libertarian candidates

[shanek]

I couldn't find the links. Where are they?

IIRC, they're either on the second or third page of this thread:

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=33

 

[Thanz]

But this is my very point. Article III of the Constitution gives the power of the judicial branch over all cases involving Common Law, the only other exceptions being admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and a whole bunch of cases involving the government directly. Statutory law is not directly given, and therefore is only Constitutional under those limited areas where the Constitution has given Congress the power to pass laws. Common Law is supposed to triumph unless there is a specific statute precenting it. It isn't working that way. You're only supposed to go to statutory law when Common Law doesn't cover the offense, and even then the decision is supposed to be made based on equity.

That last sentence is just incorrect. You don't resort to statutes when the common law has a hole, you resort to common law when the statutes have a hole. It is an important disctinction. Statutes trump the common law. In some cases (like this one) they are specifically there to overrule common law. It simply doesn't matter if common law covers something if there is a statute in place - the statute will govern.

Precisely the point! Common Law isn't really being used here. Common Law would state most certainly that if the manufacturer wasn't the one who did the harm, it would be ridiculous to sue them.

That is the very decision that is being prevented by the statute. The statute is preventing this development in the common law. At common law it is conceivable that the manufacturer does owe a duty of care. The statute decides this instead of allowing the common law to develop.

Granted, but that still doesn't solve the problem. And since the Constitution doesn't give the government the authority to pass statutes on the issue of gun ownership, we're again left with bad statutes that allow the courts to exercise extraconstitutional jurisdiction. The statute Badnarik is talking about would defend against that.

The law in question does nothing to prevent courts from exercising "extraconstitutional jurisdiction". Without the law, the courts would decide the liability issue on the merits according to the common law - which is completely within their jurisdiction. you cannot both trumpet the common law and this statute - this statute is antithetical to the common law.

Sure, it does. If a statute said that the manufacturer could be held responsible, then jury nullification would be the only way a jury could vote "not guilty." That option is being taken away from them whenever they have a statute, since they are specifically instructed to the contrary about their nullification rights.

Wrong. The statute says nothing of the kind - nor would it. The alternative to this statute is not another statute saying that gun manufacturers are liable, rather, there would be a legislative void and the common law would prevail. The jury would decide on the issue, one way or the other, and there would be no nullification. In fact, the only way for a gun manufacturer to be found liable now under the current legislation would be via nullification. Would you consider that to be a lgitimate decision by a jury?

But there you still have the problem of people being able to sue without consequence and drive the company out of business.

If that is the real problem, address it specifically and across the board for ALL lawsuits. It makes no sense to carve out a specific industry for special treatment if the problem is across the whole judicial system.

No, nullification is one particular way of offering a disincentive, both to the plaintiffs for bringing the suit and for the judge to allow it to go through. Remember that a judge is honor-bound to dismiss a case if no reasonable jury would convict; that would include nullification if juries had that right.

Again, wrong. The jury doesn't have to nullify to find the manufacturer not liable if this law doesn't exist. they will just be performing their regular duties of determining the case on the merits. I also think that you are confusing criminal and civil issues and concepts.

 

[Thanz]

IIRC, they're either on the second or third page of this thread:

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=33

The only links to audio files I see are to 2 hours of his course. I do not intend to wade through 2 hours of his hay to find this needle. If you can pinpoint it any more, I'd appreciate it.

 

[shanek]

That last sentence is just incorrect. You don't resort to statutes when the common law has a hole, you resort to common law when the statutes have a hole.

That's the way it is now; that's not the way it was when this country was set up, nor what the Constitution supports.

Statutes trump the common law.

Yes, but statutes are only supposed to be passed when Common Law doesn't cover a particular area.

The statute is preventing this development in the common law.

No, the law as written is preventing this development in the Common Law. If anything, Badnarik's statute would encourage the Common Law development of this concept in people's minds.

The law in question does nothing to prevent courts from exercising "extraconstitutional jurisdiction".

The Constitution itself does.

In fact, the only way for a gun manufacturer to be found liable now under the current legislation would be via nullification. Would you consider that to be a lgitimate decision by a jury?

Yes, but again, juries are being actively told by the judges that they don't have that option.

If that is the real problem, address it specifically and across the board for ALL lawsuits. It makes no sense to carve out a specific industry for special treatment if the problem is across the whole judicial system.[/qoute]

Now this I'll grant you is an excellent point.

 

[billydkid]

yes, yes!!!

Bravo, excellent!

Let's all relish this and revel in the glory of trashing the only political party that actually has your interests and the interests of the rest of the American people at heart. I don't get it. Yes, it's true. The Libertarians are amateurish in the ways of national politics. Yes, we have some goofs in the party and yes Michael Badnarik is easy to make fun of. But what's the fun of picking on a bunch of losers, if that is what we are? The Libertarians aren't the ones picking your pockets. They are not members of the entrenched ruling class. They aren't skull and bones types deciding the fate of the "free world".

It doesn't matter who Michael Badnarik is. He would not be President no matter who he was. It will be a very long time until anyone beside a Dem or Rep has a hope of being President. What matters is that there is someone out there voicing the libertarian viewpoint. You should reserve your contempt for the people who actually deserve it. I can't think of anything more thankless that being the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. I have to admire anyone who is willing to go through it. The best such a candidate could hope to get out of this is the gratitude of the party and a little assistance in paying off the inevitable campaign debt.

I just don't understand your people's contempt for people who are willing to try against all odds to make some changes in the national dialog in the name of geniune liberty. One either believes in freedom and its preservation or one doesn't. It's hard to imagine that anyone who does so would be so hell bent on trashing the only political party that represents those things. If you do believe in those things and all you can do is sit around smugly making fun of sincere people with no other agenda than to promote them in this country then shame on you. If you think there is something wrong with the party (me and Shane and a few thousand other people) then join it and change it. But if you think the Dems and Reps have your interests at heart you are sadly mistaken.

Personally, to my mind there is something extremely unattractive about this sort of self satisfied smugness and contempt for those who want to perserve and promote the freedoms that define what it means to be an American and makes that designation meaningful in any significant way. You want an authoratarian/nanny state? You want live your life at the behest of the federal government with beauracrats deciding for you how your child should be educated and with what values they will be inculcated? You want to continue to support ineffective and costly social engineering programs which you neither believe in or voted for? You want your tax dollars to support "faith based initiatives"? You want to continue to throw money down the toilet supporting a destructive and pointless "drug war"?

Do you want defense companies to continue to get bloated, no bid contracts by virtue of their close association with Vice Presidents? Do want to live perpetually under a state of increasingly intrusive surveilience until you virtually can not even take a crap in private? Do you want every financial transaction you make tracked by the government? Do you want a national ID card so you can prove who you are to any law enforcement official who arbitrarily decides you look suspicious enough that you need to be searched - or maybe he just feel like harrassing you? People make fun of the old "slippery slope", but that slope is real and we have been on it for a while. It happens so gradually you don't even notice it. Before you know, cops are strip searching our kids in school - oh wait, that's already happening.

But, hey, if you like those things and want those things, then fine, by all means, trash the Libertarians, goddam wackos anyway - all this talk about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and all that crap. Who needs it?

 

[crimresearch]

Every single bogey man you've listed has been used by a variety of groups to scare people into accepting them as the next 'wind of change'.

I asked you once why the Libertarian Party should be above skepticism, and you told me it wasn't about the party, it was about the ideas.

Well if it isn't about the party, and we really do want those ideas implemented, why work so hard to support and protect those, like Badnarik, who are trying their damndest to make sure that those ideas always remain associated with fringe groups and fringe behavior? Why not implement those ideas through a different party, big or small?

Unless of course, it isn't about the ideas, and it really is about being upset because people are making fun of sacred cows like candidates, and party faithful.
If the latter is the case, then it gives the appearance that the LP is acting just like any other group of power mongers determined to silence their critics.

 

[shanek]

Hey crimresearch, did you ever retract your claim that one MUST sign the NIOF pledge to join the Libertarian Party?

 

[Art Vandelay]

LostAngeles

Did you refer to me as a "he" too? I must have missed it because you were supporting me. I caught Rouser2 though, but that's because s/he was attacking me...

I really think that there should be a place in the profile for the poster to put his/her sex. No requirement to fill it out, but anyone who leaves it blank can be referred to as either sex. It's just so annoying to have to avoid gender specific pronouns.

While I disagree with almost everything shanek has ever said in this thread, I have to say that for the most part I agree with him WRT gun lawsuits. Calling lawsuits a "market force" is quite inaccurate, and the fact that fingerprint resistance may aid a crime does not mean that law-adbiding citizens do not have the right to purchase guns with that feature.

What propels the head is the exit wound. What comes out is a lot more matter than what came in, and the head gets thrown back in the direction of the shot.

I asked what force would propels the head. Is the exit wound a force? No, it is not. For the extra matter to throw the head back, there must be a force between the extra matter and the head. What is this force?

And that is the point where they would be initiating force or fraud, so that is the point where a Libertarian government would step in.

No, there is no need to engage in force (other than defensive force; a monopoly is no good if people can just steal your stuff from you), and there is no need for fraud either.

What's this "already" crap? I've spoken and debated with the guy off and on for like a year and a half now! He was actually my first choice until Russo threw his hat in.

So... what? You know him really well, so you are justified in dismissing any criticism as a lie?

When did I say that?

You said:

In either event, you are dishonestly painting him as a nutcase when you have no basis for doing so.

Fancy way of saying "Liar, liar!"

I've been providing many reasoned arguments against what you and others have said about him.

"That's a lie" is not a reasoned argument.

No, that is an example of a QUESTION.

Just because it has a question mark at the end, that doesn't mean you are absolved of any responsibility to the truth.

You said that anyone who didn't know how the current system is being run doesn't deserve to be involved in the political process.

No, I did not. QUIT LYING! I said that anyone who didn't know that this country has a two party system doesn't deserve to be involved.

The government is actively withholding and even misleading about a LOT of things about our electoral process.

You really need to pay more attention. I did not say that the government is not withholding information. I said that it is not withholding THE information.

Any time you attack the person and not the issues it's an ad hominem.

But what I have repeatedly said, and which you are ignoring, is that the person IS THE ISSUE!

Amazing. Absolutely amazing. That should win some kind of mega-irony award...

Huh?

And it does indeed seem like an absurd exaggeration. That is, if you haven't already made up your mind that the guy's a nutcase.

How is it an absurd exaggeration?

I do. You should really try and understand what the other person is saying before flaming him.

Yes, you should.

You don't see the distinction between a peaceful act of construction and a forceful act of destruction?

Huh? How is it peaceful construction? Are you going to argue that an explosion is normally a destructive act, but if the people that perform it are construction workers, that makes it constructive?

So? That doesn't mean it's tantamount to mass murder!!!

I never said it is.

Who's saying VIOLATE anything? Man, and you accuse ME of making stuff up! Badnarik would be refusing to enforce a law he believed to be unconstitutional. What would he be violating? What POSSSIBLE justification would there be between his position and police committing crimes????

Yes, I do accuse you of making things up, because you do. I never said that his position is analogous to the police committing crimes. I was just pointing out that the phrase "ignoring laws" implies more than "refuse to enforce laws". Specifically, the former could refer either to the latter OR to violating the laws. You should be more clear in what your position is.

Uh, we're TALKING ABOUT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY HERE!!!!!

So? Suppose this were a thread about blacks, and there were the following exchange:
Me: By the way, I think most black people are stupid.
Other Poster: That's racist thing to say.
Me: How is it racist?
OP: You said that black people are stupider than whites.
Me: No, I didn't. I think most people are stupid.
OP: So why did you specifically say that black people are stupid?
Me: Uh, we're TALKING ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE HERE!!!!

I think most people would agree that, in this hypothetical, I am acting rather silly. Apparently you, however, do not see anything wrong with that sort of thing.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

MKJ posted information about a completely different case. If you'll listen to the audio files linked to over at SC, you'll hear him talk about these cases and how he made a mistake with one that resulted in him having been found guilty of the offense.

He's been pinched on this charge more than once!? Why wasn't that included to "set the record straight"? Would the "mistake" he made consist of breaking the law, perhaps? And, of course, that still doesn't explain why he never appeared at the appeal to present his "Constitutional argument." Click your heels while repeating "It's a non-issue" three times--your wish may come true!

[snip insult]

Coming from someone else, I might be offended, but... The information I post usually speaks for itself; it long ago became clear that trying to "discuss" it with you was utterly pointless .

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Hey crimresearch, did you ever retract your claim that one MUST sign the NIOF pledge to join the Libertarian Party?

https://secure.lp.org/scripts/join.php

YES, sign me up as a member of the Libertarian Party. I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. [emphasis original!]

Don't mind me, I'm just data mining.

 

[Thanz]

That's the way it is now; that's not the way it was when this country was set up, nor what the Constitution supports.

I disagree. Do you really think that the founding fathers wanted judge made law to be supreme to the laws passed by the duly elected government? No, the laws of the legislature must be given precedence over common law, where applicable. that's the way it has always been.

Yes, but statutes are only supposed to be passed when Common Law doesn't cover a particular area.

Or where the duly elected government disagrees with the common law. They pass a law to change it.

No, the law as written is preventing this development in the Common Law. If anything, Badnarik's statute would encourage the Common Law development of this concept in people's minds.

If he is supporting a statute that outlaws lawsuits against gun manufacturers, it can in no way develop the common law. The only way common law develops is through court cases. If you outlaw the court cases, you stop the development of common law. Simple.

Now this I'll grant you is an excellent point.

Thank you.

 

[shanek]

I asked what force would propels the head. Is the exit wound a force? No, it is not.

Yes, it is. It is a force very similar to jet propulsion. Bits of skull and other matter being forced out in one direction causes the head to move in the other. Newton, action-reaction, and all that.

No, there is no need to engage in force (other than defensive force; a monopoly is no good if people can just steal your stuff from you), and there is no need for fraud either.

Then how would they stop competitors?

So... what?

So, your insinuation that I'm going off my initial impression of the guy is inaccurate.

Fancy way of saying "Liar, liar!"

No, it isn't. I'm saying that 1) you tried to paint him as a nutcase, and 2) you had no reason for doing so.

Just because it has a question mark at the end, that doesn't mean you are absolved of any responsibility to the truth.

Just because you can talk out of both sides of your mouth doesn't mean you are absolved of answering the question.

No, I did not. QUIT LYING! I said that anyone who didn't know that this country has a two party system doesn't deserve to be involved.

Okay, you're just f*cking trolling now. What you said you said is EXACTLY what I said you said! And you call me a liar.

You really need to pay more attention. I did not say that the government is not withholding information. I said that it is not withholding THE information.

If it is not withholding any kind of information that can be preceded with the definite article "the," then you could be said to say that the government is not withholding information (sans definite article) about this subject. Learn the language, please.

How is it an absurd exaggeration?

How is it not an absurd exaggeration? And why do Demopublican politicians apparently get a free ride on this while a Libertarian gets slammed?

Yes, you should.

Oh, how mature. "I know you are, but what am I?"

Huh? How is it peaceful construction? Are you going to argue that an explosion is normally a destructive act, but if the people that perform it are construction workers, that makes it constructive?

Imploding a building no longer in use is a peaceful act of construction. It happens all the time. Get the f*ck over yourself.

I never said it is.

You most certainly did, by equating it to a violent act!

I never said that his position is analogous to the police committing crimes.

Then above why do you deny that it is peaceful?

So?

So if we're talking about the President, we're talking about the President. Keep up!

Suppose this were a thread about blacks, and there were the following exchange:

That exchange is NOTHING like the exchange we just had. You're just being dishonest, and using racism to try and somehow exalt your point.

 

[shanek]

Coming from someone else, I might be offended, but... The information I post usually speaks for itself; it long ago became clear that trying to "discuss" it with you was utterly pointless .

Whatever. You go on and be self-important. But as far as discussions are concerned, you're useless.

 

[shanek]

Don't mind me, I'm just data mining.

I WILL mind you, because you're misrepresenting the LP. As I explained in the other thread, one may become a member of the LP by joining one of its affiliates, and not all of them require taking the oath. For example, in NC, taking the oath is only one option; you can also pay dues, or simply register as a Libertarian with your local Board of Elections.

I pointed this out to crimresearch, and also the criteria for his home state of Tennessee (which doesn't even MENTION the pledge), and he continued to make the claim.

He also clung to the GEORGIA LP's requirements as if they represented all LP affiliates.

 

[shanek]

I disagree. Do you really think that the founding fathers wanted judge made law to be supreme to the laws passed by the duly elected government?

What are you talking about? They didn't want judge-made law at all. And that's not what Common Law is.

Or where the duly elected government disagrees with the common law. They pass a law to change it.

Show me where the Constituion says that. And then explain why the Constitution specifies specific areas in which laws may be passed.

If he is supporting a statute that outlaws lawsuits against gun manufacturers, it can in no way develop the common law. The only way common law develops is through court cases.

That's just not true. Common Law is law defined in the minds of the people, not the courts or the judges. Murder is a Common Law crime because the people, not judges or courts, pretty much universally consider it to be a crime. Are you saying that the legislature should be able to pass a law legalizing murder?

Oh, in case you want a cite for my definition of Common Law:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common law
"That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people."

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

As I explained in the other thread, one may become a member of the LP by joining one of its affiliates, and not all of them require taking the oath. For example, in NC, taking the oath is only one option; you can also pay dues, or simply register as a Libertarian with your local Board of Elections.

I stand corrected. The registration page for the NC LP also requires a "certification." But if you read the fine print, it does list registering as Libertarian with your local election board as an option. Of course, requiring an oath anywhere is pretty creepy.

 

[billydkid]

Is this clearer?

Every single bogey man you've listed has been used by a variety of groups to scare people into accepting them as the next 'wind of change'.

I asked you once why the Libertarian Party should be above skepticism, and you told me it wasn't about the party, it was about the ideas.

Well if it isn't about the party, and we really do want those ideas implemented, why work so hard to support and protect those, like Badnarik, who are trying their damndest to make sure that those ideas always remain associated with fringe groups and fringe behavior? Why not implement those ideas through a different party, big or small?

Unless of course, it isn't about the ideas, and it really is about being upset because people are making fun of sacred cows like candidates, and party faithful.
If the latter is the case, then it gives the appearance that the LP is acting just like any other group of power mongers determined to silence their critics.

The point is, yes it is about the ideas. The Libertarian party is the only party promoting those ideas. It follows that you support the party that supports the ideas you believe in. If the Libertarians suddenly come out with a platform that was anti-libertarian in nature it would follow that they would not be a libertarian party any longer and I would not support them. I don't think this is a difficult concept. There is not an alternative political movement for libertarians to support. The Libertarian party is the standard bearer for libertarian ideas.

Earlier someone criticized me for saying how all these certain injustices would not and could not have occured under a libertarian principled government. By definition that is true. By definition they wouldn't be being libertarian if they engaged in those kind of activities. It is exactly as though I had said "Under a government that doesn't commit injustices those injustices wouldn't occur." What defines a libertarian government as libertarian is its respect for and protection of individual liberties.

I specifically used a small "L" where appropriate. Is it possible for the Libertarian party to become corrupted? Of course. It follows that I did not say that a "Libertarian" government could not commit injustices, but they are the only party promoting the protection of individual liberty. That is at the very core of their philosophy. It is reasonable to suppose that that would remain at the core of their philosophy should they achieve high office.

 

[billydkid]

Wait

I stand corrected. The registration page for the NC LP also requires a "certification." But if you read the fine print, it does list registering as Libertarian with your local election board as an option. Of course, requiring an oath anywhere is pretty creepy.

That oath you refer to and pretend sounds creepy, is designed specifically to allay the fears of people like you. It simply consists of a commitment NOT TO RAISE ARMS against the US government. What other party makes such a commitment. Your comment about the oath is dishonest. So you, for example, wouldn't be willing to take an oath not to raise arms agains your government? Wow, I wouldn't say that too loud in the current climate. You must be a pretty dangerous character.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Web Archive cache

Because my campaign is firmly rooted in the “radical idea” that the Constitution is more than just an artifact of history, I have enlisted the aid of TWO Constitutional advisors. The first is Jon Roland, author of the very popular website, Constitution.org. Jon lives right here in Austin, Texas. The second is David Champion from California who is also the author of a website about the Constitution. His website can be found at OriginalIntent.org.

Jon Roland is a leader in the Militia/Patriot movement, who apparently believes the X-Files was a documentary:

The Shadow Government

Despite the lack of hard evidence accessible to ordinary citizens, there is enough testimonial evidence to compel a reasonable person to conclude three things: UFOs exist, they are intelligently directed, and they are not ours.<2> Even if that were all that the government knew about them, minds already paranoid from the Cold War could hardly help but perceive such things as a significant potential threat, one that required secrecy, preparation, and disregard for provisions of a Constitution that were inconvenient. There are, however, enough leaks from government officials to indicate that the government knows a great deal about them that it is concealing from the public.

http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/patriot/shadow_government.txt

(12) Finally, UFOs and aliens seem to be involved. Perhaps only as a
manufactured opportunity/threat, but more likely the people in charge of
dealing with the matter are using a real situation to expand their
power, perhaps to the extent that those are the core of the SG, even
over the key people in the financial community. We need to expose all
of this.

--Jon Roland
Texas Militia Correspondence Committee

David Champion is a Tax Protestor/Snake Oil Salesman who tries to convince people that they don't have to pay taxes:

Debunking IRS Lies

In point of fact, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Mr. Bill Benson and Mr. M.J. "Red" Beckman traveled to every state that was a part of the Union back in 1913, and researched the voting records and other pertinent data from each of the state legislature's historical archives. Their research is contained within a two-volume set entitled, "The Law That Never Was". The inescapable conclusion of their research is that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. ["The Law That Never Was" can be found at www.thelawthatneverwas.com] Further, despite the IRS lies stated above, no US court has ever determined that the 16th Amendment was, in reality, properly ratified. What the courts have said is that because the [then] US Secretary of State, Philander Knox, "certified" that the Amendment was properly ratified, the courts of the United States must consider it properly ratified. The federal courts have stated that whether or not the Amendment was, in reality, properly ratified is a "political question".

 

[billydkid]

Bogey men?

Every single bogey man you've listed has been used by a variety of groups to scare people into accepting them as the next 'wind of change'.

I asked you once why the Libertarian Party should be above skepticism, and you told me it wasn't about the party, it was about the ideas.

Well if it isn't about the party, and we really do want those ideas implemented, why work so hard to support and protect those, like Badnarik, who are trying their damndest to make sure that those ideas always remain associated with fringe groups and fringe behavior? Why not implement those ideas through a different party, big or small?

Unless of course, it isn't about the ideas, and it really is about being upset because people are making fun of sacred cows like candidates, and party faithful.
If the latter is the case, then it gives the appearance that the LP is acting just like any other group of power mongers determined to silence their critics.

The drug war is a bogey man? The billions flushed down the toilet is a bogey man? The treatment of Japanese Americans 60 years ago is a bogey man? Government surveilience of email and bank transactions is a bogey man? The seizure of property of drug suspects is a bogey man? The "Patriot Act" is a bogey man? Your argument is just bogus. There is and has not been anyone else consistently promoting the preservation of YOUR rights and liberties. Everyone else has always had an agenda involving self gain of some kind. What on earth do you think the Libertarians stand to gain? I don't know why you simply can not grasp this.

It should be more than obvious that being a Libertarian is not about ambition or prestige or money - we don't have and have no reasonble expection of having those things in our life times. Libertarians do not want office so they can help their friends. They do not aspire to immortality. They are not looking for high paying positions on boards of directors. They want to secure freedom for your children and mine. I know it's a hard notion to grasp, but it is possible not to have a hidden agenda. It is just possible that there are some people who believe geniune freedom is worth promoting and pretecting for the good of us all.