PDA

View Full Version : Splitoff from libertarian party



FUCK THE POLICE
08-21-2006, 07:47 PM
http://bostontea.us/node

In the 30 years the LP has existed, there has never been a splinter group, to my knowledge. But now that the LP has decided to allow individual members more freedom to choose policies that will actually get them to win, a splinter group has emerged with the same unreasonable, ridiculous positions that are never going to win them anything. If the libertarian party can't survive a change to allow more moderation and diversity in the party it doesn't exist, and these people are idiots. They could've just ran under the normal libertarian label, nothing was preventing them from it. Yet, they had to splinter off and form a stupid unwinnable party because of it. A big thumbs down for them.

OrnotBitwise
08-22-2006, 11:16 AM
http://bostontea.us/node

In the 30 years the LP has existed, there has never been a splinter group, to my knowledge. But now that the LP has decided to allow individual members more freedom to choose policies that will actually get them to win, a splinter group has emerged with the same unreasonable, ridiculous positions that are never going to win them anything. If the libertarian party can't survive a change to allow more moderation and diversity in the party it doesn't exist, and these people are idiots. They could've just ran under the normal libertarian label, nothing was preventing them from it. Yet, they had to splinter off and form a stupid unwinnable party because of it. A big thumbs down for them.
LOL! Welcome to the world of extremist politics.

Been there, done that and have thrown the t-shirt away. We lefties call 'em "splitters" and other, less kind things. You ever see the movie The Life of Brian? One of the many things I love about that flick is how absolutely perfectly they captured the essence life in a far left party -- in their case, the People's Front of Judea.

When your party is made up of genuinely passionate people, this kind of thing is inevitable. Seriously. Don't take the red pill just because it's getting a little rough.

Thomas L. Knapp
08-22-2006, 12:16 PM
Watermark,

You write:

"In the 30 years the LP has existed, there has never been a splinter group, to my knowledge."

Actually, there have been several. In the late 1990s, a "new" Libertarian Party split off from the existing one in Arizona, and ended up replacing the existing one as the national party's affiliate ... but not getting the real Arizona LP's ballot line -- so while the rest of America saw Harry Browne's name on the LP's presidential ballot line, Arizonans saw L. Neil Smith's. The splinter group eventually managed to get the courts to declare them the "real" Arizona LP.

I'm pretty sure the Personal Choice Party is also an LP "splinter." They ran a 2004 presidential slate (Charles Jay for president, porn star Marilyn Chambers for VP), and routinely run candidates in Utah.

I believe there are two or three different "Libertarian Party" variants in Florida.

And so on, and so forth.

Also, the LP has existed for 35 years.

"But now that the LP has decided to allow individual members more freedom to choose policies that will actually get them to win"

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There's never been anything to prevent individual LP members from advocating whatever positions they wanted -- nor is there really much evidence yet for the proposition that the actions taken at the LP's 2006 national convention, which were the proximate cause for the founding of the Boston Tea Party, will result in any surge of electoral victories for LP candidates.

I do know a little bit about this. I've managed two winning Libertarian campaigns for local office and I'm a federal appointed officeholder myself. It may be that I know a little more than you thnk about what it takes for libertarians to win elections (oh, yeah -- I'm also the founder of the Boston Tea Party).


"a splinter group has emerged with the same unreasonable, ridiculous positions that are never going to win them anything."

If you're going to criticize a party's positions, you might want to actually look into them first. In point of fact, at least two of the five points in the Boston Tea Party's program are MORE MODERATE than the traditional, or even current, LP stance. The LP calls for the repeal of all drug laws. The BTP calls for the legalization of marijuana and hemp. The LP calls for an end to the income tax. The BTP calls for regularized "bottom up" cuts to that tax. The other three points of the BTP's program aren't especially radical by current standards: Withdrawal from Iraq, repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act, and repeal of the "REAL ID" national identification scheme.

"If the libertarian party can't survive a change to allow more moderation and diversity in the party"

Do you have any particular reason for believing that the changes which occurred happened for the purpose of "allowing more moderation and diversity in the party," or that they will have that effect?

Right now, as small as it is, the Boston Tea Party has members ranging from anarchists to left-libertarians to conservative "libertarian Republicans." Our litmus test -- endorsement of a one-sentence, means-based platform that dictates direction but not distance -- is much less restrictive than the LP's membership pledge which, read in anything resembling historical context and original intent, binds its takers to either Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism or Randian extreme minarchism.

"it doesn't exist, and these people are idiots. They could've just ran under the normal libertarian label, nothing was preventing them from it. Yet, they had to splinter off and form a stupid unwinnable party because of it."

Actually, this is a chicken and egg kind of thing. I formed the Boston Tea Party because I SAW people leaving the LP over the events in Portland -- not because I wanted to GET them to leave the LP over events in Portland. I wanted to create a place for people to go who were leaving the LP whether they had another party to go to or not. And the first thing I put on the table was the possibility of re-entering the LP as an internal caucus rather than attempting to become a full-blow political party. That resolution was rejected at our organizational convention this weekend, but it was made (by me, as a matter of fact).

A number of BTP members, myself included, remain LP members (and even LP officials). I know at least one LP congressional candidate who is also a BTP member. There may eventually be a reunion. If there's not, well, I guess that's the way it goes.

As far as "unwinnability" goes, it took five years from the founding of the LP to the first LP public official taking office. The Boston Tea Party had its first public official in office as of the instant of its founding. I'm not James Carville, but I've won elections with the LP -- and if I decide to run campaigns in the BTP, I'll win elections there, too.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

LadyT
08-22-2006, 12:25 PM
ummm......

Damocles
08-22-2006, 12:25 PM
Welcome to the board there, Mr. Knapp.

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 12:30 PM
Welcome aboard tom, good to have a libertarian expert on here.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 01:10 PM
Is it really the guy that started it? i thought someone was kidding at first, but I can't place the "voice".

Damocles
08-22-2006, 01:11 PM
It is a new person, that is all I know.

Thomas L. Knapp
08-22-2006, 01:17 PM
Hi, y'all, and glad to be here (I think I'd heard of this site, but hadn't visited -- saw some hits to the Boston Tea Party's site from this thread, and boy are my arms tired)!

I'm not sure I'd call myself a "libertarian expert," uscitizen. I'm probably the closest thing there is to an expert on the Boston Tea Party though, since I started it, built its site (yes, I know it's ugly -- it was also quick and dirty), and served as its interim chair through the convention last weekend.

I'm aware that it's not reasonable to expect everyone to like the Boston Tea Party, or to think it's a good idea, or to agree with it (or with me), etc. ... but I do want to do the best job I can of making sure that such disagreements/dislikes are based on reality rather than misperception. Or, if opinions are going to be based on misperceptions, I'll at least hop in with my hype, because my misperceptions can beat up your misperceptions ;-)

So ... if anyone wants to know anything or talk about anything, or just take the piss out of me, here I am!

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp
08-22-2006, 01:21 PM
LadyT,

You write:

"Is it really the guy that started it? i thought someone was kidding at first, but I can't place the 'voice.'"

Yes, I'm really the guy who started it. If you want to confirm that for certain, drop a line to info@bostontea.us and I'll reply. I'll probably also link to this thread from my blog (http://knappster.blogspot.com) at some point as well, for additional confidence that I am who I say I am.

I do so love a lady with a suspicious mind!

Regards,
Tom Knapp

LadyT
08-22-2006, 01:22 PM
Hi, y'all, and glad to be here (I think I'd heard of this site, but hadn't visited -- saw some hits to the Boston Tea Party's site from this thread, and boy are my arms tired)!

I'm not sure I'd call myself a "libertarian expert," uscitizen. I'm probably the closest thing there is to an expert on the Boston Tea Party though, since I started it, built its site (yes, I know it's ugly -- it was also quick and dirty), and served as its interim chair through the convention last weekend.

I'm aware that it's not reasonable to expect everyone to like the Boston Tea Party, or to think it's a good idea, or to agree with it (or with me), etc. ... but I do want to do the best job I can of making sure that such disagreements/dislikes are based on reality rather than misperception. Or, if opinions are going to be based on misperceptions, I'll at least hop in with my hype, because my misperceptions can beat up your misperceptions ;-)

So ... if anyone wants to know anything or talk about anything, or just take the piss out of me, here I am!

Regards,
Tom Knapp

A celebrity of sorts! Welcome :clink: I'm guessing I disagree with most of your platform, but welcome nonetheless!

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 01:24 PM
Hey cool I'll have to check your site out. Welcome aboard.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 01:27 PM
Program of the Boston Tea Party
Submitted by Thomas L. Knapp on Tue, 2006-07-04 13:13.

The Program of the Boston Tea Party, adopted in convention August 19-21, 2006:


1. The Boston Tea Party calls for a complete and unconditional withdrawal of US troops from, and a cessation of US military operations against or within, Iraq.

2. The Boston Tea Party supports repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

3. The Boston Tea Party calls for an end to the federal prohibition of marijuana and hemp.

4. The Boston Tea Party calls for the immediate repeal of the REAL ID Act and any and all National ID plans.

5. The Boston Tea Party calls for legislation adopting an annual, regularized increase in the personal exemption to the federal income tax of $1,000 or more, and the additional application of said personal exemption to all FICA/Social Security taxes paid by employees and employers.

Actually Tiana you'd at least agree with the first four here.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 01:33 PM
bmitted by Thomas L. Knapp on Tue, 2006-07-04 13:13.

The Program of the Boston Tea Party, adopted in convention August 19-21, 2006:



1. The Boston Tea Party calls for a complete and unconditional withdrawal of US troops from, and a cessation of US military operations against or within, Iraq.

Well anyone with half a brain cell knows we should get out ASAP. The question is what would their position have been in March of 2003.


The Boston Tea Party supports repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

I dig.


3. The Boston Tea Party calls for an end to the federal prohibition of marijuana and hemp.

It would never make the top 10 list of my todo's for hte country, but I'm not against it. I give it a check mark.


4. The Boston Tea Party calls for the immediate repeal of the REAL ID Act and any and all National ID plans.

That can be crucial in fighting the WOT. Nope wiht caveats.


5. The Boston Tea Party calls for legislation adopting an annual, regularized increase in the personal exemption to the federal income tax of $1,000 or more, and the additional application of said personal exemption to all FICA/Social Security taxes paid by employees and employers.[/i]

And how exactly is that going to help our budget crisis?

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 01:38 PM
You support the real ID act Tiana? I'm surprised?

As for the budget crisis I'm sure it would help to pull out of Iraq.

Thomas L. Knapp
08-22-2006, 02:30 PM
Lady T,

Up front, let me state that the program is not something I wrote (although I did propose some of its points). It was created by the membership and each point was polled for support. So:

1. Marijuana and hemp. I'm not sure where I'd rank that, but I do agree with it. Matter of fact, I'm much more extreme.

2. REAL ID. I'm not sure why you think it will be useful in the war on terror. Every one of the 9/11 hijackers had "appropriate documentation." If REAL ID is implemented, the next set of killers will have nice official papers to flash on demand, too.

3. I'm not concerned with the government's "budget crisis." There's an obvious solution to it -- they can stop spending more than they take in. My aim is to reduce the amount they take in. If they don't act responsibly after that, that's another issue. Hell, I was hoping you'd give me some points for the FORM of the tax cut -- bottom-up with the greatest benefit to the poor, instead of top-down with the greatest benefit to the rich.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

OrnotBitwise
08-22-2006, 02:36 PM
Lady T,
2. REAL ID. I'm not sure why you think it will be useful in the war on terror. Every one of the 9/11 hijackers had "appropriate documentation." If REAL ID is implemented, the next set of killers will have nice official papers to flash on demand, too.

Agreed. There is a reflexive, almost religious, belief among many politicians and commentators that more stringent identification requirements automatically equate with more security. This simply isn't true, however.

klaatu
08-22-2006, 02:38 PM
Welcome aboard Tom!

Damocles
08-22-2006, 04:36 PM
Agreed. There is a reflexive, almost religious, belief among many politicians and commentators that more stringent identification requirements automatically equate with more security. This simply isn't true, however.
I think it is a control issue. They work toward a time when you entire life is tracked.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-22-2006, 04:46 PM
Oh great, I called in the Boston Tea party. Damn google spiders.

I just think that splitting off and creating an even more extreme party because of the fact that the LP dared to moderate their positions is a bad idea. If the party ever gets off the ground it will go nowhere, just as the libertarian party, and if it does field people for elections it will hurt the movement as a whole. There's little reason to split off. We don't want to end up like the socialists, with thirty or forty different "splinter" parties and even less electoral success than the libertarians have.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-22-2006, 04:48 PM
How is giving people a drivers license that identifies them really going to end the world? We already had an ID - driver's licenses - stop putting on your tinfoil hats, it isn't a big deal, and it could help law enforcement.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-22-2006, 04:53 PM
The LP was vague on drug laws, I didn't know they wanted them all repealed. That's unworkable, and probably not a very good idea, as some substances are simply too strong a tampering with the human mind and replace all other desires. Marijuania is not such a substance.

Repealing the income tax would also be retarded - that would only leave us with the tariff, and even if we cut a trillion dollars off of our government that would leave us rather wrecked.

So you have two good points there. I assumed this was some sort of attempt to keep the radical stances of the old LP.

Hey wait, you need to add proportional representation. PR is awesome.

BRUTALITOPS
08-22-2006, 05:25 PM
watermark, I agree and I disagree. One the one hand, if you want progress you have to make compromises, blah blah blah etc... or at the very least lie, pretend you are making compromises and just do what you want...

But at the same time, you have to have principles, and if you truly don't believe in something, you shouldn't give in.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-22-2006, 05:51 PM
Well, I don't truly believe meth should be legalized, nor do I truly believe in a flat tax, so it's not like I'm giving in.

It's better to have a moderate libertarian party in office than a radical one out of it in your case anyway, though.

Annie
08-22-2006, 05:59 PM
LadyT,

You write:

"Is it really the guy that started it? i thought someone was kidding at first, but I can't place the 'voice.'"

Yes, I'm really the guy who started it. If you want to confirm that for certain, drop a line to info@bostontea.us and I'll reply. I'll probably also link to this thread from my blog (http://knappster.blogspot.com) at some point as well, for additional confidence that I am who I say I am.

I do so love a lady with a suspicious mind!

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Interestingly enough, first full day of school today. When asked what they would like to know more about regarding 'history', my 6th and 7th graders gave the highest hit counter to the Boston Tea Party and Boston Massacre. The 8th grade wanted to know how to change social studies to only current events. I dinged them to repeat Civil War and Reconstruction. ;)

Thomas L. Knapp
08-22-2006, 06:38 PM
Watermark,

You write: "I just think that splitting off and creating an even more extreme party"

Do you have any reason for claiming that the Boston Tea Party is "more extreme" than the Libertarian Party"?

"because of the fact that the LP dared to moderate their positions"

What makes you think that the LP "moderated" its positions?

What the LP actually did was dump 3/4 of the specific planks in its platform, leaving in place the overarching introductory language that is, in many cases, more "extreme" than what was eliminated.

"is a bad idea."

Maybe so ... but just saying it doesn't prove it.

"If the party ever gets off the ground"

Already happened.

"it will go nowhere, just as the libertarian party,"

If the Libertarian Party went nowhere, then why are you so upset about people leaving it?

"and if it does field people for elections it will hurt the movement as a whole."

Do you have any particular reason for believing that?

"There's little reason to split off."

That's a determination for the people considering doing so to make.

"We don't want to end up like the socialists, with thirty or forty different 'splinter' parties and even less electoral success than the libertarians have."

The socialists have one Socialist Party member in the US House of Representatives, and probably on his way to the Senate (Bernie Sanders). They also have about 100 members of Democratic Socialists of America in Congress (all Democrats) and a number of current or former members of Social Democrats USA/Socialist Party of America in the executive branch (mostly Republicans). In the 20th century, they achieved the implementation of a good part of their platform, including but not limited to Social Security (passed by the Democrats under pressure from the Norman Thomas incarnation of the Socialist Party), socialized healthcare for the aged and indigent (Medicare and Medicaid), the minimum wage, broad protection for labor unions, etc.

I'd give my left nut to be HALF as successful in the next hundred years as the socialists were in the last hundred.

"How is giving people a drivers license that identifies them really going to end the world?"

Who said it would? Even if it wouldn't, opposition to a surveillance-oriented state is not inherently extremist or unreasonable. A number of states have complained about the costs of implementing "REAL ID," and there's a pretty good historical case on the tendency of the federal government to abuse personal information.

"The LP was vague on drug laws, I didn't know they wanted them all repealed. That's unworkable ..."

It worked in the United States for more than 100 years, but that's beside the point. The Boston Tea Party is only worried, at least at the programmatic level and at least for now, about marijuana. Last time I looked, more than 800,000 Americans were being arrested over marijuana "crimes" every year. That's very stupid on just about every level imaginable. It's a violation of their rights, it's a waste of taxpayer money, it's a misallocation of law enforcement resources, etc.

"Repealing the income tax would also be retarded - that would only leave us with the tariff ..." Actually, per the old LP platform, it wouldn't leave us with the tariff, either. The old LP platform advocated the elimination of <em>all</em> taxation. I'm not sure what the new one says.

Of course, the US made it without an income tax until 1913, and without a substantial income tax until World War II. That was before most Americans became convinced that the federal government absolutely must kiss them awake every morning, tuck them in at night, and hold their hands and wipe their asses for them every minute in between. There are actually very few things that the federal government arguably should be doing, and most of them it's spending far too much money on (if our "defense" spending was actually being spent on defense, we could probably cut the "defense" budget by at least 50-75% ).

But, the BTP wants to take an incremental approach -- small tax cuts every year, from the bottom up. That way Congress has time to cut spending incrementally to match as well, and people who are relying on services that the federal government shouldn't be in the business of providing have time to seek other providers of those services.

"Hey wait, you need to add proportional representation. PR is awesome."

Well, per our bylaws, we are limited to a maximum of five issues in our program. A lot of us are fans of PR, though. It might make the cut next time (we create a new program every two years -- the function of the program is to tell voters "here is what we would do for you in the next two years if you elected a congressional majority of our party").

"I assumed this was some sort of attempt to keep the radical stances of the old LP"

Sort of, but not exactly. We recognize that incremental approaches are good for some issues. What we wanted to keep was the principled approach of the old party. The arguments are actually pretty complicated, but if you're really interested, I can point you to some articles that explain them a bit better (both sides).

Grind, regarding compromise, here's a little ditty (http://bostontea.us/node/91) I wrote about why it's not a good idea for libertarians.

Thanks for the great discussion, y'all ... I'm having a lot of fun here.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

FUCK THE POLICE
08-22-2006, 08:43 PM
"The socialists have one Socialist Party member in the US House of Representatives, and probably on his way to the Senate (Bernie Sanders)."

Bernie Sanders is and independent associated with the Progressive party of Vermont, which is leftist but not another socialist party.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-22-2006, 08:46 PM
I can see you're going to respond to every sentence I say with 10 paragraphs on how I'm wrong, so I'll just go duck under a rug.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-22-2006, 08:52 PM
The sign of a mature party is the ability to be diverse and change the bylaws without creating 30 new parties every few years. That's the only way the libertarians will succeed. The Boston Tea Party movement will be better off as a caucus of the Libertarian party than as a member of the list of 100 insignificant third parties that currently exist. The Libertarian party is practically insignifigant, but adding vote-splitting (and the illusion to voters of a disunified front in the movement) wouldn't be good for the movement as a whole. The Demopublicans don't form new parties every time they have a disagreement, they just vote differently and create new caucuses. If the libertarians shed off a new party every few years they aren't going to last much longer.

Thomas L. Knapp
08-22-2006, 09:30 PM
Watermark,

If you want me to stop responding to every sentence of yours with ten paragraphs about how you're wrong ... then stop being wrong. Actually, though, in most cases I've merely asked you why you think what it is that you think, and in others I agree with you. Is this a discussion board, or is it a "Watermark says what he thinks and we all nod in agreement" board?

As far as Sanders is concerned, you were right and I was wrong. I thought he was affiliated with a party that had socialist in his name, and I was incorrect. However, he IS a socialist. That's not intended as a criticism. It's just how he describes himself.

On the caucus issue: I proposed, at the Boston Tea Party's organizational convention, that we re-enter the Libertarian Party as a caucus rather than attempting to become a full-fledged political party. That proposal was defeated by a vote of better than 80%. Whether I'm happy about that or not is irrelevant -- I started the thing, and in doing so I obligated myself to stick with it through that decision.

The Demopublicans spin off new parties all the time. In 1912, the Republicans spun off the Bull Moose. In 1948, the Dixiecrats carried nine states with Strom Thurmond as their candidate (but still didn't cost Truman the election). The Greens are at least partially a splinter of the Democrats, and the Constitution Party is essentially a chip off the GOP block. And they have their own splinters as well, just as the LP always has. If the LP is on the right track, the BTP will gain no traction. If the BTP does gain traction, then the LP is free to compete with it. I'd advise the LP (and certainly advise the BTP) to concentrate on the 100-odd million voters who comprise the American electorate, rather than bitching about the fact that a few people in their small group have decided to go a different way. I'm relatively certain that both parties will take that advice.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Damocles
08-22-2006, 09:36 PM
Watermark,

If you want me to stop responding to every sentence of yours with ten paragraphs about how you're wrong ... then stop being wrong. Actually, though, in most cases I've merely asked you why you think what it is that you think, and in others I agree with you. Is this a discussion board, or is it a "Watermark says what he thinks and we all nod in agreement" board?


Regards,
Tom Knapp

LOL...!

:lolup:

Cancel7
08-23-2006, 06:23 AM
"Of course, the US made it without an income tax until 1913, and without a substantial income tax until World War II. That was before most Americans became convinced that the federal government absolutely must kiss them awake every morning, tuck them in at night, and hold their hands and wipe their asses for them every minute in between"

It also directly coincides with the creation and buildup of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower became so alarmed about.

Also, I'd argue that Americans became convinced of no such thing. Do we need to go point by point through the preceding years, and the devestation? Perhaps you'd like to harken back to social programs which proceeded the new deal, say perhaps the civil war pension program? What would have happened without that program? What happened when most who could qualify for it were dead? Was it inevitable that another old age pension program would have to be instituted? Was there ever a time when Americans simply pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, or, were social programs under many different guises, including pre-civil war patronage, always in effect?

And since the rise of the modern welfare state took place along side the rise of the military industrial complex, is that more than coincidence? Could you have all guns and no butter in America, or would the people revolt? Is it a case of, give them that so they don't notice this? And if so, can you ever hope to do away with, or even to drastically cut back the modern welfare state, while at the same time continuting to enlarge the military industrial complex? And is anyone ever going to be able to cut that, most powerful of all entities, back? Unlikely. In fact, it's a dream.

LadyT
08-23-2006, 06:49 AM
I don't see how standardizing requirements for state issued drivers licenses is a bad thing. The real ID act would open up communications from state to state and can be of real value when investigating individuals. Yes. Its true, the terrorists that perpetrated 9/11 were here legally. That doesn't mean that the next would be terrorists wouldn't try to use phony id's to obtain the necessities to pull of something else because of establisted safeguards since. I don't support unlawful searches or anything that resembles a big brother society like the patriot act, but there are parts of the real ID act I think can be useful in fighting crime in general and the war on terror. I've often said that the WOT is a war of information.

LadyT
08-23-2006, 06:50 AM
Interestingly enough, first full day of school today. When asked what they would like to know more about regarding 'history', my 6th and 7th graders gave the highest hit counter to the Boston Tea Party and Boston Massacre. The 8th grade wanted to know how to change social studies to only current events. I dinged them to repeat Civil War and Reconstruction. ;)

Is that you leaning?

Damocles
08-23-2006, 06:52 AM
Is that you leaning?
No, Runyon is somebody from a different board...

Thomas L. Knapp
08-23-2006, 10:50 AM
Darla,

You write:

"[The universalization of a significant income tax] also directly coincides with the creation and buildup of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower became so alarmed about."

Oh, you noticed that, too?

I think there may be some cognitive dissonance here to the extent that libertarians are often perceived as "right-wingers" who support William F. Buckley's "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores" versus the Communists or whichever boogie-man is convenient.

In fact, most libertarians (including of the Libertarian Party variety) support cuts in "defense" spending. They're not always specific as to what cuts, but they occasionally have been. In 2004, LP presidential candidate Michael Badnarik proposed reducing the Army's active-duty ground forces to one division, with the rest as militia/reserve; eliminating the Air Force (rolling its strategic bombing capability and missile component into the Army, and its tactical air into Naval aviation); slightly augmenting the Marine Corps and making it the official RDF/"first responder" ground force; and cutting the Navy to seven carriers and attached battle groups (last time I noticed, they were bringing carrier #13 online).

Of course, much of the money doesn't go directly into military equipment and activity -- most of the military-industrial complex is outsourced and the money drained off via the contractors who provide that equipment. Procurement obviously needs to be reformed in a big way ... and right now, we're going in the opposite direction, per the prescriptions of the Hart-Rudman report, which 9/11 made it politically feasible to implement.

Not sure I have any solutions to offer, but yes, I'm aware of the problem (here's something I wrote on it several years ago (http://tlknapp.freeservers.com/essays/3cardmonte.html)).

Next: "Perhaps you'd like to harken back to social programs which proceeded the new deal, say perhaps the civil war pension program? What would have happened without that program? What happened when most who could qualify for it were dead? Was it inevitable that another old age pension program would have to be instituted? Was there ever a time when Americans simply pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, or, were social programs under many different guises, including pre-civil war patronage, always in effect?"

Good points, all, although I wouldn't link the rise of Social Security to the demise of the Civil War pension program. There were a lot of other factors: Bismarck's Germany led the way, the labor movement raised the level of expectations, the Bonus Marchers made it clear that they expected more than what they'd received for their service, and the Depression had everyone feeling pretty damn insecure in general. It's not especially surprising that government social programs were the order of the day (that started under Hoover, who essentially proposed the New Deal -- FDR actually ran in 1932 on a platform of cutting the federal government by 25% and balancing the budget, then proceeded with a mix of proposals that Hoover and Norman Thomas had been pushing instead).

It was in the post-WWII era, though, that Americans seem to have lulled themselves into accepting the proposition that the "safety net" must be continually expanded to cover all aspects of life ... and you're right. Much of that lulling was due to the military-industrial complex's inherent penchant for expanding its tentacles into a schema of overall control. Bread and circuses, as long as the contractors get theirs, too.

Like I said, I don't have any clear plan to offer you for cutting the military-industrial complex off at the knees. Matter of fact, I think that that will probably only happen when the US government finally defaults on its debts, can no longer borrow hand over fist in order to keep the pork flowing, and sees the peasants with pitchforks coming to make it clear that they aren't footing the bill any more.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp
08-23-2006, 10:57 AM
LadyT:

"I don't see how standardizing requirements for state issued drivers licenses is a bad thing."

The legitimate purpose of a driver's license is to prove that the person carrying it has passed tests of driving competency. For that purpose, there's no need for it to identify the person carrying it beyond establishing that that person is the person who owns it. That could be accomplished with nothing more than a fingerprint on the document. If the person carrying it has a fingerprint that matches, then he's driving legally. The police don't have to know his name, address or anything else unless they're arresting him for something (in which case he has no obligation to give them that information -- 5th Amendment, remember?).

Until a few years ago, American movie audiences laughed at the clownish, strutting Nazis on the screen running around demanding "your papers." They were right to do so, and the notion that they should put up with that kind of Gestapo bullshit for real instead of as a joke in a movie is repugnant to everything America is about. The government has no inherent right to know who I am on demand. If they're accusing me of a crime, they can do the investigative work to figure out who I am. If they're not investigating me for a crime, who I am is none of their friggin' business, regardless of how "valuable" such information might be to them.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Cancel7
08-23-2006, 11:05 AM
Darla,

You write:

"[The universalization of a significant income tax] also directly coincides with the creation and buildup of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower became so alarmed about."

Oh, you noticed that, too?

I think there may be some cognitive dissonance here to the extent that libertarians are often perceived as "right-wingers" who support William F. Buckley's "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores" versus the Communists or whichever boogie-man is convenient.

In fact, most libertarians (including of the Libertarian Party variety) support cuts in "defense" spending. They're not always specific as to what cuts, but they occasionally have been. In 2004, LP presidential candidate Michael Badnarik proposed reducing the Army's active-duty ground forces to one division, with the rest as militia/reserve; eliminating the Air Force (rolling its strategic bombing capability and missile component into the Army, and its tactical air into Naval aviation); slightly augmenting the Marine Corps and making it the official RDF/"first responder" ground force; and cutting the Navy to seven carriers and attached battle groups (last time I noticed, they were bringing carrier #13 online).

Of course, much of the money doesn't go directly into military equipment and activity -- most of the military-industrial complex is outsourced and the money drained off via the contractors who provide that equipment. Procurement obviously needs to be reformed in a big way ... and right now, we're going in the opposite direction, per the prescriptions of the Hart-Rudman report, which 9/11 made it politically feasible to implement.

Not sure I have any solutions to offer, but yes, I'm aware of the problem (here's something I wrote on it several years ago (http://tlknapp.freeservers.com/essays/3cardmonte.html)).

Next: "Perhaps you'd like to harken back to social programs which proceeded the new deal, say perhaps the civil war pension program? What would have happened without that program? What happened when most who could qualify for it were dead? Was it inevitable that another old age pension program would have to be instituted? Was there ever a time when Americans simply pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, or, were social programs under many different guises, including pre-civil war patronage, always in effect?"

Good points, all, although I wouldn't link the rise of Social Security to the demise of the Civil War pension program. There were a lot of other factors: Bismarck's Germany led the way, the labor movement raised the level of expectations, the Bonus Marchers made it clear that they expected more than what they'd received for their service, and the Depression had everyone feeling pretty damn insecure in general. It's not especially surprising that government social programs were the order of the day (that started under Hoover, who essentially proposed the New Deal -- FDR actually ran in 1932 on a platform of cutting the federal government by 25% and balancing the budget, then proceeded with a mix of proposals that Hoover and Norman Thomas had been pushing instead).

It was in the post-WWII era, though, that Americans seem to have lulled themselves into accepting the proposition that the "safety net" must be continually expanded to cover all aspects of life ... and you're right. Much of that lulling was due to the military-industrial complex's inherent penchant for expanding its tentacles into a schema of overall control. Bread and circuses, as long as the contractors get theirs, too.

Like I said, I don't have any clear plan to offer you for cutting the military-industrial complex off at the knees. Matter of fact, I think that that will probably only happen when the US government finally defaults on its debts, can no longer borrow hand over fist in order to keep the pork flowing, and sees the peasants with pitchforks coming to make it clear that they aren't footing the bill any more.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

I'm impressed you wrote that when you did. Very.

You and I are going to greatly differ on the social safety net and the need for it, but I certainly would wish you luck in cutting the military budget. Unfortutely, I agree with your final paragraph though.

IHateGovernment
08-23-2006, 11:11 AM
This guy's gonna steal my thunder I have a feeling.

Cancel7
08-23-2006, 11:17 AM
This guy's gonna steal my thunder I have a feeling.


Did you read that piece he wrote on Sept 28th, 2001? Not only prescient, but brave considering you could be tarred and feathered for publically questioning, well, anything, at that time.

I could go ten rounds with him on the necessity and humanity of the modern welfare state, and how it evolved, and then began to devolve, but I'm impressed with his writings on the other matter, which I find to be an even bigger cause of misery and inhumanity.

LadyT
08-23-2006, 11:17 AM
The legitimate purpose of a driver's license is to prove that the person carrying it has passed tests of driving competency. For that purpose, there's no need for it to identify the person carrying it beyond establishing that that person is the person who owns it. That could be accomplished with nothing more than a fingerprint on the document. If the person carrying it has a fingerprint that matches, then he's driving legally. The police don't have to know his name, address or anything else unless they're arresting him for something (in which case he has no obligation to give them that information -- 5th Amendment, remember?).


I definitely don't support people having to show their papers on demand - I think you're fear mongering. There are plenty of other satellite benefits for having national standards for IDs. For instance, if a manager of a liquor store in Oregon sells to someone with an ID from Delaware, there's really no standard in validating whether or not its real or not. If he serves them and it turns out their under 21, he's still liable. To be safe, he or she would probably have to turn down drivers licsenses (sp?) that he is unfamiliar with. I know how much you libs hate the idea of lost business.
But lets say someone is pulled over for suspicion of X. The police now have at their finger tips an efficient tool in determining who and what they are dealing with. Ultimately there will be administrative savings in this - perhaps a tax cut? I know how you people luuuuuuuv tax cuts.
I think it can definitely be a great tool in the WOT for both domestic and foreign perpetrators. Finally getting local authorities on the same wavelengt has it advantages.

Having said that I don't think they should be mandatory (I'm debating on whether that should hold true for foreign residents) and I don't think that people should have to show their papers on demand. The basis of your discontentment with these national standards seems to be that, but it doesn't have to be that way.

DigitalDave
08-23-2006, 11:20 AM
LOL, Ihate, we will all still love ya!

IHateGovernment
08-23-2006, 11:20 AM
A good writer. I am impressed.

Cancel7
08-23-2006, 11:24 AM
I definitely don't support people having to show their papers on demand - I think you're fear mongering. There are plenty of other satellite benefits for having national standards for IDs. For instance, if a manager of a liquor store in Oregon sells to someone with an ID from Delaware, there's really no standard in validating whether or not its real or not. If he serves them and it turns out their under 21, he's still liable. To be safe, he or she would probably have to turn down drivers licsenses (sp?) that he is unfamiliar with. I know how much you libs hate the idea of lost business.
But lets say someone is pulled over for suspicion of X. The police now have at their finger tips an efficient tool in determining who and what they are dealing with. Ultimately there will be administrative savings in this - perhaps a tax cut? I know how you people luuuuuuuv tax cuts.
I think it can definitely be a great tool in the WOT for both domestic and foreign perpetrators. Finally getting local authorities on the same wavelengt has it advantages.

Having said that I don't think they should be mandatory (I'm debating on whether that should hold true for foreign residents) and I don't think that people should have to show their papers on demand. The basis of your discontentment with these national standards seems to be that, but it doesn't have to be that way.

I disagree with you on this one Tiana, and I will tell you why ok? I disagree because anytime, in our history, that the government has had access to information, they have abused it. And they are doing it right now, and we only know a very small part of the abuses that are ocurring today in the name of "The War On Terror". Someday, we will know most of the abuses, I doubt we will ever know all of them. And on that day, some people will be shocked, but I won't be.

This is why I am against wiretapping without FISA approval. Bush will say it is the "Terrorist wiretapping program" but that's BS. He has taken it upon himself that he has the authority to wiretap anybody, and what he is telling he is doing, is the typical liar's ruse. When a liar is caught, he will tell part of the truth, and still hide the worst of it. That is what bush is doing. Let me tell you, they are wiretapping political dissenters, political enemies, members of the peace movement, and the press.

And if you allow them to institute this real id program, it is just another cog in the wheel that makes up their total information awareness program, which, though killed by congress did not actually die, it lives under another name, fully funded, and fully functional, and fully, UnConstitional.

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 11:33 AM
3. I'm not concerned with the government's "budget crisis." There's an obvious solution to it -- they can stop spending more than they take in. My aim is to reduce the amount they take in. If they don't act responsibly after that, that's another issue. Hell, I was hoping you'd give me some points for the FORM of the tax cut -- bottom-up with the greatest benefit to the poor, instead of top-down with the greatest benefit to the rich.
//
Tom this method does not work. My wife cut our income by quitting her job and themn proceeded to spend us into technical bankruptcy.
I believe in a balanced budget ammendment to the constitution.

LadyT
08-23-2006, 11:37 AM
I disagree with you on this one Tiana, and I will tell you why ok? I disagree because anytime, in our history, that the government has had access to information, they have abused it. And they are doing it right now, and we only know a very small part of the abuses that are ocurring today in the name of "The War On Terror". Someday, we will know most of the abuses, I doubt we will ever know all of them. And on that day, some people will be shocked, but I won't be.

This is why I am against wiretapping without FISA approval. Bush will say it is the "Terrorist wiretapping program" but that's BS. He has taken it upon himself that he has the authority to wiretap anybody, and what he is telling he is doing, is the typical liar's ruse. When a liar is caught, he will tell part of the truth, and still hide the worst of it. That is what bush is doing. Let me tell you, they are wiretapping political dissenters, political enemies, members of the peace movement, and the press.

And if you allow them to institute this real id program, it is just another cog in the wheel that makes up their total information awareness program, which, though killed by congress did not actually die, it lives under another name, fully funded, and fully functional, and fully, UnConstitional.

I don't disagree that they have abused and over stepped their powers. Which is why I've been careful to say, "Can be good". At this stage I really don't trust much that the Bush admin does either, however if a fair and mixed gov't gets in soon and there are the proper checks and balances that the Bush team seems to hate, I think it could be a powerful tool. Implementing a standardized ID program isn't a bad thing in and of itself, whats bad is when authorities use that information in an unlawful manner.

Cancel7
08-23-2006, 11:44 AM
I don't disagree that they have abused and over stepped their powers. Which is why I've been careful to say, "Can be good". At this stage I really don't trust much that the Bush admin does either, however if a fair and mixed gov't gets in soon and there are the proper checks and balances that the Bush team seems to hate, I think it could be a powerful tool. Implementing a standardized ID program isn't a bad thing in and of itself, whats bad is when authorities use that information in an unlawful manner.

Ok, well, as much as I want to get rid of bush, and I agree they are the most abusive to date, I really don't trust any government, and I'd rather they know as little about me as possible. I don't care for people nosying around in my business.

Of course, if an authoritarian dem-type gets into office, and they are going to use tools like this to stalk, harrass and maybe even arrest and torture people like Dano and Brent and Dixie...then I will have to think about it.

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 11:46 AM
"Of course, the US made it without an income tax until 1913, and without a substantial income tax until World War II. That was before most Americans became convinced that the federal government absolutely must kiss them awake every morning, tuck them in at night, and hold their hands and wipe their asses for them every minute in between"

It also directly coincides with the creation and buildup of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower became so alarmed about.

Also, I'd argue that Americans became convinced of no such thing. Do we need to go point by point through the preceding years, and the devestation? Perhaps you'd like to harken back to social programs which proceeded the new deal, say perhaps the civil war pension program? What would have happened without that program? What happened when most who could qualify for it were dead? Was it inevitable that another old age pension program would have to be instituted? Was there ever a time when Americans simply pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, or, were social programs under many different guises, including pre-civil war patronage, always in effect?

And since the rise of the modern welfare state took place along side the rise of the military industrial complex, is that more than coincidence? Could you have all guns and no butter in America, or would the people revolt? Is it a case of, give them that so they don't notice this? And if so, can you ever hope to do away with, or even to drastically cut back the modern welfare state, while at the same time continuting to enlarge the military industrial complex? And is anyone ever going to be able to cut that, most powerful of all entities, back? Unlikely. In fact, it's a dream.


And lets not forget the land grants given to revoloutionary war veterans.

LadyT
08-23-2006, 11:48 AM
Ok, well, as much as I want to get rid of bush, and I agree they are the most abusive to date, I really don't trust any government, and I'd rather they know as little about me as possible. I don't care for people nosying around in my business.

Of course, if an authoritarian dem-type gets into office, and they are going to use tools like this to stalk, harrass and maybe even arrest and torture people like Dano and Brent and Dixie...then I will have to think about it.

Well, I don't think the local authorities would know any more about you than the IRS already does. SS #, birth cert. records (finger print/foot prints), address etc. They are just making it a national standard to help local authorities as well. However, my biggest fear with this would be widening the door for identity theft.

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 12:04 PM
Ok, well, as much as I want to get rid of bush, and I agree they are the most abusive to date, I really don't trust any government, and I'd rather they know as little about me as possible. I don't care for people nosying around in my business.

Of course, if an authoritarian dem-type gets into office, and they are going to use tools like this to stalk, harrass and maybe even arrest and torture people like Dano and Brent and Dixie...then I will have to think about it.

As bad as I hate to admit it, I would not like the paranoia ID thing used to prosecute Dixie and his ilk. It would sooner or later be used on us all.
I too think my business is my business and not the gummits.

Cancel7
08-23-2006, 12:07 PM
As bad as I hate to admit it, I would not like the paranoia ID thing used to prosecute Dixie and his ilk. It would sooner or later be used on us all.
I too think my business is my business and not the gummits.

<sigh> I guess you're right. Damn.

LadyT
08-23-2006, 12:13 PM
Worse case scenario, what could possibly happen to an innocent civillian if they standardize state issued drivers liscenses?

Thomas L. Knapp
08-23-2006, 02:20 PM
Darla,

Thank you -- that was actually one of my LESS radical pieces in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Try this one on for size (http://tlknapp.freeservers.com/essays/0911.html). I doubt you'll agree with all of it, but yeah, I was feeling pretty ballsy right about then.

You and I may not disagree on "safety net" issues as much as you think. To put it as concisely as possible, I do favor a social safety net -- I just don't trust government to administer it. How to get from a government safety net to a non-government one is fraught with difficult questions ... and as much as I like to lip off, no, I don't have all the answers to those questions.

IHateGovernment: Hell, don't let ME steal your thunder. Roll it! I'm just glad there are other libertarians here to keep me in line ;-)

LadyT, Obviously we disagree. I even disagree with your specific examples, as I don't believe that there should be laws setting a drinking age (as a matter of fact, I'll go further and say that such laws kill kids who sneak their beer into the car and go cruising because they can't sit on a barstool and have it). On the other hand, I don't really mean to be disagreeABLE about the disagreement. It's simply my belief (based on experience) that any power given to government will be abused, and that most of the time the severity of the abuse will more than offset the benefits. Yes, I know that "it doesn't have to be that way" with respect to providing ID on demand ... but pursuant to a Supreme Court ruling last year and to legislation passed or under consideration in several states, it IS that way: If a cop demands that you provide ID, whether he has a good reason to demand it or not, you can now be jailed in much of America for refusing to provide said ID, even in the absence of any actual crime being connected to the incident.

I agree with Darla re: FISA. As a matter of fact, we have continually allowed the government more power to search/surveil, and yet all we hear is the constant refrain that things are getting worse and that more such power is needed. If you're doing X to fix Y and Y keeps getting worse, then it's reasonable to assume that X is not the solution to Y. I'm a lot more confident that telling police to leave the potsmokers alone and go after real crimes instead would do more to make us secure than subjecting the entire populace to yet more controls.

uscitizen: I agree that a balanced budget amendment is in order, and didn't mean to imply that I oppose it. WAll I'm saying is that politicians' unwillingness to discipline themselves on spending isn't a good argument against tax cuts. If an alcoholic demands that I provide him with beer, I shouldn't have to supervise his successful completion of a 12-step program before I can say "no, I'm not buying you another drink." I might be agreeable to doing so, but I shouldn't HAVE to.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Cancel7
08-23-2006, 02:37 PM
I think there are other choices than the two you presented, but it's a powerful piece. I bet you took a lot of crap over it. I have no argument with your comments on the actions and reactions of those in DC.

I certainly question the safety of anyone who is on a plane with 200 armed civilians. Have you see what has happened to people on planes lately? If you are afraid of flying and prone to panic attacks, God help you, because if you so much as twitch the wrong way they will throw you down, and sit on your head, and if they don't sufficate you, and if the police don't put a bullet in your head when you land, you will be arrested. I say this as someone who actually has had a panic attack or two, because of heights.

Perhaps you are not afraid of heights, and so you do not have to worry about getting a bullet in the head if you're on a plane. But you have to think of all kinds of different people, and also try and realize, are most people really as you portray them? Steady, calm, and rational, even in a frightening situation? I think that we only need look around us to see the answer is, no.

But you really nailed the reasons for what happened, and also, the cowardly and willfully ignorant, as well as opportunistic, reactions of our dear politicians.

And you are a very good writer.

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 02:42 PM
I agree Darla on armed civies on planes. Heck these are some of the people theat re-elected GWB. How much sensible action can we expect out of them.
Go Darla Go!

Cancel7
08-23-2006, 02:43 PM
I agree Darla on armed civies on planes. Heck these are some of the people theat re-elected GWB. How much sensible action can we expect out of them.
Go Darla Go!


:)

I actually have to leave work now for a dentist appointment. :(

See you later!

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 02:48 PM
Good luck at the pain clinic. I am going to cut some more trees shortly. and then do some actual paying work tonight :)

Thomas L. Knapp
08-23-2006, 03:31 PM
Darla,

You write:

"I certainly question the safety of anyone who is on a plane with 200 armed civilians. Have you see what has happened to people on planes lately?"

Stop and hold.

OK, since September 11, 2001, fliers have (for very good reasons) been nervous like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. What I was asserting, however, was that if 9/11 hadn't happened, they wouldn't have become that way. On September 10th, a flier who had a panic attack would have, as a very LAST RESORT, been physically restrained. SINCE 9/11, getting up to go use the bathroom at the wrong time might get you tackled or even shot.

And what I'm saying is that if any significant number of passengers had been carrying firearms -- as it is their constitutionally guaranteed right to do -- 9/11 would not have happened.

If the unconstitutional laws against carrying firearms on planes hadn't existed, I doubt that all 200 passengers on any given plane would have been carrying. I'd be surprised if 10 or 20 would have been. But 10 or 20 would have been more than sufficient to ensure that a bunch of assholes with boxcutters couldn't take over the plane and turn it into a missile. And the likelihood that a number of passengers would be armed would militate against said assholes even TRYING to do so.

The laws against carrying on planes were passed in the early 1970s after a couple of hijackings. They were a bad idea. They didn't work. Instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to prevent criminals from being criminals, we should have instead encouraged law-abiding citizens who like to carry their pistols on their hips ... to DO SO, so that people like DB Cooper go rob liquor stores instead of hijacking planes. Hopefully the airlines would require that only frangible ammo be taken aboard, of course (even though explosive decompression is not nearly as big a risk as some people think).

Pre-9/11, I also don't think that someone who had a panic attack on board a plane would have been shot to death by some eager beaver with his .45 on him. I'm not sure that the toothpaste can be put back in the tube easily -- after five years of jumping at shadows, it might take awhile for people to calm back down -- but I just don't see that allowing carry on planes was a problem BEFORE 9/11. It was not a significant problem in the 25 years before it was outlawed, and outlawing it didn't solve the problem it was intended to solve.

Personally, I've only flown once since 9/11 (speech in New York against the Iraq war, and no time to drive or bus there) and didn't enjoy the experience much. I occasionally go out to the St. Louis airport and walk around to gauge the ambience, and that ambience still reminds me of a Third World police state hellhole.

As a side note, I doubt that I'd carry on board myself. I'm not much of a pistol shot, I don't know if an M-14 would fit in the carry-on size parameters, and I just am not into guns like I was when I was in the Marine Corps. But it wouldn't bother me if the guy sitting next to me was packing, as long as he wasn't dressed in a white shroud, waving an AK-47 and screaming "Allahu Akbar" or something.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 03:41 PM
Yes if a frog had wings it would not bump it's ass either. on the 911 not happening if passengers were armed. but if they had been armed after the 911 incident I feel that many problems would have occured because of paniky people doing stupid things. As Darla said. Remember airplanes are delicate and the smallest caliber gun will punch a hole in one, explosive decompression at 30,000 ft is not a good thing.

Cancel7
08-23-2006, 04:16 PM
Darla,

You write:

"I certainly question the safety of anyone who is on a plane with 200 armed civilians. Have you see what has happened to people on planes lately?"

Stop and hold.

OK, since September 11, 2001, fliers have (for very good reasons) been nervous like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. What I was asserting, however, was that if 9/11 hadn't happened, they wouldn't have become that way. On September 10th, a flier who had a panic attack would have, as a very LAST RESORT, been physically restrained. SINCE 9/11, getting up to go use the bathroom at the wrong time might get you tackled or even shot.

And what I'm saying is that if any significant number of passengers had been carrying firearms -- as it is their constitutionally guaranteed right to do -- 9/11 would not have happened.

If the unconstitutional laws against carrying firearms on planes hadn't existed, I doubt that all 200 passengers on any given plane would have been carrying. I'd be surprised if 10 or 20 would have been. But 10 or 20 would have been more than sufficient to ensure that a bunch of assholes with boxcutters couldn't take over the plane and turn it into a missile. And the likelihood that a number of passengers would be armed would militate against said assholes even TRYING to do so.

The laws against carrying on planes were passed in the early 1970s after a couple of hijackings. They were a bad idea. They didn't work. Instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to prevent criminals from being criminals, we should have instead encouraged law-abiding citizens who like to carry their pistols on their hips ... to DO SO, so that people like DB Cooper go rob liquor stores instead of hijacking planes. Hopefully the airlines would require that only frangible ammo be taken aboard, of course (even though explosive decompression is not nearly as big a risk as some people think).

Pre-9/11, I also don't think that someone who had a panic attack on board a plane would have been shot to death by some eager beaver with his .45 on him. I'm not sure that the toothpaste can be put back in the tube easily -- after five years of jumping at shadows, it might take awhile for people to calm back down -- but I just don't see that allowing carry on planes was a problem BEFORE 9/11. It was not a significant problem in the 25 years before it was outlawed, and outlawing it didn't solve the problem it was intended to solve.

Personally, I've only flown once since 9/11 (speech in New York against the Iraq war, and no time to drive or bus there) and didn't enjoy the experience much. I occasionally go out to the St. Louis airport and walk around to gauge the ambience, and that ambience still reminds me of a Third World police state hellhole.

As a side note, I doubt that I'd carry on board myself. I'm not much of a pistol shot, I don't know if an M-14 would fit in the carry-on size parameters, and I just am not into guns like I was when I was in the Marine Corps. But it wouldn't bother me if the guy sitting next to me was packing, as long as he wasn't dressed in a white shroud, waving an AK-47 and screaming "Allahu Akbar" or something.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

I think USC makes a good point when he questions whether it's true that 9/11 would not have happened if people were allowed to carry gun on board. I really think it's always far more difficult for us to say (though we pretend otherwise) what would or would not have happened "if". So I would not be ready to concede that.

And I just would not feel comfortable at all with armed passengers. Not before 9/11, or after it. You're not the only one who's not a good shot, but not everyone who owns a gun is going to admit that, if even to themselves. I think it's a bigger risk to have dozens of armed people running around, half or more who statisically will be fools, armed and thinking they're some kind of marshalls, air or otherwise.

I think you have a much better case when you argue that had our foreign policy been different, 9/11 could have been prevented. There are a thousand ifs though, if bush grasped what "bin laden determined to strike within the us meant" if someone in that adminstration had reconized that this Richard Clark guy might be worth listening to, and the list goes on. The fact is, it happened. The real bad shit is going to hit the fan sometimes in our lives, and that is a fact. No one wants it to, but for a variety of reasons, it's going to. It's how people react to these things, that makes the man, that makes the woman, that makes the people, that makes the nation.

And I'd say that our collective reactions and incredible willingness to give up rights, believe any bs story told to us, and bomb civilians all to save our own scared butts, doesnt' speak very highly of us so far. I think it would be a much better world if people could just grasp this simple fact: you are going to die. If not today, then tomorrow. If the terrorists don't get you, and they won't, McDonalds and those big macs you are scoffing down, is going to, but either way, you are going to die. Accept it and stop being willing to trade anything and anyone in order to prevent it. And I don't want to die, believe me. But, I'm going to. And I would be willing to bet a lot of money that it wont' be the terrorists who get me. And I live in NY. I mean, you have people who live in Idaho who are petrified of terrorists. Who are willing to sell out the constitituion because of terrorists. It's amazing.

Cypress
08-23-2006, 04:48 PM
Darla,

You write:

"I certainly question the safety of anyone who is on a plane with 200 armed civilians. Have you see what has happened to people on planes lately?"

Stop and hold.

OK, since September 11, 2001, fliers have (for very good reasons) been nervous like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. What I was asserting, however, was that if 9/11 hadn't happened, they wouldn't have become that way. On September 10th, a flier who had a panic attack would have, as a very LAST RESORT, been physically restrained. SINCE 9/11, getting up to go use the bathroom at the wrong time might get you tackled or even shot.

And what I'm saying is that if any significant number of passengers had been carrying firearms -- as it is their constitutionally guaranteed right to do -- 9/11 would not have happened.

If the unconstitutional laws against carrying firearms on planes hadn't existed, I doubt that all 200 passengers on any given plane would have been carrying. I'd be surprised if 10 or 20 would have been. But 10 or 20 would have been more than sufficient to ensure that a bunch of assholes with boxcutters couldn't take over the plane and turn it into a missile. And the likelihood that a number of passengers would be armed would militate against said assholes even TRYING to do so.

The laws against carrying on planes were passed in the early 1970s after a couple of hijackings. They were a bad idea. They didn't work. Instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to prevent criminals from being criminals, we should have instead encouraged law-abiding citizens who like to carry their pistols on their hips ... to DO SO, so that people like DB Cooper go rob liquor stores instead of hijacking planes. Hopefully the airlines would require that only frangible ammo be taken aboard, of course (even though explosive decompression is not nearly as big a risk as some people think).

Pre-9/11, I also don't think that someone who had a panic attack on board a plane would have been shot to death by some eager beaver with his .45 on him. I'm not sure that the toothpaste can be put back in the tube easily -- after five years of jumping at shadows, it might take awhile for people to calm back down -- but I just don't see that allowing carry on planes was a problem BEFORE 9/11. It was not a significant problem in the 25 years before it was outlawed, and outlawing it didn't solve the problem it was intended to solve.

Personally, I've only flown once since 9/11 (speech in New York against the Iraq war, and no time to drive or bus there) and didn't enjoy the experience much. I occasionally go out to the St. Louis airport and walk around to gauge the ambience, and that ambience still reminds me of a Third World police state hellhole.

As a side note, I doubt that I'd carry on board myself. I'm not much of a pistol shot, I don't know if an M-14 would fit in the carry-on size parameters, and I just am not into guns like I was when I was in the Marine Corps. But it wouldn't bother me if the guy sitting next to me was packing, as long as he wasn't dressed in a white shroud, waving an AK-47 and screaming "Allahu Akbar" or something.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Its heard to know where to even start. I'll just make a list:

1) Handguns were not legal on commercial plane prior to the 1970s, as you state. They were in fact, banned. Its just that metal detectors and screenings weren't used to enforce the ban.

2) You don't have a consitutional right to wield a gun, on private property. In this case, a commercial jet owned by United or Continental.

3) 9/11, "could" have also been prevented if we had reinforced cockpit doors, armed pilots, and armed air marshals. Like we largely have now. It doesn't require 20 or 50 armed passengers. In fact, that is inherently more dangerous than having armed pilots, reinforced cockpit doors, and air marshals.

evince
08-23-2006, 04:56 PM
3. The Boston Tea Party calls for an end to the federal prohibition of marijuana and hemp.

You gotta love that

Thomas L. Knapp
08-23-2006, 09:56 PM
Quoth Cypress:

"1) Handguns were not legal on commercial plane prior to the 1970s, as you state. They were in fact, banned. Its just that metal detectors and screenings weren't used to enforce the ban."

According to a documenary I saw on The History Channel, the federal law banning possession of firearms on aircraft was passed in 1972, after the DB Cooper incident. When I went to look for a citation of that, however, the earliest reference I found to a federal law banning boarding an airplane with a weapon was 49USC1472, dated 1982.

"2) You don't have a consitutional right to wield a gun, on private property. In this case, a commercial jet owned by United or Continental."

Irrelevant. Right now, it is not left to United or Continental to decide whether to let you carry a weapon on board one of their planes. The federal government took that decision away from them, and the federal government is not constitutionally allowed to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

"3) 9/11, 'could' have also been prevented if we had reinforced cockpit doors, armed pilots, and armed air marshals. Like we largely have now. It doesn't require 20 or 50 armed passengers. In fact, that is inherently more dangerous than having armed pilots, reinforced cockpit doors, and air marshals."

Yes, but also unnecessary if the government followed the Constitution and if the carriers chose to allow passengers to travel armed.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

FUCK THE POLICE
08-23-2006, 11:20 PM
Honestly Knap...

You have a LOT to say. You're obviously very passionate about the subject while I am not. I'm not going to read all of your 10000 word posts in response to a little 10 letter statment that I think that splitoffs are bad in a pluarality winner-take-all world, and stop getting so pissed about that fact.

Thomas L. Knapp
08-24-2006, 09:26 AM
Watermark,

I'm sorry for pissing in your Post Toasties, but try to see it from my point of view. You make a post in which you:

a) Make an incorrect historical assertion about the Libertarian Party (although, in fairness, you did add in an "as far as I know");

b) Make a very debatable assertion as to the nature of what happened at the LP's convention in Portland; and

c) Call me and other Boston Tea Party members "idiots."

And then, when someone actually replies, you immediately retreat into "oh, if my assertions are actually going to be questioned, then screw it -- I don't have time to actually back up what I say."

If you don't want to argue or debate, that's fine, but let's be clear about what happened here. You took a cheap shot and now you're pissed off that you got called on it. Don't take cheap shots if you're not prepared to be shot back at.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Damocles
08-24-2006, 09:30 AM
I think splitting up a Party, creating another one with much the same platform, putting forward candidates with much the same beliefs, takes votes from a candidate that people might get to know better...

I think that splitting off weakens the position of the LP and that often people do this to "punish" them for not be exactly what they wanted.

Cypress
08-24-2006, 09:35 AM
I think splitting up a Party, creating another one with much the same platform, putting forward candidates with much the same beliefs, takes votes from a candidate that people might get to know better...

I think that splitting off weakens the position of the LP and that often people do this to "punish" them for not be exactly what they wanted.

I think splitting up a Party, creating another one with much the same platform, putting forward candidates with much the same beliefs, takes votes from a candidate that people might get to know better...

That's what ideological extremists and ideological purists do.

They aren't interested in building coalitions. They're interested in ideological purity. When if fact, coalitions are the only possible way to have any influence on public policy.

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 10:14 AM
I think USC makes a good point when he questions whether it's true that 9/11 would not have happened if people were allowed to carry gun on board. I really think it's always far more difficult for us to say (though we pretend otherwise) what would or would not have happened "if". So I would not be ready to concede that.

And I just would not feel comfortable at all with armed passengers. Not before 9/11, or after it. You're not the only one who's not a good shot, but not everyone who owns a gun is going to admit that, if even to themselves. I think it's a bigger risk to have dozens of armed people running around, half or more who statisically will be fools, armed and thinking they're some kind of marshalls, air or otherwise.

I think you have a much better case when you argue that had our foreign policy been different, 9/11 could have been prevented. There are a thousand ifs though, if bush grasped what "bin laden determined to strike within the us meant" if someone in that adminstration had reconized that this Richard Clark guy might be worth listening to, and the list goes on. The fact is, it happened. The real bad shit is going to hit the fan sometimes in our lives, and that is a fact. No one wants it to, but for a variety of reasons, it's going to. It's how people react to these things, that makes the man, that makes the woman, that makes the people, that makes the nation.

And I'd say that our collective reactions and incredible willingness to give up rights, believe any bs story told to us, and bomb civilians all to save our own scared butts, doesnt' speak very highly of us so far. I think it would be a much better world if people could just grasp this simple fact: you are going to die. If not today, then tomorrow. If the terrorists don't get you, and they won't, McDonalds and those big macs you are scoffing down, is going to, but either way, you are going to die. Accept it and stop being willing to trade anything and anyone in order to prevent it. And I don't want to die, believe me. But, I'm going to. And I would be willing to bet a lot of money that it wont' be the terrorists who get me. And I live in NY. I mean, you have people who live in Idaho who are petrified of terrorists. Who are willing to sell out the constitituion because of terrorists. It's amazing.


Very good post Darla, I fully agree.

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 10:19 AM
Tom would you want to fly on a plane with dick cheny carrying a gun ?
I nkow a cheap shot (pun intended).
IMO though only very stupid people would fly on a plane knowing that unqualified armed people were allowed on there.
If allowed wouldn't the terrorists have guns as well ?

Thomas L. Knapp
08-24-2006, 10:24 AM
Damocles,

You write:

"I think splitting up a Party, creating another one with much the same platform, putting forward candidates with much the same beliefs, takes votes from a candidate that people might get to know better...

I think that splitting off weakens the position of the LP and that often people do this to 'punish' them for not be exactly what they wanted."

Fair enough. By way of rebuttal:

I didn't found the Boston Tea Party to "split up" the LP. I founded it because I saw people leaving the LP, realized that they were going to do so whether they had any place else to go or not, and resolved to give them a place to go so that they could then productively decide what to do (including, as a possibility, reintegrating into the LP as a united caucus). An additional element is that I figured that if I didn't give them a place to go, someone else would -- and perhaps that someone else might be more interested in spending 40 years wandering around in the desert than in either reuniting with the LP or actually getting something done outside it.

I also don't think that it's possible to really weaken the position of the LP. I mean, c'mon. The LP's presidential ticket routinely polls a fraction of one percent. The LP has never elected a US Representative, a US Senator or a governor. The LP has elected a handful of state legislators, nearly all of them on "fusion" tickets where they also ran on "major party" ballot lines. And, finally, the LP has a few hundred local officials and appointees to its credit. I'm not trying to put the LP down here, but it's not like it has some huge record of success that the existence of the BTP will prevent it from building on.

Furthermore, if the "reformers" are correct, then the fact that a number of "purists" are doing BTP instead of LP stuff should HELP the LP rather than hurt it. After all, the "reformer" case is that it's the "purists" who have been holding the LP back, right? If the "reformers" are right, then we'll just be over in the corner masturbating, unable to secure ballot access or anything -- we'll just be out of the way, freeing the LP to get things done.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Damocles
08-24-2006, 10:32 AM
I also don't think that it's possible to really weaken the position of the LP. I mean, c'mon. The LP's presidential ticket routinely polls a fraction of one percent. The LP has never elected a US Representative, a US Senator or a governor. The LP has elected a handful of state legislators, nearly all of them on "fusion" tickets where they also ran on "major party" ballot lines. And, finally, the LP has a few hundred local officials and appointees to its credit. I'm not trying to put the LP down here, but it's not like it has some huge record of success that the existence of the BTP will prevent it from building on.

Furthermore, if the "reformers" are correct, then the fact that a number of "purists" are doing BTP instead of LP stuff should HELP the LP rather than hurt it. After all, the "reformer" case is that it's the "purists" who have been holding the LP back, right? If the "reformers" are right, then we'll just be over in the corner masturbating, unable to secure ballot access or anything -- we'll just be out of the way, freeing the LP to get things done.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

LOL. Fair enough... The LP has lost percentage of the vote every year, it truly isn't possible to limit it's power. This is why I join the Republican Liberty Caucus and work within a position of power to promote Libertarian objectives...

www.rlc.org

Thomas L. Knapp
08-24-2006, 10:40 AM
uscitizen, You write:

"Tom would you want to fly on a plane with dick cheny carrying a gun ?"

Hell -- it bugs me to live in the same country as Dick Cheney, armed or unarmed.

"IMO though only very stupid people would fly on a plane knowing that unqualified armed people were allowed on there. If allowed wouldn't the terrorists have guns as well ?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "unqualified." In my experience, most people who carry guns are qualified to do so -- they take the act of carrying a gun seriously and educate themselves in gun safety and use. The exceptions to this -- the armed idiots -- usually seem to be exactly the people that make me WANT to have a gun with me. Of course, I may be prejudiced by my rural upbringing (in which carrying of guns was ubiquitous) and my Marine Corps experience (I had a secondary MOS as a marksmanship instructor).

And yes, the terrorists would have guns as well. But you're forgetting one thing: THEY ALREADY DO, or rather they have SOME kind of comparative weapon advantage to everyone around them. The idea is to erase that advantage. The terrorist technique is to attack the "soft spots" -- to create terror by finding and savaging people who can't defend themselves. We will always be terrorizable if we relegate our duty of self-defense to the government because, as much as it tries, the government can't be everywhere.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp
08-24-2006, 10:42 AM
Damocles,

You write: "LOL. Fair enough... The LP has lost percentage of the vote every year, it truly isn't possible to limit it's power. This is why I join the Republican Liberty Caucus and work within a position of power to promote Libertarian objectives..."

Fair enough as well. I'm critical of the RLC because I don't see them living up to their potential (and also because Republicans have always been a party of big government, even more so than Democrats), but if you can make it go, best of luck to you.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 10:44 AM
Well Tom in Army boot camp I saw some really ignorant people as far as guns are concerned, really dangerous for a while with them. I wondered if they would not kill me before the VC did.
I am also a helper to a man that conducts concealed carry classes and have my CC permit. Many of those students scare me and this is KY where everyone is rumored to have a gun :)

Cypress
08-24-2006, 10:52 AM
Tom would you want to fly on a plane with dick cheny carrying a gun ?
I nkow a cheap shot (pun intended).
IMO though only very stupid people would fly on a plane knowing that unqualified armed people were allowed on there.
If allowed wouldn't the terrorists have guns as well ?

LOL

A full blown gun-battle on an airplane, between half a dozen terrorists commited to suicide, and twenty armed passengers, would be just as effective at bringing a plane down, as a shoe bomb would.

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 11:06 AM
I guess I will have to start practicing my fast draw Cypress before I fly on wild western airlines, YA HOO!

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 11:07 AM
Or perhaps just a claymore in a briefcase would do fine.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-24-2006, 07:40 PM
Watermark,

I'm sorry for pissing in your Post Toasties, but try to see it from my point of view. You make a post in which you:

a) Make an incorrect historical assertion about the Libertarian Party (although, in fairness, you did add in an "as far as I know");

b) Make a very debatable assertion as to the nature of what happened at the LP's convention in Portland; and

c) Call me and other Boston Tea Party members "idiots."

And then, when someone actually replies, you immediately retreat into "oh, if my assertions are actually going to be questioned, then screw it -- I don't have time to actually back up what I say."

If you don't want to argue or debate, that's fine, but let's be clear about what happened here. You took a cheap shot and now you're pissed off that you got called on it. Don't take cheap shots if you're not prepared to be shot back at.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Shot back at by who?

I was talking to a group of buddies and this guy just walked in and got angry at me.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-24-2006, 07:44 PM
Damocles,

You write: "LOL. Fair enough... The LP has lost percentage of the vote every year, it truly isn't possible to limit it's power. This is why I join the Republican Liberty Caucus and work within a position of power to promote Libertarian objectives..."

Fair enough as well. I'm critical of the RLC because I don't see them living up to their potential (and also because Republicans have always been a party of big government, even more so than Democrats), but if you can make it go, best of luck to you.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

I personally prefer the Democratic Freedom Caucus... but they're much smaller. There is a chance that they'll get one person elected this year, but the RLC has like 6 or 20 members anyway.

Thomas L. Knapp
08-24-2006, 08:38 PM
Watermark,

You write:

"I personally prefer the Democratic Freedom Caucus... but they're much smaller. There is a chance that they'll get one person elected this year, but the RLC has like 6 or 20 members anyway."

I prefer the DFC to the RLC too (I helped start its Missouri chapter). The Missouri DFC chair, Mike Bozarth, was recently elected to the St. Joseph city council.

And btw, I didn't walk in and get mad at you. I'm just keeping track of what's said about the Boston Tea Party, and responding. No hard feelings from my side!

Regards,
Tom Knapp

FUCK THE POLICE
08-24-2006, 08:56 PM
I obviously wouldn't have used such harsh language if I had thought that anyone affiliated with the party would see it. I simply meant that it is my belief that splits are the wrong direction for the party.... a caucus would be better. Real parties in a winner-take-all world can't be ideologically pure, they have to be coalitions. It may sound like selling out, but it's better than not having anyone at all barely representing us.

TheDanold
08-24-2006, 11:34 PM
The 2 most prominent places where guns have been banned the most vehemenently are public schools and airplanes.

Now name the 2 places where we have seen the most mass death by crazies in the last 10 years....

TheDanold
08-24-2006, 11:41 PM
Thomas:

"Up to Here" rules

"Whoa baby I feel fine.
I'm pretty sure it's genuine."

"He bought a nice blue suit with the money he could find
If his bride didn't like it, St. Peter wouldn't mind"

Can't believe I found another Hip fan, Canada's best kept secret am I right?

Thomas L. Knapp
08-25-2006, 04:18 AM
Danold,

I'm not sure if I'm a "fan" of the Tragically Hip. I don't have all of their albums, etc. But I do like them. When I was in Saudi Arabia in 1991, I went to the PX one day wanting some music, and they had like three albums. One of them was something from Madonna, one was a country album, and one was "Road Apples." Loved that band ever since.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

FUCK THE POLICE
08-25-2006, 05:44 AM
The 2 most prominent places where guns have been banned the most vehemenently are public schools and airplanes.

Now name the 2 places where we have seen the most mass death by crazies in the last 10 years....

You're argument is non-sequitor, and "death by crazies" is somewhat loosely defined.

TheDanold
08-25-2006, 07:31 AM
Danold,

I'm not sure if I'm a "fan" of the Tragically Hip. I don't have all of their albums, etc. But I do like them. When I was in Saudi Arabia in 1991, I went to the PX one day wanting some music, and they had like three albums. One of them was something from Madonna, one was a country album, and one was "Road Apples." Loved that band ever since.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
Their early stuff is better:
"Up to Here"
"Road Apples"
"Fully Completely"
"Day for Night"

Lyrics are some of the best around.

TheDanold
08-25-2006, 07:39 AM
You're argument is non-sequitor, and "death by crazies" is somewhat loosely defined.
How is it non-sequitur?

Even madmen looking to carry out mass murder often choose their location, areas that have a higher guarantee of less resistance (such as those where guns are forbidden) have got to be looked upon as a draw for that mindset.

There was a school shooting in Cali where the older man who did it, specifically said he chose a school because no one would have guns to shoot him back there.

"The threat of severe retaliation does not fail to deter even people driven by seemingly irresistible passion." - Ludwig Von Mises
You should read Mises essay on "Acting Man"
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/HmA/msHmA.html

Hermes Thoth
02-25-2007, 07:05 AM
You support the real ID act Tiana? I'm surprised?

As for the budget crisis I'm sure it would help to pull out of Iraq.

Don't forget, lefties are fascists too. It's so depressing. They just want to jump right to end stage totalitarianism. the right realizes they will have to do the hard work of dominating and consolidating all industries first. Two paths to the same place.

Agnosticus_Caesar
03-14-2007, 10:11 PM
I'd be willing to support Real ID if there were laws limiting the government's ability to require it.