Free E-book

[Jimmy]

As a former member of the Libertarian Party, I still get emails from a number of libertarian think tank organiations. The Cato Institute is offering a free e-book entitled Cult of the Presidency,
America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power. I have downloaded it and it is simply fascinating.

I like the Cato Institute as well as Reason magazine. If the LP had members across the board with the caliber of people at Cato and who write for Reason, it might just be a Party most Americans could support. Instead, it seems the Party is chock full of kooks who are one-issue candidates (legalization of pot, public nudity, child porn,etc.). It's too bad. So, I will stay a bonifide independent for now.

[SteveFoerster]

Instead, it seems the Party is chock full of kooks who are one-issue candidates (legalization of pot, public nudity, child porn,etc.).

Excuse me? I have never heard of an LP candidate who supported legalizing kiddie porn. Where the hell does this come from?

-=Steve=-

[Jimmy]

Excuse me? I have never heard of an LP candidate who supported legalizing kiddie porn. Where the hell does this come from?

-=Steve=-

Dr. Mary Ruwart, an LP stalwart and candidate for several offices as a Libertarian including the 2008 presidential nomination. Ruwart has said

Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.

The source is her Short Answers to the Tough Questions.

[SteveFoerster]

Dr. Mary Ruwart, an LP stalwart and candidate for several offices as a Libertarian including the 2008 presidential nomination.

Very well. Still, I can't imagine that's representative of what most people in the LP think. It certainly doesn't track with what any libertarians I know think.

-=Steve=-

[Brandon]

Very well. Still, I can't imagine that's representative of what most people in the LP think. It certainly doesn't track with what any libertarians I know think.

I agree with that statement, though I've no evidence to back it up. However, assuming the Wikipedia article about Mary Ruwart is accurate, she seems to be a national leader in the LP. She was a U.S. Senate nominee, Libertarian National Committee member, and keynote speaker at the 2004 national convention. In 2008, she appears to have come very close to winning the LP presidential nomination. In fact, her views on kiddie porn during that particular campaign did spark some controversy, so it seems clear that they were known to the convention. That, of course, does not dispute your statement that her view isn't representative of the majority of the LP. None-the-less, I do find it disturbing that, despite her views on pedo-scum, she has achieved such a prominent role in the Libertarian Party.

[Jimmy]

I agree with that statement, though I've no evidence to back it up. However, assuming the Wikipedia article about Mary Ruwart is accurate, she seems to be a national leader in the LP. She was a U.S. Senate nominee, Libertarian National Committee member, and keynote speaker at the 2004 national convention. In 2008, she appears to have come very close to winning the LP presidential nomination. In fact, her views on kiddie porn during that particular campaign did spark some controversy, so it seems clear that they were known to the convention. That, of course, does not dispute your statement that her view isn't representative of the majority of the LP. None-the-less, I do find it disturbing that, despite her views on pedo-scum, she has achieved such a prominent role in the Libertarian Party.

Mary Ruwart is just one of many, Lew Rockwell being another. I had been active in LP circles since 1986 in two states, Michigan and Indiana and Ruwart's views represented at least 1/3 of the folks I was in contact with. As a mater of fact, that is one reason I resigned from the Party in 1988. The platform at that time was very much in support of children's rights to make sexual decisions.

[Brandon]

Mary Ruwart is just one of many, Lew Rockwell being another. I had been active in LP circles since 1986 in two states, Michigan and Indiana and Ruwart's views represented at least 1/3 of the folks I was in contact with. As a mater of fact, that is one reason I resigned from the Party in 1988. The platform at that time was very much in support of children's rights to make sexual decisions.

Wow. I had no idea. I've grown very sick and disgusted with the overall failure of society to effectively combat the abuse of children. From church leaderships to school administrators to this subject, I can't help but form a very pessimistic view. It stinks of a very ancient and vile evil.

[Isadore Weisberg]

Dr. Mary Ruwart, an LP stalwart and candidate for several offices as a Libertarian including the 2008 presidential nomination.

Very well. Still, I can't imagine that's representative of what most people in the LP think. It certainly doesn't track with what any libertarians I know think.

-=Steve=-

I agree with that statement, though I've no evidence to back it up. However, assuming the Wikipedia article about Mary Ruwart is accurate, she seems to be a national leader in the LP. She was a U.S. Senate nominee, Libertarian National Committee member, and keynote speaker at the 2004 national convention. In 2008, she appears to have come very close to winning the LP presidential nomination. In fact, her views on kiddie porn during that particular campaign did spark some controversy, so it seems clear that they were known to the convention. That, of course, does not dispute your statement that her view isn't representative of the majority of the LP. None-the-less, I do find it disturbing that, despite her views on pedo-scum, she has achieved such a prominent role in the Libertarian Party.

This is the natural outcome of taking any socio-political ideology to its furthest extreme, i.e. the result is impractical , unrealistic and not desireable but those who embrace the ideology in the abstract often take an absolutist position in its defense. The general idea, limits on government power and authority andthe maximization of individual liberty and freedom, certainly resonates with many and those ideas strongly influenced the founders of this nation. Yet when you try to apply those principles to every situation you come up with some impractical, harmful results. The child pornography example is one. Legalization of drugs is another. Are we really going to let people use harmful drugs freely and legally? What happens when certain segments of society are completely decimated and unproductive? Since libertarians are also against government transfer payments (welfare) are we going to let that same group starve to death? Of course not. It is on complex, interrelated issues like these that libertarianism as a political philosophy breaks down.

[SteveFoerster]

This is the natural outcome of taking any socio-political ideology to its furthest extreme, i.e. the result is impractical , unrealistic and not desireable but those who embrace the ideology in the abstract often take an absolutist position in its defense. The general idea, limits on government power and authority andthe maximization of individual liberty and freedom, certainly resonates with many and those ideas strongly influenced the founders of this nation. Yet when you try to apply those principles to every situation you come up with some impractical, harmful results. The child pornography example is one. Legalization of drugs is another. Are we really going to let people use harmful drugs freely and legally? What happens when certain segments of society are completely decimated and unproductive? Since libertarians are also against government transfer payments (welfare) are we going to let that same group starve to death? Of course not. It is on complex, interrelated issues like these that libertarianism as a political philosophy breaks down.

No, I'm actually pretty absolutist when it comes to liberty. But I do accept a sort of idea of agency wherein those who are not competent to make independent decisions, like children, the mentally ill, or those who have succumbed to a disease like Alzheimer's, can be cared for by loved ones.

By the way, we all saw what you did there -- you took child pornography, something unambiguously harmful, and falsely equated it with drugs and welfare in an attempt to make your positions on them seem just as defensible. Nice try.

You suggest that were drugs legalized, certain segments of society would be completely decimated and unproductive. When drug use is approached as a criminal matter rather than as a public health issue, that's exactly the outcome. When people who are otherwise not bothering others and who smoke cannabis or sniff cocaine are incarcerated, it causes exactly the loss of productivity you claim to oppose. And the societal decimation you say you don't want is part and parcel of those mass incarcerations, the violence that comes from the artificial price floor for drugs as a result of prohibition, the erosion of civil liberties, and the hostile relationship between law enforcement and the people they supposedly serve.

Your promotion of welfare is relies on the assumption that a society without government enforced transfer payments would also be a society without charity. I don't believe that, although I do think that the amounts available would be less. I expect that what we would see would be that charities would focus on those truly incapable of helping themselves, and that those can but simply don't want to would have a much harder time living off the dole.

-=Steve=-

[Jimmy]

...Legalization of drugs is another. Are we really going to let people use harmful drugs freely and legally?..

The problem is actually very systemic. We oppose illegal drug use while the proliferation of "legal" drugs is just as dangerous, especially among children. See.