How Is It That Pillows Are Still Legal?

Last Saturday night (February 23, 2008), at the Libertarian Party of California's state convention, LP presidential candidate George Phillies hosted a hospitality suite for California delegates. Here he greeted and glad-handed them, offered wine and cheese, discussed his policy proposals, and answered questions.


Little did Phillies know that, in the very next room, a heated debate over an especially controversial by-laws provision had erupted into violence!


Before the eyes of terrified onlookers, Libertarian Party national Vice Chair Chuck Moulton and LNC At-Large Representative Angela Keaton became engaged in a savage pillow fight!


The two combatants lashed out with their death pillows, while shrieking competing interpretations of Roberts Rules of Order.


Fearing that hostilities may escalate into soft cushions and comfy chairs, libertarian onlookers began debating (1) whether the use of pillows violated the non-aggression principle, and (2) whether stopping the fight would violate the non-intervention principle.


One Objectivist insisted that dropping a nuclear bomb on the combatants in order to prevent the proliferation of pillows in the hands of anarcho-fascists would be moral -- unless it were done for altruistic reasons.

Wayne Allyn Root's Bogus Image Change

The pro-war Root is trying to recast his image, and (like the empty skirt, Christine Smith) ride Paul’s coattails to the LP nomination.

“Hey, I’m not Paul, but I’m just as good. Really, honest Injun, I’m just like him. Pay no attention to my past, pro-war pronouncements.”

Yet even now, Root says that the Iraq War was "a mistake," rather than that it was morally wrong. Nor has he pulled back his past pronouncements calling for war on Iran.

Now that Paul is out, I’m still hoping that Karen Kwiatkowski will jump in. (Pretty slim chance, at this late point, but I can hope…)

If not Kwiatkowski, then I guess I’ll support Kubby or Phillies, most likely in that order. Either is okay with me.

Wayne Allyn Root Trounced in Otherwise Meaningless Primary

Here are the mostly irrelevant results for Super Tuesday's Libertarian Party presidential "primary election" in California. They indicate little, apart from Root's lack of appeal.

(Below the results, I explain why they indicate nothing, apart from Root's failure as a candidate.)

Christine Smith (Lib) 3,490 25.1 %
Steve Kubby (Lib) 2,362 17.0 %
Wayne A. Root (Lib) 1,918 13.8 %
Bob Jackson (Lib) 1,230 8.9 %
Barry Hess (Lib) 749 5.4 %
George Phillies (Lib) 698 5.1 %
Michael P. Jingozian 655 4.7 %
Daniel Imperato (Lib) 599 4.3 %
Robert Milnes (Lib) 605 4.3 %
John Finan (Lib) 588 4.2 %
Dave Hollist (Lib) 565 4.0 %
Alden Link (Lib) 447 3.2 %

Now, here's why Christine Smith's "victory" is really not a victory at all...

The "primary voters" for this election came from the 83-86,000 (last I heard) registered Libertarians in California. Unlike the 1,200+ dues-paying CLP members (from which the likely 50 or so CLP delegates to the LP national convention will be chosen), primary voters don't follow internal LP politics, so they're unfamiliar with the candidates.

It's thus not surprising that the only female name, Christine Smith, won. Sorry, but Smith won due to voter ignorance, and because of her sex. (And before you call me a "sexist," remember, I'm the one who's been promoting Karen Kwiatkowski for president these last several years.)

Smith's victory does not reflect her actual support among the eventual California delegation. It doesn't even reflect her support among primary voters, since they voted for her out of ignorance.

However, the real loser was Wayne Allyn Root. Root is the only LP candidate who is known to primary voters. Root's the only one who's appeared on Major Media for months now, doing talk radio and cable TV shows throughout Southern California.

And still, with all that Major Media attention, Root came in third.

Smith won due to voter ignorance. Root lost due to voter awareness.

I predict that neither candidate will be the favorite of the CLP (or national) delegation at the national convention.

But Do They Want Freedom for You?

Here's my latest editorial, which appears in the February issue of California Freedom:

In the late 1970s, New York radio host Bob Grant griped, "The American people have a peasant mentality. What they really want is fascism. They just don't want to call it fascism."

Conversely, some libertarians (sounding more like motivational speakers than political philosophers) brag that we have the most popular "product" in politics -- liberty! They cite the many people who score "libertarian" on the Nolan chart, then blame our dismal vote totals on "poor marketing"; all we need are candidates with the expertise to "sell liberty" in the "marketplace of votes."

I worry that Grant has the more accurate worldview. The Nolan chart overestimates our numbers. The chart is effective at marketing, but not at market research. It entices people into investigating the LP, but most of its questions (so far as I've seen) practice push-polling. Most Nolan chart questions are phrased so respondents will more likely fall into the libertarian quadrant by asking people about their own freedoms.

Well, most people think they should be free to do whatever. That's not a problem. Rather, threats to liberty have historically come from people who (1) want their liberty subsidized, or (2) don't trust others with liberty.

If asked, Should you or the government choose your doctor?, most people would score libertarian. But if they are instead asked, Should government health care funding increase so that you can afford the doctor of your choice?, many of those "Nolan chart libertarians" would now score "liberal." Likewise, while most people think they can choose wisely about owning a gun, taking drugs, paying for sex, sending their child to school, etc., fewer trust their neighbors with those decisions.

Libertarians often speak of government as if it were an alien being with a life of its own, apart from the people. Yet people (great and small) get political power, economic favors, salaries, "private" contracts, entitlement checks, etc. from the State. Socialism-imperialism is sustained by people who believe (often correctly) that they're better off with the State than they'd be under freedom.

How many people want liberty for themselves, much less for you? Consider two examples:

In 1994, Newt Gingrich led a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, winning votes with his libertarian-sounding Contract With America. And he delivered! Gingrich made a sincere attempt to push his "libertarian lite" agenda into law, resulting in the 1995 government shutdown when President Clinton refused to sign the GOP Congress's slightly smaller budget.

Remember what happened next?

Only a tiny portion of government shut down, yet people panicked! Polls indicated that most Americans blamed Gingrich for the shutdown (as if it were a bad thing), and that they thought his "libertarian lite" budget was "extremist." And so, politically crippled by an uneducated, statist electorate, Gingrich gave up on liberty.

In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger promised smaller government when running for governor of California. And he delivered! Twice! First, by taking his "libertarian lite" reforms to the state legislature. After the legislature rejected them, he took his reforms directly to the people via four 2005 ballot propositions.

And the people rejected them!

I'm not saying that Gingrich or Schwarzenegger are libertarians. But both men made authentic (if slight) attempts at advancing liberty -- and the people threw liberty back into their faces. Whereupon both men gave up and fully embraced statism. (Why not? These men represent political parties, so it's natural that they focus on "getting votes.")

It seems Grant was right. Americans love the rhetoric of liberty, yet they get nervous when the chains loosen. No wonder they keep re-electing politicians who talk freedom and deliver slavery.

Many people want their "liberty" paid for by the State. Or they want "liberty for me but not for thee." The State needn't hide its outrages; the people are complicit. Radio shock jocks play "Don't taze me bro!" for laughs. Water boarding has ardent fans. So does NSA wiretapping. ("Hey, if someone's got nothing to hide...") Years ago, Liberty reported about a young man imprisoned on a marijuana charge, who contracted AIDS from prison rape and died. Yet comedians joke about prison rape because audiences think it's hilarious.

"Liberty for me but not for thee." Not principled, but certainly pragmatic.

That's why the term "liberty maximizing" (used in some LP circles) discomforts me. It sounds ominously utilitarian. The greatest liberty for the greatest number. What's wrong with that? Well, it can lead to unprincipled, anti-individualist policies. If you eliminate all taxes on 99% of the people by increasing taxes on the remaining 1%, you've a "net gain" in liberty -- very "liberty maximizing" (too bad for the unfortunate 1%). Likewise, if you "liberate" ten million people by napalming 100,000, some may judge that to be "the greatest liberty for the greatest number" -- tough cookies if your daughter was among those burnt to a crisp.

Our problem is not marketing a popular "product"; it's that many people don't even know what liberty is. That liberty does not entitle one to subsidies. That liberty is not democracy; just because a majority voted for it, and it's legal, does not make it moral. That liberty demands you respect the rights of others -- even of foreigners and "bad people."

I am baffled by Libertarians who attack Schwarzenegger for expanding government, yet who want to ignore political education in favor of "getting votes." If an uneducated electorate thought Gingrich and Schwarzenegger's tepid agendas were "too extreme," then how much more so must the LP compromise to compete for votes?

Of course, we can run candidates on those pro-liberty issues that are already popular with most voters (such as ending the war -- thank God most Americans do not see the war as "liberty maximizing"). But if we are to "get votes" without selling out, we must change the culture through educational election campaigns, and the arts, and any other means available. Otherwise, even if we are elected to office, the people will block our reforms.

Steve Kubby Invites Me on His Radio Show

Last Friday, January 4th, I was a guest on Steve Kubby's Blogtalk Radio show. He and I, and Richard Cowan, discussed the Ron Paul phenomenon and the upcoming presidential election.

We pretty much agreed on all the big issues. The importance of putting principle and liberty first, ahead of party politics. And that the Ron Paul phenomenon is a good thing for libertarians.

Christine Smith's Unfocused Christmas Ramblings

Christine Smith has posted more silliness on her blog. A "Christmas message" full of fluff and nonsense, signifying nothing other than that she's not ready for prime time.

Apart from the embarrassingly silly photos of this presidential aspirant frolicking in the snow (buried in snow up to her waist in one of them), there are her unfocused ramblings. Smith tells us that many people begged her to stay in the presidential race, that she likes Ron Paul, then she heaps praise on Christmas, and non-religious people, and liberty, and compassion, and Frederic Bastiat.

Smith writes: "For me, Christmas is all about liberty...all about freedom."

It may be for her, but it's an inaccurate understanding of Christmas. Liberty is good, and Christmas is good, but Christmas is not about freedom -- unless Smith means that Christ freed us from sin. But Smith never mentions sin in her post. Perhaps she imagines that Christianity is a celebration of doing your own thing?

She goes on to explain: "[Christmas] is a celebration of love, and love, by my definition, is the opposite of fear...and thus a celebration of love, Christmas, is inherently a celebration of liberty."

For the record, I am both a Catholic and a libertarian. It's my assessment that Jesus was apolitical. One can be a socialist or a libertarian, and be equally Christian. Jesus permits one to "render unto Caesar" because Jesus' kingdom "is not of this Earth." We may choose socialism or libertarianism while on Earth. The ancient Hebrews chose monarchy. I choose libertarianism, but it's not an inherently Christian choice. (Murderous totalitarianism is anti-Christian, but most forms of government are not -- sorry, fellow libertarians.)

Smith writes: "[Christmas is] also a time when libertarianism flourishes whether people realize it or not. People and businesses voluntarily give to charities and individuals, with compassion being the motivator. It's a lesson for all those who cling to their fundamentally immoral socialistic programs: people care, people freely give, people will care for one another - and we don't need Big Brother stealing from us to supposedly give to the poor on our behalf."

That's a nice sentiment, but again, it's inaccurate to say that "libertarianism flourishes" because altruism flourishes. Libertarianism allows for altruism, but does not require it. A society that shuns the poor, and one that voluntarily helps the poor, can be equally libertarian. One may behave as Scrooge or Mother Teresa and be equally libertarian (although not equally Christian).

Libertarianism is not compassion. It allows for altruism, and it allows for selfishness. It makes no judgment. In "selling liberty," some libertarians claim that a free society is more generous to the poor than is a socialist society. This may or may not be so, but it's a sales pitch. Let's not confuse the pitch with the philosophy. Only a dishonest or intellectually confused libertarian would do so.

There are, of course, intellectually dishonest people in the LP. Those who bend the philosophy to make it more palatable to the public. There are also intellectually weak-minded people in the LP. This happens when "getting votes" and "attracting members" become more important than educating the cadres and the masses.

There's much feel-good mush interwoven into Smith's unfocused "Christmas message." She tells us: "There are Christian libertarians, Jewish libertarians, pagan libertarians, agnostics and atheists...there are as many type libertarians as there are unique individual beliefs in this world, and this fact reinforces for me the intrinsic rightness of liberty. Because what we share in common is our focus on liberty, and for me, liberty recognizes, respects, and honors each individual's choice to worship or believe as they so choose. Liberty is the state of true love for mankind, giving all the ability to live life as they so choose free from intrusion and regulation."

Smith's is a standard politician's message (albeit written without benefit of a skilled speechwriter or editor). She hits many positive "talking points" but fails to convincingly tie them together. Liberty is good. Christmas is good. Compassion is good. If you don't believe in Christmas, that's good too.

Smith's "Christmas message" is intellectually insulting to both Christianity and libertarianism, because it dummies down both. Whether Smith does so out of ignorance, expediency, or poor communication skills, I don't know. I suspect all of the above.

Other libertarian bloggers have found Smith to be lacking in intellectual rigor. Maybe that's why Smith's "Christmas message" name-drops her reading list. She writes: "This year has found me discovering the many writings of Frederic Bastiat, Leonard Read, and Hayek. I cannot begin to explain the joy I feel at finding them."

I guess it's nice that Smith feels such joy, but I really don't give a damn about her -- or any other candidate's -- feelings. It reminds me of "compassionate conservative" Bush spending the 2000 race rambling about his feelings, always wanting to "tell you what's in my heart." In a candidate, I want a principled person with a clear understanding of, and commitment to, the Constitution. Not some squishy mush-head spouting a stream-of-consciousness about her feelings, even if she does pepper her ramblings with positive words like "liberty" and "freedom" and "compassion."

There's much nonsense when Smith's rambles about her feelings, some of it as embarrassing as her snow frolic photos: "I celebrate this re-awakening of the basis of libertarianism within me...my heart sings and I am flying again as a result."

Fly away, snowbird! Fly away!

Ron Paul "New Year's Eve" March

Organizers are planning a series of Ron Paul marches on New Year's Eve -- in cities throughout America! The idea is to generate media buzz by creating a "media bomb" of an event.

Find out how you can participate in a Ron Paul march in your city.