Okay, I had previously indicated that I would stay out of the Radical v Reform LP debate, posting that, by definition, a political party has to make compromises and forge coalitions. But observing the LP candidates now falling over each other issuing statements either condemning anarchism or rebutting charges that they are anarchists has led me to reconsider. Less Antman posted an article Monday on LRC that addressed this issue, proclaiming The Dallas Accord is Dead. Antman was motivated by Wayne Allen Root invoking the Dallas Accord in his criticism of Mart Ruwart's anarchist views and LP Presidential candidate Christine Smith going on a radio talk show and essentially calling for a purge of anarchists from the LP. Smith was particularly vile in her comments, quoting Ayn Rand in calling anarchists "collectivist, anti-intellectual scum." Her tirade went so far as to proclaim anarchism was a collectivist virus within the LP.

I'm sad to see we've got enough of these people in the LP, they are trying to control it, they are trying to get a presidential candidate...

Well, I'm sad to see that we have a dolt like Christine Smith who is able to parade around passing herself off as an authoritative adjudicator of libertarianism. I would be remiss not to point out to Christine Smith that Ayn Rand virtually condemned everyone, with the exception of GOP presidential candidates, of Objectivist heresy. Indeed Rand's own opinion of the Libertarian Party fell somewhere between her opinion of anarchists and George McGovern.

This whole business started when it became apparent that late-entry Mary Ruwart, a self-admitted Rothbardian Anarchist, had a shot at winning the LP nomination. Ruwart was a late entry because she had been volunteering for the Ron Paul campaign. Indeed, both Ruwart and her husband are long-time Paul activists. Ron Paul had returned the favor by previously recommending Ruwart, a Phd biochemist, for the post of FDA commissioner to President Bush.

Ruwart's convention strategy is going to rely heavily on making the case that she is best poised, both from her past activist history and from her own Rothbardian leanings, to capture and galvanize the Ron Paul Vote. However, she is facing a more sophisticated candidate pool this go around that certainly is not above engaging in opposition research to dredge up old book passages to discredit her. And, without doubt, the attacks Ruwart has had to endure illustrates the perils of anarchists trying to run for political office. Market anarchist theory of law, security, and justice doesn't translate very well into political campaigns or the political arena. Ambitious political opponents will eat it alive. As with love and war, there is nothing fair about politics. Unlike Ruwart, Ron Paul--Ruwart's mentor-- leaves it up to the subjective onlooker whether in his heart of hearts he is actually a Misean Statist or a Rothbardian Anarchist. Paul, I suppose, is smart enough as a politician not to really address that distinction in writing.

This whole dust up only exemplifies a larger contextual question of whether a diverse political and moral philosophy, which is what libertarianism really is, should be organized into a political party to begin with. The fact is that libertarianism cuts a wide ideological swath and encompasses a diverse set of competing schools of historical thought. It is true that NAP can be used as a sort of unifying principle in theory, but in practical application, all kind of cracks and fissures begin to manifest themselves.

For example, Statist-Libertarians view the State as a necessary monopoly provider of retaliatory force to enforce NAP violations against person or property and to provide a small set of non-excludable public goods, such as a national defense. However, Anarcho-Libertarians counter that the State, by nature, is a Redistributionist Coalition, and will, by logical necessity, expand in scope and size. This is the De Jasay argument reached from a rational choice methodology. The same conclusion can be reached however from a more dialectical Libertarian Class Theory perspective as well. Therefore the State necessarily is a net violator of NAP, it's violations far outweighing it's enforcements. Since the behavior of the State can be predicted theoretically and verified empirically without fail, this is a scientific conclusion. Anarcho-Libertarians make the charge that Statist-Libertarians suffer from the Ought-Is fallacy when it comes to the State. Statist-Libertarians will usually attempt to counter the anarchist framework for NAP argument typically using a combination of logical fallacies, such as Burden of Proof, Appeal to Fear, and Appeal to Common Practice. Finally, Statist-Libertarians may attempt to escape their dilemma by advocating a principle of secession, but, as Less Antman has pointed out, this reduces to a de facto anarchist position.

It is precisely because of the type of argument that I made above that a truce was made between the Anarcho-Libertarians and the Statist-Libertarians back in the 70s. Otherwise, the LP would just reduce to a debating society. However, the "truce" hardly prevented the Rothbard/Cato divorce from eventually leading to both coalitions abandoning the LP. The Catoites walked out in 1983. The Rothbardians abandoned the LP after Ron Paul's run in 1988, concluding that the LP was "too libertine." In both instances, I'm not necessarily referring to the rank and file but to the intellectual vanguards.

I think it's safe to say since the 90s the anarchist membership in the LP has steadily dwindled to where it's at an all-time low now. It's readily apparent that the LP continues to move in a direction that values election success and results over the educational role as "The Party of Principle." That's all well and good, but to the extent that the Party emasculates it's platform in an attempt to achieve marginally better electoral results, it will actually be sowing the seeds of it's own demise. Abandoning principle, purging radicals and anarchists, will only divorce the LP from the greater libertarian movement. The first time I hear some LP candidate utter the slogan "Compassionate Libertarianism," that will be the cue to abandon the LP ship. The real impediment to electoral success is our plurality voting systems and the electoral college, which serves to enforce a 2 party system. Rather than eviscerating the platform, the LP will be better served by aggressively partnering with the likes of the Green Party to work toward voting reform.

He will call off the Federal Dogs when it comes to Medical Marijuana.

The reason that the GOP Dog Food needs to be removed from the shelves is because it's been marinated in hot air for the last 8 years. This is comedic gold...

H/T to Radley Balko

Depressing. In an interview with USA Today, Barack Obama essentially promises not only to use the presidency as a bully pulpit to further promote the Drug War, but vows to pour more money into enforcement as well.

As president, I would use the bully pulpit of my office to warn Americans about the dangers of performance enhancing drugs, and I would put greater resources into enforcement of existing drug laws. I would also convene a summit of the commissioners of the professional sports leagues, as well as university presidents, to explore options for decreasing the use of these drugs.

The USA Today article posed the questions of Title IX and performance enhancement drugs(PEDs) to all 3 candidates and all 3 gave essentially the same answer. This is not "Change we can believe in" but "Same old, same old." I don't care about the Title IX aspect of the article, but Obama's promise to vigorously expand the Drug War into PEDs only promises to unleash the DEA on 15 million Americans who currently use PEDs of some sort. Over at The Art of The Possible, the conceptual theme is a a liberal-libertarian alliance. However, at some point, the liberals have to start living up to their side of the bargain. I'm willing to compromise on economic issues, but not on civil liberty issues. Libertarian principles of the right to self-medicate are beside the point here; there is all the evidence in the world to construct an "a posteriori" argument that any reform on the civil liberties front absolutely requires reform of our Drug Laws. Obama's capitulation on this issue (wasn't "The Wire" supposed be his favorite TV Show?) makes him nothing more than an empty suit on the civil liberties front.

Recently, when Barney Frank was on Bill Maher, Frank indicated he was going to take a bolder legislative stance on some key issues that libertarians would be in agreement on. Since that time, Frank has remained true to his word, and in the process has formed a legislative alliance of sorts with Ron Paul in doing so. Paul has co-sponsored 3 of Frank's recent pieces of legislation.

1) Overturning UIGEA
2) HR5843, which would essentially remove and federal penalties for marijuana possession of 100 grams or less
3) HR5842, which force the DEA and other federal authorities to respect states’ current laws on medicinal cannabis

HR5842 essentially would make the Controlled Substance Act null and void in certain states because of their medical marijuana laws.

We can tentatively call this a "Frank-Paul" axis. This axis would undoubtedly come into play again with Frank's intention to introduce legislation to defund the Iraq war under a Democratic President. Also, I predict this axis will likely introduce a Federal Reserve Accountability or Transparency Act in the future.

Under Bush-Clinton-McCain regimes, this axis would wilt under the weight of the implied Veto Pen. But what about under an Obama Presidency? These bills are finding other co-sponsors and supporters in the congress. If the threat of the veto pen was removed, or even, i dare, say, there was actual support from the Executive branch for these bills, then this Frank-Paul axis could actually bear legislative fruit. Obama was rewarded last night for not pandering to the lowest common denominator. If his likely presidency truly represents "change we can believe in," a good starting point would be to support this Frank-Paul axis.

I see that The American Spectator has referenced my previous post calling on Share Cory to resign from the LP as evidence of "left libertarian wing" hostility to Bob Barr and the "pragmatist" wing of the LP in general.

Nope. I simply called for Shane Cory to resign because he over-stepped his authority in issuing a press release stating the LP supported a "federal war" on child pornography. It had nothing to do with supporting Mary Ruwart's campaign or the LP's position on the legality/illegality of child pornography. I viewed Shane Cory's actions as a pure preemptive CYA media operation. Since this whole business originated on Third Party Watch and given that Steve Gordon is affiliated with the Barr campaign, the swiftness in which Cory issued this press release led me to simply put 2 and 2 together. If Shane Cory actually acted unilaterally on this matter, then I apologize to Steve Gordon and the Barr campaign. I should point out I've posted a number of sympathetic articles on Barr in the past on Freedom Democrats, here, here, and here. However, I will admit that a recent Barr article that implied he favored the continuation of the US Military drug War in Latin America has considerably soured my previous positive views of his potential campaign.

I'm not a LP delegate and will have nothing to do with the platform battles between the "radicals" and the "reformists." Although I suppose I now fall into the anarchist radical camp, I also think it's pretty much common sense that any political party be definition has to compromise and forge coalitions. However, from the perspective of a mere dues paying LP member, there's a limit to what I'm willing to tolerate. "Federal Wars" on anything are among those things I am not willing to tolerate. That simple.

Bye,Bye Shane. Alas, no write-in vote for Doug Stanhope.

As a dues paying member of the National Libertarian Party and a member of the NC state Libertarian Party, I urge all fellow LP members to demand the immediate resignation of Shane Cory as Executive Director of the Libertarian Party for issuing a Press Release implying that LP Members support the "Federal War" on Child Pornography.

Is this what we are supposed to be supporting Shane?

I don't support any umpteenth Federal War on everything under the sun, whether drugs, terrorism, pornography, crime, smoking, obesity, french fries, bad posture, or whatever.

If Shane Cory wants to be a lackey for Bob Barr because Bob doesn't like Mary Ruwart's answer written in a book ten years ago, then Shane should officially resign as a salaried officer of the LP and join the Barr campaign. And Steve Gordon, if you are reading this post, this is bullshit. This isn't the Republican Party, this is the Libertarian Party. I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with this bullshit in the LP. If Bob Barr is nominated and Shane Cory is still drawing a salary from the LP, I'm writing in comedian Doug Stanhope for president as a protest.

Even though Wesley Snipes was acquitted of felony income tax evasion, he was found guilty on 3 lesser misdemeanor charges, with sentencing typically being a fine and perhaps probation. However because of Snipes' fame, and this case being viewed as tax protestation, the judge threw the book at Snipes,sentencing him the maximum on all 3 counts.

"We think it sends a real message," U.S. Attorney Robert O'Neill said. "Again you have to pay your taxes. If you dispute the taxes you owe, contact the IRS and go through the formal process. To continually just say, 'I don't owe taxes, you must show me why I owe taxes,' it seemed his position was ludicrous."

On a related note, Harry Reid looks ridiculous below trying to rationalize that somehow the income tax is voluntary. And you wonder why the congress never defunded the Iraq War.

H/T: Cato

In a case involving possession of cigarettes, marijuana and ecstasy by two youths at a electronica concert, a federal court judge in Buenos Aires overturned the 1989 federal laws that criminalized possession of drugs. The court ruled that the punishment of drug users “creates an avalanche of cases targeting consumers without climbing up in the ladder of drug trafficking.” However, it does appear that the case will be reviewed by the Argentine Supreme Court, although the ruling is in line with Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's pro-reform policy. The article notes that this ruling marks the first time in 30 years Argentina has deviated from US policy in the "Drug War." At a recent Special Session of the Economic and Social Council of the UN, the Argentine Minister of Justice and Security, Anibal Fernandez, called criminalizing possession a "complete failure."

Obviously, this likely will not sit well with the Drug hacks in Washington. Since Argentina defaulted on around a 100 billion in loans back in 2001, it seems the Argentine government has been inching toward Hugo Chavez's sphere of influence and away from Washington. Obviously a weak dollar and record high oil prices is the primary enabler of Chavez's grand vision to break Latin America from the yoke of American Empire. I can't speak highly of Chavez's collectivist economic policies, but to the extent that anything breaks the tyranny of US-imposed Drug policy in Central/South America, that's a good thing. The fact is that the weak dollar is doing more to rearrange the dynamics of the Drug war than any DEA chest-thumping about enforcement. As it turns out, the substantial drop of supply of cocaine into the US is completely due to supply being diverted to Europe, where the Euro is much stronger. The focal point of this new European distribution channel is, surprise, surprise, surprise: Venezuela.

A weak dollar and rising oil prices, I would put my money on Chavez over Uribe.