The Libertarian Party today nominated two former governors, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld for the offices of POTUS and Vice, respectively. While some Libertarians decried this choice (see Ian Freeman’s opinion on the matter) others, myself included, believe that Gary will be a great spokesman for our ideas. He does not agree with me 100% … I’m an Anarchist, he’s a Libertarian, but he does support reducing government to it’s Constitutional role, and that would be a great start.
Gary is socially liberal and economically conservative. In other words, he believes in letting people make their own decisions, and letting them bear the consequences of those decisions. He believes in letting other countries go their own way and do their own thing, and staying at peace with them, until such time as they attack us. He believes in letting people be free, so long as they do not violate the rights of another.
Gary is not a perfect candidate … I disagree with him on the issue of Religious Freedom with respect to bakers being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings against their will. I think he is more fearful of Islam than he needs to be. But I think he is an excellent, mainstream, well-spoken, impressive candidate, all told.
Best of luck, Gary, and bear our message well. The future of America depends on you … not on your election, but on your communication. Run your leg of the relay race to Freedom well.
After an excellent presidential debate last night, the national Libertarian Party once again proved its irrelevance and nominated another republican as their candidate for president in 2016. According to the official results from the second and final round of voting, there were only two states whose delegates voted for the best two candidates in the race, Free Keene blogger Darryl W Perry and John McAfee. Those two states were New Hampshire and Vermont. Perry and McAfee’s combined votes were higher in NH and VT than the combined votes of the worst two candidates, Gary Johnson and Austin Petersen. In every other state, Johnson and Petersen’s combined votes were higher.
It’s a continuance of a sad trend of the LP delegates selecting republicans – people who do not understand or advocate libertarian ideals – that has been going on since the 2008 presidential election where the LP chose Bob Barr, a republican former US representative (and former CIA boss) from Georgia as their nominee. Then in 2012 they chose Gary Johnson, a republican former governor of New Mexico as their candidate. Johnson was better than Barr, but not by much. He’s not a principled libertarian like Darryl is. Now Johnson’s won the party’s nomination again for 2016 despite the valiant efforts of the “radical” wing of the party.
The party’s been dead, but now it’s even moreso.
The national LP is hopeless, yet activists across the country toil away trying to wrest control of the organization from the hands of the republicans who have had control of the party for about a decade. To those remaining principled libertarians I implore you:
GIVE UP ON THE LP! Your party is dead and has been for years. Your efforts are being wasted on the national and even your state LP. Start planning your move to New Hampshire to get involved with the only proven successful strategy in the liberty movement: concentrating activists in one geographic area.
In New Hampshire we’ve had more political successes in a decade – meaning people being elected who are principled libertarians – than the LP has had in forty years. If you want to keep losing, stay where you are. If you want to see liberty advance, you have to get together with like-minded people and get active here in the Shire.
Ian Freeman’s shunning from the Free State Project, if considered in one way, can be considered an egregious case of victim blaming, if you apply to it the stated beliefs and values of the attackers. Let us review the situation here, and note that I am stipulating some things that I do not personally believe, in order to allow a hypothetical conversation. I shudder to wade into the morass of this discussion, which in some quarters is conducted as a witch hunt, by zealots and by those who are terrified that if they don’t cry “faggot, faggot, faggot” as loudly as the other boys, the other boys might think that they are “faggots”, too. I have to wade in, though, because by one possible interpretation of the facts, what is happening is a monstrous abuse of a survivor of childhood sexual abuse.
I reason as follows, using my own experience of sex with a 23 year old woman, my first girlfriend, Denise when I was 13 years old, who is the primary reason I am unwilling to name a particular number as an “age of consent”. I am willing to disclose more about this because I have recently learned, to my sorrow, that she has passed away, so nobody can hurt her now. Please note that the interpretations given here are not my interpretations, but a possible interpretation.
1) I still have very warm feelings for my first girlfriend Denise. When we were together, she was 23 and I was 13. For a number of reasons, including loyalty to Denise, I am not willing to define that encounter as rape.
2) According to the Ian Haters, what happened between Denise and I was rape, despite the fact that I pursued her from the moment I met her. That means that by Ian Hater logic, I am her victim.
3) If I am Denise’s victim, and yet I have warm feelings for her, then I am suffering from Stockholm syndrome. If that condition prevents me from naming a concrete number that should be the Age of Consent, I should not be banned for this reason, I literally cannot reconcile naming a magic age with my own experience, without either calling Denise a rapist, if I set that age above 13, or implying that sex with 13 year old is always ok, when in the VAST MAJORITY OF CASES, sex with somebody that young is completely wrong. My case was unusual, and I am aware of that.
As a mediator, I cannot choose a specific age at which all sex is automatically rape. But I can tell you the sort of questions I would ask the alleged victim if I were called to mediate such a case. My judgement would depend on the evidence. My questions would include:
1) What is sex?
2) Where do babies come from?
3) What is a condom?
4) What is a sexually transmitted disease?
5) Do you know what Death is?
6) Do you know that some sexually transmitted diseases can kill you?
7) Did you pursue sex with the accused, or did she pursue you?
8) Do you believe in God? Why or why not?
9) Did the accused threaten you in any way?
10) Did you ever ask the accused to stop what they were doing, and if so, did they?
11) Was this your first sexual relationship?
I have met very few people of 13 who could have answered those questions well enough to cause me to find that an adult who had sex with them was weak, rather than criminal. But at 13, I can say that I would have been able to answer them. If I were asked to rule on the case of Denise and myself, I would not find that she was criminally liable for a number of reasons:
1) She was of average intelligence. I have an IQ of 146.
2) I pursued her, in part, through dishonorable means, including fabricating a story of a previous sexual relationship specifically concocted to prevent her from knowing that I was a virgin. Sorry about that, Denise, I was a little bit hormone driven in those days.
3) At no time did I hesitate to continue enthusiastically toward a sexual relationship.
4) She was in a very vulnerable position, having been raped 6 months before the beginning of our relationship, and therefore was probably drawn to the fact that I could not as easily overpowered her as easily as a man her age could.
5) My seduction of her continued over the course of several months.
Disclaimers for the witch hunters:
No, nothing said here means that I am interested in or in favor of sex with children. The witch hunters will interpret it this way, but I am not willing to call my first girlfriend a rapist to escape the fires. I am an engineer. I don’t frolick. I don’t play much. I don’t interact with kids by choice, ever. I tend to like women at least 30 years old, and put a hard limit of 19 below which I will not go. But that does not mean that I would be in favor of imprisoning anybody who does go below 19. There are a great many standards I hold for myself that I would not impose on others.
As for Tasker, I do not know what happened in that case completely, but from what has been said, it seems likely that what he did was wrong, I cannot rush to judgement without seeing the evidence, because for all I know these accusations are a frame job. I’m not willing to throw him under the bus until I have reached a conclusion as to the truth and nature of the accusations against him. Innocent until proven guilty is good policy. More will be revealed, and when I know more, I will denounce him if such denouncement is due.
Today is the New Hampshire primary. I am asking New Hampshire residents to go out and vote for Rand Paul. Although he does not present a full Libertarian position, preferring to focus on a few important changes rather than trying to establish a Utopia in one term, Rand’s voice was the only one in the Republican primary defending ANY pro-liberty positions. Let’s let them know that more liberty is our goal, by voting for the one pro-liberty candidate!
While our Free Uber campaign fought to defend consumer choice in Portsmouth, corporate Uber was busy lobbying Concord to restrict it.
Uber bullies state legislatures into adopting ridesharing regulations that encode its business model as law, setting an arbitrarily high bar for mandatory minimum insurance coverage that prices out smaller competitors like Arcade City.
Video and excerpt from my comment to the Portsmouth city council this week:
“I’m here actually to address the fact that the transportation ordinance is about to be overridden if House bill 1697 passes… That just had a hearing a few days ago. I ask that you do whatever is in your power to oppose this bill. I have obviously had my issues with how Portsmouth has handled the transportation ordinance. But I like that I can come here and talk with you folks and not have to go up to Concord and fight with Uber’s lobbyists.
I’m a little miffed by the fact that while I was here the past few months fighting to defend consumer choice, Uber has been lobbying Concord to pass “Uber model legislation”. The bill lead sponsor admits that the bill is based on Uber model legislation, which means that Uber wrote the bill.
Now that I’m looking at this through the lens of an entrepreneur having started a competing service — we have 1400 drivers signed up now across the country, about 50 of them in New Hampshire; we’re going to be launching on Valentine’s Day — now that I’m reading this bill through the lens of a competitor, I’m seeing that Uber has written it specifically to set the bar to price out competitors like me. They are about to encode into law basically Uber’s business model: that if you are not able to come in with a $60 billion budget, you’re not allowed to compete as a TNC. …
I prefer that this issue be handled at the local level. I don’t see any reason to bring it up to the state level other than it’s going to make things more convenient for Uber. I ask that you use whatever influence you have to oppose House bill 1697. Thank you.”
Recorded January 19, 2015
Rob and the Rebel Mistress open up the skype lines this week. Topics discussed include The Rebel Love Show and Flaming Freedom recording at Liberty Forum from the Radisson Hotel in Manchester NH, Edward Snowden is the headliner for Liberty Forum, FSP hits 96%(Since the redording the FSP hit 97%!), OKC embraces poly, a listener calls in to talk to us about polyamory, Ann discusses her interest in running for NH State House Representative, Ian from Free Talk Live calls in about activism at the NH State House, liberty based poly dating app, and poly marriages with out sex? say it aint so! The Rebel Love Show airs every Tuesday night 10pm-12am EST on LRN.FM and RebelLoveShow.com/live.