068 a.k.a. Don't Let The Bed Bugs Bite Act of 2008 is a government boondoggle constructed to prop up a welfare program to "assist States in inspecting hotel rooms for bed bugs." And guess what how much taxpayers will be forced to shell out to pay for this pork?

They'll be arm twisted to pay for it at a tune of -- get this!! -- $50,000,000.

More on the story here.

Here's the full text of the bill, in case anyone doesn't feel like going to the Library of Congress' website:

Don't Let the Bed Bugs Bite Act of 2008 (Introduced in House)

HR 6068 IH


2d Session

H. R. 6068

To establish a grant program to assist States in inspecting hotel rooms for bed bugs.


May 15, 2008

Mr. BUTTERFIELD (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. MATSUI, and Mr. JEFFERSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce


To establish a grant program to assist States in inspecting hotel rooms for bed bugs.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Don't Let the Bed Bugs Bite Act of 2008'.


Congress finds that--

(1) on February 12, 2008, a thorough inspection of a hotel in Nashua, New Hampshire, found that 16 of 117 rooms were infested with bedbugs;

(2) cimex lectularius, commonly known as bed bugs, travel through the ventilation systems in multi-unit establishments causing exponential infestations;

(3) female bedbugs can lay up to 5 eggs in a day and 500 during a lifetime;

(4) bedbug populations in the United States have increased by 500 percent in the past few years;

(5) in 2004, New York City had 377 bedbug violations and from July to November of 2005, a 5-month span, there were 449 violations reported in the city, an alarming increase in infestations over a short period of time;

(6) in a study of 700 hotel rooms between 2002 and 2006, 25 percent of hotels were found to be in need of bedbug treatment; and

(7) bed bugs possess all of the necessary prerequisites for being capable of passing diseases from one host to another.


(a) Administration; Amount- The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, may provide grants to an eligible State to assist such State in carrying out the inspections described in subsection (c). The grants shall be in amounts determined by the Secretary, taking into consideration the relative needs of the State.

(b) Eligibility- A State is eligible for a grant under this Act if the State has established a program whereby not fewer than 20 percent of rooms in lodging facilities in such State are inspected annually for cimex lectularius, commonly know as the bed bug. The Federal share of funding for such a program shall not exceed 80 percent.

(c) Use of Grants- A State may use a grant received under this Act to--

(1) conduct inspections of lodging facilities for cimex lectularius, including transportation, lodging, and meal expenses for inspectors;

(2) train inspection personnel; and

(3) educate the proprietors and staff of lodging establishments about methods to prevent and eradicate cimex lectularius.

(d) Application- To receive a grant under this Act, an eligible State shall submit an application to the Secretary of Commerce in such form and containing such information as the Secretary shall determine.

(e) Definition of Lodging Facility- For purposes of this Act and the requirement under subsection (b) for State programs receiving funding under this Act, the term `lodging facility' means any individual hotel, motel, or inn that makes available for commercial lodging more than 10 individual rooms.

(f) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012 to the Secretary of Commerce for the grants authorized under this Act.


The Secretary of Commerce shall transmit a report to Congress not later than 3 years after the issuance of the first grant authorized under this Act, which shall contain an assessment of the effectiveness of the grant program.

[A H/T to LLR reader Elizabeth Imeson for the news item.]

More of Abraham Obama

[H/T to Lew Rockwell blogger Nick Bradley for posting this on the LRC blog.]

Abraham Obama

Apparently, a street artist from Boston completed his grand creation -- a mural that melds the faces of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama together in a rainbow of colors, although they are "multiple composite portraits." Unfortunately, by doing so, it ignited a ruckus with the city residents who feel the artist's ad blitz was unauthorized, considering it has covered the entire city.

Here's a photo for those who would love to see the mural:

[H/T goes to Elizabeth Imeson for her news tip on this.]

Flint Cops to Teens: "Pull Up Pants or Face Either Fines or Jail Time"

Andrew Sullivan on the Flint, Michigan police department's vile and diabolical crackdown on baggy pants.

Here's an illustrated photo of the crackdown (H/T to the Free Press for posting it on its news page and Sullivan for posting it on his blog):

[H/T to Elizabeth Imeson for sending this news item to me.]

Eric Dondero Is Wrong About Me, Bob Barr, and Senator Jesse Helms

On Tuesday, July 8, 2008, on Eric Dondero Rittberg's Libertarian Republican blog, Dondero portrayed me as a loopy, out-of-control critic who needed to be put on a political leash after I lambasted his presidential candidate for not only extending his condolences to the family of the late white supremacist Senator Jesse Helms but also praising the late senator by saying that Helms "was one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress." Not only that, he urged his loyal supporters, party loyalists, and all Americans to "stop and give thanks to God for the life and work of Jesse Helms."

Of course, LP presidential candidate Bob Barr also stated the following in the first paragraph of his press release:

As President’s Reagan’s right hand and ally, he helped bring down Communism so that nations might grow and flourish in freedom. He was a stalwart ally of freedom fighters around the globe, knowing that we are all diminished if we allow fascism to flourish. He was also the consummate gentleman, revered by colleagues, staff and friends for his unfailing kindness, good humor, generosity and patriotism.

Shortly after Barr posted his press release, many Libertarians in the LP and in the movement were disgusted with his remarks, leading to Bob Barr supporter Doug Craig, the blogger for Crazy for Liberty, to rescind his support for him. It seemed pretty clear to me and to many Libertarians (who are not willing to openly comment on this uproar because they may be supporting Barr and fear of political reprisal if they do) that Craig had, in an angry fashion, rejected what Barr said in his press release. Of course, I'm not the only one who blasted Barr for his remarks. After all, he has opened himself to attacks, whether he intended for that to happen or not. (Case in point: read the Independent Political Report and Last Free Voice for articles from July 7 through July 9 if you want the reactions of many Libertarians and former Libertarians (including G.E. Smith) who expressed their outright disgust with Barr, the LP, and the press release.)

No matter how you spin it, you cannot deny the fact that Barr has now officially made himself to be a racist sympathizer. If he had sent out a press release saying that he was merely giving his condolences to the Helms family and ended it there, I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But it didn't happen that way. Barr went much further, urging Americans, fellow campaign supporters and party loyalists to thank a racist politician who, among other things, supported racist policies like the Jim Crow laws of the South and looked at African Americans as though they were subhuman creatures who didn't deserve to be treated equally under the law, let alone be deserving of individual rights at all. It was repugnant, evil, and diabolical.

Under IPR's post reporting Craig's ire of Barr's press release, I wrote a comment, but it was addressed to Gene Trosper (who, as a "reformer in the LP, believes that expediency and attainment of power without regard for shrinking the cost, size, and scope of government will make the LP a successful political vehicle that has failed to gain electoral and political power for well over 30 years). The following comment went like this:

Yeah, Badnarik’s campaign really set the standard for future campaigns, eh?

Go jump off a cliff for a change, Trosper.

Your candidate — the guy you’ve been cheerleading for a while since the Denver convention — is a racist sympathizer and a supporter of racism. He praised a senator who should NEVER be praised. In fact, he should be damned for the evils he brought into this world.

This isn’t about Michael Badnarik and his 2004 campaign. That campaign, yes, was a joke, but only because collectivists and GOP shills invaded and infested that campaign. But it’s a moot matter, because that was 4 years ago. We’re talking about Barr and his praising of a white supremacist senator who went from being a Democrat to a Republican and was a racist.

Helms was a Republican. He was a conservative. Conservatives are vile, evil, and repugnant. He should be damned, and his grave should be spit upon. It’s a damn good thing this man is dead, because he’s a vile turd who deserves to burn in hell.

Bob Barr, who has the temerity to praise this man, should drop out of the LP and save the Party any future embarrassment. He will be doing you guys, the Party, his campaign supporters, and himself a huge favor.

Look around you, Gene. The LP is dying. The Barr/Root campaign ain’t getting the coverage that you guys claimed he would. Except for his joke-of-an-appearance on Glenn Beck and several Fox News shows, he’s gotten little to no coverage nationwide. And his campaign promise of $40 million? Puh-leeze! He’s only accumulated over $330,000 in donations, the most he’ll probably get is $350,000, maybe a little more than that.

Any one who supports a presidential candidate who supports a racist is a moron, not to mention a racist scumbag, and should be treated as such.

Yours in Liberty,

Todd Andrew Barnett
Vice Chair, Boston Tea National Committee

What I wrote was essentially true. Helms was a Democrat who switched to the Republican aisle but his racist views never changed. He was a racist. He supported racist policies. None of his policies, while he was in office, were very George Wallacesque. The images of the Ku Klux Klan saying that "Negros" have no rights and that the "coloreds" must use separate bathrooms are just appalling and disgusting. Government-sanctioned and government-sponsored racism, including the kind of racism that we saw during the Jim Crow era (and Helms was a big sponsor of those laws).

Helm's "unfailing kindness" was never extended to African-Americans of that period, and I, as a free marketeer, will NEVER, EVER support a Libertarian politician who speaks warmly of a bigoted, racist politician who once penned an ad for a racist Democratic candidate that said: "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races."

Of course, this is also the same Jesse Helms, who worked for an unsuccessful Democratic primary gubernatorial campaign of I. Beverly Lake, Sr. Lake himself was a staunch supporter of racial segregation -- a clear-cut indication that he supported government-mandated, government-imposed racist policies that espoused hatred and contempt for blacks in the South.

So what does all of this have to do with Eric Dondero Rittberg? Rittberg wrote a post for his blog, excoriating me for blasting Barr's praise of Helms. He wrote the following:

Todd Andrew Barnett (photo) serves as the National Vice-Chairman of the Boston Tea Party. Barnett is a 30s something, sometimes employed, self-proclaimed "Bi-Sexual Radical" living with his parents in a southeast Michigan Detroit suburb. He also has a sporadically produced internet radio show called "Liberty Cap Radio."

The BTP is a creation of Anarchist Libertarian Tom Knapp. The Party had been defunct for over a year, but was recently revitalized in reaction to "Republican" Bob Barr winning the Libertarian nomination.

Now the BTP's Vice-Chair Todd Andrew Barnett has officially taken Mr. Barr to task. From the Independent Political Report yesterday:

Your candidate [Bob Barr] — the guy you’ve been cheerleading for a while since the Denver convention — is a racist sympathizer and a supporter of racism. He praised a senator [Jesse Helms] who should NEVER be praised. In fact, he should be damned for the evils he brought into this world...

Helms was a Republican. He was a conservative. Conservatives are vile, evil, and repugnant. He should be damned, and his grave should be spit upon. It’s a damn good thing this man is dead, because he’s a vile turd who deserves to burn in hell.

Bob Barr, who has the temerity to praise this man, should drop out of the LP and save the Party any future embarrassment. He will be doing you guys, the Party, his campaign supporters, and himself a huge favor.

Look around you... The LP is dying. The Barr/Root campaign ain’t getting the coverage that you guys claimed he would. Except for his joke-of-an-appearance on Glenn Beck and several Fox News shows, he’s gotten little to no coverage nationwide. And his campaign promise of $40 million? Puh-leeze! He’s only accumulated over $330,000 in donations, the most he’ll probably get is $350,000, maybe a little more than that.

Any one who supports a presidential candidate who supports a racist is a moron, not to mention a racist scumbag, and should be treated as such.

This was written two days after Bob Barr appeared on ABC News with George Stephanopholous, and CNN with Rick Sanchez. Barnett appears to be completely unaware of those media appearances. By some informal estimates now, Bob Barr has received more publicity than all other past Libertarian Presidential candidates combined. Within the last couple weeks, articles on Barr have appeared in the NY Times, LA Times, WSJ, Washington Post, Washington Times, and numerous other periodicals across the Nation. Just today, Wonkette has a major story on Barr, as does the NY Observer.

The $330,000 fundraising figure Barnett cites is also a bit dated. Sources indicate that Barr's fundraising is now nearing the $500,000 level with 4 months still left in the campaign.

Barnett further asserts, that the "LP is dying" as a result of the Barr campaign. Recent indications are that the Libertarian Party will achieve 49 state ballot (possiblility still of all 50), 5 states more than 2004, and second only to the 1980, and 2000 campaigns which gained all 50 states.

Barnett may be entitled to his views on Barr as an alleged "racist" and "conservative," but he should get his facts straight before ranting about the LP Presidential candidate. After all, shouldn't we expect more from the "National Vice-Chairman of the Boston Tea Party."

Posted by Eric Dondero at 5:39 AM 10 comments

Dondero is a hothead, and he certainly loves to spin his lies to make himself out to be the victim. He uses the same technique for Bob Barr. In his pathetic defense of his candidate, he goes out of his way to say that what I wrote is b.s. He says that I "should get [my] facts straight before ranting about the LP Presidential candidate."

I have some things to respond to this:

1.) Eric should know that I back everything I say. And, even if I don't back everything I say, everything that's posted on IPR and LFV's websites speaks for itself. That goes without saying.

2.) Eric starts out his rant with mentioning that I am in my '30s, that I live in a "southeast Michigan Detroit suburb". He also has the gall to mention my parents, which I find offensive, considering that this has nothing to do with them. So I do wish that he would leave them out of it. And as for my employment status and sexual preference, all of that is none of his business. He has no business posting that on his blog, let alone any references to my family. If he has a gripe with me, fine. He needs to leave my family members out of it and focus his hatred of me towards me.

3.) My online internet show is called Liberty Cap Talk Live, not "Liberty Cap Radio." (For someone who is a self-professed English instructor, you would think he would proofread his own blog, but apparently he doesn't.) If you want to mention my show, please get the title right.

4.) Dondero says that my citing of Barr's donation figure (which I used as "over $330,000") was "a bit dated." I may have been off on the actual amount, but I was generally correct. But, even if I had been off on the figure a bit, so what? Barr's fundraising practices and records are hardly impressive. Even if his donations top over $400,000 or even $500,000, it won't even reach the neighborhood of $40 million (which the Barr campaign promised its supporters that it would raise). Plus, with the economy on the downswing, why would anyone want to donate money to that campaign? People can't afford to make any political donations of that magnitude, given the state of the U.S. economy. Who are Dondero, Barr, and their sycophants kidding?

5.) Dondero claims that the Barr campaign will be on the ballot in 49 states. Hardly. Although the goal was to get the campaign on the ballot in 38 states, it actually will find itself on the ballot in 30 states, without any further possibility that it will be anything more than that. Dondero's claim of "49 states" should be treated with a grain of salt.

Moreover, my statement that "the LP is dying" is true. Membership, as LP founder David Nolan recently stated, is down 20 percent from 2004 and 30 percent from 2000. At the rate it's going, membership will continue to decline, even if a few new people join the party. But, even if new people do join the LP as "members," it will hardly offset the significant decline in the Party membership.

6.) Finally, Dondero claims that I didn't take into account Barr's TV appearance with George Stephanopholous and CNN's Rick Sanchez and the newpaper media mentioning him (like the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.). Actually, I did take all of that into account. So what if Barr made those appearances? Media exposure may be helping his campaign a lot. But that's NOT lots of media coverage. That's some media coverage, but he's not getting the kind of coverage that Ron Paul got throughout his presidential campaign. The difference is between Barr and Paul is that Paul deserved the coverage because people were coming to him, whereas Barr has been trying to get the media's attention. Paul was doing things newsworthy, whereas Barr hasn't.

Furthermore, Ron generated the firestorm for his campaign through college kids and the Meet-up groups, something that Barr hasn't been able to achieve. Barr just doesn't emit the kind of interest and passion for his campaign as Paul did for his. Plus, Ron Paul was FAR more libertarian on the issues, and he was consistently against the war and kept pounding on the foreign policy of non-intervention issue, whereas Barr is a selective interventionist at the global level. Ron opposed the War on Drugs, whereas Barr doesn't. Even Ron spoke out against the government's persecution of people who used marijuana for medicinal purposes, although Barr's record on marijuana, while appearing to have improved, is very mixed and inconsistent. How is Barr any better than Ron or any other candidate?

And, and can I say that Ron's campaign generated the level of interest that Ronald Reagan never did? You can't say the same for Barr.

With the recent departure of Chris Bennett from the LP and the LNC's despicable actions toward Angela Keaton, it's pretty clear that the LP will not survive at all at the closing of the 2008 election season. The chance of any survival is terribly remote. With the platform obliterated and the LP becoming more Republican-lite every day and no longer rooted in its libertarian foundations, should we really be surprised? My answer would be a firm "no."

This is why the Boston Tea Party is succeeding where the LP failed. This is why Charles Jay is a better candidate than Bob Barr. This is the reason why the BTP will pick up where the LP left off and will continue to do so for posterity.

As for Dondero? He's a Republican shill who has no business using the label "libertarian" to further his partisan interests at the expense of human liberty which was once the bedrock of this nation. As a traitor to liberty, Dondero will pay a huge price for it, and that price will come sooner than he thinks. Whatever form it will take, I'm not certain.

But what is that I want nothing to do with the likes of him...or anyone like him. And I think that my sanity will be better for it.

As far as I'm concerned, Eric Dondero is wrong about me, Bob Barr, and Jesse Helms. He's neither qualified nor worthy of respect and trust to make these statements about me, his racist sympathizing presidential candidate, and racist Senator Jesse Helms.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Cross-posted from the Boston Tea Party website.]

Thursday, July 10, 2008

In Stephan Kinsella’s Libertarianism…

Presumably in response to recent posts of mine (The Great Gun Decision: Dissent; To Hell with Heller; Heller and the States; The "deeply dishonest" opponents of the President...; ), Skip (not Dave) Oliva writes:

In Stephan Kinsella’s Libertarianism…

…the government can take everything you own…

…the police can murder you and your family without consequence…

…religious fanatics can take control of your body and mind…

…regulators can destroy productive capital and plunge the economy into depression…

…and if you do anything to challenge these acts, you will be branded as the enemy of “true” libertarianism.
Let's take the first four. I presume by "government" Oliva means "state." Now, does he really mean "can"? That just means ability. Certainly, states do steal and murder--and therefore they "can". In my libertarianism, states do not exist since they are widely regarded as criminal.

Perhaps Oliva means "may", as in permission. That is, he is alleging that I believe it is permissible for states to exist, and to rob, murder, and regulate. Where he got the idea that I think it's permissible for states to exist, or commit crime, I do not know, since I'm an anarchist (and Oliva is not even a libertarian).

I suspect what the confused, inarticulate, non-libertarian Mr. Oliva is trying to say is this: if you do not believe that the federal government has (or should have?) the constitutional authority to strike down unlibertarian laws of the several states, then you are in favor of these unlibertarian laws. But when you make plain what he's really saying, it's obviously false.

His last comment is also false. I of course support any victim of any state crime using another state against the offending state. If I were on the receiving end of a bad state law, sure, I'd use every argument in the book to try to persuade a federal judge to strike it down. But there's a difference between advocacy and objective, honest, outside analysis.